confirms our opinion. Although the Celtic skull has undergone some secondary modifications, its type is at the present day the same as in the most remote ages. I refer to the beautiful series of modern skulls in the Museum, derived from Britanny, and to my own collection of modern Irish skulls.

"Another question may be demanded regarding the osseous relic from the Neanderthal. Was it the skull of an idiot? If an idiot is necessarily, absolutely, and always a microcephale, our Celt, who possessed so large a cranial capacity, could not have been included in this category. Nevertheless, if the deep depressions which the cerebral convolutions have left in the cranial cavity, as well as the prominence of the supraciliary ridges, should, according to MM. Gratiolet and Broca, bear witness in favour of this opinion, I would incline to accept this hypothesis. The condition of idiocy has its degrees like every other affection of the kind; and it is possible that we may have before us the skull of an individual in whom the intelligence was developed. As nevertheless, I stand here before a whole pleiades of scientific brethren, who have pursued these investigations far more than myself, I must leave the decision of this question to judges in every subject more competent than myself.

"To sum up shortly the results of our study.

"1. Although we have already descended to the level of the drift, we do not yet see, at least in this part of Europe, anything which denotes the horizon which indicates the filiation of man with the ape.

"2. Until we have further information, there is nothing known respecting the resemblance of the pretended primitive man of Europe with the Australians, Caribs, negroes, etc.

"3. On the other hand, we find ourselves in the most remote antiquity in the presence of two distinct races, of which the descendants survive to the present day."

When this paper by M. Pruner Bey was read before the Paris Society, M. Broca made the following highly valuable and important observations thereon. He said :-"The whole of M. Pruner Bey's arguments repose on one basis, the knowledge whether the peculiar form of the Neanderthal skull is pathological. As we have never seen such a skull, and do not wish to admit that it belonged to a race of which no other vestige remains to us, we are forced to seek a morbid origin for the peculiarities which it presents. But I believe myself able to demonstrate that this skull could not be derived from an idiot; what is indicated by the fact, in both the idiot and the gorilla, of the prominence of the supraciliary arches and the retrocession of the forehead? It is indicated that the cerebral mass is not greatly voluminous, and that the anterior and posterior lobes converge towards the ideal centre of the head. No such condition is produced in any other form excepting than that which is concomitant with microcephaly. But the Neanderthal skull is not that of a microcephale.

"Two years ago I saw at Bicêtre, an idiot who had an enormous head, and of whom the appearance appeared to contradict the opinion of those who attribute importance to the volume of the brain in intel

lectual manifestations. But at the autopsy we found the cranial integuments with their osseous case irregularly thick. The brain was, in reality, very small; it weighed less than 1,100 grammes, but its size precluded its arrangement amongst microcephali. To find a skull comparable to that of the Neanderthal, we must have recourse to the microcephalic idiot. As for the large impressions, indications of convolutions few in number, this character actually exists in idiots, but it also exists in all men with large convolutions, and in the individuals of inferior races. So that the brain of the Neanderthal man may merely be that of an individual of inferior race. To sum up my objection in a few words; idiocy, capable of producing such a skull is necessarily microcephalic; but this skull is not that of a microcephale; therefore it is not that of an idiot."

