122 
It seems partly due to this hypothesis that the author 
is strongly in favour of regarding the native races of 
America as entitled to form a distinct primary division of 
mankind, and not a part of the Mongoloid. He states, 
however (“ Ethnology,” p. 336), that “the American un- 
doubtedly approximates nearest to the Mongol form, and 
as the latter cannot be derived from the former, it follows, 
as is now generally allowed, that the American type has 
been differentiated from a generalised Mongol prototype.” 
This is really a distinction without a difference ; and as 
we scarcely suppose that any anthropologist would derive 
Americans from the typical Mongol as we know him 
now, there seems little reason for departing from the 
view that the former are a branch of the Mongoloid 
division. 
Even, however, in his own view, the author does not 
appear quite logical, for, after speaking of the above- 
mentioned close relationship of Americans and Mongols, 
on p. 353 of the present volume, he seeks to connect the 
Eskimo with the long-headed palzolithic man of Europe. 
Now, Sir William Flower, in his address to the Anthro- 
pological Institute in 1885, stated that “such scanty 
remains as have yet been discovered of the early in- 
habitants of Europe present no structural affinities to the 
Eskimo, although it is not unlikely that similar external 
conditions may have led them to adopt similar modes of 
life.” This very definite statement requires refutation 
before the opposite view can be maintained ; and then it 
has to be shown that the palzolithic long-head approxi- 
mated to a Mongoloid type. Moreover, if he should be 
so proved, then he must apparently have been near to, if 
not the actual progenitor of, the typical Tibetan Mongol ; 
and if so, how can the Eskimo and the Mongol be 
genetically separated ? 
In one other important point Mr. Keane also departs 
widely from the classification adopted by Sir William 
Flower. This is in regard to the peoples commonly 
called Polynesians, or Eastern Polynesians. These, 
which include the Samoans, Maori, Tongans, Tahitians, 
Marquesas Islanders, and Hawaians, together with some 
of the Fijians, are regarded by Sir William as an offshoot 
from the Mongolian stock, displaying evidence of a 
Melanesian crossing. Their resemblance to the Caucasic 
type has, writes Sir William, 
“led some writers to infer a real extension of 
the Caucasian element at some very early period 
into the Pacific Islands, and to look upon their 
inhabitants as the product of a mingling of all three 
great types of men. Though this is a very plausible 
theory, it rests on little actual proof, as the combination 
of Mongolo-Malayan and Melanesian characters in 
different degrees, together with the local variations 
certain to arise in communities so isolated from each 
other and exposed to such varied conditions as the in- 
habitants of the Pacific Islands, would probably account 
for all the modifications observed among them.” 
This “very plausible theory” is adopted in its entirety 
by Mr. Keane; and, under the name of “ Indonesians,” 
we find the Polynesians on p. 562 of the volume before 
us definitely taking their place in the Caucasian division ; 
the remark being added, that “their claim to belong to 
this connection can no longer be seriously questioned.” 
In view of the passage quoted above, this statement 
appears to us decidedly too positive to be employed in a 
NO. 1545, VOL. 60] 
NATURE 
[JUNE 8, 1899 
controversial case of this description. It is noteworthy 
that in the “Ethnology” these same “ Indonesians,” 
though considered of Caucasian origin, are still retained 
in the chapter devoted to Mongolians. 
It may be added that in both volumes the amount of 
space devoted to the Polynesians is far too short, the 
Maori especially having only a very few lines assigned to 
them. Little is also said with regard to the Melanesians 
of Fiji; and we have been unable to discover a reference 
to the remarkable dolichocephalic development of the 
Kai Colo mountain tribes of those islands. 
Further criticism is prevented by lack of space. We 
may accordingly conclude by the expression of our sense 
of the high value of Mr. Keane’s work, which will be 
acceptable alike to the advanced student of ethnology 
and to all those interested in the natural history of their 
own race. The issue of a second edition of the “ Eth- 
nology” sufficiently vouches for the popularity of that 
volume. Should a new edition of both volumes be called 
for, we venture to think that if the author could see his 
way to combine and amalgamate them on the lines sug- 
gested above, a very admirable work would be presented 
in a form more convenient for general reference. 
Rope 
PRACTICAL GEOMETRY. 
Text-book of Practical Solid Geometry, &c., for the use 
of the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich. By Cap- 
tain E. H. de V. Atkinson, R.E. Pp. 116 + xvi plates. 
(London: E. and F. N. Spon, Ltd., 1899.) 
Geometrical Drawing for Army and Navy Candidates 
and Public School Classes. By E. C. Plant, C.B. 
Vol. I. Practical Plane Geometry. Pp. xiv + 186. 
(London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1899.) 
HE characteristic deficiencies of English text-books 
are painfully conspicuous in most of the current 
works on practical geometry. Take a _ second-rate 
cookery-book, and shuffle the recipes at random; you 
will have a fair analogy to the quality and sequence of 
the books provided for the Army cadet or the Science 
and Art candidate. Assuredly they manage these things 
better in France. A century ago, Monge expounded the 
principles of the method of plan and elevation (géométrie 
descriptive as he called it) with a simplicity, clearness 
and order which have never been surpassed, although, no 
doubt, improvements in detail have been effected. The 
school which Monge created followed loyally in the steps 
of their master ; and the consequence is that in France a 
student of civil or military engineering can attend a 
course or study a treatise on descriptive geometry which 
makes him familiar with a me¢hod, a system of elementary 
principles which he can apply to an endless variety of 
practical problems. 
“Monge a souvent répété que, lorsqu’on savait les 
divers problémes relatifs au point, 4 la droite et au plan, 
et dont l’ensemble forme ce que l’on appelle encore et 
assez improprement les préliminatres de la géométrie 
descriptive, on savait la géométrie descriptive.” 
So says Olivier in the preface to his excellent course 
published in 1843-4, and based upon lectures actually 
delivered in the Ecole Centrale des Arts et Manufactures. 
