between the wood grouse, (Tetrao urogallus,) and the black cock, (Tetrao tetrix,) owing to the fact that both species are very rare in many neighborhoods, and that the individuals of each might associate together in the absence of their own species."* Subsequently, however, Dr. Bachman found that he had been mistaken in regarding the Tetrao intermedius as a hybrid. Temminck, an authority quoted by Dr. Morton himself, had proved it to be a true and pure species, and when this was pointed out to the latter by Dr. Bachman, he admitted the error he had been led into. Dr. Bachman also satisfied him that another of his supposed hybrids, that between Motacilla lugabris and Motacilla alba was not a hybrid at all, but a true species described by Gould. Again, Dr. Morton had denied the statement of Dr. Bachman that naturalists agreed that capra aegagrus was the origin of all our domesticated goats. He now admitted his mistake. "I stand corrected," he wrote in May, 1850, "with regard to capra aegagrus, which is by general consent admitted to be the source of the common goat." "These," remarks Dr. Bachman, "were admissions that ought to have cooled the ardor of even Dr. Nott. Thus his facts continually diminished, until he had only the dog to lean upon, in support of his theory of fertile hybrids." With reference to the dog tribe, he says: "The Wolf, Jackal, and the Fox, all intermix with each other; so does the common Jackal with the Jackal of Senegal." "It is certain, therefore, that dissimilar species of the dog tribe are capable of producing a fertile hybrid offspring." Dr. Morton's principal authority for this statement was Col. Hamilton Smith, the author of the description of the mammalia in the Naturalist's Library. The zoological writings of this gentleman are very justly characterized by Dr. Bachman as displaying much reading and research, exhibiting the result of extensive travel, and desultory, but not minute and thoughtful observation. He seldom gives authorities, and is so rapid that he can not. thoroughly examine and verify his facts. He is fond of fanciful theories, which he holds pertinaciously and supports by all manner of facts and reasoning. For abundant proof of

J. Bachman, D.D. Loc. cit., p. 102.

+ Ibid. Charleston Medical Journal and Review or September, 1854, p. 641.

these statements we refer to his late work on the Natural IIistory of the Human Species, in which he seems inclined, on the whole, to favor the doctrine of the unity of the species, but strange to say, finds his greatest difficulty in the way of fully adopting this conclusion, in the character of the ancient flathead Indians of South-America. But even Dr. Morton believed that they were of the same race with other tribes now in existence who disfigure the heads of their children in this manner.*

This gentleman says: "We are inclined to believe there are sufficient data to doubt the opinion that the different races of domestic dogs are all sprung from one species, and still more that the wolf was the sole parent in question; on the contrary, we are inclined to lean, for the present, to the conjecture that several species, ab origine, constructed with faculties to intermix, including the Wolf, the Buansu, the Anthus, the Dingo, and the Jackal, were the parents of domestic dogs. That even a dhole, or a thous may have been the progenitor of the greyhound races; and that a lost or undiscovered species, allied to Canis tricolor or Пlyaena venatica of Burchell, was the source of the short-muzzled and strong-jawed races of primitive mastiffs." No reasons are stated for these gratuitous "conjectures," as the writer candidly characterizes them, at the same time that he says "his mind is inclined to lean to them," and yet on the strength of these bare "conjectures," Col. Smith is quoted by Dr. Morton as high authority for his dogmatic assertion that "dissimilar species of the dog tribe are capable of producing a fertile hybrid offspring." In view of so convincing a demonstration of the errors and fallacies of Dr. Morton's essays on this subject, we can not withhold the expression of our surprise that" Dr. Nott's ardor" was not cooled. And yet so it was, for in 1851, he writes in Debow's Review: "I have just received and read Dr. Morton's reply to Dr. Bachman's essay on the question of Hybridity as a Test of Species. It is the most perfect refutation I have ever seen, and it is to be hoped that no one will ever waste time again in advocating the idea that prolificacy among races affords an evidence of common origin." He has, however, himself found it necessary to employ a por

* J. Bachman, D.D. Unity of the Human Race, etc., p. 296.

tion of his own time in contributing an elaborate chapter on this subject in the "Types of Mankind," and more recently still, has continued the discussion in Notes to the American edition of Gobineau's "Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races," notwithstanding the completely satisfactory settlement of the question which had resulted from Dr. Morton's last paper. We are not disposed to doubt that his time was wasted. The body of naturalists did not agree with him, either as to the merit of Dr. Morton's paper, or as to the soundness of the doctrine which he advocated.

We are indebted to Dr. Nott, and to an associate editor, for the publication in America of an English translation of an instructive and suggestive work by the Count A. de Gobineau, "On the Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races." From a hasty perusal of this interesting treatise, we are disposed to unite in the commendation bestowed upon it by the American editors. The testimony of the author on the subject now under consideration, is to the following effect: "The observations of naturalists seem to have well established the fact that halfbreeds can spring only from nearly allied species, and that even in that case they are condemned to sterility. It has been further observed, that even among closely allied species, where fecundation is possible, copulation is repugnant, and obtained generally either by force or ruse, which would lead us to suppose that, in a state of nature, the number of hybrids is even more limited than that obtained by the intervention of man. It has, therefore, been concluded, that among the specific characteristics, we must place the faculty of producing prolific offspring."

