hy the Study of the Domestic Animals. ] 87 



ted from the epoch when the establishment of so many great 

 scientific museums in so many parts of the civilized world, per- 

 mitted zoologists to substitute for the analysis of descriptions 

 which are still unsatisfactory even when they are most precise, 

 the examination, direct and comparative, of the very objects 

 themselves which are the subject matter of their studies. The 

 time, we much fear, is still far distant ere such fertile sources 

 of investigation will be at the disposal of the anthropologist ; it 

 will be difficult to triumph over the physical obstacles which 

 have a tendency to arrest his progress, and more difficult still 

 to overcome those which superstition and national prejudices al- 

 most every where present. 



Even under such favouring circumstances, as but rarelv pre- 

 sent themselves to the anthropologist, when he wishes to supply 

 an account of the analogies and the diff'erences of two or more 

 types, he is almost always confined to a simple comparison of de- 

 scriptions and figures, which are sometimes untrue, and almost 

 always vague. If the precise and specific characters of two 

 species of an animal often disappear, and, as it were, fade away 

 in description, to such an extent that an able analysis only, 

 elucidated by the direct comparison of analogous objects, can 

 alone apprehend them, how can the anthropologist, deprived as 

 he is of all means of direct comparison, discover in the descrip- 

 tion of two neighbouring types the slight difi^erences which alone 

 distinguish them .'' These differences are often in truth nothing 

 more than fleeting shadows which are almost inappreciable, and 

 we should have said beyond the power of expression, had not 

 some recent authors, among whom we name Mr Edwai'ds, demon- 

 strated by their example, that whatever can be determined by 

 observation may be also clearly expressed by words, and had 

 thus revealed to us what may be designated the art of anthro- 

 pological description. 



If the progress of the positive portion of the natural history of 

 man is thus hindered by so many formidable obstacles, it is evi- 

 dent that as great difficulties present themselves to the advance 

 of the theoretical department, for the former is the only and es- 

 sential basis of the latter ; and facts which are imperfectly known 

 can lead only to imperfect consequences, that is to such as are 

 both dubious and unsatisfactory. 



