DECEMBER 17, 1897.] 
72, No. 3). He reads it in the direction 
advocated by Rau, beginning at the left 
upper corner, and confirms Rau’s opinion 
that it is a chronological record. The very 
large glyph which in this plan comes first 
he states is a compound of the three glyphs 
used for the highest customary time-periods 
of the Mayas, —- 360, 7,200 and 144,000 
days, and is to be understood as signifying 
‘time-counter,’ or ‘ historical table.’ 
The inscription itself is made up of a 
series of glyphs representing dates ; between 
these is another series representing spaces 
of time, and a third class of unknown 
meaning, perhaps historic facts. If the 
latter, the glyphs would read like the fol- 
lowing : 
“March 4, 1893 ; Cleveland, President ; 4 years ; 
March 4, 1897.”’ 
Or it may be that not historic data, but 
religious notions are intended, such as the 
supposed control of a certain period of time 
by a certain divinity, etc. At any rate, this 
scheme of the inscription, whatever its ap- 
plication, seems to be well established by 
this learned and thoughtful article by the 
most erudite student of the subject living. 
THE ETHNOLOGY OF KISSING. 
Tue kiss was unknown, I think, among 
the aboriginal tribes of America and of Cen- 
tral Africa. From the most ancient times, 
however, it has been familiar to the Asiatic 
and European races. The Latins divided it 
into three forms—the osculum, the basiwm 
and the suavium ; the first being the kiss of 
friendship and respect, the second of cere- 
mony and the third of love. The Semites 
always knew the kiss, and Job speaks of it 
ag part of the sacred rites, as it is to-day 
in the Roman Church. 
The Mongolian kiss, however, is not the 
same as that which prevails with us. In 
it the lips do not touch the surface of the 
person kissed. The nose is brought into 
light contact with the cheek, forehead or 
SCIENCE. 
00 
hand ; the breath is drawn slowly through 
the nostrils, and the act ends with a slight 
smack of the lips. The Chinese consider our 
mode of kissing full of coarse suggestive- 
ness, and our writers regard their method 
with equal disdain. 
Darwin and other naturalists have at- 
tempted to trace back the kiss to the act of 
the lower animals who seize their prey with 
their teeth, etc. An interesting recent 
study of the subject is by M. Paul d’Enjoy, 
in the Bulletin of the Paris Anthropological 
Society, Vol. VIII., No, 2. 
THE ABORIGINES OF INDIA. 
Two articles on the Dravidian stock of 
Hindostan have recently appeared. One is 
by Professor Oppert, in Nos. 4 and 5 of 
Globus (Bd. 72); the other by Dr. Zabo- 
rowskiin the Bulletin of the Anthropological 
Society of Paris (1897, fasc. 2). 
Professor Oppert refers to the Aryan in- 
vasion of India, and the profound differ- 
ences between the two stocks which have 
been maintained by the caste system until 
the present day. He points out in detail 
the sharp contrasts in the morphology of 
the Dravidian and Ayran linguistic stocks, 
describing the former as concrete, the latter 
as abstract in its conceptions. Without 
directly connecting the Dravidian with the 
Ural-Altaic group, he draws attention to 
certain similarities between them. 
Dr. Zaborowski reviews the recent ethno- 
graphical literature of. the subject, and 
argues that the Dravidians of southern 
India descend from the same family as the 
Mois of Cochin China and the Malayan 
tribes of the island world. He supports 
this from somatic traits, coincidences of 
customs and religions, and partially from 
linguistic research. While his article does 
not carry conviction, it is a result of a 
careful study of the question. 
D. G. Brinton. 
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
