the labour which the author has bestowed upon his work. It must have been not only a labour of love, but the work of many years systematic reading, to accomplish such a task. We are sure that the rising generation of anthropologists will heartily thank the author for his labour, and the Anthropological Society for its boldness in undertaking the responsibility of producing such a work. Nor has the editing of this volume been a slight task, and as far as we are yet able to judge Mr. Collingwood has been most careful to render the work readable, and must have taken great pains with his work. The Index which he has added greatly increases the value of the volume. We shall speak of his introduction, and of the general manner in which he has accomplished his task at a later period, when we shall continue our notice of this volume. For the present we must content ourselves with making a few general remarks on the first sections of the book.

We are glad to see that the author has again called attention to the confusion which Prichard and others introduced into the science, by considering unity of descent and unity of species to be convertible terms. He says: "We shall therefore adopt the first proposition that unity of species results from proved unity of origin; but not the second, which has often by zoologists been considered as inseparable from it, namely, that separate descent, wherever it can be traced, is a sufficient proof of difference of species."

Waitz criticises, we think justly, Dr. Nott's statement, that "every animal, from man to the worm, is governed by special physiological laws." No doubt Blumenbach and others have carried their analogies between the laws regulating man and animals too far; but it is unphilosophical to assume that which has yet to be proved, that man is not governed by absolutely the same physiological laws. On the contrary, we are justified in assuming that the same laws regulate all organic life; and there is the best reason to suppose that there is but one great system of organic development, and that the physiology of animal life is the same in principle, but with an endless diversity in its application. Nott also says: "The rules current among breeders of domestic animals have been considered as applicable to man, but the notion itself is very unphilosophical, and could never have originated with any intelligent naturalist of thorough experience."

Here is a difficulty meriting the serious attention of anthropologists at the very threshold of their science. We shall be glad to see this subject taken up in a really fair and candid spirit. We are fully

conscious of the vast difficulty surrounding such an inquiry, because it would necessitate a series of experiments as to the influence of aliments and other physical agents on the different races of man, as well as on animals. It is not a little remarkable that the lamented and philosophical anatomist, Robert Knox, was also of Dr. Nott's opinion, and continually protested against the application of the laws. regulating plants and animals to the physiology of man. We may, indeed, nearly surmise that it was from the writings of Knox that Nott received the idea. The subject is open to discussion, inasmuch as there are some curious facts and inconsistencies which have never yet been explained. The author very properly observes :

"The investigation of the unity of mankind as a species can only be finally completed when the results of long continued influences of all possible external conditions in which man is able to live are as fully and clearly ascertained, as the results of all possible crossings of various human types after a long series of generations. But as our experience in this respect is very far from being perfect, we are compelled to stop at some more or less probable propositions, which must proceed from the solution of the question, whether a gradual alteration of types belonging to the same stock can be proved, and whether it be sufficiently extensive in order to show that the greatest differences prevailing among mankind are merely variations."

The whole spirit of the work seems to be due to the natural revulsion of feeling with which the author regards the statements which have recently been advanced in the most dogmatic manner respecting the proofs of the diversity of man's origin. The author takes the other side, more apparently to show the fallacy of such reasoners, than because he is opposed to their views. Dr. Waitz is avowedly an advocate for unity of species, if not of descent, and we shall therefore dwell more especially on some of the difficulties of which the author is himself conscious in reconciling known facts with the theory of unity of origin.

In the first place, he treats of the influence of climate on man, and the result is, that he can deduce no generalization which will meet all the presumed facts we have at hand. It might have been reasonably supposed that, after so many observations had been made, we should be enabled to make some generalization which would meet the facts; as, for instance, that the dwellers on mountains and hilly districts are lighter in complexion than those in the valleys. The author is induced to think that the evidence will support this theory; but admits that the facts are not free from contradiction, and says, "It is difficult to admit that the browning of the skin in our

climate in summer is produced by the same causes as the black colour of the Negro, and that it would only require a greater intensity and a longer duration to become so entirely." He equally objects, in the cases of dark spots, which occasionally occur in lying-in-women, that this diversity is attributable to the influence of diet; nor can he subscribe to Volney's theory of the influence of light and heat in producing the overhanging eyebrows, half closed eyelids, raised cheeks, and projecting jaws of the Negro. He also admits that it is proved that the diversity amongst mankind does not depend alone on geographical latitude and mean temperature. At page 41 he quotes a goodly list of instances to prove this. He then says, "the colour of the skin is not so much owing to climate as to descent" (p. 42). But this is just the very argument of the opposite school. Yet ten pages afterwards he says, "Colour, like many other physical peculiarities, depends partly on local conditions besides geographical latitude." And yet he can produce no local conditions by which he can explain these results. At p. 45 he gives several instances to show that the inhabitants of mountains are lighter in colour, and physically and intellectually superior to the inhabitants in the valleys. He points to the assertion frequently made, that it is heat combined with moisture which produces the dark skin; but Tschudi expressly says, the colder the climate the darker the colour. D'Orbigny also says that a hot and moist climate, with sufficient protection, is favourable to whiteness of the skin. The author quotes the case of the Portuguese settlers in the west coast of Africa being transformed into black mulattoes; but here is no influence of climate, but simply the result of intermixture. It would be well if future writers on this subject took a little more pains to inquire whether settlers of this sort took any women with them. He quotes Raffenel to show "that there are well authenticated instances of pure Arabs who had become darker than those accounted very dark among Negroes." Will Captain Burton kindly supply us with some of these instances?

