Among the Negroes, the Americans, and the Polar race, the hair is, in the same way, very slightly developed on the face. “The length of our beards (of thirty days growth), which had not been shaved since we left the _Victory_,” said Sir John Ross,[139] “was, among other things, a source of great amusement, while one of them, a stranger, whose beard was of unusual length among this tribe, claimed consanguinity with us on that ground.” The thick and close beard seems, in regarding the matter closely, the exclusive appanage of that race which, sprung from the Imaüs, spread over the whole of Europe, and whose finest representatives still inhabit the table-lands of Iran.[140] Our neighbours, the Semites, are far from being so well provided; and Lieut.-Colonel H. Smith has[141] not, perhaps, done wrong in proposing to make an abundant pilous system the characteristic of one race, just as the crisped state of the hair would become the characteristic of another. The systems of animal life, doubtless, show as many varieties among different races of men as the systems of the life of relationship; only these varieties are much less known. It will be sufficient for us to remember in this place the darker colour of the blood and the _sperma_ among the Negro race, as already remarked by Aristotle and verified by Jacquinot, and the equally dark tint of the nervous centres; so that the whole œconomy of the Negro is, even in the most hidden parts (and those most distant from solar or atmospheric influence), impregnated with colouring matter. Let us notice, also, the development of the small _labia_ among the Hottentot women, that of the _prepuce_ and the _clitoris_ among the Semitic race, and even the size of the _penis_ among the Ethiopians--such a size that it would almost impede the union of a black man with a white woman, whilst the union of a white man with a Negress would occur without any impediment. This remark, quite in agreement with the theories of M. d’Eichthal, has been made by a monogenist;[142] we have merely the right to wonder at it. How can we reconcile this impossibility, were it even a shade of a real one, with the notion of indefinite and universal reproduction, which all monogenists--wrongly, as we shall see--make one of their strongest arguments in favour of the specific unity of man? II. What we call physiological differences are certain functional forms of the same organ, particular to certain races. This is, as may be seen, an entirely artificial distinction, since these differences must necessarily and forcibly refer to material, that is, to anatomical differences.