226 
His eloquent tongue is silent and his 
gifted pen is still, but I urge upon all 
who hear me to-night to read his two ad- 
dresses before this Association : one as Vice- 
President of the Anthropological Section in 
1887, published in our 36th volume of Pro- 
ceedings; the other as retiring President in 
1895, published in our 44th volume. In 
these addresses he has, in his usual force- 
able and comprehensive manner, presented 
his views of American anthropological 
research and of the aims of anthropology. 
Dr. Brinton was a man of great mental 
power and erudition. He was an extensive 
reader in many languages and his retentive 
memory enabled him to quote readily from 
the works of others. He was a prolific 
writer, and an able critic of anthropological 
publications the world over. Doing little 
as a field archeologist himself, he kept in- 
formed of what was done by others through 
extensive travels and visits to museums. 
By his death American anthropology has 
suffered a serious loss, and a great scholar 
and earnest worker has been taken from 
our Association. 
In the year 1857 this Association met for 
the first time beyond the borders of the 
United States, thus establishing its claim to 
the name American in the broadest sense. 
Already a member of a year’s standing, it 
was with feelings of youthful pride that I 
recorded my name and entered the meeting 
in the hospitable city of Montreal; and it 
was on this occasion that my mind was 
awakened to new interests which in after 
years led me from the study of animals to 
that of man. 
On Sunday, August 16th, while strolling 
along the side of Mount Royal, I noticed 
the point of a bivalve shell protruding from 
roots of grass. Wondering why such a 
shell should be there and reaching to pick 
it up, I noticed, on detaching the grass 
roots about it, that there were many other 
} 
SCIENCE. 
[N. S. Von. X. No. 243. 
whole and broken valves in close proximity 
—too many, I thought, and too near together 
to have been brought by birds, and too far 
away from water to be the remnants of a 
musk-rat’s dinner. Scratching away the 
grass and poking among the shells, I found 
a few bones of birds and fishes and small 
fragments of Indian pottery. Then it 
dawned upon me that here had been an In- 
dian home in ancient times and that these 
odds and ends were the refuse of the peo- 
ple—my first shell-heap or kitchen-midden, 
as I was to learn later. At the time, this 
was to me simply the evidence of Indian 
occupation of the place in former times, as 
convincing as was the palisaded town of 
old Hochelaga to Cartier when he stood 
upon this same mountain side more than 
three centuries before. 
At that meeting of the Association sev- 
eral papers were read, which, had there 
been a Section of Anthropology, would have 
led to discussions similar to those that have 
occurred during our recent meetings. Forty- 
two years later we are still disputing the 
evidence, furnished by craniology, by social 
institutions and by language, in relation to 
the unity or diversity of the existing Amer- 
ican tribes and their predecessors on this 
. continent. 
Those were the days when the theory of 
the unity of all American peoples, except 
the Eskimo, as set forth by Morton in his 
‘Crania Americana’ (1839) was discussed 
by naturalists. The volumes by Nott and 
Gliddon, ‘Types of Mankind’ (1854) and 
‘Indigenous Races of the Earth’ (1857), 
which contains Meigs’ learned and instruc- 
tive dissertation, ‘The Cranial Characteris- 
tics of the Races of Men,’ were the works 
that stirred equally the minds of naturalists 
and of theologians regarding the unity or 
diversity of man—a question that could not 
then be discussed with the equanimity with 
which it is now approached. The storm 
caused by Darwin’s ‘ Origin of Species’ had 
