Oct. 1, 1885] 
NATURE 
ai)3) 
invocations it is designated by the same name, Mifés. Yet it is 
often said to be the ‘old woman,’ the consort of the sun. 
The whole of this is confused enough in the minds of 
the Indians to render them unable to give, when ques- 
tioned, exact explanations. As to the secondary crea- 
tion, the Indian account runs: At a certain time all the 
earth was covered with water. The ‘Old Man’ (Wafiw) 
was in a canoe, and he thought of causing the eaith to 
come up from the abyss. He used the aid of four animals. 
The musk-rat dived, and remained so long under water that 
when he came to the surface he was fainting, but brought a little 
particle of earth between the toes of his paw. This particle 
the ‘ Old Man’ blew into the size of the whole earth. It took 
him four days to complete his work. The ‘Old Man’ worked 
two days more to make the first woman, for after the first day’s 
work he had not succeeded in making anything graceful.” This 
Napiw, or ‘‘ Old Man,” adds Father Lacombe, ‘“‘ appears again 
in many other traditions and legendary accounts, in which he is 
associated with the various kinds of animals, speaking to them, 
making use of them, and especially cheating them, and playing 
every kind of trick. According to the account of the Indians, 
the ‘‘Old Man” came from the south-west, across the moun- 
tains ; and after a prolonged sojourn in these countries he went 
toward the north-east, where he disappeared, and nobody has 
heard of him since. Those who have read Schoolcraft’s 
“* Algic Researches,” Mr. Leland’s ‘‘ Algonquin Legends,” and, 
above all, Dr. Brinton’s ‘‘ Myths of the New World,” will re- 
cognise in Napiw the most genuine and characteristic of all the 
Algonkin divinities. In every tribe of this widespread family, 
from Nova Scotia to Virginia, and from the Delaware to the 
Rocky Mountains, he reappears under various names—Mana- 
bosho, Michabo, Wetuks, Glooskap, Wisaketjack, Napiw—but 
everywhere with the same traits and the same history. While 
these beliefs are all purely Algonkin, the chief religious cere- 
mony of the Blackfoot tribes is certainly of foreign origin. This 
is the famous ‘‘ sun-dance.” That this ceremony is not properly 
Algonkin is clearly shown by the fact that among the tribes of that 
stock, with the sole exception of the Blackfoot and a few of the 
western Crees, it is unknown. Neither the Ojibways of the 
lakes nor any of the numerous tribes east of the Mississippi had 
in their worship a trace of this extraordinary rite. The form of 
government among the Blackfeet, as among the Algonkin tribes 
generally, is exceedingly simple, offering a striking contrast to 
the elaborately complicated systems common among the nations 
of the Iroquois stock. Each tribe has a head-chief, and each 
band of which the tribe is composed has its subordinate chief ; 
but the authority of these chiefs is little more than nominal. 
The office is not hereditary, the bravest or richest are commonly 
chosen ; but in what manner the election is made is not stated. 
The term ‘‘ confederacy ” commonly applied to the union of the 
Blackfoot tribes is somewhat misleading. There is no regular 
league or constitution binding them together. ‘‘ The tribes are 
separate,” writes Mr. McLean, ‘‘and the bonds of union are the 
unity of religious belief, social customs, and language. They 
united against a common enemy, but I have never heard of their 
fighting against each other.” Father Lacombe’s account is 
similar. ‘‘ The Blackfeet,” he writes, ‘‘ have no league or con- 
federation, properly so-called, with councils and periodical re- 
unions. They consider themselves as forming one family, whose 
three branches or bands are descended from three brothers. 
This bond of kinship is sufficient to preserve a good understand- 
ing among them.” They can hardly be said to have a general 
name for the whole community, though they sometimes speak of 
themselves as Sawketakix, or ‘‘men of the plains,” and occa- 
sionally as iVetsefoyé, or ‘* people who speak one language.” 
SECTION A.—MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS 
Discussion on the Kinetic Theory of Gases.—A most valu- 
able and interesting discussion took place in this section 
on the kinetic theory. As at present applied the theory 
gives a much larger ratio for the specific heats of a gas than 
experiment allows. And the more complex a gaseous molecule 
becomes, the greater, according to theory, must be the ratio of 
its intrinsic to its translational energy. The object of the dis- 
cussion was t» determine whether the theoretical conclusions 
were legitimate, or the experimental facts incorrectly observed. 
