916 
of professorships, the United States suffers 
by comparison, being allowed only one out 
of twenty-three by the strict terms of the 
title—that at Columbia held by Dr. Boas. 
The above table is intended to serve more 
as a comparison of figures than of forces. 
To know precisely what is being done for 
the science in the several countries, one 
would have to take account of anthropo- 
logical publications, museums, societies and 
clubs, as well as of sections of general scien- 
tific associations and academies of sciences, 
Such a compilation is beyond the scope of 
the present article. 
So much for the extent * of instruction in 
anthropology as the century closes. The 
importance of the subject as a branch of 
university discipline, its terminology and 
the faculty to which it should belong, have 
all been touched upon by such authorities 
as Daniel G. Brinton; of Philadelphia, 
Friedrich Muller { of Vienna, Rudolph Mar- 
tin§ of Zurich, and Geo. A. Dorsey || of 
Chicago. 
Professor Brinton made a “‘ brief presenta- 
tion of the claims of anthropology for a 
recognized place in institutions of the 
higher education in the United States ” and 
asked for ‘‘ the creation in the United States 
* Corrections of and additions to the record are 
respectfully solicited. The writer is especially in- 
debted to Monsieur le Ministre de 1’ Instruction pub- 
lique et des Beaux-Arts, France; and Professors 
Wilhelm Waldeyer, Rector of the University of 
Berlin ; Alexander Macalister, Cambridge, England ; 
E. Houzé, Brussels ; Moriz Hoernes, Vienna; W J 
McGee, Washington, D. C.; W. Z. Ripley, Boston ; 
the Hon. W. T. Harris, U.S. Commissioner of Ed- 
ucation; and his Excellency the Royal Prussian 
Kultusminister. 
+ Anthropology as a Science and as a Branch of 
University Education, Phila., 1892. 
{Die Vertretung der anthropologisch-ethnolog- 
ischen Wissenschaften an unsern Universitaten, 
Globus, Bd. 66, S. 245, 1894. 
@ Zur Frage von der Vertretung der'Anthropologie 
an unsern Universitiiten Globus, Bd. 66, S. 304, 1894. 
|| The Study of Anthropology in American Colleges. 
Archeologist, Dec., 1894, Waterloo, Indiana. 
SCIENCE. 
[N. S. Von. X. No. 260. 
of the opportunity of studying this highest 
of the sciences in a manner befitting its 
importance.” His classification and no- 
menclature, and his general scheme for in- 
struction in this science acted as a stimulus 
to discussion on two continents. 
Brinton’s principal subdivisions are : 
I. Somatology—Physical and Experi- 
mental Anthropology. 
II. Ethnology—Historic and Analytic 
Anthropology. 
Ill. Ethnography—Geographic and De- 
scriptive Anthropology. 
IV. Archzology—Prehistoric and Re- 
constructive Anthropology. 
Professor Muller does not see the need of 
separating the Geographical Ethnos from the 
Historic Ethnos, and, therefore, makes three 
divisions with a professorship for each : 
I. Physical Anthropology. 
IJ. Ethnography and Ethnology. ; 
III. Prehistoric Anthropology. The first 
he would place with the medical faculty; 
the other two, with the so-called philosoph- 
ical faculty of the German universities. 
When the three professors cannot be had— 
an anatomist for somatology, an ethnologist 
and linguist for ethnology and ethnography, 
and a geologist and archeologist for the 
prehistoric—then Miller would suggest a 
double division: (1) Physical and Prehis- 
toric Anthropology and (2) Ethnology and 
Linguistics. This, however, would divide 
the professorship of Physical and Prehis- 
toric anthropology between two faculties, 
giving half to the medical faculty and half 
to the philosophical. 
Professor Martin, on the other hand, 
argues that ‘‘die ganze Anthropologie in 
der naturwissenschaftlichen Abteilung der 
philosophischen Fakultat ihren nattirlichen 
Platz hat.” This seems to be the more 
logical arrangement and the one adopted 
practically by every university professing 
to give instruction in the subject as shown 
in the table above. 
