But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species is, that they graduate into each other, independently, in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity among capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacqninot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shows that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear, distinctive characters between them. Every naturalist who has had the misfortune to undertake the description of a group of highly-varying organisms, has encountered cases (I speak after experience) precisely like that of man; and, if of a cautious disposition, he will end by uniting all the forms which graduate into each other under a single species; for he will say to himself that he has no right to give names to objects which he can not define. Cases of this kind occur in the order which includes man, namely, in certain genera of monkeys; while in other genera, as in _Cercopithecus_, most of the species can be determined with certainty. In the American genus _Cebus_, the various forms are ranked by some naturalists as species, by others as mere geographical races. Now, if numerous specimens of _Cebus_ were collected from all parts of South America, and those forms which at present appear to be specifically distinct were found to graduate into each other by close steps, they would usually be ranked as mere varieties or races; and this course has been followed by most naturalists with respect to the races of man. WAS THE FIRST MAN A SPEAKING ANIMAL? [Page 180.] 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.