276 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. XVI. No. 406 



Professor Heilprin compares the irregularities of this bad material, 

 denounced by me as bad, and concludes that it is good evidence 

 for doubting the value of that which was considered to be more 

 reliable. Such reasoning obviously affords only a non sequitur. 

 I do not think any one wlio has passed laborious days and nights 

 in the determination of angles by repetition and reversal will agree 

 with Professor Heilprin that the system of " extracting averages" 

 is "delusive ;"' and a reference to my report vpill show that it was 

 a question of comparison of averages with a view to the weighing 

 of methods vvith which, in that instance, I was concerned, which 

 could hardly delude any oEe who chose to read what was printed 

 on the pages before him. Averages may be made delusive, but 

 not when used in this manner. 



In conclusion, although the whole subject is one for experts and 

 professional surveyors rather than others, I may summarize for 

 those who are interested and unprofessional the main features of 

 what was done in 1874 for the purpose of getting at the heiglit of 

 that unattainable peak. 



In the determination of any height by triangulation, tliere are 

 to be considered the character of the instruments, the distance of 

 the peak, the vertical angle measured, and the refraction of the 

 atmosphere, which distorts the line of sight and introduces an 

 €rror, tolerably constant for high angles and short distances in 

 ordinary latitudes, but irregular and sometimes very great in an- 

 gles measured when the line of sight passes near the surface of 

 the earth, especially for long distances and in higli latitudes. 



In the case of Mount St. Elias the distance depended upon a 

 horizontal triangle observed from two astronomically determined 

 stations, giving an astronomical base-line from which the lines, 

 converging on the peak were obtained by an astronomical azi- 

 muth. The value of such an intersection depends somewhat upon 

 the size of the angle, which in this case was large, nearly 60°. 

 The liability to error which very small angles of intersection may 

 introduce was therefore measurably avoided. 



The positions of the ends of the base-line were well determined. 

 The circumstances of the observation made at sea were eminently 

 favorable. The error of this position could hardly have exceeded 

 three miles on the worst assumption; and the error of distance 

 which this would produce in the base of the vertical triangle, 

 upon which the height depended, was trifling. The instruments 

 were first-class of their kind. The vertical angle measured, I 

 venture to say, is beyond dispute. Tlie uncertainty remaining, 

 therefore, was in regard to the refraction, — a factor beyond our 

 power to determine, and equally undetermined in all observations 

 made to date. 



However, the height of Mount Fairweather was tolerably well 

 •determined from positions near its base. We reasoned the error 

 of refraction might be assumed to be the same for both mountains 

 at the same moment, both being visible and not differing very 

 greatly jn their distance from our station. The difference between 

 the height of Fairweather as measured from near its base, and 

 that which we might obtain for it from our Port Mulgrave sta- 

 tion, might be assumed to be due to refraction, and an analogous 

 amount applied to the result for St. Elias as a correction for that 

 unknown error. This was an assumption, of course, but a reason- 

 able one, and was adopted. 



Tbe height of Mount St. Elias may very possibly be less than 

 our results would show ; but that they were likely to be correct 

 within certain limits seemed probable, from the fact that angles 

 measured by Malespina in the last centnry, the record of which is 

 fortunately preserved, when computed with a corrected ba.se-line 

 in accordance with our observations tor the position of the moun- 

 tain, gave results approximating our own, — an apparent confirma- 

 tion which was certainly impressive. 



The outline of our proceedings is given, as above, in entirely 

 untechnical language, but those who are professionally qualified 

 to judge the character of such work are confidently invited to ex- 

 amine the report itself in the Coast Survey volume for 1875. This 

 is somewhat amplified from the extra advance copies which were 

 distributed before the publication of the volume. I make no pre- 

 tence to the character of a geodetic expert, but the comparatively 

 simple computations contained in this report were prepared and 

 reviewed by those who are; and the error, if error there be in the 



results, is due to factors which were entirely independent of the 

 observers or the computers, under the circumstances. 



