of the Blood was something unintelligible and incredible to every physician beyond forty. Still, though not a "young and rising," he is a ripe and eminent naturalist.

At page 42, the conclusion of his second Discourse, we have the following prophecy :-" Wonderfully strange and even absurd as the thought may appear to-day to many that all organisms on the earth, vegetable as well as animal, extinct as well as living forms, are connected with one another as a single great family by natural descent, a man need not be a great prophet to foretell that, before long, this doctrine will be the currently accepted and unquestioned property of every man of Science. Though, at present, many intelligent and many unintelligent voices are making themselves heard against Darwin, he has already got a large number of powerful allies on his side, and the final result cannot be doubtful." We may here say, that Vogt* and Virchow,† with whom Schleiden differs in so many points, agree with him in giving a more or less modified assent to these self-same doctrines, and that the venerable Von Baer,‡ in a paper published contemporaneously, or nearly so, with Mr. Darwin's work, coincides to a great extent, though by no means entirely, with our great English Naturalist. None of these writers have been, one indeed, Vogt, could not have been, mentioned by Mr. Darwin in the historique prefixed, March 1863, to the third edition of his work.

Coming, finally, to speak of "Man's Place in Nature," the consideration of which, Schleiden says, the growing prevalence and acceptance of Mr. Darwin's views must have and unavoidably has brought forward tacitly and articulately, he commences by assuring terrified "Stabilismus," the German abstract rendering of our English "Obstructive Paterfamilias,”—that these doctrines do not necessarily lead to materialism. We may suppose that in Germany, as elsewhere, and indeed nearer home, periodicals watching, like Falstaff, a waning circulation, and anxious, like that worthy, to make up, by senile repentance for juvenile aberrations, have, in default of scientific reasonings, betaken themselves to this sort of insinuation, which Schleiden very appropriately calls oberflächliches Geschwätz, or superficial babbling.

Vogt, it is true, and Virchow are avowedly, or by implication,

*Vorlesungen über den Menschen. 1863, p. 16.

† Vier Reden über Leben und Kranksein, 1858.

Ueber Papuas und Alfuren. Mem Acad-Imp. St. Petersburgh. Tom. viii. See also the Reader,' Jan. 9, 1864, where an analysis of this paper is given.

Materialists, but V. Baer, on the other hand, and Schleiden are very much the reverse; all four alike being more or less thorough-going upholders of developmental doctrines. The question, however, is not, or should not be, what are the particular metaphysical opinions of the supporters or even of the originators of certain scientific views, for it is clear that whatever may have been the metaphysical, moral, or religious tenets of the followers of Galileo, and in the days of a persecuting Church they were probably very bad, they by no means affect the question of the truth or falsehood of the theories connected with his name. The essential points of the doctrine of Development are compatible enough with Materialism, but so were many of Newton's theories, the question is, do they necessarily lead to it? The reading which these doctrines give us of the history of our world is so far from being of a materialistic tendency, that “it presents us," says Sir Charles Lyell in the last sentence of his work, "with a picture of the ever increasing dominion of mind over matter;" and he himself would, we think, have felt this even more strongly, had he not, when like Schleiden upon this very subject, fallen, like him, into the error of surmising that genius may, in spite of hereditary transmission, come to belong to the child of dulness and mediocrity. Could such per saltum emergences from the dead level be really shown to take place amongst and around us, the transition from ourselves to lower forms of life would be more intelligible than it is, or, as we think, it is ever likely to be; and Uniformitarianism might become the accepted doctrine here as elsewhere. We believe, however, that the decision of the question in the affirmative is impossible, and the fallacies which beset such an investigation are of such a character as to induce us to accept the opposite alternative. Nothing is so easily over-looked as talent and capacity, liable as they are to be masked' by false modesty, overlaid by crotchet, and disguised by countless other incrustations. It may be possible to meet with a believer in the doctrine of the origin of mind from the fortuitous concurrence of atoms, but we never met with a skilful schoolmaster, or a skilful examiner, or a skilful schoolinspector, who believed in the origin of genius from Sydney Smith's "Fortuitous Concurrence of Boobies." The concession which Schleiden has made needlessly, as we think, on this point, has, together with certain other psychological slips, introduced a considerable amount of confusion into the concluding pages of his work, which fall short, we are sure, of what Kant, whose disciple Schleiden pro

fesses himself, would have required, and, as we imagine, of what Apelt would acquiesce in. It may be said, perhaps, that Sir William Hamilton's treatment of consciousness, its phenomena, conditions, its evidence and authority, makes an English reader less contented with this than with any other part of Schleiden's work, but want of acquaintance with the Scotch metaphysician is not a sufficient excuse for an author's omission of improvability and capacity for progress and certain other faculties as inherent in every human, and wanting in every simious organism, when he takes stock of the dif ferences existing between Goethe and the Australian on the one hand, and the Australian and the Ape on the other.

