be adopted in anthropology, in which he cites an admirable table of measurements of the circumference of the thorax in the Scotch militia as an example of the method of tabulation and ordination of anthropological statistics. We regret that our space precludes us from an adequate analysis of this most valuable and technical memoir.

M. Boudin, in a memoir which will appear at length, called attention to the singular fact that the number of military exemptions on account of height in France has diminished in a remarkable manner during the last thirty years, and supported this statement by facts and statistics. The average weight of the French soldier, as compared with the Indian sepoy, is as follows:

From the above, it will be seen how much heavier and shorter, both proportionally and actually, is the French soldier than the Hindu.

A report on the origin of the nations of French Senegal, by M. Simonot, terminates the Bulletin; in which, however, the concluding parts do not appear. Senegambia, according to M. Santamaria, is peopled by seven distinct families; the Berber, Arab, Mandingo, Sarajoulet, Peulhs, Yoloffe, and Shéréra. M. Santamaria correlates these existing types with the descendants of some of the sons of Noah, mentioned in the tenth chapter of Genesis. M. Simonot leaves to M. Santamaria the entire responsibility of this theory, and proceeds at once to the known physical facts. He seems to assign to the Negro race in Africa a higher intellectual value than some of his contemporaries and colleagues. He lays great stress on the arts of tanning, pottery, metallurgy, etc., practised by the Negroes, and especially upon their sentiment of music. Although constant nudity has excluded from their minds almost every instinct of shame, yet M. Simonot brings one instance to the contrary, to which it is our duty to assign its full value. The memoir is of the most valuable character, and we hope at some future time to lay before our readers an account of its termination.

379

ANTHROPOLOGY AT THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION.

It is not a

THE scientific carnival of Great Britain has again come and gone. The "wise week", as the good people of Newcastle called it, was on the whole most successful. The profuse hospitality of Sir William Armstrong, and the people of Newcastle generally, will long render this meeting memorable in the annals of the British Association. How far has the science of Anthropology been advanced by this meeting? All branches of science have their own accounts to render; and it is only our duty to examine the amount of advance made in the science of Mankind. Anthropology in name is not yet recognized in theory; but it is to some extent in practice. little remarkable, that some of those who are most opposed to the recognition of Anthropology as a recognized branch of science into the Association, are the very men who, in their practice at least, admit the claims of Anthropology, and who read papers which are entirely anthropological. For instance, Mr. Crawfurd, one of England's most consistent and venerable ethnographers, lost no opportunity of protesting against the introduction of anthropological papers into Section E; and yet, with that inconsistency for which he is occasionally distinguished, was one of the very first men in the section to read a paper on a purely anthropological subject. Mr. Crawfurd's paper, entitled "Notes on Sir C. Lyell's Antiquity of Man", was from the beginning to the end a paper on Man or Mankind, as distinguished from Ethnology, or the science of the Races of Man. No writer of any authority, either English, American, or continental, will now call the question of the antiquity of man an ethnological question. It is pure and simple an anthropological question. Other papers bearing on the same subject, we understand, were rejected by the Committee of Section E, because they were anthropological! and could not be read because Anthropology was not recognized by Section E, which was entirely confined to Geography and Ethnology. But such an example from one of the most eminent Vice-Presidents of the Section, could not fail to have its influence on other members; and the result was that, notwithstanding several anthropological papers were refused by the Committee, still there were a larger number accepted. An analysis of the papers read in Section E gives the following results. There were altogether forty-one papers an

nounced to be read before the Section; eighteen of these were geographical, nine were ethnological, and fourteen anthropological. Besides, there were several anthropological papers, which were not accepted by the Committee simply because they were anthropological. Most of the geographical papers, we believe, were original; but there were only five out of nine of the ethnological papers which had not been read before, and, in the words of the President, "amply discussed" in London. All the anthropological papers read before Section E, including two which were not read, were, with one exception, never read or discussed before any other scientific body. It will, then, be seen that anthropologists have yet much work to do before their science can be generally recognized. But, as far as practice goes, they have cause for satisfaction; and the recognition of Anthropology in theory must soon follow its recognition in practice.

