142 SECTIONAL ADDRESSES. 
may best be named Human Biology, for the term Physical Anthropology 
is commonly applied in a somewhat narrower sense to cover only part of 
that field. In one part of this field, in Human Paleontology, we have 
witnessed in the last fifty years many important discoveries, of which the 
latest, Dr. Davidson Black’s determination of Sinanthropus pekinensis, it 
certainly one of the most significant. In another part of Human Biology, 
the study of comparative racial anatomy, which is what is usually under- 
stood by the term Physical Anthropology, a great amount of work has 
been done in the way of measurements on the living subject and in the 
study of skeletal material. I cannot help feeling myself that the results 
obtained have not been by any means proportionate to the time and 
energy expended. I believe that one of the reasons has been the pre- 
occupation with attempts to reconstruct the racial history of mankind, 
when we have as yet no precise knowledge of how varieties of the human 
species actually come into existence. I think we ought to look forward 
in the field of Human Biology to a closer co-operation of comparative 
racial anatomy with Human Genetics, and also to a further development 
of comparative racial physiology, in which so far much less work has been 
done than in anatomy. 
The natural and most useful association for Human Biology is with 
the other biological sciences, with general biology, the results of which it 
has to apply to, or verify in, the human species, with comparative 
morphology and physiology, and with paleontology. There is much less 
benefit to this subject in a close association with prehistoric archeology 
or with social anthropology. 
Human Biology (or Physical Anthropology) and Social Anthropology 
meet together in connection with two sets of problems. One of these is 
the effect of social institutions on the physical characters of a population. 
This study seems to me to fall within the sphere of Human Biology rather 
than in that of Social Anthropology, for it requires to be handled by one 
who is by training a biologist. The other problem is the reverse of this, 
namely, the discovery of what differences, if any, in culture are the result 
of racial differences, 7.e. of inherited physical differences of different 
peoples. Now this problem, or this set of problems, can only be approached 
by means of a study of comparative racial psychology, or the comparative 
psychology of peoples. For it is obvious that any inherited physical 
differences between races will act chiefly through psychical differences in 
any effect they may have upon culture. Thus, the recent researches of 
Prof. Shellshear bid fair to enable us to define certain morphological 
differences of the brain as differentiating the Australian aborigines from 
the Chinese, and the latter in turn from Europeans. The determination — 
of what mental differences are correlated with these differences of cerebral 
structure is a task for the psychologist or psycho-physiologist. 
Comparative racial psychology, which is thus closely connected with 
Human Biology, is a subject of great difficulty in which little progress 
has been made as yet. The first task is that of providing a technique for 
determining with as much precision as possible the average psychological 
differences between different populations. Many of these differences are 
very obviously the result of differences of culture, and the ultimate task 
of such a study, of proving that certain observable psychological differences 
