Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 19:75 (Jul 1862)
Article: Quatrefages And Godron In Reply To Agassiz On The Origin And Distribution Of Mankind
Author: Joseph P. Thompson

BSac 19:75 (July 1862) p. 607

Quatrefages And Godron In Reply To Agassiz On The Origin
And Distribution Of Mankind

Joseph P. Thompson

It is about twelve years since Professor Agassiz startled both the religious and the scientific world with his theory of the multiple origin of mankind, through the creation of different races in distinct zoological zones. This theory contradicts the biblical account of the derivation of all men from a single pair, and the distibution of mankind into communities and nations from a common centre in Western Asia; and therefore its announcement by so eminent a scientist startled the religious world. The theory also contravenes the generally received doctrine of naturalists, that species is defined by lineal descent from a single pair, and supposes multiple protoplasts of one and the same species; therefore it was regarded with surprise and incredulity by the scientific world. The revolutionary bearing of the theory upon the common doctrine of species, is clearly set forth in a recent essay upon “The Origin of Species,” by Professor Asa Gray, of Cambridge.1

“The orthodox conception of species is that of lineal descent; all the descendants of a common parent, and no other, constitute a species; they have a certain identity, because of their descent, by which they are supposed to be recognizable. So naturalists had a distinct idea of what they meant by the term “species,” and a practical rule which was hardly the less useful because difficult to apply in many cases, and because its application was indirect, — that is, the community of origin had to be inferred from the likeness; that degree of similarity, and that only, being held to be conspecific, which could be shown or reasonably inferred to be compatible with a common origin. And the usual concurrence of the whole body of naturalists (having the same data before them), as to what forms are species, attests the value of the rule, and also indicates some real foundation for it in nature. But if species were created in numberless individuals

BSac 19:75 (July 1862) p. 608

over broad spaces of territory, these individuals are connected only in idea, and species differ from varieties on the one hand, and from genera, tribes, etc., on the other, only in degree; and no obvious natural reason remains for fixing upon this or that degree as specific, at least no natural standard, by which the opinions of different naturalists may be correlated. Species, upon this view, are enduring, but subjective and ideal. Any three or more of the human races, for example, are species, or not species, according to the bent of the naturalist’s mind.

“The ordinary and generally received view assumes the indepe...