1899] THE PROPER STUDY OF MANKIND 221 



Yet, amidst the diversified and world-wide dramas thus depicted in a long series 

 of bygone civilisations, the author moves with much freedom and elasticity, 

 bestowing here and there, as the case may be, a -word of praise or dispraise. 

 Altogether, Mr. Keane's book (of course including its predecessor as an integral 

 part) is to be highly commended, not only on account of the general soundness 

 of the opinions upheld, but also because of the interesting manner in which he 

 has marshalled his facts. Nor will beginners in the study of Anthropology 

 object to read the two volumes, notwithstanding a certain amount of repetition, 

 for in both the author carries with him the attention of intelligent readers. 



E. M. 



THE ZOOLOGISTS IN CONGRESS. 



Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Zoology. 

 8vo. Pp. xv. + 422, 15 pis. London, 1899. 



This bulky volume forms no exception to the rule that the official " Proceed- 

 ings " of Societies or Congresses are usually somewhat disappointing. It is true 

 that the value of an international meeting of zoologists can hardly be estimated 

 by that of brief abstracts of papers and speeches, but it is difficult to avoid a 

 slight feeling of disappointment that the personal contact of so many specialists 

 should produce apparently so little result, and that so many of the discussions 

 should end in nothing. 



On general subjects one of the most interesting papers is that by Prof. 

 Mitskuri on zoology in Japan. In a brief historical sketch of the progress of 

 natural science in that country, he shows that the common belief in its sudden 

 rise within recent years is quite unfounded, and that the present condition of 

 affairs is merely the natural outcome of generations of preparation. From the 

 interesting account of scientific education at the present clay in Japan we cull 

 one little fact only. The biological students of Tokyo University are required 

 to spend at least one season at the Marine Station in connection with the 

 University, while those who take up zoology as a speciality spend much more 

 time than this at the seaside. We recommend this regulation to the notice 

 of some Western Universities. 



Of the general discussions those on the position of sponges and on the 

 origin of mammals are reported in some detail. As to the sponges there seems 

 practical unanimity that they are not Coelenterates, but there is more doubt as 

 to whether they are to be regarded as a separate phylum of the Metazoa, or as 

 having originated from the choanoflagellate Protozoa independently of the other 

 Metazoa. The position adopted depends upon the views held as to the meaning 

 of the reversal of the germinal layers during metamorphosis, but the discussion 

 of this point when pushed to extremes largely resolves itself into a juggling 

 with words. 



The discussion of the origin of mammals contains much that is interesting. 

 While Professor Haeckel still adheres to the earlier position that the placentals 

 are descended from a marsupial stock, most other zoologists seem to regard 

 Hill's discovery of a deciduous allantoic placenta in Ptrameles as conclusive 

 proof that placentals and marsupials have arisen from a common stock and 

 form parallel phyla. As to the more remote ancestry there is much more 

 doubt and great difference of opinion. Prof. Osborn believes that mammals 

 arose from the theriodont division of the anomodont reptiles, and that they 

 are diphyletic, the marsupio-placental stock arising at the time when the 

 Theriodontia conserved a number of Amphibian characters. Prof. Seeley, on 

 the other hand, believes that anomodonts are not the ancestors of mammals, 

 but that both originated from a common unknown stock. On the other hand, 

 Prof. Marsh rejected the suggestion of reptilian affinities altogether, and 

 looked for the ancestors of mammals among early amphibians. All were agreed 



