January 27, 1899.] 



SCIENCE. 



145 



B. Scott, M. E. Wadsworth, W. S. Davis, 

 J. A. Holmes. 



The following nominees were elected Fel- 

 lows : A. E. Crook, Evanston, 111. ; N. F. 

 Drake, Tientsin, China ; A. H. Elftman, 

 Grand Marais, Minn. ; M. L. Fuller, Bos- 

 ton, Mass. ; A. W. Grabau, Cambridge, 

 Mass. ; J. H. Pratt, Chapel Hill, N. C. ; 

 F. C. Smith, Deadwood, S. D. ; F. B. Van 

 Horn, Cleveland, Ohio ; T. G. White, New 

 York; S. W. Williston, Lawrence, Kansas. 

 J. F. Kemp. 



Columbia University. 



WINTER MEETING OF THE ANTHROPOLOG- 

 ICAL SECTION OF THE A3IERICAN 

 ASSOCIATION. 



The third winter meeting of the Anthro- 

 pological Section of the American Associa- 

 tion for the Advancement of Science was 

 held in ISTew York on December 27th and 

 2Sth. The sessions, which were three in 

 number, and were immediately followed by 

 the meeting of the American Folk-lore So- 

 ciety, took place in the buildings of Colum- 

 bia University. The attendance was ma- 

 terially greater than at Ithaca last winter, 

 and in general the meeting was successful 

 and enjoyable. The chairman. Professor 

 Cattell, presided, and Dr. M. H. Saville was 

 Secretary. 



Eleven papers were presented, two read 

 in abstract, and several read by title. A 

 commendable feature of the program was 

 its grouping of related papers. Thus the 

 first session was devoted to physical anthro- 

 pology, the second to archaeology and the 

 third was generally ethnological. It was 

 found impracticable to follow this scheme 

 rigidly, but it was observed sufficiently to 

 give the discussions more distinct tenden- 

 cies and greater coherence. 



The first paper read — one of more than 

 ordinary value and interest on account of its 

 dealing with aims and methods rather than 

 material — was by Dr. Franz Boas, and was 



entitled 'Some Recent Criticisms of Physical 

 Anthropology.' The first objection consid- 

 ered was the assertion that any classifica- 

 tion of mankind by physical anthropology 

 must be valueless because it has been found 

 impossible to identify positively an indi- 

 vidual, at least from his skeleton, as belong- 

 ing to a group. The answer to this criti- 

 cism was found in the fact that the physical 

 anthropologist studies not individuals, but 

 geographical or social groups. He does not 

 concern himself with assigning individuals 

 to groups, but with marking the differences 

 and relationships of groups as such. That 

 is to say, physical anthropology deals with 

 types, not persons, and the types can be 

 clearly distinguished and classified. Of 

 course, the significance of the type or group 

 depends largely on its stability, and whether 

 there is such stability depends upon the 

 question whether heredity or environment 

 influences anatomical changes to a greater 

 degree, and this question can be finally 

 solved only by an exhaustive statistical 

 study of several generations. Meanwhile, 

 however, heredity would seem to be the 

 more potent, as various evidence instanced 

 appears to show. Hence it is concluded 

 that the types studied by the physical an- 

 thropologist are permanent and not fortu- 

 itovis or meaningless, and, therefore, allow 

 of classification. The rest of the paper was 

 devoted to a consideration of objections to 

 the metrical method. The values of this 

 method, especially in giving information 

 obtainable in no other way, were insisted 

 upon. But the necessity of all measure- 

 ments made having some biological signifi- 

 cance was strenuously urged. Especially 

 useless, even harmful, were sweeping classi- 

 fications by merely one arbitrarily-chosen 

 measurement, such as those based upon the 

 cephalic index alone. 



Dr. Ales Hrdlicka followed with a paper 

 upon the ' Negro Problem.' Dr. Hrdlicka 

 analyzed and refuted the common belief 



