TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION H. 699 
invention’ of similar forms should be considered to have established their claim to 
be regarded as such only after exhaustive inquiry has been made into the possi- 
bilities of the resemblances being due to actual relationship. There is the 
alternative method of assuming that, because two like objects are widely 
separated geographically, and because a line of connection is not immediately 
obvious, therefore the resemblance existing between them is fortuitous, or merely 
the natural result of similar forms having been produced to meet similar needs. 
Premature conclusions in matters of this kind, though temptingly easy to form, 
are not in the true scientific spirit, and act as a check upon careful research, which, 
by investigating the case in its various possible aspects, is able either to prove or 
disprove what otherwise would be merely a hasty assumption. The association of 
similar forms into the same series has therefore a double significance. On the 
one hand, the sequence of related forms is brought out, and their geographical 
distribution illustrated, throwing light, not only upon the evolution of types, but 
also upon the interchange of ideas by transference from one people to another, and 
even upon the migration of races, On the other hand, instances in which two or 
more peoples have arrived independently at similar results are brought promi- 
nently forward, not merely as interesting coincidences, but also as evidence 
pointing to the phylogenetic unity of the human species, as exemplified by the 
tendency of human intelligence to evolve independently identical ideas where the 
conditions are themselves identical. Polygenesis in his inventions may probably 
be regarded as testimony in favour of the monogenesis of Man. 
I have endeavoured in this Address to dwell upon some of the main principles 
laid down by Colonel Lane Fox as a result of his special researches in the field of 
Ethnology, and my object has been twofold. First, to bear witness to the very 
great importance of his contribution to the scientific study of the arts of mankind 
and the development of culture in general, and to remind students of Anthropo- 
logy of the debt which we owe to him, not only for the results of his very able 
investigations, but also for the stimulus which he imparted to research in some of 
the branches of this comprehensive science. Secondly, my object has been to 
reply to some criticisms offered in regard to points in the system of classification 
adopted in arranging his ethnographical collection. And, since such criticisms 
as have reached me have appeared to me to be founded mainly upon misinterpreta- 
tation of this system, I have thought that I could meet them best by some sort of 
restatement of the principles involved. 
It would be unreasonable to expect that his work should hold good in all 
details, The early illustrations of his theories were to be regarded as tentative 
rather than dogmatic, and in later life he recognised that many modifications in 
matters of detail were rendered necessary by new facts which had since come to 
light. The crystallization of solid facts out of a matrix which is necessarily 
partially volatile is a process requiring time. These minor errors and the fact of 
our not agreeing with all his details in no way invalidate the general principles 
which he urged, and we need but cast a cursory glance over recent ethnological 
literature to see how widely accepted these general principles are, and how they 
have formed the basis of, and furnished the inspiration for, a vast mass of 
research by ethnologists of all nations, 
It appears more than probable that Cambridge will be much involved in the 
future advancement of anthropological studies in Great Britain, if we may judge 
from the evident signs of a growing interest in the science, not the least of which 
is the recent establishment of a Board of Anthropological Studies, an important 
development upon which we may well congratulate the University. Within my 
own experience there have been many proofs of the existence in Cambridge of a 
keen sympathy with the principles of ethnological inquiry developed by Colonel 
Lane Fox, and I feel that, as regards my choice of a theme for the main topic of 
my address, no apology is needed. For my handling of this theme, on the other 
hand, I fear it must be otherwise. I would gladly have done fuller justice to the 
work of Colonel Lane Fox, but, while I claim to be among the keenest of his 
disciples, I must confess to being but an indifferent apostle. 
I have been obliged, moreover, to pass over many interesting features in the 