It would seem that the theoretical conclusions are not correct, 
because they are founded upon inadmissible assumptions ; and 
also that the facts require more thorough investigation. 
Prof. Crum Brown opened the discussion upon lines already 
indicated in our present volume, p. 352. The ratio of the 
specific heat of mercury vapour at constant pressure to that at 
constant volume is 5/3. This gives, on the dynamical theory, 
only three degrees of freedom to the molecules: which must be 
the three translational freedoms. To prevent rotation, the 
molecules may be regarded as perfectly smooth, rigid, and 
spherical, But then the radiation cannot be “accounted for. 
Similarly in diatomic gas the ratio is 7/5—ziving three transla- 
tional and two rotational freedoms ; but again, not accounting 
for vibration of the atoms, either on the one hand, as parts of 
the molecules, or, on the other hand, in themselves. 
Boltzmann’s theorem asserts that the energy of a molecule is 
equally distributed amongst the different degrees of freedom. 
So if, in addition to the six degrees of freedom of a rigid body in 
space, the molecules have twenty or thirty others, it would seem 
that the dynamical theory must be abandoned, as there would 
not be sufficient energy for translational motion. The suggestion 
that radiation is caused not by vibration of the particles, but by 
disturbance of the ether due to the motion of the molecule 
through it, is scarcely admissible. 
Difficulties again arise from the theoretical conclusion that 
energy of each kind is distributed among the molecules according 
to some form of the law of probability. For them, in a mixture 
of gases, we should always have some molecules in a condition 
favourable for combination. Also there should be no such sharp 
temperature and pressure limits for combination as exist—e.g. in 
the case of phosphorus and oxygen. Hydrogen and oxygen 
can be kept very long at a temperature near that of combination, 
without any chemical action occurring. 
Prof. G. D. Liveing, in a paper on kinetic theory, said that 
the first doctrine leading to difficulties arises from assumptions, 
and is not a necessary part of the theory. The final distribution 
is the result not only of circumstances which vary, but of laws 
of force which are determinate. So there will be a tendency 
finally to limitation of the distribution of the energy in the dif- 
ferent degrees of freedom. The dissipation of energy is the 
result of such laws limiting the reversibility of transmutations. 
Boltzmann’s result will vot follow if we consider other laws in 
addition to the conservation of energy. Indeed, the probability 
for it would be #7. Boltzmann also does not distinguish dif- 
ferent kinds of motion—such as those of liquefaction, vaporisa- 
tion, and dissociation. Those of translation and vibration even 
are often classed together. Yet the former three take place 
only after a certain accumulation of energy in the system ; and 
the same may be true of the different vibrational degrees of 
freedom. 
The constancy of the specific heats of some gases for large 
ranges of temperature indicates a constant Jrofortional distribu- 
tion of energy among the different degrees of freedom. But 
the proportion need not be that of equality. It is quite possible 
that mercury vapour at those temperatures at which its specific 
heat has been measured has no sensible vibrational energy. 
Experiments upon the emissivity of the more perfect gases show 
that they have, at ordinary temperatures, much less vibrational 
than translational energy; so that they may have only one, or, 
at most, two modes of vibration. The theoretical relation be- 
tween the number of degrees of freedom in gases and their 
specific heats possibly requires revision. Still, it only limits the 
number of degrees sensibly exercised at the temperatures at 
which the specific heats were measured. 
As regards the distribution of energy amongst the molecules, 
it is almost impossible to evade the conclusion that great differ- 
ences of motion will exist, even although no particular law of 
distribution be assumed. Still, it is quite possible that there 
may be laws regulating the actions in encounters which prevent 
the excessive accumulation of any one kind of motion. Again, 
some molecules at 100° may have the average translational 
motion of molecules at 600°, but not that of vibration. So that 
very few molecules may have, at the same time, excess of motion 
of both kinds. Further, since this excess of energy is acquired 
at the expense of neighbouring molecules, the probability of there 
being at the same place two atoms of hydrogen and one of 
oxygen, in a mixture of these gases, in the average condition of 
those at the higher temperature, is infinitesimal. And yet again 
degrees of freedom exercised at the higher temperature alone may 
never be exercised by any molecule at the lower temperature ~ 
on the average. 
Differences of pressure in the two masses of the same gas at 
the same temperature are on the dynamical theory only diff rences 
