History of the World/History of the World (Bureau Development, Inc.)(1992).BIN/dp/0107/01073.txt

Text File | 1992-10-11 | 33KB | 517 lines

$Unique_ID{how01073}
$Pretitle{}
$Title{Descent Of Man, The
Chapter 7.2}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{Darwin, Charles}
$Affiliation{}
$Subject{new
footnote
races
life
children
conditions
islands
habits
fertility
animals
see
tables
}
$Date{1874}
$Log{See Table 1.*0107301.tab
}
Title:       Descent Of Man, The
Book:        Part I: The Descent Or Origin Of Man
Author:      Darwin, Charles
Date:        1874

Chapter 7.2

     Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details
of habits, tastes, and dispositions between two or more domestic races, or
between nearly allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that
they are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and
consequently that all should be classed under the same species.  The same
argument may be applied with much force to the races of man.

     As it is improbable that the numerous and unimportant points of
resemblance between the several races of man in bodily structure and mental
faculties (I do not here refer to similar customs) should all have been
independently acquired, they must have been inherited from progenitors who had
these same characters.  We thus gain some insight into the early state of man,
before he had spread step by step over the face of the earth.  The spreading
of man to regions widely separated by the sea, no doubt, preceded any great
amount of divergence of character in the several races; for otherwise we
should sometimes meet with the same race in distinct continents; and this is
never the case.  Sir J. Lubbock, after comparing the arts now practiced by
savages in all parts of the world, specifies those which man could not have
known, when he first wandered from his original birthplace; for if once
learned they would never have been forgotten. ^380 He thus shows that "the
spear, which is but a development of the knife-point, and the club, which is
but a long hammer, are the only things left." He admits, however, that the art
of making fire probably had been already discovered, for it is common to all
the races now existing, and was known to the ancient cave-inhabitants of
Europe.  Perhaps the art of making rude canoes or rafts was likewise known;
but as man existed at a remote epoch, when the land in many places stood at a
very different level to what it does now, he would have been able, without the
aid of canoes, to have spread widely.  Sir J. Lubbock further remarks how
improbable it is that our earliest ancestors could have "counted as high as
ten, considering that so many races now in existence cannot get beyond four."
Nevertheless, at this early period, the intellectual and social faculties of
man could hardly have been inferior in any extreme degree to those possessed
at present by the lowest savages; otherwise primeval man could not have been
so eminently successful in the struggle for life, as proved by his early and
wide diffusion.

[Footnote 380: "Prehistoric Times," 1869, p. 574.]

     From the fundamental differences between certain languages, some
philologists have inferred that when man first became widely diffused, he was
not a speaking animal; but it may be suspected that languages, far less
perfect than any now spoken, aided by gestures, might have been used, and yet
have left no traces on subsequent and more highly-developed tongues.  Without
the use of some language, however imperfect, it appears doubtful whether man's
intellect could have risen to the standard implied by his dominant position at
an early period.

     Whether primeval man, when he possessed but few arts, and those of the
rudest kind, and when his power of language was extremely imperfect, would
have deserved to be called man, must depend on the definition which we employ.
In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man
as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the
term "man" ought to be used.  But this is a matter of very little importance.
So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of
man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the
latter term appears the more appropriate.  Finally, we may conclude that when
the principle of evolution is generally accepted, as it surely will be before
long, the dispute between the monogenists and the polygenists will die a
silent and unobserved death.

     One other question ought not to be passed over without notice, namely,
whether, as is sometimes assumed, each sub-species or race of man has sprung
from a single pair of progenitors.  With our domestic animals a new race can
readily be formed by carefully matching the varying offspring from a single
pair, or even from a single individual possessing some new character; but most
of our races have been formed, not intentionally from a selected pair, but
unconsciously by the preservation of many individuals which have varied,
however slightly, in some useful or desired manner.  If in one country
stronger and heavier horses, and in another country lighter and fleeter ones,
were habitually preferred, we may feel sure that two distinct sub-breeds would
be produced in the course of time, without any one pair having been separated
and bred from, in either country.  Many races have been thus formed, and their
manner of formation is closely analogous to that of natural species.  We know,
also, that the horses taken to the Falkland Islands have, during successive
generations, become smaller and weaker, while those which have run wild on the
Pampas have acquired larger and coarser heads; and such changes are manifestly
due, not to any one pair, but to all the individuals having been subjected to
the same conditions, aided, perhaps, by the principle of reversion.  The new
sub-breeds in such cases are not descended from any single pair, but from many
individuals which have varied in different degrees, but in the same general
manner; and we may conclude that the races of man have been similarly
produced, the modifications being either the direct result of exposure to
different conditions, or the indirect result of some form of selection.  But
to this latter subject we shall presently return.

