Mr. C. R. Markham has taken Dr. Shaw's place, and Mr. Carter Blake the place of Dr. Hunt. Mr. Thomas Wright was prevented by other engagements from attending the meeting this year. Mr. Crawfurd was present, fighting his battles with all comers, as of old. We venture to say that there is no man who attends the meetings of the Association who has had more fighting than this venerable member, and there is evidently no one who so thoroughly enjoys asking his friends "to tread on the tail of his coat." His opinions on all ethnological subjects are just as they were forty years ago, at which time Mr. Crawfurd, to his lasting honour, was one of the first to raise his voice against the stereotyped popular ideas which then existed respecting man's past history. We trust he may long be spared to attend the Association, and we feel sure that none will more heartily join in this wish than those who are most opposed to his scientific teaching and his antiprogressive ideas. We can scarcely ask of a hard-headed Scotchman of eighty years of age that he shall advance with the times; but we hope, for his own reputation, that Mr. Crawfurd will not, in his maturer years, help to arrest the cause of scientific truth, of which he has been so brave a champion during the last fifty years. We heartily coincide with Mr. Crawfurd's remarks on proposing a vote of thanks to the President, when he said, "Nature evidently intended Sir Roderick Murchison to be a President. He combined in the most happy proportions firmness and amenity, and always made the meetings over which he presided pleasant and profitable."

Before we conclude our report, we feel it our duty to express our earnest desire that Section E may long be spared that painful exhibition of personal animus which has, during the last few years, been introduced into the discussions of Section D. It will, perhaps, hardly be believed when we state the fact that, on a paper being read by Mr. Carter Blake, in Section D, on "Syndactyly in Man and Apes," a member of the Association was allowed to get up and make a long tirade against the writer of some anonymous article in the Edinburgh Review of April last. Not a word of discussion took place on Mr. Blake's paper, but the time of the Section was taken up by listening to Dr. Rolleston's grievances against this anonymous writer. We were glad, however, to hear the severe castigation which Mr. Blake administered to him, and which will, we trust, make him more cautious not to attack again in debate one who is evidently so much his superior.

Section E was much indebted to Professor Daniel Wilson, of

Toronto, for many excellent speeches. We are glad also to be able to find a full and original report of the excellent speech on Archæology made by Mr. George Tate, the well-known antiquary and geologist, and active Secretary of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Field Club. To the character of the speeches generally we will quote the words of the esteemed President, who said, "I have been a member of the Association from its foundation, and I must say that I never presided on any occasion on which there have been such numerous audiences, and so many admirable discussions. I may add, that I have never presided on any occasion on which I have seen so much good feeling exhibited, not only by persons around me on this platform, but by all those who have taken part in the proceedings." These were Sir R. Murchison's parting words to the Section, and we must now close our report. The Association has sustained a very severe loss in being deprived of the valuable services of Professor Phillips, who has from the commencement of the Association been its most energetic and able manager. A universal feeling of regret is felt throughout the Association at his loss. We hope he may long live to enjoy his well-earned popularity, and that his example will be the means of inducing his successors to follow in his disinterested and impartial footsteps. We believe that universal satisfaction is felt at the selection of Sir Charles Lyell as President for the ensuing year. Anthropologists have especial reason to be satisfied, for no one has of late years done more for the progress of Anthropological science than Sir Charles Lyell. We were glad to see him in Section E this year, and hope that for the future we shall see him far oftener. Everything bids fair to make the next meeting at Bath successful. We trust that during the time that will elapse before the meeting, Anthropologists will bestir themselves to bring all their forces together, and thus help to secure the formal recognition of Anthropological science by the Association. We understand that notice has been given by Dr. Hunt, that Section E shall for the future be devoted to "Geography, Ethnology, and Anthropology." A general rumour prevailed that there was to be a sub-section especially devoted to Anthropology. We think, however, that an increase of the number of sections is objectionable, and we see no necessity for such a division. As an independent journal, devoted to Anthropological science, we shall feel it our duty to advocate a union of Anthropology with the present Geographical and Ethnological section.

