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

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

The described differences in opinion concerning the classification of the Archanthropic and Paleonthropic are due to several difficulties such as the Meganthropus, Pithecanthropus IV and the fragmentation of Kedung Brubus findings, and also of the significant local differences within the Paleoanthropi. Independent of the mentioned difficulties these conflicting opinions also indicate differences in methodology. Debets, for instance, in his classification does not only consider the territorial community and morphometric features (1948b, 1951, 1956, 1958) but in accordance with the genealogical principle the possible time of the formation of these groups of characteristics, i, e., archaeological data are incorporated into the general analysis. This same is true about the studies of Levin (1958) Oshanin (1937, 1957—59 a, b, c), Roginskij (1937), Trofimova (1959), Trofimova and Guinsburg (1961). 3. Contrary to the obvious differences in the systématisation of findings from the field of anthropogenesis which are also expressed in the secondary taxonomic type delimitations, today the great majority of anthropologists, soologists and geneticists accepts that Homo sapiens consists of a single species and that the human races are equal. A proof of the uniform opinion of scientists in this question may be found in the declarations published by UNESCO's committee of experts and in several ectensive scholarly studies (Montague, 1951; Le Racisme devant la Science, 1960) In my opinion both these documents and works are important milestones in the history of anthropology which help to form a correct outlook among nations. 4. It is true that a widely accepted uniform scientific stand was formed in the last decades, but certain well-known German anthropologists and the representatives of related sciences, such as psychology, also interested in the analysis of the equality of mankind spoke against the well-founded position of the committee of experts and against other excellent researchers (Comas, 1961 ; Plisetskij, 1957). It seems that E. Fischer, W. Scheidt, H. Weinert, and H. E. Garrett (1961) are equally unwilling to consider the undeniable contributions of the social sciences (ethnography, linguistics,