     On the Extinction of the Races of Man. - The partial or complete
extinction of many races and sub-races of man is historically known. Humboldt
saw in South America a parrot which was the sole living creature that could
speak a word of the language of a lost tribe.  Ancient monuments and stone
implements found in all parts of the world, about which no tradition has been
preserved by the present inhabitants, indicate much extinction.  Some small
and broken tribes, remnants of former races, still survive in isolated and
generally mountainous districts.  In Europe the ancient races were all,
according to Schaaffhausen, ^381 "lower in the scale than the rudest living
savages;" they must therefore have differed, to a certain extent, from any
existing race.  The remains described by Prof. Broca from Les Eyzies, though
they unfortunately appear to have belonged to a single family, indicate a race
with a most singular combination of low or simious, and of high
characteristics.  This race is "entirely different from any other, ancient or
modern, that we have heard of." ^382 It differed, therefore, from the
quaternary race of the caverns of Belgium.

[Footnote 381: Translation in "Anthropological Review," Oct., 1868, p. 431.]

[Footnote 382: "Transact.  Internat.  Congress of Prehistoric Arch.," 1868,
pp. 172-175.  See also Broca (translation) in "Anthropological Review," Oct.,
1868, p. 410.]

     Man can long resist conditions which appear extremely unfavorable for his
existence. ^383 He has long lived in the extreme regions of the north, with no
wood for his canoes or implements, and with only blubber as fuel and melted
snow as drink.  In the southern extremity of America the Fuegians survive
without the protection of clothes, or of any building worthy to be called a
hovel.  In South Africa the aborigines wander over arid plains, where
dangerous beasts abound.  Man can withstand the deadly influence of the Terai
at the foot of the Himalaya and the pestilential shores of tropical Africa.

[Footnote 383: Dr. Gerland, "Ueber das Aussterben der Naturvolker," 1868, s.
82.]

     Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe and
race with race.  Various checks are always in action, serving to keep down the
numbers of each savage tribe - such as periodical famines, nomadic habits and
the consequent deaths of infants, prolonged suckling, wars, accidents,
sickess, licentiousness, the stealing of women, infanticide, and especially
lessened fertility.  If any one of these checks increases in power, even
slightly, the tribe thus affected tends to decrease; and when of two adjoining
tribes one becomes less numerous and less powerful than the other, the contest
is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption.  Even
when a weaker tribe is not thus abruptly swept away, if it once begins to
decrease, it generally goes on decreasing until it becomes extinct. ^384

[Footnote 384: Gerland (ibid, s. 12) gives facts in support of this
statement.]

     When civilized nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is
short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race.  Of the
causes which lead to the victory of civilized nations some are plain and
simple, others complex and obscure.  We can see that the cultivation of the
land will be fatal in many ways to savages, for they cannot, or will not,
change their habits.  New diseases and vices have in some cases proved highly
destructive; and it appears that a new disease often causes much death until
those who are most susceptible to its destructive influence are gradually
weeded out; ^385 and so it may be with the evil effects from spirituous
liquors, as well as with the unconquerably strong taste for them shown by so
many savages. It further appears, mysterious as is the fact, that the first
meeting of distinct and separated people generates disease. ^386 Mr. Sproat,
who in Vancouver Island closely attended to the subject of extinction,
believed that changed habits of life, consequent on the advent of Europeans,
induces much ill-health.  He lays, also, great stress on the apparently
trifling cause that the natives become "bewildered and dull by the new life
around them; they lose the motives for exertion and get no new ones in their
place." ^387

[Footnote 385: See remarks to this effect in Sir H. Holland's "Medical Notes
and Reflections," 1839, p. 390.]

[Footnote 386: I have collected ("Journal of Researches, Voyage of the
'Beagle," p. 435) a good many cases bearing on this subject; see also Gerland,
ibid, s. 8.  Poeppig speaks of the "breath of civilization as poisonous to
savages."]

[Footnote 387: Sproat, "Scenes and Studies of Savage Life," 1868, p. 284.]

