812 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. III. No. 74. 



Slavs are on two different branches!! Again, 

 " The Kolosch and Selish are depicted as pro- 

 ceeding from the Eskimo! " I write Kolushan 

 Salishcwi, plainly showing, as explained in the 

 text (p. 360) that I mean these to be taken as 

 stocks (notsecondary groups), in accordance with 

 Mr. Powell's ' convenient plan.' But Dr. Brin- 

 ton suppresses the final an and is thus able to 

 hold me up to ridicu^le by the long discredited 

 suppressio-veri-et-suggestio-falsi argument. 



' ' The chapter on the American race is replete 

 with positive assertions, nearly always unsup- 

 ported; for instance, ' the alleged impassiveness 

 of the native character.' " Well, I devote 

 five pages (353-3.57) to that subject, and sup- 

 port my contention by the authority of Pastor 

 Egede, Reclus, Catlin, J. P. Dunn, Jr., Hum- 

 boldt, E. F. Knight, E. im Thurn and Darwin!! 

 So it is Dr. Brinton's charge that is 'unsup- 

 ported.' 



I refer to ' a highly respected American 

 writer, as Mr. Thomas Cyrus (p. 370).' Yes, 

 but Dr. Brinton forgot to tell his readers that 

 this was the merest slip, as clearly shown by 

 the correct references to that excellent author- 

 ity at p. 107, p. 343 and in the index. 



But " it is obvious that the author has not 

 consulted the best and most recent studies in 

 American aboriginal ethnography." How can 

 this be when Dr. Brinton tells another circle of 

 readers (Dr. Briuton spreads himself consider- 

 ably) that my work is ' ' scarcely more than an 

 expansion of the one referred to, pursuing the 

 same plan, treating the same subjects in nearly 

 the same order, and in A'arious ijortions advanc- 

 ing as his own the opinions set forth by that 

 referred to, to wit : ' Eaces and Peojjles, Lec- 

 tures on the Science of Ethnography, by D. G. 

 Brinton, New York, 1890 ' (American Anthro- 

 pologist, March, 1896, p. 100). If, I say, my 

 ethnology is scarcely more than an expansion 

 of a book by Dr. Brinton, how can he now 

 truthfully say that I have ' not consulted the 

 best, etc.,' on the subject? Or has the sage of 

 Philadelphia such a poor opinion of his own 

 compilations as to regard them as ' the worst, 

 etc ? ' I may incidentally add that this dis- 

 graceful charge of wholesale plagiarism is as 

 baseless as all of Dr. Brinton's other charges. 

 His Eaces and Peoples was never once consulted 



by me on any single point, and at the present 

 moment I have but the haziest recollection of 

 its contents, even giving it an incon-ect title in 

 the reference made to it from a treacherous 

 memory in the preface, p. vii. 



Dr. Brinton again refers to my ' theory of the 

 Malayan race,' which should be my theory of 

 the ' Interoceanic Kaces,' of which the Malayan 

 is but one. This theory, he writes, "we may 

 allow is at present, and is likely to be his [my] 

 own peculiar property." This is hitting me 

 below the belt with a vengeance, for Dr. Brin- 

 ton, who knows everything, knows quite well 

 that the theory in question, first brought by me 

 before the British Association in 1879, has since 

 been accepted in its essential features both by 

 Dr. Hamy and de Quatrefages, two of the most 

 distinguished French anthropologists of our 

 times. 



Dr. Brinton, however, is gracious enough to 

 make one concession. He is willing to allow 

 that one particular chapter ' might have been 

 much more uninstructive. ' To be sure, this 

 maybe 'meant sarcastic,' or may even be re- 

 garded by some as a choice specimen of concen- 

 trated malevolence. In any case, it is not much 

 for a book which I am able to inform Dr. Brin- 

 ton has been received with acclamation in Eng- 

 land, which has been spoken well of in the far 

 West {American Journal of Sociology, Chicago, 

 March, 1896), and which has been accepted on 

 the continent as le meilleur traite d ethnologie que 

 nous possedions jus qiCa present {Rev. Bihlio- 

 graphie, Feb., 1896, p. 100). 



With this I may confidently leave ' this fel- 

 low here with envious carping tongue ' (Shake- 

 speare) to the judgment of your American 

 readers. A. H. Keane. 



Aeam Gah, 79 Beoadhuest Gardens, 



London, N. "W., April 22, 1896. 



I CLOSED my notice in the American Anthro- 

 pologist of Mr. Keane' s work with an expres- 

 sion of regret at the discourteous language he 

 uses toward those with whom he disagrees. If 

 other evidence were lacking to prove the justice 

 of my remark, it would be supplied by the 

 above letter. So abusive was that sent by Mr. 

 Keane to the Anthropologist, in reference to my 

 notice, that the editor felt constrained to omit 



