.MAECH20, 1896.] 



SCIENCE. 



449 



In matters of nomenclature, Mr. Winge, as 

 usual, disregards the chief laws through the 

 strict application of which stability of names is 

 alone to be reached. He either believes that 

 uniformity in the use of generic and specific 

 names will best be brought about by allowing 

 the individual preference of each writer full 

 play, or else he takes the less optimistic ground 

 that such uniformity is unattainable and there- 

 fore not worth striving for. Be this as it may, 

 a casual examination of the names used in the 

 present paper shows that the author prefers 

 Galictis intermedia Lund 1843 to G. allamandi 

 Bell 1841, Lutra platensis Waterhouse 1839 to 

 L. paranesis Eengger 1830, Thiosmus Lichten- 

 stein 1838 to Conepatus Gray 1837, Ehizsena Illi- 

 ger 1811 to Sivricata Desmarest 1804, Mydaon 

 Gloger 1841 to Mydaus Cuvier 1821. He also 

 uses the untenable names Bassaris, JElurogale 

 and Enhydris, although they have been replaced 

 by Bassariscus, Ailurictis and Latax, respec- 

 tively. It is difficult to understand why Tricli- 

 echus Linnseus 1758 based on the Florida Mana- 

 tee should be preferred to Odohenus Brisson 

 1762 as the generic name for the Walrus. Yet 

 Trichechus and its derivative Trichechini are 

 both adopted by Mr. Winge. 



Like the earlier papers of this series* the 

 present work is divided into three main parts : 

 (1) nominal lists of the species ; (2) detailed ac- 

 counts of the species with critical notes on their 

 relationship ; (3) a review of the mutual inter- 

 relationships of the members of the group at 

 large. To the present paper is appended a 

 table showing semi-graphically the changes that 

 take place in the fifth, fourth, third and second 

 of the original seven cheek teeth throughout 

 the genera of Carnivora (p. 100-103). 



The paper is illustrated by eight plates from 

 photographs of specimens. Although the re- 

 sults obtained by photographic processes are 

 not yet sufficiently uniform to meet all require- 

 ments the figures are in general satisfactory, 

 especially some of those on plates three, five 

 and eight. Geeeit S. Millee, Je. 



* Mr. "Winge has already published in ' E. Museo 

 Lundii ' accounts of the rodents, bats, marsupials and 

 monkeys of Lagoa Santa. His paper on the monkeys 

 was noticed in Science, N. S., II., No. 50, Decem- 

 ber 13, 1895. 



Ethnology. By A. H. Keane, F. R. G. S. 1 

 vol. 8vo. Illustrated. Pp. 442. Cambridge 

 University Press. 1896. Macmillan & Co., 

 New York. 



The above work is one of the ' Cambridge 

 Geographical Series ' published under the gen- 

 eral editorship of Dr. F. H. H. Guillemard. 

 The author takes ' ethnology ' in its ancient 

 and now generally obsolete sense, nearly syn- 

 onymous with ' anthropology, ' as employed in 

 modern science. Following this definition, he 

 divides his volume into two parts, ' fundamen- 

 tal ethnical problems ' and ' primary ethnical 

 groups.' Under the former he discusses such 

 questions as man's place in the animal kingdom, 

 tertiary and quaternary man, the growth of 

 mind and the study of the brain in relation to 

 thought, the antiquity of the human race, the 

 palseolithic and neolithic ages, the theories of 

 polygeny and monogeny, the physical and men- 

 tal differences of races, their languages and 

 social regulations. 



Under the second heading the author's theory 

 of races or groups is presented. It is a modern 

 recast of that of Blumenbach, retaining even 

 his inappropriate term ' Caucasian ' for the 

 white race. The other are the Ethiopian, Mon- 

 golian and American races ; the Malayan race 

 being explained away as partly Ethiopic, partly 

 Caucasic. Of these he undertakes to give the 

 divisions and subdivisions from such authorities 

 as he has consulted. 



The manner in which this task has been ac- 

 complished will give satisfaction to the general 

 reader. Many questions which the student of 

 the science must consider as still pending, Mr. 

 Keane disposes of with a magisterial decision. 

 He rarely presents the opposing evidence in its 

 proper strength, and refers to those with whom 

 he disagrees as 'eccentric,' or 'reckless,' or 

 "extravagant,' or by other disparaging adjec- 

 tives. He does not hesitate to strain a point to 

 defend his opinion (e. g., p. 34, Vir chow's judg- 

 ment of the Neanderthal skull), and, it would 

 seem, cannot certainly have remembered some 

 of the authors whom he quotes, or he would 

 not claim as original with himself (p. xiv.) 

 such theories as the local evolution of American 

 cultures, the peopling of America from both 

 Europe and Asia, the relationship of Basques 



