412 



Thomas Thomsen. 



If we now proceed to compare Lists I and III, we find, in the figures 

 alone, a series of other discrepancies calling for correction. 



Inv. No. 



List I 



List III 





45 



Fig. 21 



Figs. 22 



List I is here correct. 



53 

 65—56 



Fig. 26 

 Fig. 29 a and b 



Figs. 26 and 28 

 Figs. 29 and 33 



; List III is here correct. 



86 



Fig. 55 



Figs. 55 and 561 



( should be: Figs. 55 and 56, p. 472 (No. 

 \ 56 appearing twice in the same work). 



87 



Fig. 56 



Fig. 562 



Should be the second Fig 56, on p. 476. 



90—95 



Fig. 58 



Figs. 58—60 



List III is right, 



two of the animals shown in Fig. 58 having turned out badly in the 

 reproduction, wherefore they are shown again in Figs. 59 — 60. In Fig. 58, 

 Mr. Thalbitzer has altered the position of one of the animals, from 

 the erect to the prone. The natural course in such a case would have 

 been to remove the figure incorrectly reproduced, and replace it by 

 the amended illustration; Mr. Thalbitzer, however, has preferred to 

 let the prone beast lie, and makes it the subject of the following 

 passage : 



"As all the animals just mentioned are rendered in a very lifelike 

 manner in the carvings, there are no grounds for supposing that the 

 sixth, inv. Amd. 95, should not also give a faithful representation of 

 some animal or other. However it is by no means easy to identify it. 

 It cannot be any kind of seal, as it has no swimmers, and the shape 

 of the head with the small pointed ears is very unlike that of a seal. 

 The imagination recoils from conceiving it as a land mammifer. And 

 yet we have no other recourse, and we shall discover, to our surprise, 

 that the realistic sense of the Eskimo has not failed him this time either. 

 The drawing fig. 60 shows how the figure is to be conceived; not with 

 the head in front and the tail behind, but with the head erected: a polar 

 bear walking on its hind legs". 



We may pass over the twenty further lines of print through 

 which Mr. Thalbitzer continues his explanation of the same figure, 

 it should be observed, however, that the realistic execution of the 

 object in question is not so great but that another scientific opinion 

 pronounced it a hare. I leave the question open to the judgement 

 of zoologists. 



Turning now to discrepancies of another order, viz. in the classi- 

 fication of the objects themselves, we find, apart from minor differences 

 of style, such instances as the following: 