On the whole, therefore, we have no hesitation in saying that the general result of the meeting must be considered satisfactory to anthropologists. Several circumstances combined to make Section E one of the most popular sections, as, indeed, it always has been when at all properly conducted. In the first place, the Section was presided over by the prince of presidents, who was a host in himself, and who, we are bound to admit, contributed far more than any other man to make Section E popular and its proceedings satisfactory. Sir R. Murchison was free from the littlemindedness shewn by some of his associates. His whole conduct in the chair was both fair and honest; and all his exertions were used to render the meeting agreeable to all parties. Thus, we know he frequently felt it his duty to remain at his post to his own serious inconvenience. We can only regret that his other high duties, as one of the chief rulers of the Association, caused him to occasionally absent himself. There was no one at all capable of filling the post like Sir Roderick. It is no disparagement that his two countrymen, who acted occasionally in his absence, were far from being so successful in their presidency as their eminent friend. These statements are acknowledged truisms but we are bound to say that even Sir Roderick occasionally failed to give satisfaction to all parties. We have received several letters complaining of "the apparent puff" which Sir Roderick appended to his introductory address! We certainly were ourselves a little surprised to hear Sir Roderick coolly enumerate a list of ethnological papers to be read before the Section, most of which, as we have stated, had been read long ago, and were "stale, flat, and unprofitable". Out of the six ethnological papers which Sir

Roderick announced to be read, there was only one which had not been read before! In a previous part of his address, he had mentioned some of these papers as having been "read and amply discussed". As to the strong remarks we have received respecting this part of the President's address, we would observe that in all cases they have been from those who were not personally present to witness the support and courtesy which Sir Roderick invariably gave to anthropological papers and to anthropologists. We would also observe, that Sir Roderick gave a viva voce statement, which was not printed, at the end of his address, in which he acknowledged the valuable additions of papers the Section was likely to have from the representatives of the Anthropological Society of London. Nor do we think that Sir Roderick meant to do more in what he said than give his aid to ethnological science. We feel sure that he cares far too much for truth to care for any one set of men more than another. We ourselves are grateful for any aid he renders to ethnological science. We are as much interested in the result of ethnological science as of general Anthropology. There may be difference of opinions as to the best means of advancing the Science of Mankind; but we are sure that there is no difference of opinion as to the importance of Ethnology, or the Science of Races. Nor do we think that any man is worthy of the name of an ethnologist, who looks with disfavour on those anthropologists who believe that the Science of Mankind embraces something more than Ethnology. Rather ought they to rejoice to see the great success which is attending the labours of their fellow-workers. The British Association is for the advancement of science, perfectly regardless of personal opinions or party cliques. We feel sure, therefore, that it only requires a little time to remove any jealousy that may exist in the breasts of some ethnologists respecting the success attending the labours of anthropologists. Let them learn not to quarrel with the decrees of Nature. Astronomy was not arrested in her progress by the clamours of the astrologers; nor will anthropologists cease to develope the extent, magnitude, and importance of their science by the invectives of ethnologists. Rather let them develope their own subject, and look with rejoicing on the beneficent wave which will ere long raise them from their present state of isolation, and raise them to their place as one of the branches of light which will illuminate the great system of organic life.

We will now give a general abstract of the anthropological papers read at the Association. On a future occasion, more of these papers

will be printed at length.

We have classed the papers under two

heads: General Anthropology ;* and one special branch of that subject-Ethnology.

GENERAL ANTHROPOLOGY.

On Anthropological Classification. By Dr. JAMES HUNT, F.S.A., President of the Anthropological Society of London.-After the author had given a short outline of the nature of the subject, in which he distinctly stated that the origin of man belongs entirely to mythical times, and is a question which could not at present be solved by human experience, he proposed merely to classify man as he now exists, or as he has existed since the historical period, without reference to those distinctions being absolutely original. It was Dr. Hunt's duty to inquire-were these well-defined differences in mankind at the earliest dawn of history? a question which he answered in the affirmative, as the ethnology of the most anciently known continents is very much the same as at the present day. He considered also that these differences had been permanent; and the scope of the present paper was to inquire whether these physical differences were so well marked as to serve as the basis of classification. He reviewed the classifications of Ephorus of Cuma, Buffon, Linnæus, Gmelin, Herder, Voltaire, Blumenbach, Lacépède, Duméril, Maltebrun, Cuvier, Virey, Hunter, Lawrence, Metzan, Bory, Desmoulins, Prichard, Lesson, Fischer, Morton, Latham, Hombron, Jacquinot, D'Omalius D'Halloy, Pickering, Burke, Knox, Agassiz, Crawfurd, and Isidore Geoffroy St. Hilaire, and offered critical remarks on each of these systems as a whole. Many of them were of the most arbitrary nature, the offspring of chance or human fancy, unfounded on the knowledge of any ascertained facts, and there was no attempt to define the method on which a sound anthropological classification might be based. The multiplicity of the systems at present in vogue is a sufficient refutation of the truth of most of them. Dr. Hunt considered that anatomy and physiology were the primary sources whence an adequate knowledge of the principles of anthropological classification could be derived. Language he considered no test of race. He laid great stress upon the form of the cranium as the most convenient and certain distinctive mark, and spoke with great approval of the ternary classification adopted by Gratiolet, who divides mankind into the Frontal (European), Parietal (Mongol), and Occipital (Negro) races-these cranial distinctions being coincident with the mental and moral characters which were

To those papers which were not read before Section E, we have affixed the letter of the Section after the title of the paper.