84 LIMITATIONS TO THE USE OF ANTHROPOLOGIC DATA. 
those of men, and in various other ways the subject is receiving scien- 
tific attention. 
The new psychology in process of construction will have a threefold 
basis: A physical basis on phenomena presented by the organ of the 
mind as shown in man and the lower animals; a linguistic basis as pre- 
sented in the phenomena of language, which is the instrument of mind; 
a functional basis as exhibited in operations of the mind. 
The phenomena of the third class may bearranged in three subclasses. 
First, the operations of mind exhibited in individuals in various stages 
of growth, various degrees of culture, and in various conditions, normal 
and abnormal; second, the operations of mind as exhibited in technol- 
ogy, arts, and industries; third, the operations of mind as exhibited in 
philosophy; and these are the explanations given of the phenomena of 
the universe. Onsuch a basis a scientific pshycology must be erected. 
As methods of study are discovered, a vast field opens to the American 
scholar. Now, as at all times in the history of civilization, there has 
been no lack of interest in this subject, and no lack of speculative writ- 
ers; but there is a great want of trained observers and acute investi- 
gators. 
Tf we lay aside the mass of worthless matter which has been published, 
and consider only the material used by the most careful writers, we find 
on every hand that conclusions are vitiated by a multitude of errors of 
fact of a character the most simple. Yesterday I read an article on the 
“ Growth of Sculpture,” by Grant Allen, that was charming; yet, there- 
in I found this statement: 
So far as I know, the Polynesians and many other savages have not progressed be- 
yond the full-face stage of human portraiture above described, Next in rank comes 
the drawing of a profile, as we find it among the Eskimos and the bushmen. Our 
own children soon attain to this level, which is one degree higher than that of the 
full face, as it implies a special point of view, suppresses half the features, and is not 
diagrammatic or symbolical of all the separate parts. Negroes and North American 
Indians cannot understand profile; they ask what has become of the other eye. 
Perhaps Mr. Allen derives his idea of the inability of the Indians to 
understand profiles from a statement of Catlin, which I have seen used 
for this and other purposes by different anthropologists until it seems 
to have become a favorite fact. 
Turning to Catlin’s Letters and Notes on the Manners, Customs, and 
Condition of the North American Indians, (vol. 2, page 2) we find him 
saying: 
After I had painted these, and many more whom I have not time at present to name, 
I painted the portrait of a celebrated warrior of the Sioux, by the name of Mah-to- 
chee-ga (the Little Bear), who was unfortunately slain in a few moments after the 
picture was done by one of his own tribe; and which was very near costing me my 
life, for having painted a side view of his face, leaving one-half of it out of the picture 
2 c=] Pp gs ? 