     The grade of their civilization seems to be a most important element in
the success of competing nations.  A few centuries ago Europe feared the
inroads of Eastern barbarians; now any such fear would be ridiculous. It is a
more curious fact, as Mr. Bagehot has remarked, that savages did not formerly
waste away before the classical nations as they now do before modern civilized
nations; had they done so the old moralists would have mused over the event;
but there is no lament in any writer of that period over the perishing
barbarians. ^388 The most potent of all the causes of extinction appears in
many cases to be lessened fertility and ill-health, especially among the
children, arising from changed conditions of life, notwithstanding that the
new conditions may not be injurious in themselves.  I am much indebted to Mr.
H. H. Howorth for having called my attention to this subject and for having
given me information respecting it.  I have collected the following cases:

[Footnote 388: Bagehot, "Physics and Politics," "Fortnightly Review," April 1,
1868, p. 455.]

     When Tasmania was first colonized the natives were roughly estimated by
some at 7,000, and by others at 20,000.  Their number was soon greatly
reduced, chiefly by fighting with the English and with each other.  After the
famous hunt by all the colonists, when the remaining natives delivered
themselves up to the government, they consisted only of 120 individuals, ^389
who were in 1832 transported to Flinders Island.  This island, situated
between Tasmania and Australia, is forty miles long, and from twelve to
eighteen miles broad; it seems healthy, and the natives were well treated.
Nevertheless, they suffered greatly in health.  In 1834 they consisted
(Bonwick, p. 250) of forty-seven adult males, forty-eight adult females, and
sixteen children, or in all of one hundred and eleven souls.  In 1835 only one
hundred were left.  As they continued rapidly to decrease, and as they
themselves thought that they should not perish so quickly elsewhere, they were
removed in 1847 to Oyster Cove in the southern part of Tasmania.  They then
consisted (Dec. 20, 1847) of fourteen men, twenty-two women and ten children.
^390 But the change of site did no good.  Disease and death still pursued
them, and in 1864 one man (who died in 1869) and three elderly women alone
survived.  The infertility of the women is even a more remarkable fact than
the liability of all to ill-health and death.  At the time when only nine
women were left at Oyster Cove they told Mr. Bonwick (p. 386) that only two
had ever borne children; and these two had together produced only three
children!

[Footnote 389: All the statements here given are taken from "The Last of the
Tasmanians," by J. Bonwick, 1870.]

[Footnote 390: This is the statement of the Governor of Tasmania, Sir W.
Denison, "Varieties of Vice-Regal Life," 1870, vol. i, p. 67.]

     With respect to the cause of this extraordinary state of things Dr. Story
remarks that death followed the attempts to civilize the natives. "If left to
themselves to roam as they were wont and undisturbed they would have reared
more children and there would have been less mortality." Another careful
observer of the natives, Mr. Davis, remarks, "The births have been few and the
deaths numerous.  This may have been in a great measure owing to their change
of living and food; but more so to their banishment from the mainland of Van
Diemen's Land and consequent depression of spirits" (Bonwick, pp. 388, 390).

     Similar facts have been observed in two widely different parts of
Australia.  The celebrated explorer, Mr. Gregory, told Mr. Bonwick, that in
Queensland "the want of reproduction was being already felt with the blacks,
even in the most recently settled parts, and that decay would set in." Of
thirteen aborigines from Shark's Bay who visited Murchison River, twelve died
of consumption within three months. ^391

[Footnote 391: For these cases see Bonwick's "Daily Life of the Tasmanians,"
1870, p. 90; and the "Last of the Tasmanians," 1870, p. 386.]

