882 
as illustrating the range of variability of types 
which cannot be given by any verbal descrip- 
tions. The type inhabiting a certain region 
cannot be defined satisfactorily by a substitution 
of descriptive features selected by even the 
closest observation. It is not possible, as Ehren- 
reich says, to represent a type by a typical indi- 
vidual. The description must include all the 
individuals in order to illustrate the composition 
of the group that is being studied. In order to 
give an adequate description it is necessary to 
illustrate the frequency of different types com- 
posing the group. While the types found in 
two adjoining areas may be almost identical 
their distribution may differ. The attempts to 
treat the same subject by means of composite 
photographs or composite drawings, which form 
a purely theoretical pointseem very promising, 
offer serious practical difficulties which make 
it difficult to use these methods. The varia- 
bility of a type can, therefore, be expressed 
only by means of carefully selected measure- 
ments. Dr. Ehrenreich states with great clear- 
ness that none of the proposed series of measure- 
ments are satisfactory, but we must add that 
a way exists of discovering such measurements. 
This way is shown in Professor Karl Pearson’s 
admirable investigation on correlations which 
was suggested by Galton’s important work on 
heredity. By its means laws of correlation may 
be discovered which express morphological laws. 
It seems to me, therefore, that the author’s 
condemnation of anthropometrical methods for 
determining geographical varieties is too sweep- 
ing. 
The scepticism with which the author regards 
the results of anthropometry lead him also to the 
conclusion that sameness of type is not a suffi- 
cient proof of common descent ; that the latter 
is only proved if supported by historical and 
linguistic evidence. This opinion is open to 
serious objections. It is certainly true that it 
is impossible to determine by anatomical char- 
acteristics alone to what people a single indi- 
vidual belongs. But it is perfectly feasible to 
identify a series of individuals belonging to a 
certain people or district, if the series is suffi- 
ciently large. Dr. Ehrenreich, it would seem, 
has been misled by the fact that all types are 
variable and cannot be represented by a single 
SCIENCE. 
[N. 8S. Von. VI. No. 154: 
typical individual to consider the whole task 
a hopeless one. Even though it is not possible 
to establish for a people a single anatomical 
type to which all individuals conform and which 
is characteristic of that people and no other, 
this does not prove that we cannot trace its 
genesis by means of a study of the various 
types constituting the people and their distribu- 
tion among the people itself and its neighbors. 
The author acknowledges this fact to a certain 
extent when saying: ‘‘ Whoever tries to rely 
in these investigations on physical characters 
alone will certainly be led astray. A consid- 
eration of the geographical point of view and of 
historica] evidence will give much greater cer- 
tainty to his conclusions.’’ Here, as in the 
discussion of the races of man, the author 
strongly emphasizes the geographical point of 
view, and in this he agrees with F. Ratzel. He 
urges the necessity of considering the geo- 
graphical probability of blood-relationship be- 
fore generalizing from anatomical similarities. 
The considerations of this point of view, on 
which the reviewer has also repeatedly insisted, 
will certainly prevent anthropologists from 
forming rash conclusions and propounding ex- 
travagant theories. 
But I do not believe that the introduction of 
linguistic considerations in the somatological 
problem will be found to be of advantage. It 
is true that wherever we find two tribes speak- 
ing affiliated languages there must have ex- 
isted blood-relationship ; but we have abundant 
proof showing that by infusion of foreign blood 
the anatomical types have changed to such an 
extent that the original type has been practi- 
cally swamped by the intruders. Such is the 
case in North America among the Athapaskan 
tribes of the Southwest, among the widely scat- 
tered Shoshonean tribes, and in many other 
eases. The laws according to which anatom- 
ical types are preserved are not the same as 
those according to which languages are pre- 
served, and for this reason we must not expect 
to find the results of classifications based on 
these two considerations to coincide. Dr. Eh- 
renreich seems to think that types are too vari- 
able to give any satisfactory basis for deductions 
of this character. But, notwithstanding the 
fact that certain anatomical features are easily 
