412 THOMAS THOMSEN. 
If we now proceed to compare Lists I and III, we find, in the figures 
alone, a series of other discrepancies calling for correction. 
Inv. No. List I List III 
45 | Fig. 21 Figs. 22 List I is here correct. 
53 | Fig. 26 | Figs. 26 and 28 
55—56 | Fig. 29a and b Figs. 29 and 33 | 
List III is here correct. 
f should be: Figs. 55 and 56, p. 472 (No. 
\ 
86 | Fig.55  |Figs. 55 and 561 
56 appearing twice in the same work). 
87 | Fig. 56 | Fig. 562 Should be the second Fig 56, on p. 476. 
90—95 | Fig. 58 | Figs.58—60 | List III is right, 
two of the animals shown in Fig. 58 having turned out badly in the 
reproduction, wherefore they are shown again in Figs. 59—60. In Fig. 58, 
Mr. THALBITZER has altered the position of one of the animals, from 
the erect to the prone. The natural course in such a case would have 
been to remove the figure incorrectly reproduced, and replace it by 
the amended illustration; Mr. THALBITZER, however, has preferred to 
let the prone beast lie, and makes it the subject of the following 
passage: 
“As all the animals just mentioned are rendered in a very lifelike 
manner in the carvings, there are no grounds for supposing that the 
sixth, inv. Амр. 95, should not also give a faithful representation of 
some animal or other. However ıt is by no means easy to identify it. 
It cannot be any kind of seal, as it has no swimmers, and the shape 
of the head with the small pointed ears is very unlike that of a seal. 
The imagination recoils from conceiving it as a land mammifer. And 
yet we have no other recourse, and we shall discover, to our surprise, 
that the realistic sense of the Eskimo has not failed him this time either. 
The drawing fig. 60 shows how the figure is to be conceived; not with 
the head in front and the tail behind, but with the head erected: a polar 
bear walking on its hind legs”. 
We may pass over the twenty further lines of print through 
which Mr. THALBITZER continues his explanation of the same figure, 
it should be observed, however, that the realistic execution of the 
object in question is not so great but that another scientific opinion 
pronounced it a hare. I leave the question open to the judgement 
of zoologists. 
Turning now to discrepancies of another order, viz. in the classi- 
fication of the objects themselves, we find, apart from minor differences 
of style, such instances as the following: 
