i882j 
Analyses of Books > 
1 67 
glaringly with the condudl of apes of the baser sort, from whose 
adtions even Till Eulenspiegel might have learnt new lessons in 
impropriety. Faimali notices also the intense attachment of 
monkeys and baboons for their mates : the male and female 
often die of grief if separated. 
Animals of the cat-family, if born in captivity, suffer much 
when cutting their teeth. Those caught wild are apt to perish of 
pulmonary consumption, a disease which is still more common 
among the Simiadse, and which, curiously enough, generally 
terminates the career of the trainers and keepers of wild beasts. 
In opposition to many high authorities, Faimali pronounces 
the lion stronger than the tiger, though the latter is more agile 
and uses its canines with greater skill. The two species rarely 
agree together. 
The little work before us well deserves the study of the natu- 
ralist, the more because the large Carnivora are evidently and of 
necessity doomed to extirpation, and because a prolonged study 
of their habits is thus becoming from decade to decade more 
difficult. 
The Remote Antiquity of Man not proven: Primeval Man not 
a Savage. By B. C. Y. London : Elliot Stock. 
The author of this work is evidently a laborious reader. There 
are few authorities bearing upon the subjedt which he has not 
taken into consideration. Even stray paragraphs in newspapers 
have not escaped his attention. Nor can it be denied that the 
subjedl of his inquiry is at once legitimate and of profound im- 
portance. But we can by no means feel satisfied with the spirit 
he displays. An investigation into the antiquity of mankind 
ought surely to be taken with judicial impartiality. B. C. Y. 
evidently has a strong bias in favour of traditional notions as 
against the results of modern research. Any rumour of evidence 
for the high antiquity of our race is to him a “ scare.” He argues 
throughout like a barrister who, in dealing with a mass of cir- 
cumstantial evidence, seeks to put upon it any and every interpre- 
tation consistent with the interests of his client. He seems to 
be under the impression that if the various fadts hitherto adduced 
in favour of man’s existence upon earth for untold thousands of 
years can be held up us questionable or indecisive, we shall then 
have to go back to the conventional chronology of some 8000 to 
at most 10,000 years. This seems to us a most serious error. 
If all the conclusions of geologists, drawn it must be remembered 
from the adtual inspedlion of the phenomena, and not at second- 
hand from mere reading, are insufficient, the utmost that can 
