1867.] Geography and Ethnology. 589 



present paper was not so unnecessary as Mr. Crawfurd seemed to 

 suppose. As to defining " civilization," he thought his friend, 

 Professor Busk, was a very good specimen of a civilized man, and 

 he named the Chinese, Mexicans, and Egyptians as nations who 

 had raised themselves without external assistance to a certain 

 amount of civilization. 



It may he remarked, that in the next morning's issue of the 



* Dundee Advertiser ' the editor expressed his surprise " that no 

 local man stood up to confute the theory of man's original bar- 

 barism ; for no one who believed that Adam was created a civilized 

 being could have received Sir John's theory of man's creation with- 

 out a protest." 



The next paper was one by Dr. Davy, on " The Character of 

 the Negro," which excited more warm discussion than had yet 

 been raised. Dr. Davy vindicated the Negro against the charge of 

 inveterate idleness, and showed that, under sufficient stimulus, he 

 was as industrious as most European labourers. The discussion 

 diverged into the moral and intellectual character of the Negro, 

 most of the speakers maintaining that whenever a supposed Negro 

 exhibited any marked mental superiority it was due to his having 

 an admixture of white blood in his veins. 



On Tuesday morning Sir Eoderick Murchison gave notice that 



* The International Congress of Anthropology and Prehistoric 

 Archaeology " proposed to hold its session in England in the year 

 1868, and that the Presidency had been offered to himself. He 

 had, however, declined that honour, on the ground that Sir Charles 

 Lyell, Sir John Lubbock, and several other eminent men had 

 devoted much more time and study to that branch of Geology than 

 he had done. 



The indefatigable Mr. Crawfurd then again appeared with a 

 paper on " The supposed Plurality of the Eaces of Man," in which 

 he maintained that there was no proof whatever that the races of 

 mankind had been derived one from the other; and went into a 

 long discussion of the facts relating to domestic animals, which, he 

 maintained, showed that the arguments for the unity of man were 

 fallacious. The Chairman, Sir Eoderick Murchison, then called • 

 attention to the fact, that neither Mr. Crawfurd nor himself were 

 Darwinians ; and Mr. G. Yivian made a long and elaborate speech, 

 in which he controverted Mr. Crawfurd's views both on geological 

 and theological grounds, and expressed his own belief in a limited 

 form of Darwinism. Mr. Wallace followed with an attempt to 

 disprove Mr. Crawfurd's theory, by showing, — first, that accepting 

 the facts adduced in the paper, all fair analogy from domestic 

 animals and plants in those cases where we know their history best, 

 is in favour of the unity of man. Secondly, that the known migra- 



