differentiated in a state of nature. With man no such question can
arise, for he cannot be said to have been domesticated at any
particular period.
During an early stage in the divergence of the races of man from a
common stock, the differences between the races and their number must
have been small; consequently as far as their distinguishing characters
are concerned, they then had less claim to rank as distinct species
than the existing so-called races. Nevertheless, so arbitrary is the
term of species, that such early races would perhaps have been ranked
by some naturalists as distinct species, if their differences, although
extremely slight, had been more constant than they are at present, and
had not graduated into each other.
It is however possible, though far from probable, that the early
progenitors of man might formerly have diverged much in character,
until they became more unlike each other than any now existing races;
but that subsequently, as suggested by Vogt (22. Lectures on Man,
Eng. translat., 1864, p. 468.), they converged in character. When man
selects the offspring of two distinct species for the same object, he
sometimes induces a considerable amount of convergence, as far as
general appearance is concerned. This is the case, as shewn by von
Nathusius (23. Die Rassen des Schweines, 1860, s. 46. Vorstudien fur
Geschichte, etc., Schweinesschadel, 1864, s. 104. With respect to
cattle, see M. de Quatrefages, Unite de l Espece Humaine, 1861, p.
119.), with the improved breeds of the pig, which are descended from
two distinct species; and in a less marked manner with the improved
breeds of cattle. A great anatomist, Gratiolet, maintains that the
anthropomorphous apes do not form a natural sub-group; but that the
orang is a highly developed gibbon or semnopithecus, the chimpanzee a
highly developed macacus, and the gorilla a highly developed mandrill.
If this conclusion, which rests almost exclusively on brain-characters,
be admitted, we should have a case of convergence at least in external
characters, for the anthropomorphous apes are certainly more like each
other in many points, than they are to other apes. All analogical
resemblances, as of a whale to a fish, may indeed be said to be cases
of convergence; but this term has never been applied to superficial and
adaptive resemblances. It would, however, be extremely rash to
attribute to convergence close similarity of character in many points
of structure amongst the modified descendants of widely distinct
196