[1]1
73 Harley St Londn
W
[13-18 November 1867]2
Dear Wallace
You probably remember an article by Agassiz3 in an American periodical "The Xtian [Christian] Observer" on the diversity of human races &c to prove that each distinct race was originally created for each zoological & botanical province.4 But while he makes out a good case for the circumscription of the principle races to distinct provinces he evades in a singular manner the community of the Red Indian race to N. & S. America[.] He takes pains to [2] show that the same American race pervades North & South America or at least all America south of the Arctic region. This was Dr Morton's5 opinion & is I suppose not to be gainsaid. In other words while the Papuan Indo-Malayan, Negro & other races are strictly limited each of them to a particular region of Mammalia the Red Indian type is common to Sclater’s5 neo-arctic & neo-tropical [3] regions. Have you ever considered the explanation of this fact on Darwinian principles?
If there are not barbarous tribes like the Fuegians one might imagine America to have been peopled when mankind was somewhat more advanced & more capable of diffusing itself over an entire continent. But I cannot well understand why isolation such as accompanies a very low state of social progress did not cause the neo-tropical & neo-arctic regions to produce by variations in [4] natural selection two very different human races.
May it may be owing to the smaller lapse of time which time nevertheless was sufficient to allow of the spread of the representatives of one & the same type from Canada to Cape Horn. Have you ever touched on this subject or can you refer me to any one who has?
believe me | ever most truly yours | Cha Lyell [signature]
Status: Edited (but not proofed) transcription [Letter (WCP2100.1990)]
For more information about the transcriptions and metadata, see https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/epsilon
[1] [p. 28]
SIR C. LYELL TO A. R. WALLACE
73 Harley Street, London, W. November, 1867.
Dear Wallace, — You probably remember an article by Agassiz1 in an American periodical, the Christian Observer, on the diversity of human races, etc., to prove that each distinct race was originally created for each zoological and botanical province. But while he makes out a good case for the circumscription of the principal races to distinct provinces, he evades in a singular manner the community of the Red Indian race to North and South America. He takes pains to show that the same American race pervades North and South America, or at least all America south of the Arctic region. This was Dr. Morton's2 opinion, and is, I suppose, not to be gainsaid. In other words, while the Papuan, Indo-Malayan, Negro and other races are strictly limited each of them to a particular region of mammalia, the Red Indian type is common to Sclater's3 Neo-arctic and Neo-tropical regions. Have you ever considered the explanation [2] of this fact on Darwinian principles? If there were not barbarous tribes like the Fuegians, one might imagine America to have been peopled when mankind was somewhat more advanced and more capable of diffusing itself over an entire continent. But I cannot well understand why isolation such as accompanies a very low state of social progress did not cause the Neo-tropical and Neo-arctic regions to produce by varieties and Natural Selection two very different human races. May it be owing to the smaller lapse of time, which time, nevertheless, was sufficient to allow of the spread of the representatives of one and the same type from Canada to Cape Horn? Have you ever touched on this subject, or can you refer me to anyone who has? — Believe me ever most truly yours, | CHA. LYELL.
Status: Draft transcription [Published letter (WCP2100.6278)]
For more information about the transcriptions and metadata, see https://wallaceletters.myspecies.info/content/epsilon
Please cite as “WCP2100,” in Beccaloni, G. W. (ed.), Ɛpsilon: The Alfred Russel Wallace Collection accessed on