620 Progress of Anthropology in America [ August, 
HaprA, B. E.—Mensuration of the thorax below the diaphragm, Boston M1. and ° 
S. F., 1880, 247—249. 
HAymonpb, W. S.—Human longevity. Tr. Indiana M, Soc., Indianapolis, 1880, 
73-99. 
SpirzKa, E. C.—Contributions to anatomical anthropology, chiefly the encephalon. 
Science, 1, pp. 73, 125, 134, 176, 202, 235, 251, 303; % Werv. and Ment. Dis., 
p. and July, 1880, p. 106; see also #id, Oct., and St.Louis Clin, Record, Jan., 
Feb., April, May, June, Aug., Sept., 1880. 
Yarrow, H. C.—Medical facts relating to the Zufii Indians of N. Mexico. Rocky 
Mt. M. Rev., Colorado Springs, 1880, 192-194. 
1v. Comparative Psychology.—Psychical anthropology has to do 
with ratiocination, emotion and volition from two points of view. 
In the first place it is a proper subject of investigation whether 
the difference in the manifestation of the qualities just mentioned 
is one of kind or one of degree in man and the lower animals. 
In the language of the physicist we would know whether the dif- 
ference is quantitative or qualitative also. However this may be 
settled, there springs up a question of vital significance to us a5 
Americans and to all civilized nations that have uncivilized tribes 
to deal with. It is this: Are there psycho-racial characteristics 
which should be regarded in treating with various peoples ? An- 
other query might arise whether there are intellectual boundaries, 
mental gradations, psychic lines of promotion along which spiritual 
growth must take place. Whatever may be the outcome of these 
problems, there is no lack of activity among investigators. 
Bibliograph : 
Animal instinct in relation to the mind of man. Science, 1, 267, 280. ‘nh 
‘Linpsay, W. LAupEr—The moral sense in the lower animals. af. S¢- —_ 
Feb. 
PoRTER, PROFESSOR SAMUEL—TIs thought possible without language? Case of # 
deaf-mute. Tr, Anthrop. Soc., Washington, 1, 74. 
Precer, W.—Psychogenesis in the human infant. Pop. Sc. Month., Sept. 
v. Ethnology. — Men are found in groups called variously, 
tribes, nations, races, peoples, stocks, etc. No two ethnologists 
agree as to the proper distinguishing marks, or to the numbe 
the groups ; yet every traveler knows that such divisions of man- 
kind exist. A rough definition of one of these units would be # 
collection of human beings occupying a given territory, who 
recognize in one another a common bond of kinship. P hy: sical, 
‘mental, linguistic, social and religious peculiarities are US 
coordinated with territory and kinship. 
r of 