465

WAITZ'S INTRODUCTION TO ANTHROPOLOGY.

ONLY a few months have elapsed since the Anthropological Society of London announced that they intended publishing a translation of the first volume of "Waitz's Anthropology of Primitive Peoples," and now, just as we go to press, the volume is issued to the Fellows. We shall only be able to give a short outline of the first impression which the work has made on us. In the first place, we must say that the rapid manner in which the book has been produced is most creditable to the Society, and especially to the editor, Mr. Collingwood. We hope this good example will be followed by other editors of works which are announced to be published by the Society. The Anthropological Society, if they had done nothing else, and should now cease their labours, would have effected very much for Anthropological science. Therefore, for the first time in the history of British scientific literature, we have a compendium of modern Anthropological science. It is almost enough to shame our national pride to think that such a work should not come from one of our own countrymen ; and yet, with all the merits of this work, we still see that a German alone could have written it. Its very value for anthropological students consists in its defects. Many will take the book up and ask, "Is the author a Monogenist or a Polygenist?" But, we are glad to say, they will have to read the book before they will get their curiosity gratified. Nothing will help to do away more effectually with that shallow school of thought, which makes all science relating to man resolve itself into a solution of the problem of man's origin. This volume will help to put the science of Anthropology in a proper light before the scientific men of this country. It is a matter of amazement to find that the science of Anthropology is only just receiving a recognition from men of science. We may not agree entirely with the exact position which he assigns to Anthropology, but we cordially endorse his statement that "it is requisite to declare in this place, once for all, that Anthropology is to be considered as an empirical science, because its subject, Man, is only known to us empirically, and hence it is requisite to study man by the same method which is applied to the investigation of all other natural objects."

The author has traced the gradual rise of Anthropological science, and the different meanings which have been attached to Anthropology, and very properly limits the sphere of this science, and shows

VOL. I.-NO. III.

H H

that it has a positive existence as a science, and is not merely a collection of borrowed materials. Much, however, of the author's introduction will be too metaphysical for the English mind. The great fact remains, however, that the author divides Anthropology into four great objects; the first being Man considered from an anatomical and physiological standpoint; the second, in his psychological aspects; the third, in his social and historical aspects; and the fourth, treating man, under his ethnological aspect, as composed of races. The volume before us is divided into two parts; first, the physical, and, secondly, the psychological. The first part embraces a general introduction to the physical investigation, in which the signification of species is fully and clearly discussed. Then comes section the first of the physical investigation "on the mode and magnitude of the physical changes to which man is subject," occupying about seventy pages. Section two consists of a dissertation on "the chief anatomical and physiological differences which exist in the various races," with an Appendix on the asserted inviability of the Americans, Polynesians, and Australians." Section three is on "the results of intermixture of different types and the peculiarities of mongrels." Section four consists of a "review of the principal theories regarding the unity of mankind." Section five treats of the "classification of mankind." Then comes the second part of the book, divided into three sections; first, the specific characters of man; secondly, the natural state of man; and thirdly, the various states of civilization, and the chief conditions of their development, followed by a general recapitulation. Such are the contents of this volume, which forms a complete introduction to the present state of Anthropological science. There are but few men living who are qualified to have undertaken such a vast inquiry. The author very modestly observes :

"I had from the beginning no hope of arriving at a perfect solution of a question which it were desirable should be treated by the united powers of the zoologist and geologist, the linguist, historian, and psychologist. But as such a happy combination may be long in occurring, there remained but the alternative either to leave the question in abeyance, or to try its solution with insufficient means."

There is one thing which will render this book specially valuable to the English student, and that is the admirable manner in which Professor Waitz has quoted the authorities for his statements. He is not content with giving the name of the author, but the title of the work, the page on which the statement occurs, and the year in which it was published. These authorities are very voluminous, and evince

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