parative investigation of almost all extant skulls from the Swiss lake dwellings; with the result that at the time of the lake dwellings we meet with distinctions between various tribes which probably followed one another on the scene. But among these tribes not a single one is found that would be outside the lines of the physical form of peoples of to-day.

"At present we cannot say whether all races come from a single human pair or from many. That is not a subject of knowledge in the domain of Natural Science. We must, therefore, leave it to each one to decide that for himself. We make no objections to one who, on religious grounds, decides for a single human pair. We must acknowledge the possibility that all races and tribes, by change, may have come from one human pair; but it has not yet been demonstrated that negroes came from white ancestors, or that a white posterity came from negroid ancestors. That has never been seen. No object of actual observation shows such a change. Where a black race is found, there the naturalist assumes black ancestors; and where a white tribe appears, the natural presumption is that it always was white. Yet that is a presumption that cannot be directly proved. The proof is wanting that a people or a tribe can be so changed in its physical constitution.

"We see this in Egypt. I thought that I could obtain some evidences of the change of the Egyptians in historic time by comparative investigation of the living with the remains and likenesses of the dead. I returned with the conviction that, so far as historical and prehistoric evidences reach, so far as man has been discovered, ancient Egypt and its neighbouring lands have not essentially changed their populations. If Menes really existed, he certainly saw negroes; for very ancient wall-pictures portray the negro and his unmistakable physical individuality. The real Egyptian people offer few data. The Egyptian of to-day possesses just the form of the ancient Egyptian. Unfortunately, Egyptian skulls and skeletons do not carry us back as far as desirable. As yet, no prehistoric skull has been found in Egypt. As yet, no one has ever seen a skull contemporaneous with the first three dynasties. Hence, there is no possibility of direct verification. Still, the verification with positive certainty does go quite far back, beyond 3,000 B.C.; that is, 5,000 years from the present. During this long time the only difference that has appeared is

that between the brachycephalic man of the old empire and the dolichocephalic and mesocephalic man of the new empire. At all events, the definite proof is given, that, from the beginning of the new empire (1,700 B.C.), no change of type worth mentioning has taken place. Thus the permanence of types is assured for at least 35 centuries.

"There is nothing improbable in assuming a certain influence of climate and occupation. In this there is no difference between the severest orthodoxy and Darwinists of purest water. Their thesis

is the same. The one goes back to the first man, the others go beyond the first man to the nearest pair of beasts. That is the only difference. Both assume the transformation of the original man into various races. But the one cannot scientifically prove its thesis for man, nor can the others prove their thesis for the аре. If Were the first men white or black? I you ask me, must say, I do not know. We have no proof for such a decision : there is no place in the world where this has been made clear. That, for instance, in France in the time of the Troglodytes, pure negroes with curly hair existed, and that from these came white, straight-haired men, is not provable. Besides, I cannot discover how and where that could have taken place. The most ancient objects display great diversity. It sounds very plausible to say that the North makes men blond. But in America, where similar relations obtain, it has not made men blond. Not only the old Germans, but also the Finns, of Mongolian origin are fair; how they have become blond while the other Mongols remain black or very dark, is a question we cannot answer. It should not be forgotten that the linguistic elements stand in no correlation with the external physical appearances. On the contrary, they are to each other like the frontal process, which may come out strongly as the only characteristic, without its following that all other characteristics correspond to this peculiar one. So one cannot say that behind a clear skin the same arrangement of the internal organs is always found. There may be great differences.

"On this point I have, from the first appearance of Darwinism, endeavoured to modify the teaching of heredity. I recognize

* Stirn'or'satz. Frontal prominence.

heredity, but I have always insisted and do now insist that, with man, all heredity is partial. A general heredity in the zoological sense, where all characteristics are preserved from generation to generation, is not to be found among men. If botanists have begun on the basis of local variations to make subordinate divisions, to fix individual sub-species within the same species, variations with inherited characteristics, nothing is easier than out of these sub-species to make new species. But this circumstance, that within the same species many individual variations occur, and that within the same species some peculiarities are transmitted as inherited, only proves that the same individual may inherit various heredities. Thus it is known that one may inherit peculiarities from father and from mother, and so unite in himself a double heredity; he may show peculiarities that correspond to the characteristics of his grandfather or grandmother, whilst he shows other characteristics that belonged to his parents. In the same individual there is united a sum of partial inheritances, which are limited to smaller or greater parts. There may be many such portions, but that all portions agree cannot be proved. Only with twins does it sometimes occur that, except by the most careful observation, they cannot be distinguished. When they are distinguished, it must be by special marks." (After referring to one or two examples of heredity, Professor Virchow continued) :—

"We do not know certainly how far the sphere of heredity reaches. By reason of this uncertainty the matter of human relations is very largely complicated. That, for instance, human development may be influenced by climate and other circumstances of life, is probable, although at present no cogent reasons prove that existing men were able to change themselves wholly. We know of no fact that proves with certainty that the local climate could change any men to that form of man native there.

"Thus far have we retreated in our knowledge. You will say, That is strange! in the last twenty years you have gone back, you know less than the people of twenty years ago! I agree that, in fact, we know less, but it is our pride that we have so far clarified our knowledge that we KNOW what we really know. Twenty years ago men did not know so much; they only 'believed they knew.' We have now made this pretended knowledge the subject of scientific test. Natural Science has taken possession of its domain,

and we can now say-Much that was formerly set forth is no more allowable; it has continued in faith, but to Science it does not belong."

To the Reverend Professor J. E. B. Mayor, M.A., of Cambridge, special thanks are due for his generous and valuable aid in regard to the foregoing translation.-THE EDITOR.

ORDINARY MEETING.*

THE PRESIDENT, SIR G. GABRIEL STOKES, BART., M.P., P.R.S., IN THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the last Meeting were read and confirmed, and the following Elections were announced by General G. S. Hallowes, Acting Honorary Secretary:—

MEMBERS:-The Ven. Archdeacon Gibson, M.A., South Africa; Rev. W. T. McCormick, M.A., F.R.G.S., Brighton; Rev. J. Oxley Oxland, South Africa.

ASSOCIATE:-Rev. W. L. Paige Cox, M.A., Birkenhead.

The following Paper was then read by the Author :

THE DISPERSAL OF PLANTS AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE FLORA OF THE KEELING OR COCOS ISLANDS. By H. B. GUPPY, M.B.

THROUGH funds led last year to take advantage of

HROUGH funds placed at my disposal by Mr. John

the invitation of Mr. G. C. Ross to make a short stay in the Keeling or Cocos-Keeling Islands. As it happened, however, I remained there nearly ten weeks, and amongst other things devoted my attention to the subject of this paper. It will be seen that I obtained much valuable information from the proprietor of these islands, that I owe much to the courteous assistance of Dr. Treub, the Director of the Botanical Gardens at Buitenzorg, and that I am especially indebted to Mr. Thiselton Dyer, Professor Oliver, and Mr. Botting Hemsley with respect to the examination of my collections at Kew. Mr. Hemsley examined my specimens in the light of his extensive experience in this department of Botanical science; and it will be at once perceived by those interested in this paper that my part has been that of a collector and an observer. Having, however, previously paid some attention to this subject in the Solomon Islands, I was to some

February 3rd.

VOL. XXIV.

U