_Dentes primores superiores sex, acutiusculi. Canini solitarii._ * * * * * 12. CANIS. _Dentes primores_ superiores VI.: laterales longiores distantes: intermedii lobati. Inferiores VI.: laterales lobati. _Laniarii_ solitarii, incurvati. Molares VI. s. VII. (pluresve quam in reliquis). _familiaris_ [Greek: i]. C. cauda (sinistrorsum) recurvata.... _domesticus_ [Greek: a]. auriculis erectis, cauda subtus lanata. _sagax_ [Greek: b]. auriculis pendulis, digito spurio ad tibias posticas. _grajus_ [Greek: g]. magnitudine lupi, trunco curvato, rostro attenuato, &c. &c. Linnaeus' definition of what he considers to be mere varieties of the species Man are, it will be observed, as completely free from any allusion to linguistic peculiarities as those brief and pregnant sentences in which he sketches the characters of the varieties of the species Dog. "Pilis nigris, naribus patulis" may be set against "auriculis erectis, cauda subtus lanata;" while the remarks on the morals and manners of the human subject seem as if they were thrown in merely by way of makeweight. Buffon, Blumenbach (the founder of ethnology as a special science), Rudolphi, Bory de St. Vincent, Desmoulins, Cuvier, Retzius, indeed I may say all the naturalists proper, have dealt with man from a no less completely zoological point of view; while, as might have been expected, those who have been least naturalists, and most linguists, have most neglected the zoological method, the neglect culminating in those who have been altogether devoid of acquaintance with anatomy. Prichard's proposition, that language is more persistent than physical characters, is one which has never been proved, and indeed admits of no proof, seeing that the records of language do not extend so far as those of physical characters. But, until the superior tenacity of linguistic over physical peculiarities is shown, and until the abundant evidence which exists, that the language of a people may change without corresponding physical change in that people, is shown to be valueless, it is plain that the zoological court of appeal is the highest for the ethnologist, and that no evidence can be set against that derived from physical characters. What, then, will a new survey of mankind from the Linnaean point of view teach us?