DECEMBER 10, 1897. } 
the limits of each race, excepting a few instances 
which are explained by certain peculiar condi- 
tions. (8) There are fundamental differences 
between the structures of the languages spoken 
by the different races, and no connecting links 
between them exist. Based on these arguments 
he distinguishes six races, leaving the position 
of the Papuas and of the black peoples of Asia 
doubtful. I will not lay great stress upon the 
fact that these principles of classification lose 
their applicability among the last-named peo- 
ple, as in their case peculiar conditions prevail. 
But there are other cases which show that these 
principles do not help us to establish a definite 
number ofraces. The linguistic considerations 
would make it impossible to include the pre- 
Aryan peoples of Europe and western Asia, in 
what Ehrenreich terms the Caucasian or Med- 
iterranean race, although the anatomical char- 
acteristics of these peoples are identical with 
those of the Mediterranean race. On the other 
hand, the American race shows considerable 
anatomical uniformity as compared to other 
races, and, nevertheless, there is no unity of 
structure of language in Ehrenreich’s sense of 
the word. It is no less possible to imagine a 
connecting link between the principles of struc- 
ture of the Algonquin and Eskimo than be- 
tween the Eskimo and Ural-Altaic languages. 
If. we are willing to consider American lan- 
guages as a unit, and include only these princi- 
ples in the general characterization of American 
languages that hold good in all of them, there 
is nothing to prevent us from including Ural- 
Altaic languages in the same group. Ehren- 
reich agrees in these opinions with the views ex- 
pressed by Brinton in his discussion of the 
characteristics of American Languages. (Hs- 
says of an Americanist, p. 350 ff.) 
-Dr. Ehrenreich’s second criticism of modern 
anthropology is directed against the excessive 
weight given to measurements as compared to 
morphological descriptions. He expresses the 
opinion that the classification according to 
cephalic indices which has held sway since the 
days of Retzius has greatly hampered the de- 
velopment of somatology and has made efforts 
at classification futile, since these were based 
on measurements, particularly.on indices, alone, 
while they must be based on morphological 
SCIENCE. 
881 
descriptions. These latter, he holds, cannot be 
replaced by numerical values. While heartily 
agreeing with this view, particularly with the 
objection to the exaggerated value given to the 
length-breadth index of the head, I do not 
think that Dr. Ehrenreich’s condemnation of 
anthropometry is quite justified. He defines 
the object of somatology as the somatic investi- 
gation, description, and if possible explanation 
of racial characteristics. With this, I believe, 
all anthropologists will agree. The only ques- 
tion is what methods are best adapted to these 
ends. A broad view of the history of anthro- 
pology shows that measurements were originally 
introduced in order to give precision to certain 
descriptive features which could not be ex- 
pressed satisfactorily in words. This appears 
to have been the leading view of Daubenton 
and Camper, who were the first to introduce 
measurements in discussions referring to com- 
parative anatomy. The nearer alike the types 
which we compare, the more difficult it is to 
describe in words their nice distinctions. An- 
thropology was the first branch of descriptive 
biology to deal with closely allied varieties, and 
for this reason the need of substituting exact 
numerical values for vague descriptions was 
soonest felt. Since zoology, more particularly 
the study of mammals and of birds, has begun 
to take into consideration the geographical races 
of the same species we observe the same tendency 
of adding measurements to verbal descriptions. 
In so far as Dr. Ehrenreich’s criticism is di- 
rected against the substitution of measurements 
for descriptions that they should supplement, 
it is most timely and ought to be taken to heart 
by investigators. The terms dolichocephalic 
and brachycephalic as indicating two groups of 
head forms determined by measurements have 
by some investigators been raised almost to the 
rank of specific characters, although, as Ehren- 
reich justly emphasizes, and in this he has the 
support of Sergi, Harrison Allen and others, 
the sameness of the index does not by any means 
signify sameness of morphological type. He 
disclaims the significance of these characters 
when not supported by general morphological 
agreement. In all this the author is certainly 
right. But he overlooks entirely the principal 
and fundamental value of numerical measures. 
