long crania as having belonged to a people inhabiting Peru before the advent of the race of Incas. Tschudi, who found families of these longheaded Peruvians still living in the department of Junin, and who, like Pentland, examined a number of ancient tombs of this race, calls these aborigines, Huauca. We imagine that the best authority on this subject is Morton, whose classical work Crania Americana,' Philadelphia, 1839, our author quotes on two occasions, and who says of the Incas, p. 115,— "the skull in this people is remarkable for its small size, and also, as just observed, for its quadrangular form. The occiput is greatly compressed, sometimes absolutely vertical; the sides are swelled out, and the forehead is somewhat elevated, but very retreating." We think it quite unnecessary to add any reasons of our own in justification of the arrangement complained of.

Prof. Zenne considers the appellation Tartars inexact, being applied sometimes to Turks, sometimes to Mongols; and to Tungusians, he might have added, among whom the Maudschu Tartars are also included. The term Tartar is certainly not a very exact one, no more is Tartary, but on the other hand, the name is so remarkable in history, and so generally in use, that we think it possesses a just claim to a place in the list of nations, especially as we feel convinced that all the races designated by the name, are brachycephalic. He also disapproves of Retzius's arrangement, as being founded on a simple polarity or antithesis of cranial forms, contending that the cavity of the skull must be measured in a threefold manner—namely in relation to its length, breadth, and depth. We have only to reply that this arrangement is based upon extensive and laborious researches, and seems to us all the more likely to be correct, as it is found to be intimately connected with the development of the cerebral lobes; and we may add, that at the Christiania meeting of Savans in 1844, Retzius mentioned it as his opinion, that several transition classes between those already determined in his scheme, would be necessary, but that their formation would require the most accurate and probably extensive examinations. For example, the people called by Dieffenbach, (Travels in New Zealand, London, 1843,)"True Polynesians," and considered by him as a branch of the Malay stem, have almost square skulls, not short but high, with large tubera parietalia. They form a transition from brachycephala to dolichocephale, but are most nearly allied to the first named. It is doubtless within the bounds of possibility, to make a really good arrangement of cranial forms, by including in the investigation the three proposed measurements of the cavity, provided always one goes the right way to work, which our author would scarcely seem to have done, when he confounds the face with the skull proper. Thus he says that one recognises "die Formen der Hochschädel" by the oval form of the face of south and west Europeans, as well as of the inhabitants of south and west Asia as far as India; but it is well-known that this oval face belongs as much to the long-oval as to the short-square and round skulls. It may be all very well to flatter one's self on the possession of a high skull like the Apollo Belvidere, but truth obliges us to confess that the skulls of the German, Dutch, Norman, Scandinavian, Celtic, and several other west and south European, as well as west and south Asiatic nations, are long-oval, not high, nay, often even very low, though this circumstance does not by

any means prevent the face from presenting a handsome oval. Anatomy teaches us that only a small portion of the skull or brain-pan enters into the composition of the face, forming the forehead; all beneath the eyebrows belongs to the face and jaws, not to the brain-case. If the anterior lobes of the brain are well developed, the forehead is high, and if the face be of a regular oval, the individual may present in front, the characters of our author's "Hochschädel," while in fact he has a long, low, skull. The same erroneous views present themselves with regard to the "Langschädel" concerning which, he says, " endlich in der Form der in den Kiefern verlängerten, und im Gebiss nach vorn gerichteten Schädel der neger, erschauet man die schnauzenartigen Formen der Langschädel.”” Here the face and brain-pan are confounded in a striking manner.

Our author considers Papuas and Alfourous, as mixed races of Turanians and Sudanians, as also Hottentots and Bushmen of Sudanians and Malays. With respect to the first named, the forms of their skulls are different, and the proposition is besides founded on very uncertain grounds; and as to the latter, it is all but demonstrated that the Hottentots are the aborigines of south Africa, and that the Caffres have at a later period taken possession of their country.