In the above remarks I have endeavoured to give a fair epitome of the state of the controversy respecting the skeleton from the Neanderthal, so far as it has been recently carried on in France and Germany. I have abstained from offering any opinion of my own on this topic, and from attempting to collate the testimony of so many discrepant observers. When photographs are given by one writer, which purport to exhibit structures which the possessor of the original specimen declares to be absent, it would be futile for any person who has not the specimen before him to attempt to offer an opinion which could be capable of reconciling such conflicting statements. Doubtless, future speculators will have some more tangible ground whereon to found their theories than the description of structures whose existence is as yet unproven. But I must reply to those who say that the onus probandi lies upon those zoologists who may assert that the Neanderthal skull once belonged to an idiot. As a question of logical truth, there is no onus in the case; no need why any hypothesis should be propounded into which the known facts of the case should be compressed as best they may, and the future facts which may be discovered ignored, in order that a convenient theory may be at once generally accepted. Taking the several hypotheses; that the skull in question is that of a low "pithecoid" race of man, with many affinities to the Australian, or other dark races; that it is a distinct species, or even distinct genus of Anthropini; that it was the skull of a powerfully organised Celt of low mental organisation, but in race identical with the historical Celt; or that it was the skull of an individual in whom rachitis or some congenital defect or even accident, may have combined to produce the pathological condition of the ulna, the abnormal form of the ribs, the peculiar frontal conformation which is associated with several of the forms of the macrocephalic idiot, and the hypertrophied condition of the cranial walls; it is our duty to test these hypotheses severally, and give due allowance for the small proportion of truth there may be in each of them. Forensic skill may advocate any one of these hypotheses; it may select the favoured theory, whilst suppressing, ignoring, or distorting the opinions and facts of other observers; it may place the diverging arguments in * See Huxley. Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature, p. 141, fig. 26. 8vo. Lond. 1863.

such a form as to shift the onus on the opponent, instead of adopting the more difficult, although more conclusive procedure, of proving one's own case; and the recital of one or two of the above arguments may be promulgated as "evidence" as to the place in nature of an enigmatical or singular form. But such methods of reasoning are not those of the inquirer, who, accepting the evidence of the possessor of the skull as to its physical conformation, declines to express an opinion as to its probable or hypothetical relationship with those of tribes at the antipodes; who admits that the state of our knowledge respecting the posterior portion of the skull is inadequate on which to found any generalisation; and who recognises in the great development of the supraorbital ridges nothing more than the mere exaggeration of a cranial type common in many of the lower Celtic and Teutonic forms. Such are the few ascertainable facts; the hypothesis of idiocy, although it may be rejected by those who have not enjoyed the pleasure of inspecting the skull any more than myself, has as great evidence on its side as any of the divergent and discrepant theories above cited. Its nature, however, essentially precludes its conclusive demonstration; and I hope that no one will misunderstand me so far as to consider that I am committed simpliciter to its avowal.

Whilst the question of the mental endowments of the Neanderthal man must remain for a long period unanswered, I am afraid that the speculations of Professor King as to the precise theological belief professed by the individual must remain in abeyance. Evidence has been, and will be, laid before anthropologists in Europe to prove that the belief in a God is not an inherent idea in the mind of all savages; but to enter into that question would take me far beyond the limits of this paper. As regards, however, the generic distinction of the Neanderthal man from the homo sapiens of our monogenistic ancestors, or the many unnamed species of man whose separate existence polygenists may affirm, I cannot see the grounds on which generic distinction can be affirmed. If, however, such there be, the rules of the binomial nomenclature suggest that a new generic and specific name should be given to the Homo Neanderthalensis. Although I will not undertake the task of describing the new genus of manlike beast which is indicated "abest omnium proxime a simiis," until my friend Mr. Winwood Reade shall have brought us over a few cagefuls of Neanderthaloid apes from Equatorial Africa, I trust that the term Nidum equinum may complete all the necessary formalities in the identification of a genus the priority of description in which I leave to the first observer who may wish to develope the canard.

Mr. REDDIE hoped that when Mr. Blake's communication was printed, he would give the measurements he had quoted in English measures, so that like things might be compared with like. With respect to the skull that had been the subject of the communication, whatever difference of opinion might exist as to its intellectual developments, and however low the race of man it might indicate, it was, nevertheless, the skull of a man, and not of an ape. The dis

tinction between a man and the inferior animals in their intellectual capacities was so great that they could not be mistaken. The gorilla, for example, might have sufficient sense to warm itself at a fire made by negroes, but it had not common sense enough to put on more logs of wood to keep the fire burning.