With reference to the well known controversy which was carried on mainly in this Review, on the Cerebral Characters of Man and Apes, we do not think that Schleiden is by any means right in saying at p. 55, that Gratiolet, Schroeder Van der Kolk, Marshall, Huxley, and others have shown that the differences which do exist between the human and the simious brain, may be found to exist, and even in a more pronounced condition, between the brains of different races and individuals of the human species. It is true that many, though, we think, not all the differences which really exist between the brain of man and that of the ape, may be seen in fainter outlines and less developed proportions when the brains of men of various grades of culture are compared inter se. Gratiolet however would at once repudiate both the statements imputed to him, and most assuredly it is a mere mistake to say that any of the anatomists alluded to have ever hinted that all or any part of the brain-differences in question, are more marked "fast noch ausgeprägter," instead of less marked within the limits of our own species.

To his statement, however, of the result of the hippocampal and posterior lobe and cornu controversy, no such exception can be taken, and with his short summing up of it we conclude our Notice of his two pleasant opuscula.

"In dieser Beziehung hat Owen sich durch Mangelhaftigkeit ihm zu Gebote stehender Präparate und Zeichnungen auf das schlimmste getäuscht, und eine Eintheilung zwischen Menschen und Affen hingestellt, die aller thatsächlichen Begründung entbehrt, an welcher er aber, ungeachtet der schlagendsten Widerlegung die ihm von allen Seiten geworden ist, mit bedauerlichern Eigensinn festhält."pp. 54-5.

XXVI. THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN.

1.—THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN FROM GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCES, WITH REMARKS ON THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES AND VARIATION. By Sir Charles Lyell, F. R. S.

London: Murray, Dec. 1863.

Third Edition.

2. SUR LES INDICES MATERIALES DE LA COEXISTENCE DE L'HOMME AVEC L'ELEPHAS MERIDIONALIS, &c. Par M. G. Desnoyers. Compt. Rend.. 1863.

THE keen appreciation which Sir Charles Lyell's "Antiquity of Man" has met with on the part of the British public, is sufficiently evident from the fact that a third edition of the work has been called for during the same year in which it has first appeared. It is also hereby demonstrated that a large and increasing body of the public is eager to realize the new and startling advances made by science into regions, which, a few years ago, seemed little likely ever to be successfully investigated. Of Sir Charles Lyell's masterly resumé of the recent discoveries, by aid of which this advance has been made, we have already fully spoken in a former volume.* We only now propose to call attention to several points on which new light has been recently thrown, and which are touched upon in the appendix to the present third edition of "The Antiquity of Man."

Sir Charles Lyell's first note is with reference to the supposed discovery by M. Desnoyers of evidences of the existence of man contemporaneous with Elephas meridionalis-a species, as our geological readers will be aware, of an epoch long anterior to the drift of the Seine and the Somme, and referable to the early period of the quaternary formations, before the commencement of the glacial epoch.

The indications of man referred to in this case consist of cuts, notches, and other markings observable on the surface of certain bones found imbedded in a fluviatile formation on the banks of the river Eure, at Saint Prest, near Chartres. These bones, which belong to species of Elephas, Rhinoceros, Hippopotamus and Cervus, are found scattered through the whole mass of sand and gravel of which the formation consists, but occur, principally, in two beds, one about 45, the other about 80 feet below the surface of the loess. M. Desnoyers himself refers the markings found upon them to different causes, such

See Nat. Hist. Rev., 1863, p. 211.

as the agency of ice, &c. ; but regards, as probable indications of the existence of man (amongst others), certain single and isolated cuts, which circle round, about a third part, or more, of the circumference of the hand shafts of some of the bones, for example, the tibia of a rhinoceros, and the horns of certain deer. Moreover, several bones and deer's horns present the appearance of having had slices taken out of their sides, as if by a sharp tool, leaving smooth elliptical scars. But Sir Charles Lyell having, with the assistance of the authorities of the Zoological Society, introduced bones into the cages of the porcupines in the Society's gardens, found that the gnawings of these animals had produced scars and cuts, "in many instances singularly resem"bling in shape and general appearance" those on "a few of the fossil "bones of Saint Prest, but with this difference, that the separate tooth"marks, transverse to the length of the bones, were distinctly visible "on the recent bone." It is therefore suggested by Sir Charles that the teeth of a large rodent (the Trogontherium), remains of which have been found associated with those of Elephas meridionalis, may possibly have made these incisions. And we may remark, having ourselves examined the performances of the porcupines in question, that we believe no person, unless acquainted with the facts, would have hesitated to state his belief that the cuts produced by the teeth of these rodents could only be attributed to the work of a knife wielded by human hands. M. Lartet, who was visiting England in August last year, having been shown the bones cut by the porcupines, admitted that the "cuts, although not exactly identical with any of those of Saint Prest, resembled some of those observed on cavebones in the South of France, which he had been previously disposed to attribute to human agency." Under these circumstances our readers will, no doubt, like ourselves, agree with Sir Charles Lyell in hesitating to assent to M. Desnoyers proposition, that the fossils of Saint Prest "demonstrate the high probability of the existence of Man before the glacial epoch." But we must all likewise agree with Sir Charles that the facts and theories, so ably set forth by M. Desnoyers, will lead to more important investigations, and are of great benefit to science, even if only leading Archæologists and Palæontologists to fresh inquiries on this important subject.

Sir Charles Lyell's second head in his Appendix relates to a subject concerning which, we fear, we have left the readers of this Review somewhat in nubibus. To extract any very satisfactory con