1891.] Archeology and Ethnology. 175 
VI. Evolution of Marriage and the Family. Letourneau. 
VII. The Family in the Roman Society. Lacombe. 
VIII. Evolution of Property. Letourneau. 
IX. The Negro of Africa. Hovelacque. 
X. Comparative Pathology. Bordier. 
XI. Prehistoric France. Cartailhac. 
A similar organization was made for bringing out a dictionary of 
anthropologic science. The committee of publication or editors were 
Hovelacque, Issaurat, Lefevre, Letourneau, de Mortillet, Thulié and 
Veron, with a host of collaborators. The publisher was Monsieur 
Octav Doin, Place de l’Odeon 8, Paris. It appeared in parts, twenty- 
four in number, and has just been completed. 
Society of Autopsy.—A party of substantially the same gentlemen, 
published, in 1876, their intention to form a society, the principal ob- 
ject of which was to receive members who should be willing to bequeath 
their bodies to the Laboratory of Anthropology for autopsy, that it 
might be dissected and studied in a scientific manner. Whatever may 
be said of the project, the aim and intention of these gentlemen was 
certainly unselfish. 
The declaration published by these gentlemen as a foundation for 
the society, and a reason for its existence, was the importance of that 
branch of the science of anthropology which they called the physiology 
of psychology (psycho-physics), and with this their want of knowledge, 
say ignorance, concerning it, coupled with the lack of opportunity for 
its successful study. Experiments had been made upon animals, which, 
while they contributed largely to elucidate the problems of the physi- 
Ologic functions, like the sensations, movements, secretions, etc., had 
been of slight avail in the study of the phenomena of human intelli- 
gence. They declared that this study was to be made only or first by 
investigation of the human brain, and this not only in its size, form, 
weight, and composition, but also in its convolutions and folds. The 
existing opportunities by means of dissection were meagre and unsat- 
isfactory. They mentioned the well-known fact that the professor or 
student who now made the dissection was proverbially unacquainted 
with the subject during his lifetime, and consequently the powers 0 
his mind were unknown. The persons best acquainted with the sub- 
ject during his lifetime were last to know of the autopsy ; and there 
appeared to be no possibility of, or opportunity for, comparison of 
knowledge between those who knew the subject in life and those who 
made the dissection. There was, said they, no chance for the living 
descendants or relatives ofthe deceased, either through their own 
Am. Nat.—February.—6. 