Our author assumes a polarity or antithesis in height and flatness of of the cranium, between the Northern and Southern, as well as a similar contrast between the inhabitants of the Eastern and Western hemispheres ; principally shown in the presence of an interparietal bone among the inhabitants of the New World. He likewise asserts that the straight facial line is paramount in the North, while prominent cheek bones characterize the inhabitants of the South. But the so-called "True Polynesians" have high skulls, while, on the contrary, Scandinavians have in general long and low ones; flat heads, the lowest of all cranial forms, are found in Oregon, while the Araucanians of Chili have high skulls. The second assumption is equally far from the truth, for Greenlanders have large and prominent cheek bones, and, according to Meyen, the Tagalians of the South Sea, and, according to Dieffenbach, several Polynesian nations have a form of face resembling that of Europeans. ("In their features they approach the Caucasians"-"On true Polynesians." p. 4.) One thing at least we may be sure of, that their cheek bones are not more prominent than those of Greenlanders.

The interparietal bone, which Zenne thinks characteristic of Americans, has been as yet only observed among Peruvians in the New World, and he allows that, though rarely, it does now and then occur among Europeans. Our opinion is, that this bone will occasionally be found in the skulls of all the varieties of man, certainly quite as often in all other as in European. That the change in the form of the skull brought about by artificial means, among several American tribes, is connected with an observed natural tendency towards the form so much admired by them, we are quite prepared to admit.

Zenne considers that the highest portions of the globe were first inhabited; namely in the east, Iran, Turan, and Sudan; in the west, the Bolivian, Guianian, and Appalachian chains. He places the high-skulled race in the north, the broad-skulled in the middle portions, and the longskulled in the South, according to the following scheme:

That the above arrangement is not a happy one, is evident from the remarks we have already made; we will only add, that Zenne places his high skulls, the Iranian and Natches races, farthest north. In the Old World, at least, the Turanian (" broad-skulls" of Zenne), including Lapps, Samoiedes, Yakutans, and Kamschatkans, is the recognised Northern race. The Flatheads of Oregon already mentioned (very low), are found further north than the Natches, who, emigrating from Anahuac, have in later times dwelt in Florida and Louisiana. Still further north do we find races with skulls, differing, it is true, in form, but yet not high ones, namely, Esquimaux, Hurons, &c.

To place Guianians or Caribs in the same class with Mongols is also an evident mistake, as the former have long, the latter short skulls.

According to our author, "long skulls" are represented in the Eastern hemisphere by the Negro race, while in the Western, Incas (Tschudis "Huancas") present the typical cranial forms of the inhabitants of the South; but the Malays and Papuans of the South Seas have not long skulls, and must be placed in the author's class "Breitschädel ;" and he seems to have overlooked the fact, that the Puelches and Araucanians, the former in the Argentine Republic, the latter in Chili, do neither of them belong to his "Langschädel," but, like the Malays, have a Mongolian form of skull.

At page 22 we find the diagnoses of our author's six races of men, but he does not mention what nations are included in each race; had he subjected the correctness of his system to this trial, he would doubtless have himself observed the very same objections to it, which we have pointed

out.

The plates are good and true to nature-no slight praise,—and just on that account are they invaluable witnesses to the truth of our criticisms. Those races, both in the Old and New Worlds, which our author refers to the same class, present in these plates nearly opposite forms; for example, the short, high, flat-necked Natches is placed alongside the long, lower German skull, remarkable for its prominent neck, and the long

XLVIII.-XXIV.

.7

Macusian forms a striking contrast with the short high Mongolian cranium. The same thing would have been observed if a real Inca skuli had been placed by the side of a Negro's [we have already remarked that our author confounds Huancas with Incas.]

Towards the close of the work Retzius is mentioned as having adopted the theory of several primitive races; we beg to remind our readers that he has, in his published works, hitherto only treated of cranial forms, and is of opinion that the subject of races cannot be investigated with a chance of success before these forms have been more exactly determined and arranged, fairly acknowledging that the scheme of races he has proposed is only an attempt at or approximation to a final arrangement.

Although we have been obliged to find considerable fault with our author's production, we feel pleasure in bearing witness to his learning, and his very respectable attempt to improve the yet undeveloped science of ethnographic craniology. Had he paid more attention to details, and possibly been more at home in anatomical investigations, and more accustomed to the examination of objects of natural history, he would certainly have been more successful in his researches, and have earned a greater meed of praise than we have felt justified in bestowing.

ART. IX.

1. Théorie Expérimentale de la Formation des Os. Par P. FLOURENS, Secrétaire perpétuel de l'Académie Royale des Sciences, Professeur de Physiologie comparée au Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris, &c. &c. Avec 7 Planches gravées.-Paris, 1847.

