Does man descend from one _single couple_ or from _several groups_—monogenism or polygenism? As far as one can venture to pronounce on what in the absence of witnesses [?] will never be known [?], the second hypothesis is far the most probable.(388) Abel Hovelacque, in his _Science of Language_, comes to a similar conclusion, arguing from the evidence available to a linguistic enquirer. In an address delivered before the British Association, Professor W. H. Flower remarked on this question: The view which appears best to accord with what is now known of the characters and distribution of the races of man ... is a modification of the monogenistic hypothesis[!]. Without entering into the difficult question of the method of man’s first appearance upon the world, we must assume for it a vast antiquity, at all events as measured by any historical standard. _If we had any approach to a complete palæontological record, the history of man could be re‐constructed, but nothing of the kind is forthcoming._ Such an admission must be regarded as fatal to the dogmatism of the Physical Evolutionists, and as opening a wide margin to Occult speculations. The opponents of the Darwinian theory were, and still remain, polygenists. Such “intellectual giants” as John Crawford and James Hunt discussed the problem and favoured polygenesis, and in their day there was a far stronger feeling in favour of than against this theory. It was only in 1864 that Darwinians began to be wedded to the theory of unity, of which Messrs. Huxley and Lubbock became the first coryphæi.