REVIEWS. 
185 
proper motto for a treatise on Anthropology would "be that prefixed by 
Southey to his well-known hook, “The Doctor /’ — De omnibus rebus et 
quibusdam aliis , — for it would appear that the complete anthropologist has 
not only to study all the morphological and physiological phenomena pre- 
sented by man and other animals, the relations of man to the universe, his 
mental, moral, and social qualities as observed in the different varieties of 
mankind, in fact all the observable phenomena which may fairly claim the 
attention of a naturalist, but he must also possess a considerable acquaintance 
with metaphysics, which last is a hard condition to impose upon any one. 
M. Topinard in his treatise on Anthropology, a translation of which is 
just published by Messrs. Chapman and Hall in the “Library of Con- 
temporary Science/’ doe3 not make quite such heavy demands on the in- 
tellectual powers of his readers. His book furnishes an excellent summary 
of the present state of Anthropology (of course according to the author’s 
personal views in all disputed points) ; and the full description of the methods 
of research adopted and the kind of investigation on which anthropological 
results are founded, will render it an admirable guide for the student in 
■consulting special works on the subject, and a most useful handbook for 
travellers in distant lands. 
At the close of a short introductory chapter, in which the author defines 
his science and sketches out the general plan of his work, he treats of the 
-classification of the Mammalia, and indicates the two points of view from 
which the position of man in the system have been regarded by different 
- zoologists — namely, that according to which he is to take rank as a distinct 
order of Mammalia, and that which shows him as merely the highest type 
•of an order (Primates), including also the apes, monkeys, and lemurs. “ The 
question,” as the author says, “ resolves itself into the following terms : — 
What is the value of the characteristic points of difference between man 
and monkeys, and especially the anthropoid apes P Are these differences as 
great as those which separate two families or two orders ? ” 
The succeeding section of the work (Part I.) is devoted to the consideration 
of this question, for the elucidation of which the author describes the structure 
of the human body, and especially of its more characteristic parts, at con- 
siderable length, and compares its characters and some functional and other 
peculiarities with those presented by the animals universally admitted to 
approach man most nearly in the zoological scale. The conclusion at which 
he arrives is that man is anatomically more nearly related to the anthropoid 
.apes than these are to the old world monkeys, which stand immediately 
below them, and which again are, he thinks, more nearly allied to the American 
monkeys (Cebidse) than to the anthropoid apes. Hence “ the separation to 
be made at the extreme of the series, between the inferior monkeys and man, 
can only* be logically placed between the anthropoid and the so-called 
common monkeys. This leads us to Mr. Huxley’s classification : (1) Man 
and the anthropoid apes ; (2) the monkeys of the old and new continents ; 
(3) lemurs.” But M. Topinard is not satisfied with Professor Huxley’s 
arrangement, as he considers that “ we must necessarily draw a strong line 
* Here the translator seems to have fallen into error ; he says “ cannot be 
logically placed,” which is opposed to the whole argument. 
