Natural History of the Mammalia of India and Ceylon | Page 7

Apes and Monkeys; 2nd, Lemurs.
Order III.--CARNARIA. Three families--1st, Cheiroptera, Bats; 2nd, Insectivora, Hedgehogs, Shrews, Moles, Tupaiae, &c.; 3rd, Carnivora: Tribe 1, Plantigrades, Bears, Ailurus, Badger, Arctonyx; 2, Digitigrades, Martens, Weasels, Otters, Cats, Hyaenas, Civets, Musangs, Mongoose, Dogs, Wolves and Foxes.
Order IV.--MARSUPIATA. Implacental Mammals peculiar to America and Australia, such as Opossums, Dasyures, Wombats, and Kangaroos. We have none in India.
Order V.--RODENTIA. Squirrels, Marmots, Jerboas, Mole-Rats, Rats, Mice, Voles, Porcupines, and Hares.
Order VI.--EDENTATA, or toothless Mammals, either partially or totally without teeth. Three families--1st, Tardigrades, the Sloths, peculiar to America; 2nd, Effodientia, or Burrowers, of which the Indian type is the Manis, but which includes in other parts of the world the Armadillos and Anteaters; 3rd, Monotremata, Spiny Anteaters or Echidnas, and the Ornithorynchus.
Order VII.--PACHYDERMATA, or thick-skinned Mammals. Three families--1st, Proboscidians, Elephants; 2nd, Ordinary Pachyderms, Rhinoceroses, Hogs; 3rd, Solidungula, Horses.
Order VIII.--RUMINANTIA, or cud-chewing Mammals. Four families--1st, Hornless Ruminants, Camels, Musks; 2nd, Cervidae, true horns shed periodically, Deer; 3rd, Persistent horns, Giraffes; 4th, Hollow-horned Ruminants, Antelopes, Goats, Sheep and Oxen.
Order IX.--CETACEA. Three families--1st, Herbivorous Cetacea, Manatees, Dugongs; 2nd, Ordinary Cetacea, Porpoises; 3rd, Balaenidae, Whales.

ORDER BIMANA.
Some people have an extreme repugnance to the idea that man should be treated of in connection with other animals. The development theory is shocking to them, and they would deny that man has anything in common with the brute creation. This is of course mere sentiment; no history of nature would be complete without the noblest work of the Creator. The great gulf that separates the human species from the rest of the animals is the impassable one of intellect. Physically, he should be compared with the other mammals, otherwise we should lose our first standpoint of comparison. There is no degradation in this, nor is it an acceptance of the development theory. To argue that man evolved from the monkey is an ingenious joke which will not bear the test of examination, and the Scriptural account may still be accepted. I firmly believe in man as an original creation just as much as I disbelieve in any development of the Flying Lemur (Galeopithecus) from the Bat, or that the habits of an animal would in time materially alter its anatomy, as in the case of the abnormal length of the hind toe and nail of the Jacana. It is not that the habit of running over floating leaves induced the change, but that an all-wise Creator so fashioned it that it might run on those leaves in search of its food. I accept the development theory to the extent of the multiplication of species, or perhaps, more correctly, varieties in genera. We see in the human race how circumstances affect physical appearance. The child of the ploughman or navvy inherits the broad shoulders and thick-set frame of his father; and in India you may see it still more forcibly in the difference between Hindu and Mahomedan races, and those Hindus who have been converted to Mahomedanism. I do not mean isolated converts here and there who intermarry with pure Mahomedan women, but I mean whole communities who have in olden days been forced to accept Islam. In a few generations the face assumes an unmistakable Mahomedan type. It is the difference in living and in thought that effects this change.
It is the same with animals inhabiting mountainous districts as compared with the same living in the plains; constant enforced exercise tells on the former, and induces a more robust and active form.
Whether diet operates in the same degree to effect changes I am inclined to doubt. In man there is no dental or intestinal difference, whether he be as carnivorous as an Esquimaux or as vegetarian as a Hindu; whereas in created carnivorous, insectivorous, and herbivorous animals there is a striking difference, instantly to be recognised even in those of the same family. Therefore, if diet has operated in effecting such changes, why has it not in the human race?
"Who shall decide when doctors disagree?" is a quotation that may aptly be applied to the question of the classification of man; Cuvier, Blumenbach, Fischer, Bory St. Vincent, Prichard, Latham, Morton, Agassiz and others have each a system.
Cuvier recognises only three types--the Caucasian, the Mongolian, and the Negro or Ethiopian, including Blumenbach's fourth and fifth classes, American and Malay in Mongolian. But even Cuvier himself could hardly reconcile the American with the Mongol; he had the high cheek-bone and the scanty beard, it is true, but his eyes and his nose were as Caucasian as could be, and his numerous dialects had no affinity with the type to which he was assigned.
Fischer in his classification divided man into seven races:--
1st.--Homo japeticus, divided into three varieties--Caucasicus, Arabicus and Indicus.
2nd.--H. Neptunianus, consisting of--1st, the Malays peopling the coasts of the islands of the Indian Ocean, Madagascar, &c.; 2nd, New