That is the reference I wanted. I am pretty familiar with all of the major racial subdivisions suggested by anthropologists (from one to over 60 races), but I don't remember any anthropologists going in the direction of four species.
If the four species reference is correct it must be pretty out-of-the-mainstream, local, or very old. Most likely it is all of the above and non-anthropological.
This eugenics article is quoting a not-very-mainstream "journal" article from 1960 as a source. The article in question is in edition one, volume one, of the "journal", and is curiously not available online. I tried very hard to find it, and was unable to do so.
I have heard (from time to time, from none-too-savory individuals) about the so-called species "Homo Sapiens Africanus" and that is what I googled to find this article. I suspect that the "journal" in question was referencing extremely old (and totally discredited) anthropological information and severly misquoting (and severly misrepresenting) it.
I dug around quite a bit on the internet, and was unable to substantially show this. Without access to the original MankindQuarterly article, it is very difficult to track. Go to www.mankindquarterly.com to get a taste. You may want to brush your teeth afterwards.