     The decrease of the Maories of New Zealand has been carefully
investigated by Mr. Fenton, in an admirable report, from which all the
following statements, with one exception, are taken, ^392 The decrease in
number since 1830 is admitted by every one, including the natives themselves,
and is still steadily progressing.  Although it has hitherto been found
impossible to take an actual census of the natives, their numbers were
carefully estimated by residents in many districts.  The result seems
trustworthy, and shows that during the fourteen years, previous to 1858, the
decrease was 19.42 per cent.  Some of the tribes, thus carefully examined,
lived above a hundred miles apart, some on the coast, some inland; and their
means of subsistence and habits differed to a certain extent (p. 28).  The
total number in 1858 was believed to be 53,700, and in 1872, after a second
interval of fourteen years, another census was taken, and the number is given
as only 36,359, showing a decrease of 32.29 per cent.! ^393 Mr. Fenton, after
showing in detail the insufficiency of the various causes usually assigned in
explanation of this extraordinary decrease, such as new diseases, the
profligacy of the women, drunkenness, wars, etc., concludes on weighty grounds
that it depends chiefly on the unproductiveness of the women and on the
extraordinary mortality of the young children (pp. 31, 34).  In proof of this
he shows (p. 33) that in 1844 there was one non-adult for every 2.57 adults;
whereas in 1858 there was only one non-adult for every 3.27 adults.  The
mortality of the adults is also great.  He adduces as a further cause of the
decrease the inequality of the sexes; for fewer females are born than males.
To this latter point, depending perhaps on a widely distinct cause, I shall
return in a future chapter.  Mr. Fenton contrasts with astonishment the
decrease in New Zealand with the increase in Ireland; countries not very
dissimilar in climate, and where the inhabitants now follow nearly similar
habits.  The Maories themselves (p. 35) "attribute their decadence, in some
measure, to the introduction of new food and clothing, and the attendant
change of habits;" and it will be seen, when we consider the influence of
changed conditions on fertility, that they are probably right.  The diminution
began between the years 1830 and 1840; and Mr. Fenton shows (p. 40) that about
1830, the art of manufacturing putrid corn (maize), by long steeping in water,
was discovered and largely practiced; and this proves that a change of habits
was beginning among the natives, even when New Zealand was only thinly
inhabited by Europeans.  When I visited the Bay of Islands in 1835, the dress
and food of the inhabitants had already been much modified; they raised
potatoes, maize and other agricultural produce, and exchanged them for English
manufactured goods and tobacco.

[Footnote 392: "Observations on the Aboriginal Inhabitants of New Zealand,"
published by the Government, 1859.]

[Footnote 393: "New Zealand," by Alex. Kennedy, 1873, p. 47.]

     It is evident from many statements in the life of Bishop Patteson, ^394
that the Melanesians of the New Hebrides and neighboring archipelagoes,
suffered to an extraordinary degree in health, and perished in large numbers,
when they were removed to New Zealand, Norfolk Island and other salubrious
places, in order to be educated as missionaries.

[Footnote 394: "Life of J. C. Patteson," by C. M. Younge, 1874; see more
especially vol. i, p. 530.]

     The decrease of the native population of the Sandwich Islands is as
notorious as that of New Zealand.  It has been roughly estimated by those best
capable of judging, that when Cook discovered the Islands in 1779, the
population amounted to about 300,000.  According to a loose census in 1823,
the numbers then were 142,050.  In 1832, and at several subsequent periods, an
accurate census was officially taken, but I have been able to obtain only the
following returns:


[See Table 1.: Native Population Of The Sandwich Islands]

     We here see that in the interval of forty years, between 1832 and 1872,
the population has decreased no less than sixty-eight per cent.! This has been
attributed by most writers to the profligacy of the women, to former bloody
wars, and to the severe labor imposed on conquered tribes and to newly
introduced diseases, which have been on several occasions extremely
destructive.  No doubt these and other such causes have been highly efficient,
and may account for the extraordinary rate of decrease between the years 1832
and 1836; but the most potent of all the causes seems to be lessened
fertility.  According to Dr. Ruschenberger of the United States Navy, who
visited these islands between 1835 and 1837, in one district of Hawaii, only
twenty-five men out of 1,134, and in another district only ten out of 637, had
a family with as many as three children.  Of eighty married women, only
thirty-nine had ever borne children; and "the official report gives an average
of half a child to each married couple in the whole island." This is almost
exactly the same average as with the Tasmanians at Oyster Cove.  Jarves, who
published his history in 1843, says that "families who have three children are
freed from all taxes; those having more, are rewarded by gifts of land and
other encouragements." This unparalleled enactment by the government well
shows how infertile the race had become.  The Rev. A. Bishop stated in the
Hawaiian "Spectator" in 1839, that a large proportion of the children die at
early ages, and Bishop Staley informs me that this is still the case, just as
in New Zealand.  This has been attributed to the neglect of the children by
the women, but it is probably in large part due to innate weakness of
constitution in the children, in relation to the lessened fertility of their
parents.  There is, moreover, a further resemblance to the case of New
Zealand, in the fact that there is a large excess of male over female births;
the census of 1872 gives 31,650 males to 25,247 females of all ages, that is
125.36 males for every 100 females; whereas in all civilized countries the
females exceed the males.  No doubt the profligacy of the women may in part
account for their small fertility; but their changed habits of life is a much
more probable cause, and which will at the same time account for the increased
mortality, especially of the children.  The islands were visited by Cook in
1779, by Vancouver in 1794, and often subsequently by whalers.  In 1819
missionaries arrived, and found that idolatry had been already abolished, and
other changes effected by the king.  After this period there was a rapid
change in almost all the habits of life of the natives, and they soon became
"the most civilized of the Pacific Islanders." One of my informants, Mr. Coan,
who was born on the islands, remarks that the natives have undergone a greater
change in their habits of life in the course of fifty years than Englishmen
during a thousand years.  From information received from Bishop Staley, it
does not appear that the poorer classes have ever much changed their diet,
although many new kinds of fruit have been introduced, and the sugar-cane is
in universal use.  Owing however, to their passion for imitating Europeans,
they altered their manner of dressing at an early period, and the use of
alcoholic drinks became very general.  Although these changes appear
inconsiderable, I can well believe, from what is known with respect to
animals, that they might suffice to lessen the fertility of the natives. ^395