Smithsonian Institution, VCashiDgtOD, D.C., Nov. 11. Wm. H. DaLL, 



Chalk from the Niobrara Cretaceous of Kansas. 

 Referring to Professor S. W. Williston's interesting communi- 

 cation in Science for Oct. 31, on microscopic organisms from the 

 chalk of the Niobrara cretaceous of Kansas, I should suppose it 

 to be highly probable that the forms met with by him are, as he 

 supposes, coccoliths. Coccoliths are very abundant in, and some- 

 times form a notable proportion of, the calcareous parts of the 

 Niobrara beds in Manitoba and in Nebraska, and are there asso- 

 ciated with foraminifera and with rhabdoliths. to which latter 

 class the slender, rod-like bodies, also noted by Professor Willis- 

 ton, may be referrible. Figures and a description of a number of 

 varieties of coccoliths and rhabdoliths from the cretaceous o( 

 Manitoba may be found in the Canadian Naturalist for April, 

 1874 (p. 256). George M. Dawson. 



Geological Survey of Canada, Nov. 10. 



BOOK-REVIEWS. 

 Races and Peoples. By Daniel G. Brinton. New York, N. D. C. 

 Hodges. 8°. $1.75. 



Dr. Brinton has undertaken the difficult task of presenting the 

 whole vast field of anthropological science in a concise and reada- 

 ble form, and he has admirably succeeded in giving us a book that 

 is attractive, and, in all its parts, suggestive. Therefore not only 

 will it prove useful in making the public acquainted with the facts 

 and some theories of ethnological science, but it will also incite 

 the painstaking student to more thorough investigation of mooled 

 questions, and open new vistas in many fields of research. Dr. 

 Brinton's theories, even such as may not appear acceptable, are 

 always full of ingenuity, and certainly worth the careful atten- 

 tion of anthropologists. The present book, notwithstanding the 

 briefness with which necessarily all problemsare treated, teems with 

 new ideas and excellent critical remarks. In reviewing it, we 

 must confine ourselves to selecting a few of the more important 

 points. On the whole, we might wish that some still very doubt- 

 ful theories to which the author adheres were not presented with 

 quite as much assurance as finally settled. 



The introductory chapter, on " The Physical Elements of Eth- 

 nography," strikes us least favorably. We think that not suffi- 

 cient sti'ess has been laid upon the great variations inside each 

 race, and that too much is made of the peculiarities of the 

 "lower" races, which in some respects might be called rather 

 exaggerated human types than simian in character. The second 

 chapter, " The Psychical Elements of Ethnography," is a succinct 

 presentation of the chief causes governing the development of 

 .society. The author distinguishes associative and dispersive ele- 

 ments: the former including the social instinct, language, reli- 

 gion, and arts; the latter, the migratory and combative instincts. 

 Dr. Brinton is inclined to consider the sexual instincts and the re- 

 sulting parental and filial affections to be the prime cause of asso- 

 ciation, and rejects all theories based on promiscuity. The third 

 chapter will be found full of interest, more particularly where the 

 author sets forth his ideas regarding the development of man, as 

 well as his classification of mankind. Although he knows how 

 to present his views with much force, we cannot consider his 

 description of the earliest stages more than an ingenious hypoth- 

 esis, because we have so far no means of reconstructing the his- 

 tory of the period immediately after man had made his appear- 

 ance. Dr. Brinton believes that mankind during the preglacial 

 period was homogeneous, his industries paleolithic with simple 

 implements, his migrations extensive, his language rudimentary. 

 Such speculations can neither be proved nor disproved. Even the 

 character of the glacial period, as described by Dr. Brinton, is 

 largely hypothetical. He believes the migrations to have been 

 limited at the time, the races to be living in fixed areas. It seems 

 impossible to fix any period for these events which have certainly 

 taken place at some time. The author's general ethnographic 

 classification is based on physical characters. According to these, 

 he distinguishes Eurafrican, Austafrican, Asian, American, and 



