690 REPORT—1904. 
which are included under the general science, and to adopt a classification which 
is ever becoming more complex as the various divisions become unwieldy and 
require subdividing. An extensive terminology has been growing up for the 
purpose of assigning appropriate names to the already fairly numerous divisions of 
the main subject. Anthropology is passing through the developmental stages 
which have been followed by the colder sciences, and is merely following normal 
routine in advancing from the simple to the complex. With the increase of 
knowledge the elements which together constitute a given science necessarily 
develop individually as well as collectively, and the original science loses its primi- 
tive unity by becoming an ever-increasing aggregation of sub-sciences, This 
process of subdivision or branching is inseparable from the life-history of an active 
and progressive science. 
The genesis, growth, and maturity of Section H reflects to some extent the 
development of the study of Anthropology. If we look back nearly sixty years, 
to a meeting of the Association held in Cambridge in 1845, we see that Ethnology 
was not mentioned at all in the programme and list of Sections, though one 
ethnological paper does certainly figure amongst those of the Zoological- 
Botanical group. We may, however, assume that at this meeting a start was 
made, and give to Cambridge due credit for having a distinct claim to the parentage 
of Section H. For, in the following year, 1846, we find in the list of Sections a 
definite sub-Section of Ethnology. Indeed, were we in doubt as to the parentage 
of the infant sub-Section, there is circumstantial evidence clearly indicating this 
ancient University city, in the subtle influence apparently exercised upon the mind 
of the parent by overpowering leanings towards applied mathematics, as mani- 
fested by the interesting and otherwise unaccountable fact that the ‘sub-Section of 
Ethnology’ was in that year humbly parasitic upon Section G, which was then, 
as now, devoted to ‘ Mechanics !’ 
From 1847 to 1850 the Ethnological sub-Section came under Section D 
(Zoology, Botany, and Physiology). In 1851 Ethnology appears in conjunction, 
and, apparently, on nearly equal terms with Geography; and so it remained in 
the year 1862, when the Association again had the privilege of meeting in 
Cambridge, that profound and ingenious student of Man, Mr. Francis Galton, 
being President of the dualSection. The Geographico-Ethnological combination 
lasted until 1868, after which, and until 1880, we find the prospective Section H 
replaced under the charge of Section D—Biology (which included Zoology, Botany, 
Anatomy, and Physiology). 
The steadily growing vitality of the study of Man is very evident through all 
these years, from the list of papers read, and one may gather, from the way in 
which the sub-Section was transferred from Section to Section, that the infant was 
rapidly outgrowing its nurses, and becoming a troublesome handful. Typographi- 
cal signs of adolescence, coupled with a yearning for independence, appear in 1883, 
when, glancing at the list of Sections, we see that, although Anthropology is still a 
‘Department of Biology,’ not only is it the only ‘ department’ specially announced 
under Section D, but the heading is printed in type of the same magnitude as that 
used for the Section itself. The printer proved to be a good prophet; for in the 
following year, 1884, at the meeting in Montreal, the inevitable occurred, and 
Antbropology blossomed out into the adult stage, and received the emancipation 
afforded by the assignment of an entire Section to itself, the ‘Section H,’ which 
has, I venture to think, thoroughly justified its existence ever since. 
It may be doubted whether we have as yet reached the limit of expansion. 
The time is likely to come when Section H will be the parent of one or more 
vigorous sub-Sections, which, again, may repeat the developmental sequence, 
reaching at length maturity and discretion, and being perhaps allowed to set up 
for themselves as semi-independent Sections. The original title of a Section of the 
British Association may disappear entirely as such, after the sub-Sections com- 
prised under it have received their full emancipation. This has happened in the 
case of Biology, which for some thirty years gave its name to Section D, but 
which finally gave way before the growth of its enterprising and very progressive 
offshoots (Zoology, Anthropology, Physiology, and Botany), which one after the 
