January a-i, 19 jqJ 



NA TURE 



Z^7 



must be mentioned that in a paper just to hand, H. W. 

 Schmidt {Phys. Zeit., 1909, p. 6) gives the new value 4100 

 for these rays, making the usual assumption, apparently, 

 that they were homogeneous. I obtained the value as 

 high as 6500 for a small proportion of the rays, but no 

 definite extreme upper limit can be assigned, and it is 

 probable that some exist with a value even higher. Some 

 of the 3 rays of radium possess, so far as I have yet 

 been able to see, values for Hp above 9000, and probably 

 the extreme upper limit is not reached at 11,000. The 

 extreme value found in Kaufmann's celebrated experiments 

 was 4500, but it must be remembered that he worked with 

 the less sensitive — alihough more precise — photographic 

 method. For Hp to have values so high as those recorded 

 the velocity of the rays must be but a small fraction of 

 I per cent, below that of light, and their mass must be at 

 least four times in the case of uranium and six times in 

 the case of radium the normal value found at lower speeds. 

 I have had in mind the possibility that the effect might be 

 due to a secondary radiation, and particularly in view of 

 Bragg's theory of the nature of the y rays, to a secondary 

 radiation from the air ; but I have not been able to prove 

 that the rays are other than primary $ rays. The direction 

 of their deviation was specifically tested. 



Frederick Soddy. 

 Physical Chemistry Laboratory, University of Glasgow. 



P.S., January 26. — I have omitted to mention that 

 Paschcn (.4nn. Phys., 1904, xiv., 389) obtained evidence of 

 the existence of /3 rays from radium with a value for Hp 

 so high as 8000. F. S. 



The Origin of the Aborigines of Tasmania. 



In kindly reviewing my little book on the Discovery 

 and Settlem^t of Port Mackay, Queensland, in Nature 

 of September 24, 1908, the reviewer, "J. W. G.," states 

 that Mr. Ling Roth " objects to calling the blackfellows 

 aborigines, as he holds that Australia was first occupied 

 by a negroid people who have been supplanted by the 

 present race. This view, well known from its adoption by 

 [the late] Sir William Flower, appears to be now generally 

 discredited, owing to the lack of evidence in its support." 



Since the above was written I have received from Sir 

 William Turner his recently published memoir on the 

 " Craniology, Racial .Affinities, and Descent of the Abori- 

 gines of Tasmania " (Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin.). In this 

 monograph Sir William Turner comes to the same con- 

 clusion as I have regarding the origin of the Tasmanians, 

 arriving there by a totally different and probably more 

 scientific method than that which I have been able to 

 follow. He says (p. 394) : — " Though, as has already been 

 stated, a woolly-haired race is not now represented in 

 .Australia, the tendency of the South Australians to show 

 Tasmanian characters in the cranial vault is worthy of 

 consideration, in this particular, as an indication of the 

 probable route of migration and of racial affinity. . . . 

 The evidence seems to be in favour of the descent of the 

 Tasmanians from a primitive Negrito stock, which 

 migrated across Australia, rather than by the route of the 

 Melanesian Oceanic islands lying to the north and east 

 of the Australian continent." Linguistic evidence appears 

 also to favour the view. In the December (1908) number 

 of Man (p. 185) Father Schmidt (" Classification of 

 Australian Languages ") tells us that " the languages of 

 S.E. Australia agree with Tasmanian in one of the most 

 important points — the position of the aflfixless genitive." 



I therefore venture to think that the more the question 

 is studied the more does it seem probable that the real 

 aborigines of Australia were the forefathers of the un- 

 happy people we have known as Tasmanians. 



H. I^ING ROTII. 



Halifax. Yorks, December 28, 1908. 



Mr. Ling Roth's letter involves two questions. The 

 term " native " in Australia means white people born in 

 Australia ; the blackfellows are known as aborigines. It 

 seems to me, therefore, only inviting misunderstanding 



NO. 2048, VOL. 79] 



and mistakes to reject the accepted Australian use of the 

 word aborigines in a book dealing with Australia. 



