OcTOBER 15, 1897.] 
incurring more immediate expense than is 
now requisite, and without any loss of in- 
terest on capital not utilized. For this 
purpose it would not be unreasonable 
to secure about 500 acres. On this land 
galleries of 54 feet wide, built in blocks of 
100 bays, or 1600 feet in length, should be 
placed at about a furlong apart. This 
would allow of each gallery expanding on 
either side for about 250 feet of out-building. 
Each gallery should have in the middle 
of its length a policeman’s cottage ( fire- 
proof ) with its windows looking along the 
inside of the gallery. 
The site should be within a short journey 
from London; fairly dry and sandy if pos- 
sible, and belts of trees should occupy the 
spaces between the galleries and thus re- 
duce the effect of wind and rain. 
No glass cases would be required except 
for a few objects that needed to be kept dry. 
There would be little dust in a wooded 
country, and the absence of any internal 
heating and the filtration of all air passing 
in would diminish the chance of dust. 
Where glass was desirable, large loose 
sheets could be laid over boxes or shelves, 
and specimens could be put out of reach by 
having strips of wood screwed down to se- 
cure the glass. 
In his memorandum on this ‘ Proposed 
Repository for preserving Anthropological 
or other Objects,’ which was printed in the 
Report of the Association for 1896 (p. 935) , 
Professor Petrie enters into further details 
and offers suggestions concerning the con- 
stitution of the trustees and the duties of 
the keeper, as well as the disposition and 
ownership of the specimens. He estimates 
that the total cost per annwm would be $2,450 
for_a building equal to half the British Mu- 
seum exhibiting area, and the securing of 
space for future building up to50 or 100 times 
the present exhibiting area. This amounts 
to 14 per cent. on the present annual grant 
to the British Museum at Bloomsbury. 
SCIENCE. 
567 
This scheme led to a lively discussion and 
various objections were raised against more 
or fewer of the details, the most serious 
being that Professor Petrie had greatly un- 
derestimated the prime cost and the annual 
expenditure. In his reply he faced all the 
objections and admitted that even if the cost 
was greater than he had allowed for, some 
such scheme as his would be vastly cheaper 
than any museum as at present constituted. 
It is first necessary to take a broad view 
of the situation, and to decide whether it 
is desirable to greatly increase our anthro- 
pological and archeological collections. 
Anthropology is so recent a science that its 
full importance is realized only by a few, 
and there is a very real danger that by the 
time the general public is educated to rec- 
ognize its value a very considerable 
amount of material will have disappeared. 
All scientific anthropologists agree in as- 
serting that it is desirable to collect ex- 
amples of all objects made by vanishing 
peoples, and to preserve them for future 
generations. The next question is, whether 
sufficiently extensive collections can be 
stored in existing museums, and whether 
the cost of warehousing them and of pro- 
viding suitable cases is not likely to be 
somewhat excessive—so much so as to 
cause the curators to limit the acquisition 
of specimens. It is much to be feared that 
this is what would actually occur; but 
what is required is that the accommodation 
should be of such a nature that no desirable 
specimen should ever be refused. 
If existing museums are unsuited for in- 
definite expansion new ones must be built. 
Professor Petrie has proposed a scheme 
which may well form the basis of a discus- 
sion until it is replaced by a better. The 
great point to remember is that the prob- 
lem is fast reaching an acute phase and it 
must soon be faced. 
A. C. Happon. 
CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND. 