The

Mr. ALFRED R. WALLACE said he had examined the extensive series of crania in the Museum at Oxford, where there are crania of New Zealanders, of Australians, the natives of New Guinea, and of other aboriginal tribes, for the purpose of observing if there were any corresponding peculiarities. He was enabled to discover that some of the Australian crania agreed with the Neanderthal skull, in general shape, in the slanting forehead, the orbital ridges, and in other particulars, and the impression on his mind was that they were exactly of the same type. But that was not, however, the usual form of Australian skulls, for there were others very different. majority of them, indeed, were totally different, whilst there were others that had an intermediate form. The skulls of the Van Dieman's Land natives also approached in general form to the Neanderthal skull. In some burial grounds in this country there are occasionally to be found skulls which nearly approximate to those of Australians. These facts showed how difficult it is to draw general results from agreements in the forms of different crania. He felt satisfied that there was no reason to believe that the Neanderthal skull belonged to any other than a savage race of man in a low state of development, and that it was not the skull of an idiot, but of a common man of the same race.

Mr. BOUVERIE PUSEY said the speech of Mr. Wallace suggested the question whether the Australian skulls he examined at Oxford belonged to natives of the same tribe, or whether they were the skulls of different tribes?

Mr. WALLACE said he was unable to answer the question.

Sir CHARLES NICHOLSON observed that his own experience and recollection confirmed Mr. Wallace's statement respecting the resemblance of the skull in question to those of some skulls of Australians. It reminded him strongly of skulls he had seen in Australia, though there were some peculiarities in it. There were to be found among the natives of Australia great varieties; for though there were some extremely low types among them, there were others, again, so different that it was difficult to distinguish their skulls from those of Europeans. An instance of this occurred at Sydney, in the Museum of which town there was a collection of the skulls of transported criminals, and of the aborigines; but the labels on them having been accidentally lost, many of them could not be distinguished, and to this day no one could tell which was which. It was a curious fact, he observed, that some of the lowest types of animal and vegetable life should be now found living in Australia which had long since been extinct in Europe. In Australia, where the aboriginal human races are fast dying out, there are still existing types of the flora and fauna of the earliest period in which they appeared on the earth in Europe. For example, the first fossil mammal that

occurred in the ascending series of strata was a marsupial animal, corresponding in general character with those now living in Australia, where there are several existing analogues of the fossil flora and fauna, extinct in this part of the world. Sir Charles Nicholson expressed the hope that new light would shortly be thrown on the relations of the lower types of animals with the higher by the investigations of Professor Owen, who is now in France, making observations in situ on the organic remains found in some ancient caverns.

Mr. CARTER BLAKE, in reply, alluded in the first place to the suggestion of Mr. Reddie that the measurements he had quoted should be given in English measures. He said he should certainly not undertake to change the French measures into English, but he should be glad, on the contrary, to see the reverse done, as the decimal measures were much more convenient, and more generally applicable for the use of scientific men. With respect to the varieties said to exist among the tribes of Australia, it was evident from what had been stated that manifestly distinct forms of skulls were to be found there, but it was a question whether there were wider differences among the natives of Australia than of any other country. Professor Huxley had called attention to a skull in the Museum of the College of Surgeons which resembled the Neanderthal skull. It seemed, indeed, useless to go so far as Australia to look for corresponding forms of skulls, while similar forms were to be found in Ireland, Scotland, and in many other places nearer home. He hoped that what he had said would not be taken as throwing any doubt on the transmutation theory, which he considered a very rational hypothesis. Though the assumed great antiquity of the Neanderthal skull might be proved to be an error, which had arisen from the misrepresentations of German describers of the circumstances in which it was found, he felt assured they had only to wait until some other discoveries would be made which would confirm the transmutation theory, and such discoveries, he thought, might be shortly forthcoming.

The meeting then adjourned.

MARCH 1ST, 1864.

DR. JAMES HUNT, PRESIDENT, IN THE CHAIR.

The minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed.

The following new Fellows were announced:-The Rev. Dr. J. Bosworth; F. Chance, Esq.; B. Bond Cabbell, Esq., F.R.S.; C. C. Babington, Esq., F.R.S.; F. Carulla, Esq.; H. Charlton, Esq.; G. Critchett, Esq.; C. Capper, Esq.; H. Campbell, Esq.; H. Crowley, Esq.