[Footnote 395: The foregoing statements are taken chiefly from the following
works: "Jarves' History of the Hawaiian Islands," 1843, pp. 400-407.  Cheever,
"Life in the Sandwich Islands," 1851, p. 277. Ruschenberger is quoted by
Bonwick, "Last of the Tasmanians," 1870, p. 378.  Bishop is quoted by Sir. E.
Belcher, "Voyage Round the World," 1843, vol. i, p. 272.  I owe the census of
the several years to the kindness of Mr. Coan, at the request of Dr. Youmans,
of New York; and in most cases I have compared the Youmans figures with those
given in several of the above-named works.  I have omitted the census for
1850, as I have seen two widely different numbers given.]

     Lastly, Mr. Macnamara states ^396 that the low and degraded inhabitants
of the Andaman Islands, on the eastern side of the Gulf of Bengal, are
"eminently susceptible to any change of climate; in fact, take them away from
their island homes, and they are almost certain to die, and that independently
of diet or extraneous influences." He further states that the inhabitants of
the Valley of Nepal, which is extremely hot in summer, and also the various
hill-tribes of India, suffer from dysentery and fever when on the plains; and
they die if they attempt to pass the whole year there.

[Footnote 396: "The Indian Medical Gazette," Nov. 1, 1871, p. 240.]

     We thus see that many of the wilder races of man are apt to suffer much
in health when subjected to changed conditions or habits of life and not
exclusively from being transported to a new climate.  Mere alterations in
habits, which do not appear injurious in themselves, seem to have this same
effect; and in several cases the children are particularly liable to suffer.
It has often been said, as Mr. Macnamara remarks, that man can resist with
impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is
true only of the civilized races. Man in his wild condition seems to be in
this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes,
which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country.

     Lessened fertility from changed conditions, as in the case of the
Tasmanians, Maories, Sandwich Islanders, and apparently the Australians, is
still more interesting than their liability to ill-health and death; for even
a slight degree of infertility, combined with those other causes which tend to
check the increase of every population, would sooner or later lead to
extinction.  The diminution of fertility may be explained in some cases by the
profligacy of the women (as until lately with the Tahitians), but Mr. Fenton
has shown that this explanation by no means suffices with the New Zealanders,
nor does it with the Tasmanians.

     In the paper above quoted, Mr. Macnamara gives reasons for believing that
the inhabitants of districts subject to malaria are apt to be sterile; but
this cannot apply in several of the above cases.  Some writers have suggested
that the aborigines of islands have suffered in fertility and health from long
continued inter-breeding; but in the above cases infertility has coincided too
closely with the arrival of Europeans for us to admit this explanation.  Nor
have we at present any reason to believe that man is highly sensitive to the
evil effects of inter-breeding, especially in areas so large as New Zealand
and the Sandwich Archipelago with its diversified stations.  On the contrary,
it is known that the present inhabitants of Norfolk Island are nearly all
cousins or near relations, as are the Todas in India, and the inhabitants of
some of the Western Islands of Scotland; and yet they seem not to have
suffered in fertility. ^397

[Footnote 397: On the close relationship of the Norfolk Islanders, see Sir W.
Denison, "Varieties of Vice-Regal Life," vol. i, 1870, p. 410. For the Todas,
see Col. Marshall's work, 1873, p. 110.  For the Western Islands of Scotland,
Dr. Mitchell, "Edinburgh Medical Journal," March to June, 1865.]

