1913-14.] The Place in Nature of the Tasmanian Aboriginal. 185 
Were we to interpolate in the above quotation the words “such as 
Homo tasmanianus and another primitive stock ” after the words “ strains 
or breeds,” and add at the end “ resulting in the Australian aboriginal,” it 
might stand as a perfect exposition of our views on the hybrid ity of the 
Australian. 
The hybrid character of the Australian is still further supported by 
Lapicque (30), Baudouin (30), and Kruger-Kelmar (31), and by such well- 
known ethnological facts as the use of the boomerang and throwing-stick 
in Australia and their absence in Tasmania ; the presence of a domesticated 
animal, the dingo, in Australia and its complete absence in Tasmania ; and 
the more evolved cultural character of the Australian flints as opposed to 
the more primitive Tasmanian type of instrument. The total absence of 
domesticated animals amongst the Tasmanians is further proof of their 
great antiquity. 
The study of language, too, indicates — some would say proves — the 
hybrid character of the Australian. No physical anthropologist would 
rely solely on linguistics as a proof of origin of race. Taken, however, 
in conjunction with somatology and ethnology, it is a valuable line of 
research. Mathew (32) has pretty well established the hybrid element 
in the Australian aboriginal, and here we find physical anthropology, 
range of variations, ethnology, and linguistics all alike pointing distinctly 
to the impurity of stock of the Australian. 
But what of the other side ? So far as our study of the literature 
enables us to judge, there are only some — to use his own word — 
“ superficial ” observations of Klaatsch, various unsupported theories of 
Schoetensack, Stratz, and others, the recent work of Basedow, and the 
difficulties — prior to the publication of this and the recently issued 
memoirs of Turner and Sergi — experienced by all in adequately explaining 
the position of the Australian. Basedow, it is true, boldly declared the 
Tasmanian to be but an insular type of Australian ; but as von Luschan 
(33) has dealt pretty trenchantly with this observer, we need not further 
consider him. There is nothing whatsoever in the environment, climate, 
animal or plant food of Australia and Tasmania, to account for the 
differences in types of Australians and Tasmanians, and for the enormous 
range of variation of the former. As regards the last-mentioned point, 
it is indeed rather the reverse. Dr Cherry, Professor of Agriculture in 
this University, assures us, as the results of his own observations and 
experiments, that the soil of the Australian continent is peculiarly deficient 
in phosphorus and that, relative to the soils of the European and other 
continents, those of Australia are in a miocene or pliocene condition. 