Experimental Theory of the Formation of Bone. By P. FLOURENS, Perpetual Secretary of the Royal Academy of Sciences, Professor of Comparative Physiology in the Museum of Natural History of Paris, &c. &c. With Seven Engravings.-Paris, 1847. 8vo, pp. 164.

2. Elements of Anatomy. By JONES QUAIN, M.D. Fifth Edition. Edited by RICHARD QUAIN and WILLIAM SHARPEY, M.D., Professors of Anatomy and Physiology, University College, London. Illustrated by numerous Engravings on Wood. Parts I and II.—London, 1843-6. 8vo, pp. 1063.

3. Cyclopædia of Anatomy and Physiology. Edited by ROBERT B. TODD, M.D., F.R.S., Professor of Physiology and of General and Morbid Anatomy in King's College, London, &c. &c. Article, Osseous Tissue; by JOHN TOMES, Surgeon-Dentist to the Middlesex Hospital.-London, 1846. Illustrated with numerous Engravings.

THE history of the formation, growth, and regeneration of bone has long been favourite subjects of inquiry, not only among anatomists and physiologists, but also among such practical surgeons as usually care little for such investigations. There are many reasons why this should be the case, sufficiently obvious to prevent the necessity of our dwelling on them. A vast number of observations and experimental results have been laid before the world at different times, by men of very different qualifications and habits of mind; and there has been accordingly much discrepancy of

opinion on many of the questions which the inquiry involves, and no inconsiderable amount of dogmatism has been manifested in support of the various positions advanced. In this instance, as in many others, however, the progress of knowledge and the prevalence of more philosophical habits of thought have tended to reconcile views which formerly seemed altogether opposed to each other; showing that the facts on which they were respectively based were in reality perfectly consistent, and that it was only in the exclusiveness of the deductions from them that those deductions were erroneous.

Of the attention which has recently been bestowed upon microscopic research, the osseous texture has come in for its full share. Here, too, many errors of observation were at first committed, which have since undergone correction; and many opinions were founded upon them, which have since been modified or abandoned. There has been obviously increasing tendency to agreement on many points which were at first matters of dispute; whilst new questions have been opened up in the more recondite parts of the inquiry; and various opinions which were the result of too limited an induction have been found to be no longer tenable, although the authority with which they were at first advanced, has caused them to be very generally admitted.

We propose, on the present occasion, to put our readers in possession of the results of those later inquiries on this subject, which have most tended to modify the views originally advanced regarding the structure and development of bone; and we shall then examine the results of the experimental inquiries of M. Flourens, with the view of contrasting their results with those at which we arrive by a much simpler method of inquiry, and of pointing out what we believe to be a gross exaggeration of his claims as an original discoverer in this department of physiology.

The elementary substance of bone, considered in its simplest aspect, appears to be homogeneous, even when examined with high powers of the microscope. Mr. Tomes, however, has directed attention to the fact that it possesses a minute granular structure.

"For the purpose of examination, it is best to take a very small portion of a thin plate of bone; such may be found in the ethmoid bone of small animals, as of the rat. If the piece be well selected, it will be found to contain no Haversian canals or corpuscles, but to be extremely thin and transparent. Such a portion, when viewed with the 1-8th of an inch object glass, will present a delicate granular aspect with the surface nodulated. This granular appearance arises from the substance of the bone being composed of minute irregularly spherical granules. It is not difficult to trace this structure in any specimen of bone, though in some it is much more distinct than in others..... The granules

may be obtained separated from each other, so that each individual may be examined apart from its fellows. When so exposed to view, they exhibit a tolerably regular character, being mostly spherical, some few having an oval form. In some specimens, the oval predominates over the spherical conformation. Often a few will be found which are egg-shaped, with the smaller end elongated, though to no great extent. The osseous granules may be gained by subjecting bone to high-pressure steam, or to a red heat, till all the animal matter is removed. In either instance, the granules may be obtained by taking a small portion of the so-treated bone, saturating it with water, and then gently reducing it to a powder between the slips of glass. By this manipulation the granules individually will be rendered evident when the specimen is examined under a high power.... .The granules themselves are subject to some variety in size,