SEPTEMBER 1, 1899. ] 
torily until we have acquired a much better 
knowledge than we now possess of the vari- 
abilities of the various types and of the de- 
grees of correlation between the various features 
that characterize each type. This information 
is not yet available. No method has yet been 
devised for measuring the variability of pig- 
mentation. The military selection, which viti- 
ates so many anthropometric results, unfortu- 
nately often obscures the actual variability en- 
tirely. Thus all curves of stature in Livi’s 
great work on Italy are asymmetrical on ac- 
count of the elimination of all individuals be- 
low 155 cm. and the decreasing frequency of re- 
jection correlated with increasing stature. This 
selection increases all the averages, and lessens 
the variabilities the more, the shorter the aver- 
age of the type. Neither is it quite safe to take 
the irregularities of curves of distribution as 
evidence of mixture, unless they are subjected 
to a very careful analysis. 
The author considers as the most valuable 
anthropometrie characteristic the form of the 
head as expressed by the cephalic index, and 
depreciates the value of facial proportions and 
of absolute measurements. We cannot quite 
agree with this view. The cephalic index is 
often a most valuable means of distinguishing 
the types composing a race, but not by any 
any means the only one. Our selection of 
characteristic measurements must always be 
guided by existing differences, whatever these 
may be. Two types may have the same ce- 
phalic index and still differ in the general form 
of the skull and of the face to such a degree as 
to require separate treatment. Neither must 
we disregard the absolute values of the diam- 
ters of the head. The great length of the negro 
cranium as compared to its small capacity has 
a meaning quite different from the same length 
of the European cranium of large capacity. 
For this reason we cannot accept the daring 
map of the distribution of the cephalic index 
the world over (p. 42) as signifying any racial 
relationships. Cephalic index alone cannot be 
considered a primary principle of classification. 
Neither are cephalic index and pigmentation 
alone a sufficiently broad basis for the charac- 
terization of racial types. The consideration of 
these two features leads the author to designate 
SCIENCE 
295 
the European Race as intermediate between the 
African and Asiatic Races, without considering 
the great objections to this theory which are 
found in the form of the face, the size and form 
of the brain, the proportions of the extremities. 
Neither do we feel it safe to explain the fine, 
wavy hair of the European as due to a mixture 
between the frizzly African and the straight 
Asiatic hair. 
We most heartily concur with the author’s em- 
phatic demand for treating physical, ethno- 
graphical, and linguistic methods separately. 
The misconception of what constitutes a racial 
type, a cultural group, and a linguistic stock has 
caused a vast amount of futile speculation. The 
three methods may be used, each in its particu- 
lar domain, for reconstructing part of the history 
of mankind, and each may be used, to a limited 
extent, asa check on the two others. When two 
tribes of people speak closely related languages 
the inference may be drawn that they are in 
part related in blood, although the strain of 
common blood may be so slight as to escape an- 
thropometrical methods entirely. Cultural 
similarity is no proof of blood relationship, 
since culture may be easily disseminated among 
tribes of different descent. 
We cannot undertake, in this brief review, to 
discuss in detail the data and theories regarding 
the history and distribution of types in various 
parts of Europe. The book contains no tabular 
statements that would enable. the reader to 
check any of them. It is the intention of the 
author that the student should verify his state- 
ments by the help of the very full bibliography 
which accompanies the yolume. The ‘Supple- 
mentary Bibliography of the Anthropology and 
Ethnology of Europe’ is very complete in 
everything pertaining to anthropometry and 
to the study of pigmentation. The fact that 
Professor Ripley had to deal entirely with Eu- 
ropean literature is the cause that he uses the 
two terms Anthropology and Ethnology as 
meaning Somatology and Racial Classification, 
while their American use is quite different, An- 
thropology denoting the science of man in gen- 
eral, and Ethnology dealing with the activities 
of man. The supplementary titles bearing upon 
linguistics and archeology are not intended to 
be exhaustive, but merely refer to the subjects 
