1894.] |». Archeology and Ethnology. 903 
velopment of some lower mammal.” I do not hesitate to say that 
Darwinism (i. e. evolution) was never at a greater “ height " than it is 
at present. It is also highly uncomplimentary to the “scientific 
thinker ” to charge him with holding views on account of the “height” 
ofany opinion, rather than on the evidence. 
The type of man of the paleolithic age, is stated by Brinton to be a 
fiction which “ furnished imaginative writers with the compound creat- 
ure they pictured in their books as our commou ancestor,” etc. e 
then proceeds to discredit this “compound " by showing that some 
mistakes were made by some investigators in some points, although 
when he says that that the Neanderthal remains belong to a visibly dis- 
eased subject, he asserts more than has been proven. He also alleges 
that the depressed forehead and prominent superciliary ridges of 
various paleolithie skulls that have been discovered, are no indication 
of pithecoid origin, since they can be found occasionally among men 
of existing races! An argument of no value whatever, since if all 
ow types necessarily disappeared, man would be the only animal ; no 
monkeys ought to exist; no insects,no Amoebas! Evolution does not 
attempt to prove that nothing has stood still! But our author has 
nothing to say about the jaws of Naulette and Shipka, and the man 
and woman of Spy. It ison just these important remains that Virchow 
is silent also ! 
But he does have something to say on the tritubercular superior 
molar? and the lemuroid affinities of the Anthopomorpha (man and 
ape). Referring to the author of the present review, he says: “ An 
eminent naturalist discovered that in a considerable number of people 
the tubercles on the teeth resemble those of lemurs more closely than 
those of monkeys. Hence he promptly drew the concluslon that 
the descent of man was directly from the lemurs and not from the 
monkeys, as the prevailing impression has been.” Dr. Brinton has 
advanced in his views alittle. He at one time declared that this state- 
ment as to the structure of the molar teeth in the higher as compared 
with the lower races and the apes had been “ refuted " by Allen and 
Virchow. Soon after this, my statements were entirely confirmed by 
Topinard, who after a full examination of six hundred dentitions de- 
3 The reviewer of my paper in the April, ’93 Naturalist on The Genealogy of Man, 
says of the tritubercular molar, that it is only the long known ‘‘ microdontie " of 
civilized races, (Archiv. für Anthropologie, 1893). The reviewer evidently does 
not know what the tritubercular molar is nor what it signifies. It is not necessarily 
microdont, nor is it confined to civilized man. He has evidently not read my paper on 
the subject or he would not have remarked that I give no figures as toits predominant 
occurrence in the Esquimaux. (See Am. Journ. Morphology, July, 1888). 
