POPULAR MISCELLANY. 



139 



distinguishing between the principal colors. 

 Taliing red, yellow, green, and blue, as the 

 chief representatives of the colors of the 

 longer and shorter wave-lengths, there was 

 not one among the tribes coming within the 

 range of the inquiry which did not show 

 some knowledge of these four colors. This 

 knowledge must be considered as only rela- 

 tive, and not as existing in the same degree 

 among all tribes. Savages exhibit impor- 

 tant differences in the degree to which their 

 sense of color is capable of cultivation. 

 Some show considerable skill in distinguish- 

 ing between different mixed and transitional 

 colors, others are less keen to perceive tran- 

 sitional colors, while there are some who are 

 slow in marking the most distinct principal 

 colors without being wholly incapable of it. 

 This dullness is shown chiefly in reference 

 to the colors of the shorter wave-lengths, 

 as green, and more especially blue. There 

 are tribes which have surprisingly little 

 knowledge of these colors ; among them are 

 some of the aboriginal tribes of southern 

 India, whose color-sense is developed only 

 to the perception of red, while their knowl- 

 edge of yellow and green and blue is most 

 limited and rudimentary. The inhabitants 

 of the island of Nias have one name for 

 blue, violet, black, and green, another for 

 yellow and orange. Numerous observations 

 are cited to prove that the capacity to dis- 

 criminate between the colors of the lon^-er 

 wave-lengths is sharper than that relative 

 to those of shorter wave-lengths. An Ene;- 

 lish consul in the Loyalty Islands informs 

 Dr. Magnus that the inhabitants of that 

 group understand the differences between 

 colors very well, but confound them in nam- 

 ing them. The negro tribes of Sierra Leone, 

 distinguish between the several colors, and 

 have words to indicate them. Gray and 

 orange are least regarded, and are spoken 

 of as white and red. Blue and green are 

 frequently confounded, but are seldom men- 

 tioned as identical. The pastoral Ovahere- 

 ros, or Damaras, of South Africa, are keen 

 in their appreciation of the shades of color 

 that are marked on their cattle, and have 

 names for all of them, twenty-six terms in 

 all, but have no names for the colors that 

 are not cattle-colors, although they know 

 them apart quite clearly, and will use for- 

 eign words in speaking of them if it is 



necessary. Sometimes, for lack of a better 

 word, they will use their own word for yel- 

 low, for blue, or green, but with a clear 

 sense that they are applying it inaccurately. 

 Most of the Damaras have come into some 

 contact with civilization, but no important 

 difference in the capacity to distinguish 

 colors can be found between the civilized 

 and the uncivilized members of the race. 

 The uncivilized, however, although they 

 know them well enough, can not give names 

 to blue and green, and think it strange that 

 these colors should need names. A tribe 

 on the Gold Coast are well acquainted with 

 the difference between red, yellow, green, 

 and blue, but are wholly destitute of terms 

 for the colors of the medium and shorter 

 wave-lengths, and seem to have names only 

 for white, black, and red. Virchow found 

 similar conditions to exist among the Nu- 

 bians, who were lately in Berlin, and a simi- 

 lar indifference to the colors of the middle 

 and shorter wave-lengths to prevail among 

 them. Most of them were accurate in per- 

 ceiving and naming the four higher colors 

 of the scale, and black, white, gray, and 

 red, but recognized the other colors with 

 some difficulty. Professor Delitzsch has re- 

 marked that the people of the ancient Se- 

 mitic races had little appreciation of blue. 

 This dullness in distinguishing the colors of 

 the shorter wave-length contrasts striking- 

 ly with the sharpness which people of all 

 races display in distinguishing and marking 

 red. 



Slaughter of Food-Animals among the 

 Jews. According to the analysis of Dr. 

 Rabbinonicz, of Paris, the Jewish Talmud- 

 ic rules concerning the slaughter of food- 

 animals were framed with the special ob- 

 ject of providing for the infliction of the 

 least possible suffering upon the animal, 

 and of procuring the meat in the most 

 wholesome condition for food. They pro- 

 hibit the stunning of the animal by a blow 

 on the forehead, because it is far from cer- 

 tain that the blow immediately annuls pain, 

 and it is certain that it does not annul it if 

 inflicted by an awkward hand. The rules 

 require that the act of killing shall be per- 

 formed by the sweep of a long, sharp in- 

 strument, which shall at once sever, more 

 or less completely, the trachea and oesoph- 



