346 



SCIENCE 



[Vol. XXII. No. 568 



of this juice stuck to lie ant, -nliicli tecaixe so affected 

 by it that it rolled do-wn from the leaf. The conclusion 

 drawn from this experiment was that milk juice is, wher- 

 ever it is found, protective against ants, and keeps them 

 away from the plants. 



'It is easily understood that it is unallowable to draw 

 such general conclusions from facts so uncertain and 

 which prove so little. Before such a conclusion could be 

 drawn, we ought to find answers to the following ques- 

 tions : 



"1. Are the ants kept away from the plant by the milk 

 juice ? 



"2. How much damage would the ants make, and how 

 would they eventually make it ? 



"3. Is this damage so extensive that it would be in pro- 

 portion to the energy used in producing the milk juice '? 



"4. Is the milk juice produced for a certain purpose, or 

 is it only an inevitable by-product of metabolism ? 



"5. Does the milk juice of Sonchus serve for other pur- 



"6. Is the milk juice not serving for different purposes 

 in the different plants ? 



"To give an answer to these questions would take years 

 of study; therefore, it is easier to draw conclusions from 

 the observations made in a few minutes, -by means of 

 imagination. The importance of imagination to the inves- 

 tigator is not to be underestimated, but critical considera- 

 tion must separate out the chaff. However, it occurs to 

 me that he who looks round, at present, in the science of 

 plant biology, will find more chaff" than grains." 



This is another reason why biology should not replace 

 physiology. It is pleasing to know that excellent bio- 

 logical theories have been established by Darwin, 

 Biitschli, Scbimper, Schwendener, Haberlandt, Mueller, 

 Moeller, Lundstrom, Warming, Delpino and many others, 

 and the most important facts put on record by such men 

 as Trelease, Eobertson, and many Europeans; but outside 

 of flower-biology a great deal of the work done — especial- 

 ly when the facts have been arranged in order to prove a 

 theory made beforehand — cannot stand close inspection. 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOE, 



^^Correspondents are requested to be as brief as possible. The 

 writer's name is in all cases required as a proof of good faith. 



On request in advance, one hundred copies of the number con 

 taining his communication will be furnished free to any corres 

 pendent. 



The editor will be glad to publish any queries consonant with 

 the character of the ioumal. 



The Imaginary Race of Canstadt or Neanderthal. 



Dr. D. G-. Bkinton, in his " Current Notes on Anthro- 

 pology " — XXII (Science, Feb. 10, 1893), has given a 

 brief summary of what has been said about the skulls of 

 Canstadt and Neanderthal at the twenty-third meeting of 

 the German Anthropological Association at Ulm (August, 

 1892). According to this summary, many facts allied by 

 von Holder, Virchow, Kollman and Fraas, show that the 

 skull of Canstadt, in all probability, belongs to the fourth 

 or fifth century, A.D., and that the Neanderthal skull is 

 hardly more ancient. In short, the human race of the 

 quaternary period, described by de Quatrefages and Hamy, 

 has never existed, — it is an "imaginary race," and "it 

 should be recognized, once for all, that there is no sort of 

 foundation for these scientific dreams." 



Mr. Henry W. Haynes has answered to two points of 

 Dr. Brinton's article [Science, Feb. 21, 1893). This answer 

 was followed by Dr. Brinton's reply {Science, March 10, 

 1893). Finally, Mr. E. W. Claypole {Science, April 7, 

 1893) has sent a short note in answer to Dr. Brinton. 



In their answers, Mr. Henry W. Haynes and Mr. E. W. 

 Claypole have discussed the historical aspect of the 

 question, but the main point has not been handled. This 

 will be my aim. 



According to the explanations given in 1867, 1872 and 

 1892, by Dr. von Holder, Dr. Fraas of Stuttgard, and 

 Virchow, it is stated that the Canstadt skull has no date. 

 Be it so, I do not object. 



According to the statements of the same German an- 

 thropologists. Dr. Fullroth's relation concerning the 

 skulls of Neanderthal discovery is false, and it is by no 

 means demonstrated that this celebrated skull is a fossil 

 one, but, on the contrary, it has probably belonged to a 

 Frank. 



Be it so, if you like ; I can agree with it. 

 But I cannot agree with Dr. von Holder concluding: 

 "Die Easse von Canstadt ist also meiner Ansicht nach ein 

 Phantasiegebilde wenn ich so sigen darf, in vielleicht 

 eben so hohen Maasse wie die schonen Gedanken es sind, 

 die liber den Neanderthaler Fund in die Oeffentlichkeit 

 gedrungen sind " — and I must protest against Dr. Fraas 's 

 like conclusions: "Wir diirfen fiiglich die Cannstatter 

 Easse fiir immer zur Euhe legen, und hoffen dass sie 

 nieht mehr auferstehe, die Geister zu beunruhigen." 



I may forsake to the anthropologists of the Congress at 

 Ulm the skull of Canstadt, and, perhajos, the skull of 

 Neanderthal; but the fossil human race of Europe — which 

 we are speaking about — has not been established owr thoae 

 two documents only. There are, further, the fossil bones 

 or skulls of Staegenaes (Sweden); of La Denise (France); 

 of L'Olmo (Italy); of Eguisheim (Germany); of Clichy 

 (France); of Brlix (Bohemia); of Schipka (Moravia) ; of 

 Tilbury docks (London); of Arcy (France); of Gourdan 

 (France); of Malarmand (France); of Goyet (Belgium); 

 of La Naulette (Belgium); of Spy (Belgium). 



The Congress of Ulm has forgotten all those, and dis- 

 cussed the skulls of Canstadt and Neanderthal only, as if 

 /he fossil race of our ancient European ancestors ivere personi- 

 fied in these two skulls. 



People certainly know that de Quatrefages and Hamy 

 have given to every one of the pre-historic races they 

 established a name recalling the most ancient or the most 

 celebrated locality where were found human remains re- 

 ported to one of those types. The names "race of Can- 

 stadt," "race of Cro-Magnon," "race of Furfooz," have no 

 other meaning for those anthropologists, and must not 

 have any other signification for ourselves 



Logically, therefore, M. Virchow, von Holder and Fraas 

 could only conclude "that de Quatrefages and Hamy had 

 been unlucky by choosing precisely Neanderthal and 

 Canstadt in order to christen that race." They could 

 aflirm nothing more. 



Before being empowered to conclude that there is no 

 fossil human race presenting the tyj)e of the Canstadt's 

 or Neanderthal's skull, they ought to have examined every 

 other discovery and demonstrated that those discoveries 

 were of no more value than the one of Canstadt or Nean- 

 derthal. Then onlj^ they could rightly call that race a 

 "Phantasiegebilde." But they did not. 



I do not wish to examine by myself every one of the dis- 

 coveries I have quoted, and to discuss their value. I 

 will only examine the human remains of Spy — having 

 been an actor by their discovery and author of their descrip- 

 tion. For seven years I have been now busy with the 

 study of these remains. 



One of the discoverers. Professor Max Lohest, will show 

 in a forthcoming issue of Science the geological value of 

 the human remains found at Spy; and I myself will en- 

 deavor, in my following letters, to show the anthropo- 

 logical signification of those remains. 



American readers will then be able to decide if this 

 ancient race, established by de Quatrefages and Hamy, 

 is an "imaginary" one and a "PliE^jitasiegebilde" or not. 



Jdlien Fkaipont. 



Liege, Belgium, Dec r, 1893. 



