The Origin of Human Races and the Antiquity of Man deduced from the theory of "Natural Selection." By ALFRED R. WALLACE, Esq., F.Z.S. original: Fellow of the Zoological Society. Wallace was a British naturalist and explorer.

Among the most advanced students of humanity, there exists a wide difference of opinion on some of the most vital questions respecting our nature and origin. Anthropologists are now, indeed, pretty well agreed that man is not a recent addition to the earth. All who have studied the question now admit that human antiquity is very great; and that, though we have to some extent ascertained the minimum original: the smallest possible amount of time during which man must have existed, we have come nowhere near determining 그 훨씬 더 긴 기간 during which he may have, and probably has, existed. We can affirm with tolerable certainty that man must have inhabited the earth a thousand centuries ago 100,000 years, but we cannot assert that he positively did not exist—or that there is any good evidence against his having existed—for a period of a hundred thousand centuries 10,000,000 years. We know positively that he lived at the same time as many now-extinct animals, and has survived changes to the earth's surface fifty or a hundred times greater than any that have occurred during recorded history; however, we cannot place any definite limit on the number of species he may have outlived, or the amount of geological change he may have witnessed.

But while there is a very general agreement on this question of human antiquity—and everyone is waiting eagerly for new evidence to clear up those points which all admit are full of doubt—a considerable amount of dogmatism is shown regarding other, no less obscure and difficult questions. Doctrines are put forward as established truths; no doubt or hesitation is permitted, and it seems to be supposed that no further evidence is required, or that any new facts could modify our convictions. This is especially the case when we inquire: Are the various forms under which man now exists primitive, or derived from pre-existing forms; in other words, is man of one or many species?

To this question we immediately receive distinct answers that are diametrically opposed to each other. One party positively maintains that man is a single species and is essentially one—that all differences are merely local and temporary variations produced by the different physical and moral conditions surrounding him. The other party maintains with equal confidence that man is a genus A biological category ranking above species and below family consisting of many species, each of which is practically unchangeable and has always been as distinct, or even more distinct, than we see them today. This difference of opinion is somewhat remarkable when we consider that both parties are well acquainted with the subject; both use the same vast accumulation of facts; both reject those early traditions of mankind which claim to give an account of his origin; and both declare that they are fearlessly seeking only the truth. I believe, however, it will be found to be the "old story of the shield"—gold on one side and silver on the other A reference to a fable where two knights fight over the color of a shield because they are each looking at a different side—about which the knights disputed. Each party persists in looking only at the portion of truth on his own side of the question and at the error mingled with his opponent's doctrine. It is my wish to show how the two opposing...