582 The American Naturalist. [June, 
Much of the contest which has developed in the United States as to 
the relative value of language arises from the confusion of the terms 
Anthropology, Ethnology, Ethnography. The French writer makes a 
distinction easily understood and maintained, and quite harmonious 
with the “ Nomenclature of Anthropology ” as presented by Dr. Brin- 
ton and commented on by Major Powell before the Anthropological 
Society of Washington (Amer. Anthrop., July, 1892, Vol. V, No. 3, p. 
265, et seq). 
Language may be of great value, and should never be neglected in 
determining living or historic races. In determining prehistoric races, 
it cannot be studied because in most cases it is unknown, and so we are 
driven to consider the physical characters. Because language assists 
in determining historic races, it does not follow that in the prehistoric 
races no other means can be used. 
The true rule seems to require the employment of all possible means, 
and even then the decisién may not be either harmonious or correct. 
The Nephrite of New Zealand.—MM. Duparc and Morazee 
have published in the Archives of Natural and Physical Science, 
Geneva, a paper on Nephrite of New Zealand. Speaking of the num- 
ber of hatchets and other objects from the Swiss Lakes in the museums 
which have passed as Nephrite, they express doubt and counsel circum- 
spection. They do right and are to be approved. But when they say 
that they have found but one piece which from its appearance could be 
identified as nephrite, their proposition is doubtful. There are many 
polished specimens of the hard, greenish stone in the Swiss Museums, 
which stand tests of hardness and density required for Nephrite, and 
which have been called so. If not Nephrite, they are still some varie- 
ties of Jade. One or more of their components may be soda or alumi- 
num instead of lime or magnesia ; and they may be Jadeite, fibrolite,. 
saussaurite or another variety of Jade. 
While many of these polished objects can be determined with rea- 
sonable certainty on inspection and from appearance, yet there are 
many which possibly cannot be. That is to say, they correspond in 
appearance, and they stand the tests of hardness and density, and may: 
be either the one or the other, depending upon their chemical combi- 
nation, and this similarity may be so great that it is doubtful if, e 
disputed cases, anyone can determine without analysis or microscopie 
examination of thin sections. If MM. Dupare and Morazec examined — 
the doubtful or contested specimens of the Swiss Museums in this w8Y> 
their determination would be accepted, but if from mere externat- 