The second question is the possible descent of the e.xtinct 

 Tasmanians from the race that occupied Australia before 

 the European colonisation. The very important memoir 

 by Sir William Turner on the craniology of the Tasmanians 

 (Trans. Roy. Soc. Edin., vol. xlvi., pp. 365-403, three 

 plates) was not published at the date of the review ; but 

 though he admits the probable passage of the Tasmanians 

 across Australia, he adds to the difficulty of connecting 

 the Tasmanians with the present Australian aborigines. 



On pp. 387-8 of his memoir ho gives a long list of 

 important characters in which the -Australian skulls differ 

 from those of the Tasmanians, and he concludes this cata- 

 logue of differences as follows : — ** From the consideration 

 of these characters the skulls support the opinion, based 

 on the study by so many observers of the external features, 

 that the existing aborigines of Australia are distinct from 

 the Tasmanians, although the presence, in a proportion of 

 the natives of South and West Australia, of skulls in 

 which the height was less than the breadth, the not un- 

 trequent sunk sagittal suture, the more marked parietal 

 eminences, and the antero-postcrior parietal depressions, 

 point to a possible amount of intermixture and racial 

 affinity of these Australian tribes with the Tasmanians." 

 (The italics are mine.) 



That " a proportion " of the aborigines of South 

 Australia should have skulls approximating to those of 

 the Tasmanians is easily explained. Tasmanians were 

 taken to South Australia by the sealers, and gave rise to 

 half-castes. The occasional Victorian aborigines with 

 woolly hair and other Tasmanian features had probably 

 the same origin. 



Sir William Turner's memoir may be taken as the final 

 dismissal of Sir William Flower's view that the Tasmanians 

 were Melanesian, and the weight of authority, including 

 Huxley and Mr. Ling Roth, that they were Negrito is now 

 overwhelming ; but this adds to the difficulty of alliance 

 between the Tasmanians and the Australians. Sir William 

 Turner says (p. 389), " the term Negrito should be limited 

 to . . . black-skinned, woolly-haired people with small 

 brachycephalic heads, jaws not very projecting, nose not 

 so flattened, nostrils not so wide as in the Negro, and of 

 dwarf-like stature." These characters are not those of 

 the Australian aborigines, with their long, straight hair, 

 hyperdolichocephalic heads, projecting jaws, extraordinarily 

 wide nostrils, and tall stature. 



The absence of evidence of the Tasmanian race in the 

 well-searched drifts and gravels of Australia renders their 

 passage across Australia improbable. I am, of course, 

 glad to find that Sir William Turner adds his authority 

 to the view of the Negrito affinity of the Tasmanians, but 

 it does not follow that they crossed the mainland of 

 Australia, a view that has been abandoned by some of 

 those who formerly adopted it. 



It would be strange if the Australian and Tasmanian 

 languages had not some points of affinity, but the differ- 

 ences have been usually regarded as fundamental. Mr. 

 Ling Roth has recognised Andamanese affinities in the 

 language of the Tasmanians, which is, of course, con- 

 sistent with Sir William Turner's conclusions, but it does 

 not help to ally the Tasmanians and Australians. 



J. W. G. 



Warm Months in Relation to Sun-spot Numbers. 



The following method, applied to Greenwich data, seems 

 to yield support to the view that sun-spots mean, on the 

 whole, warmth in this region. 



Taking your sun-spot numbers (from 1841), pick out the 

 22 highest (group A) and the 22 lowest (group B) — 22 is 

 about a third of the series. Next, confining attention to 

 the year after each year of group A, note how many 

 warm Januarys, Februarys, and so on, there were in the 

 22 years. This gives the series (a) below. Do the same 

 in the case of group B, getting the series (b). Smooth 

 each of these series with sums of 3, getting (a') and (b'). 

 On comparing (a') with (h') the former is found to be 

 throughout in excess of the latter, as shown. 



