May 29, 1896.] 



SCIENCE. 



81B 



some of its adjectives, and supply their position 

 by blanlt spaces ! 



In tlie Anthropologist I asserted that in his so- 

 called ' Ethnology ' Mr. Keane ' pursues the 

 same plan, treating the same subjects in nearly 

 the same order ' as I did in my ' Races and 

 Peoples,' published six years ago. Mr. Keane 

 now professes to have ' but the haziest recol- 

 lection ' of the contents of that book (though 

 in his note in the Anthropologist he acknowl- 

 edges to have read it). Its very title he had 

 quite forgotten ! His ' treacherous memory ' 

 led him to mention it under quite a difterent 

 name from the one it bears ! How, then, ' can 

 he truthfully say ' (to quote his words) that 

 the scheme of his book has not the singular 

 similarity I noted to that of my own ? He is 

 convicted out of his own mouth of denying the 

 charge I made, without pretending to ascertain 

 whether it is true ! I challenge comparison of 

 the books by readers not disabled by a morbid 

 self-esteem from deciding correctly. I chal- 

 lenge the production of any other work on this 

 science, published in any language, since 1889, 

 so obviously akin in plan and treatment to my 

 ' Races and Peoples, ' as is Keane' s ' Ethnology. ' 

 I am quite willing to allow Mr. Keane the plea 

 of 'unconscious memory ;' but the facts speak 

 for themselves. 



Mr. Keane makes the assertion that I 

 brought a ' false charge ' against him in refer- 

 ence to Virchow's opinion about the Neander- 

 thal skull. He quoted Virchow as stating that 

 the skull was ' possibly pathological. ' I quoted 

 Virchow's own words, giving them in the origi- 

 nal German, that he had offered ' the positive 

 proof that it was pathological. The 'false' 

 statement is unquestionably Mr. Keane's ; but 

 then he suffers from such a ' treacherous mem- 

 ory!' 



Mr. Keane seems much disturbed at my state- 

 ment that he had not consulted the best and 

 most recent studies . on American aboriginal 

 ethnography. In reply, he makes no pretence 

 that he did so, but follows the legal precept, 

 ' When you have no defence, abuse the opposite 

 counsel.' I turn to his index and look in vain 

 for the names of Adam, Bandelier, Ehrenreich, 

 Leon, Middendorf, Quevedo, Seler, Steinen and 

 many others, without a knowledge of whose 



excellent labors it is presumptuous in a writer 

 to pretend to any but a second-hand and super- 

 ficial know^ledge of American ethnography. 



It is needless to occupy more space with such 

 a discussion. I reiterate the justice of my 

 criticisms on Mr. Keane's book ; and as a set 

 off to his report of the ' acclamation ' with 

 which, he informs us, it has been accepted 

 in England, I add that I have received let- 

 ters from several prominent anthropologists in 

 the United States telling me that I had dealt 

 with its errors and crudities much too leniently- 

 D. G. Beinton. 



Univeesity of Pennsylvania. 



to prevent the growth of beard. 



In March last, Dr. B. F. Egeling, of Mon- 

 terey, Mexico, sent to the Department of Agri- 

 culture several specimens of the cocoons of a 

 large Bombycid moth, with the statement that 

 these cocoons are worn by the natives around 

 the neck and are believed to prevent the growth 

 of beard on the chin. Dr. Egeling wished to 

 know the name of the species. Specific deter- 

 mination was impossible from the cocoons alone, 

 but on May 18th a fine female specimen of one 

 of the handsomest of the Central American 

 Attacine moths issued and proved to be Attacus 

 jorella, of Westwood, described in the Proceed- 

 ings of the Zoological Society of London, 1853, 

 pp. 150-160, and figured at Plate XXXII., 

 Fig. 1. The locality given by Westwood is 

 Cuantla, Mexico, and the statement is made 

 that the type specimens were reared in August 

 from cocoons spun the previous October. The 

 use to which the cocoons are said to be put by 

 the natives is new to the writer. Perhaps it 

 has been recorded by some collector of facts of 

 this nature. L. O. HOWARD. 



THE CHILD AND CHILDHOOD IN FOLK-THOUGHT. 



To THE Editor of Science : The author of 

 'The Child and Childhood in Folk-thought' 

 has no desire to enter the lists on behalf of his 

 book, being willing to have its fate decided by 

 those to whom it has appealed and for whom it 

 was written. But against the general dogmatic 

 tone of the reviewer (Science, N. S. Vol. III., 

 No. 72) he ventures a mild protest. Hardly 

 does the present state of the science justify the 



