1866. | Anthropology. 45 
the antiquity of which there seems to be no question, to be “ one 
of the most ill-fayoured, beast-like, and simious skulls we know of,” 
though we must confess we see nothing in its form to justify such 
an opinion; and we fully coincide with the statement made by 
Professor Huxley, that there are no marks of degradation about it. 
But Vogt is a firm believer in the descent of man from the simious 
group standing next him, and therefore it suits his purpose to make 
out that the crania of the primeval races possessed an ape-like form. 
Tn his desire to believe anything which may seem to lend support 
to his argument, Vogt displays a readiness which stands out in 
marked contrast to the scepticism he displays upon other sub- 
jects which most men, at least in this country, are accustomed 
to hold in reverence, and to treat with consideration and respect. 
There are so many sins against good taste, so much that is offensive 
in the lectures, that some slight qualms of conscience as to their 
applicability to the tastes of the British public seem even to have 
affected the not very fastidious editor, Dr. James Hunt, for he con- 
fesses in his preface, “that at first I omitted a few passages which I 
did not think in good taste, but on proceeding with my labour I found 
that to cancel all the passages which might offend would be entirely 
to alter the character of the work.” On re-consideration, therefore, 
he has effected a compromise, and, like the ingenious editor of a 
copy of the epigrams of Martial we once met with in our school- 
days, he has struck out of the text some of the more ribald passages 
and has printed them as an appendix, where, in a concentrated, and, 
let us hope, nauseating form the reader may have the opportunity 
of perusing as choice a collection of scientific Billmgsgate as is to 
be found in the English language. 
M. Pouchet’s work, “On the Plurality of Races,” is on a subject 
which has of late years, more especially in France and America, 
attracted considerable attention. In the former country it has been 
discussed with much ability by various distinguished men of science, 
and all that can be stated on the subject in the present condition of 
our knowledge seems to have been said by the advocates of one or 
the other side of the question. M. Pouchet, as the title of his essay 
would indicate, is a strenuous supporter of the descent of man from 
more than one primitive stock. Moreover he scouts the idea of 
a distinct human kingdom, and considers that the physical and 
psychological differences between man and the apes are not of kind, 
but merely of degree. He considers man to be comparable in all 
points with animals, and that a common origin ought to be sought 
for him and them. He laughs at the notion of a creation, and finds 
this common origin “in a mass of amorphous matter, which at a 
later period will form itself, or in the midst of which will be 
spontaneously developed, an anatomical element, that is to say, an 
organized body.” Though how the “mass of amorphous matter ” 
