216 REPORT— 1874. 
deeply on any subject, or trying to understand any puzzle, does he frown or 
wrinkle the skin beneath the lower eyelids? 5, When in low spirits, are the 
corners of the mouth depressed, and the inner corner of the eyebrows raised 
‘by that muscle which the French call the ‘Grief muscle’?” The questions 
on this head are sixteen in number. 
After a section on “ Pathology” we come to “ Abnormalities,’ which are 
natural deformities, and are distinct from Deformations or artificial deformities, 
which have a distinct section allotted to them under the division of “ Culture.” 
Under the section devoted to the ‘“‘ Senses” are given various tests to serve 
as means of comparison, including two pages of the test-dots used for testing 
the eyesight of recruits in the British army. By this means a comparison of 
the eyesight of natives with that of Europeans can be made. The instructions 
for judging distances in use by the army are also given for the same object. 
Under the head of “‘ Crosses” are given tables for indicating the racial posi- 
tion of mongrels and mestizos, and for estimating the number of return 
crosses which restore apparent purity of blood. 
Under “ Psychology” special attention is drawn by a series of questions to 
the desirability of distinguishing between the effect of European customs 
when introduced amongst savages and exposed to contact with native sur- 
roundings; and, on the other hand, to the effect of culture upon natives 
of the same race who have been removed at an early age from native 
surroundings and brought up in European schools. 
All the foregoing sections are included under the head of “ Constitution 
of Man,”’ and, as already said, are ethnological in their bearings; but with 
the adoption of the term anthropology our science has widened its sphere. 
It is true that in the old days ethnology did practically include a broader 
range of subjects than are comprehended under the strict derivation of the 
term “ethnos.” Itis equally true that anthropology has and does at the pre- 
sent time confine itself far too exclusively to questions of race. But as the 
widening of our science has been coincident with the change of name it may 
be well to consider for a moment the causes that may be expected to assign 
to race-questions a less important place in our deliberations than formerly. 
According to the old dogma, all human life was destroyed by the uni- 
versal deluge with the exception of one family; and as the whole of the 
existing races of mankind must have descended from one or other of the 
three sons of Noah, the ethnological or racial question was of paramount 
and immediate importance, and was limited to the determination of the 
period, and the causes by which such races as the Fuegians, the Tasmanians, 
Australians, or Esquimaux were constrained to change their colour and other 
physical peculiarities, and descend to the comparatively low condition in 
which they are now found. 
Since, however, science has demonstrated the error of this theory, and 
has shown that long prior to the supposed era of the deluge the whole 
world was peopled by races of beings some of which were, in all probability, 
human only in form, and since the researches of Mr. Darwin and others 
have shown the great probability of the descent of the human species from 
the lower forms of life, the racial question, though still of primary importance, 
zoologically considered, has been transferred to the domain of paleontology, 
to be determined perhaps by geologists in the far distant future. And as a 
line must be drawn somewhere, man’s origin, in the proper acceptation of 
the term—man as a progressive being—has become indissolubly connected 
with the origin and development of culture. It is to this science of culture 
or sociology that Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Tylor, Mr. Herbert Spencer, and 
others have of late years turned their attention, 