     A much more probable view is suggested by the analogy of the lower
animals.  The reproductive system can be shown to be susceptible to an
extraordinary degree (though why we know not) to changed conditions of life;
and this susceptibility leads both to beneficial and to evil results.  A large
collection of facts on this subject is given in chapter xviii, of volume ii,
of my "Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication." I can here give
only the briefest abstract; and every one interested in the subject may
consult the above work.  Very slight changes increase the health, vigor and
fertility of most or all organic beings, while other changes are known to
render a large number of animals sterile.  One of the most familiar cases is
that of tamed elephants not breeding in India; though they often breed in Ava,
where the females are allowed to roam about the forests to some extent, and
are thus placed under more natural conditions.  The case of various American
monkeys, both sexes of which have been kept for many years together in their
own countries, and yet have very rarely or never bred, is a more apposite
instance, because of their relationship to man.  It is remarkable how slight a
change in the conditions often induces sterility in a wild animal when
captured; and this is the more strange as all our domesticated animals have
become more fertile than they were in a state of nature; and some of them can
resist the most unnatural conditions with undiminished fertility. ^398 Certain
groups of animals are much more liable than others to be affected by
captivity; and generally all the species of the same group are affected in the
same manner.  But sometimes a single species in a group is rendered sterile,
while the others are not so; on the other hand, a single species may retain
its fertility while most of the others fail to breed.  The males and females
of some species when confined, or when allowed to live almost but not quite
free, in their native country never unite; others thus circumstanced
frequently unite but never produce offspring; others again produce some
offspring, but fewer than in a state of nature; and as bearing on the above
cases of man it is important to remark that the young are apt to be weak and
sickly, or malformed, and to perish at an early age.

[Footnote 398: For the evidence on this head, see "Variation of Animals,"
etc., vol. ii, p. 111.]

     Seeing how general is this law of the susceptibility of the reproductive
system to changed conditions of life, and that it holds good with our nearest
allies, the Quadrumana, I can hardly doubt that it applies to man in his
primeval state.  Hence, if savages of any race are induced suddenly to change
their habits of life they become more or less sterile, and their young
offspring suffer in health in the same manner and from the same cause as do
the elephant and hunting-leopard in India, many monkeys in America, and a host
of animals of all kinds on removal from their natural conditions.

     We can see why it is that aborigines, who have long inhabited islands,
and who must have been long exposed to nearly uniform conditions, should be
specially affected by any change in their habits, as seems to be the case.
Civilized races can certainly resist changes of all kinds far better than
savages; and in this respect they resemble domesticated animals, for though
the latter sometimes suffer in health (for instance European dogs in India),
yet they are rarely rendered sterile, though a few such instances have been
recorded. ^399 The immunity of civilized races and domesticated animals is
probably due to their having been subjected to a greater extent, and,
therefore, having grown somewhat more accustomed, to diversified or varying
conditions, than the majority of wild animals; and to their having formerly
immigrated or been carried from country to country, and to different families
or sub-races having inter-crossed.  It appears that a cross with civilized
races at once gives to an aboriginal race an immunity from the evil
consequences of changed conditions.  Thus the crossed offspring from the
Tahitians and English, when settled in Pitcairn Island, increased so rapidly
that the island was soon overstocked; and in June, 1856, they were removed to
Norfolk Island.  They then consisted of 60 married persons and 134 children,
making a total of 194.  Here they likewise increased so rapidly that, although
16 of them returned to Pitcairn Island in 1859, they numbered in January,
1868, 300 souls; the males and females being in exactly equal numbers.  What a
contrast does this case present with that of the Tasmanians; the Norfolk
Islanders increased in only twelve and a half years from 194 to 300; whereas
the Tasmanians decreased during 15 years from 120 to 46, of which latter
number only 10 were children. ^400

[Footnote 399: "Variation of Animals," etc., vol. ii, p. 16.]

[Footnote 400: These details are taken from "The Mutineers of the Bounty,'" by
Lady Belcher, 1870; and from "Pitcairn Island," ordered to be printed by the
House of Commons, May 29, 1863.  The following statements about the Sandwich
Islanders are from the "Honolulu Gazette," and from Mr. Coan.]

     So again in the interval between the census of 1866 and 1872 the natives
of full blood in the Sandwich Islands decreased by 8,081, while the
half-castes, who are believed to be healthier, increased by 847; but I do not
know whether the latter number includes the offspring from the half-castes, or
only the half-castes of the first generation.