Palla Ákos szerk.: Az Országos Orvostörténeti Könyvtár közleményei 30. (Budapest, 1964)

Dr. T. Tóth: The Principal Questions of Anthropological Taxonomy

Comments 1. An analysis of the differences in the zoological and anthropological interpretations of the concept of race helps us to establish a correct taxonomical stand. During the last decade the opinion became widespread that from a general biological viewpoint the most important, or rather fundamental, unit of systématisation is the species, since this can be best defined and delimited and is the taxonomic starting point of both the intra and supraspecific categories. (Mayr, 1942; Mayr—Linsley—Usinger, 1953; Cain, 1954; Simpson, 1944; Timofejev—Ressovskij, 1948). Keeping in mind the effectiveness or degree of importance of the various anthropological criteria of classification (constancy of features, feature complex, areal) and the pertinent forming (modifying, levelling) natural, biological and social factors (hybridization, geographical and ethnic isolation) the category of race, within the single species, which represents all of humanity is very important for taxonomy in my opinion. It also has a profound significance in forming a methodological view, for instance, in the taxonomical analysis of the paleoanthropological periods of Hungary and especially in that of the groups of characteristics in the findings from the period of the great migration; namely according to me not the determination of various types is the major task in the anthropological evaluation of hybridization taking place during the great migration (although it may be the first object of study), but the approximation of the proportion of great races (or of racial groups synonymous to these (Debetz, 1961; Tóth, 1958, 1961 a, b) including the types and representing general taxonomical categories. Undoubtedly if the paleoanthropological finds are of value to historical research and if the area characterization of racial groups is more describable by a greater historical (evolutionary) past and is also more stable, the relatively correct orientation in the ethnogenetic problems is not dependent on an extremely narrow type-analysis which — for the studied individuals — goes into ridiculous details, but on the analysis of the proportion of racial characteristics or rather on racial delimitation wich allows much greater leeway. For the Hungarian findings from the age of the