The author quotes from Stanhope Smith as to the influence of climate on the Europeans in America, and notwithstanding the protest of Knox, Nott, Broca, Crawfurd, and others, we are bound to say all recent authorities have tended to confirm the fact that some influence changes the European in America. The personal observations on this subject of Desor, Pruner-Bey, and Berthold Seemann. are most valuable and suggestive. The author says,—

"Beside, the leanness, the stiff shaggy hair are also characteristics of the American; the curly hair of the European becomes straight

in America (Jarrold), so that the American is, generally, in caricature, represented with a long neck and long hair. The latter is, in comparison with the soft silky hair of the Englishman, evidently an approach to the American Indian. The long neck is connected with a weaker development of the glandular system, to which must be added the nervous irritability of the American. These peculiarities have been connected with the dry west winds which predominate in the United States; notwithstanding nearly double the quantity of rain which falls there, in comparison with most European countries, drought frequently injures the harvest. Other causes contribute to this change, such as the restless activity of the Yankee, and his love of spirituous liquors. The American is also said to have a voice of less metal, and his eyelids are said to be shorter than those of the European."

In speaking of the inhabitants of the West India Islands, the author mentions the frequently noticed fact that the Negroes there in places of trust have European features, and instead of allowing, as is well known, that this is simply the result of intermixture with Europeans, he says, these facts "at least show that the bodily formation of the Negro has not that absolute permanence which some would ascribe to it; and though one might be inclined to confine their change of type within narrower limits than higher races, those who, like Nott, deny any change of the Negro in America, are evidently in the wrong."

Now, here we have a case in point, and Dr. Nott may feel that his position is perfectly tenable if no better instance can be brought against his teaching. Dr. Nott admits that the Negroes are improved in America from their intimate contact with a superior race. The author quotes Stanhope Smith's assertion, that "in New Jerscy especially there are Negroes to be found with straight noses, wellformed foreheads, and straight incisors;" he continues: "These instances, although they may not be considered as perfectly impartial observations, are too numerous, too definite, and too free from any suspicion as to their sources, to be rejected off hand." We fear, however, that we must pronounce them either as most impartial observations, or else the result of ignorance on the subject. Nor can we agree with the author that these statements are "definite," for they appear to us to be of the vaguest nature, and totally unworthy of record in any scientific work.

The part of the work which treats of what the author calls the "spontaneous origin of new peculiarities," is of great interest as recording the opinions of different writers on the question of transmission of acquired mental and physical peculiarities. The author believes that, under favourable circumstances, some mental character

istics are transmitted, and that this might contribute to an explanation of the differences existing in the physical organization of mankind. The whole of this part of the book is very speculative, and the author can find but few facts to support his theory. It is chiefly reasoning on analogy as to what is effected in the lower mammalia; but at the same time he contends we do not require the analogy, as we have the hereditary transmission of peculiarities in the human subject proved in very many cases. The conclusion to which the author arrives on the influence of physical agents is given in the following words :

:

"The assertion that the physical type possessed by the respective races remains entirely permanent is erroneous; it is only as to the limits of certain changes that doubts exist. It is impossible to determine the exact influence of each individual agent, or to point out its limits. The theory which has most in its favour is, that mental culture possesses the greatest influence, climatic conditions alone have the least, diet and mode of life hold an intermediate place. Finally, the spontaneous origin and transmission of new qualities appear among the most influential agents in the production of differences among mankind."

The chapter on the anatomical and physiological differences which distinguish the various races " is not so good as the first section. He says that the assertion of Messrs. Nott and Gliddon, that the Bushmen as nearly approach the orang-utan as they do the Europeans "are shameless exaggerations." After treating of the physical organization of the Negro, he concludes by saying, "it cannot be doubted that there is a certain resemblance between the Negro and the ape, although the distance between them is sufficiently great to discard any idea of their relationship." We confess ourselves not to be able to understand the meaning which the author attaches to the word "relationship." After dwelling on the physical characteristics of the Negro, a subject which we hope to hear fully and freely discussed at an early meeting of the Anthropological Society, he adds, "It cannot be our intention to deny by these remarks the greater resemblance of the Negro to the ape in comparison with the European, but simply to point out that the resemblance has been greatly exaggerated." We merely point to this chapter that the reader may see the opinions of the different authorities which the author has quoted on this subject.

Here, for the present, we must conclude our notice. We feel that we shall be rendering more service to the science of Anthropology by dwelling on the different parts of this work than by hur