Such testimony compelled Dr. Nott to reopen the discussion. He assumes that Count Gobineau was not "posted up" on the subject of hybridity, though, let it be remembered, he had previously asserted that Dr. Morton had so completely settled that question in 1850, as to make it a "waste of time" for any one to advocate the old doctrine again. Dr. Nott then takes occasion to expound and defend the doctrines of his school. "We contend," he writes, "that there is a regular gradation in the prolificness of the species, and that, according to the best lights we possess, there is a continued series from perfect

sterility to perfect prolificacy. The degrees may be expressed in the following language:

"L. That in which hybrids never reproduce; in other words, where the mixed progeny begins and ends with the first cross. "II. That in which the hybrids are incapable of producing inter se, but multiply by union with the parent stock.

"III. That in which animals of unquestionably distinct species produce a progeny which are prolific inter se, but have a tendency to run out.

"IV. That which takes place between closely approximate species; among mankind, for example, and among those domestic animals most essential to human wants and happiness; here the prolificacy is unlimited."*

About the first two propositions, there is no dispute. We admit the correctness of the third, with this qualification, however, that the fertility is partial and temporary, rarely if ever extending through more than two generations, and consequently the "running out" is rapidly accomplished. The fourth proposition we wholly object to, and call for proof. It will scarcely be credited, that after so much boasting as characterizes the writings of Dr. Nott, on this subject, he should find it necessary to resort to such a device as this, in order to establish his position. He argues, namely, that the specific diversity of the human races is established by the permanence of their types, and as these races are prolific inter se, therefore different species, provided they be "proximate," are prolific indefinitely. In other words, he begs the question as to the main point, that of the specific relations of the different races of men, in order to settle an incidental and subordinate one, and then with an extraordinary perversion of the simplest rules of logic, returns with the questionable data thus acquired, to fortify the position he had already unwarrantably assumed. Precisely the same objection applies, of course, to his only other example, that of the races of Canis familiaris. We have already seen that the most reliable zoologists assert with confidence the specific unity of all these varieties, notwithstanding the evidence afforded by the Egyptian monuments of the early

* The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races. By Count A. de Gobineau. American edition. 1556

VOL. IV.-3

origin of several of these varieties, evidence which was quite as well known to them as it is to Dr. Nott; and yet the latter, arbitrarily assuming their specific diversity, finds it easy enough, of course, to establish the unlimited fertility of such " prox imate species" as these. Accordingly he triumphantly exclaims: "Now I say that man and the dog, to say nothing of other examples, form that link of perfect prolificacy of two species which is called for. I would ask in all candor, what more perfect proof does the case admit of? We have pointed out a regular gradation in the laws of hybridity, and we then produce species that are perfectly prolific, and which, according to all the criteria by which species can be tested, are distinct." This last assertion is certainly cool, in view of the fact that all the most eminent zoölogists of the age, maintain the opposite doctrine.

We have dwelt at some length upon this topic, because of the strenuous efforts which are now making, under cover of Dr. Morton's name and reputation, to discredit conclusions. which had been long accepted as axioms in zoology. For yet further details we refer our readers to Dr. Bachman's writings on this subject in his monograph on the "Unity of the Human Race," and in his contributions to the Charleston Medical Journal and Review, from the year 1850 down to the present time. We are satisfied that the facts which he has accumulated are sufficient to convince any unbiased mind that there is not the slightest ground for accepting the new doctrines so earnestly but so unsuccessfully advocated by Dr. Morton and his followers.*

*We have noticed the unworthy effort to discredit the competency of Dr. Bachman as a witness in this scientific controversy, on the ground of his profession as a clergyman. It is but an act of justice to this gentleman to reproduce his reply to a most ungenerous attempt made by the biographers of Dr. Morton to throw ridicule upon him. Dr. Bachman had objected, as we have seen, with great reason, to the distant and antiquated authorities quoted by Dr. Morton, when the subjects of the observations were still at hand or were easily procurable, and the results of the experiments could and ought to have been verified before they were used to set up new doctrines in science. This was felt to be an effective blow, and an attempt was made to divert attention from its crushing effects by a flourish of the light weapons of ridicule. "Dr. Bachman's contempt for every thing old," says the biographer of Dr.Morton, "is certainly very curious in one so likely, from calling and position, to be particularly conservative. Nor is this his only singularity. His pertinacious ascription of a remote date, to every one whose name has a latinised termination, reminds one of the old story of the backwoods lawyer who persisted in numbering old Cantharides' among the sages of antiquity. He is particularly hard upon old Hellenius,' never failing to give him a passing flout, and talking about raising his ghost. The writings of Dr. B. do not indicate a very sensitive person, yet even he must have felt a considerable degree of the sensation known as