There is, however, great variation in the position of the brain with regard to the beak in different families of birds; the base of the brain being in some cases nearly at right angles to the opening of the bill, and in others inclined at but a slight angle to it. This more or less vertical position of the brain appears to be dependent on the greater or less development of the orbits of the eyes. In the Woodcock, for instance, where the eyes are very large in proportion to the brain, the base of the latter is nearly vertical to the opening of the beak, and when the skull of such a bird, even with both mandibles removed, rests with its under side upon a horizontal surface, the position of the base of the brain is nearly vertical. From the position of the skull of the Archeopteryx upon the slab it would appear to have been detached from the neck before being finally embedded in the mud from which the Solenhofen limestone was formed. There is, as will subsequently be seen, some reason also for supposing that the mandibles had become detached; but at all events the skull appears to have lain upon the shore, with the base downwards, as probably presenting the best surface on which to rest, and with the frontal region upwards. But the base of the cast of the brain appears to be nearly vertical to the slab, which is split so as to display the old shore surface. It seems, therefore, probable that the base of the brain may in the Archeopteryx have formed nearly a right angle with the opening of its beak, and if so, that as is the case with most other birds with the same peculiarity, its eyes were of large size, and the brain placed quite at the back of the head. But enough has been said of a hypothesis built upon such slender foundations, and I will therefore now describe another object upon the same slab, some of the details of which appear to have escaped the attention of previous observers.

On the principal slab in the angle between the right femur and tibia is a small V shaped object, the longer of the two limbs about 1 inches in length, made up partly of mineralized bone and partly of impressions of other portions of the same bones preserved in the counterpart slab. From its form it had, I believe, been considered as possibly representing the beak of the Archeopteryx; but great was my surprise when I detected along its right hand margin, towards the apex, the distinct impression in the slab of four teeth still attached to it. The teeth themselves remain engaged in the counterpart, and are easily recognized by the lustre of their enamel. There seems also to be a portion of a fifth tooth visible, which has been displaced and lies across the base of that nearest the point of the

jaw. The portion of the jaw to which they are attached is unfortunately much injured, and there is no appearance of any teeth in connection with the other limb of the V. The woodcut below gives both views of the object.

Jaw as seen on Principal Slab.

Jaw as seen on Counterpart.

Whether the whole is a lower jaw, with the teeth or rather a few of them, remaining in one half only, and with the symphysis of the jaw at the point of the V; or whether it is a portion of an upper jaw in which the second limb of the V would be probably part of the facial and nasal bones, I cannot pretend to determine; and I am afraid that the whole is in too fragmentary and obscure a condition for any positive conclusions to be drawn on this point.

The character of the teeth, however, appears to me to be welldefined. The three which remain in a vertical position with regard to the jaw are about 10 inch long, and at intervals of about 20 inch. They consist of a slightly tapering flattened enamelled crown, about 04 inch in width and obtusely pointed, set upon what is apparently a more bony base which widens out suddenly into a semi-elliptical form, so that at the line of attachment to the jaw, the base of one tooth comes in contact with that of the next. So sudden and extensive is this widening of the base, that at first it gave me the impression that the teeth were tricuspidate with the middle cusp far longer than the others.

The front tooth of the four which slopes forward from the rest, and is rather smaller than the others, shows little if any similar enlargement of its base. Of the fifth, which lies across the base of the foremost of the other four, only a part is visible. There appears to be a well defined line at the base of the teeth along their junction to the jaw; but I can offer no opinion as to the method of their attachment. It is of course contrary to all our existing notions to suppose that a jaw, such as this, armed with teeth, could belong to a creature so truly bird-like in most respects as the Archæopteryx;

but assuming it to be that of a fish-and it has many analogies with the jaws of some species of fish-or of some other animal accidentally deposited in the very midst of the remains of that singular creature, it appears to me that fragmentary as it is, its characters are sufficiently defined for any one well-versed in the fossils of the Solenhofen state to come forward and identify it.

Up to the present time, however, I have not heard of any one having been able to do so, and certainly the jaws and teeth of the Lepidotous and Pholidophorous fishes from the same beds, such as I have been able to examine, all differ from this in some more or less important particulars. It appears to me also, that the teeth and jaw on the Archæopteryx slab, are rather slighter in structure than those of fishes of corresponding size, though this is a point on which I would by no means insist.

Looking at the usual dispersion of the fossils in the Solenhofen slates, looking also at the general rule (to which, however, there are some exceptions) that the fossils in it are found singly, so that all the remains of a reptile or a fish upon a single slab, may usually be assigned with some degree of confidence to a single individual, the chances against a single extraneous jaw being mixed up with the remains of the Archeopteryx, without any other bones of the animal to which the jaw belonged, being also present, are great indeed. But how enormously are the chances against such an occurrence increased if the jaw thus accidentally present is that of a species of fish or reptile hitherto unknown ?

In order to obtain information from the best possible source, as to whether the jaw and teeth were of a character well known to those acquainted with the Solenhofen fossils, I prepared a careful drawing of it and placed it in the hands of my lamented friend, the late Dr. Falconer, who kindly wrote to the illustrious Hermann von Meyer upon the subject.

The following is a translated extract from his answer (dated from Frankfort the 4th April, 1863) which Dr. Falconer kindly placed in my hands.

"In Paleontology it is difficult to judge from drawings, but the "two supplementary objects which Mr. John Evans has succeeded "in discovering upon the Archeopteryx slab, are certainly of the "greatest importance. Upon the part which may belong to the hinder"part of the skull I hazard no opinion." "Much more important

• This is probably an error for "fore part of the skull," but no drawings of the head were sent to Herr von Meyer.

66 stone.

66

"is the jaw. Teeth of this sort I do not know in the lithographic There exists no similarity between them and the teeth of Pterodactyles. The nearest likeness is to the teeth of my family of "Acrosaurus, namely, to the dcrosaurus Frischmanni, Meyer (Repti"lien des. lithog. Schiefers, p. 116, t. 12, f. 7-8) from the lithographic "slate of Bavaria, in which however the crown is lower and longer "from back to front. In Pleurosaurus Meyeri (Pal. x. p. 37, t. 7.) "which belongs to the same family, the teeth possess less likeness. "One might also be reminded of the teeth of the Geosaurus Soem"meringi, Meyer. (Deutsch. Akad. Munich, 1816, p. 36. Cuvier, "Oss. foss. Pl. 249, fig. 2-6) which however are much longer. "From this it would appear that the jaw really belongs to the "Archæopteryx. An arming of the jaw with teeth would contradict "the view of the Archeopteryx being a bird or an embryonic form of “bird. But after all, I do not believe that God formed his creatures "after the systems devised by our philosophical wisdom. Of the "classes of birds and reptiles as we define them, the Creator knows "nothing, and just as little of a prototype, or of a constant embry"onic condition of the bird, which might be recognized in the Archæopteryx. The Archeopteryx is of its kind just as perfect a "creature as other creatures, and if we are not able to include this "fossil animal in our system, our short-sightedness is alone to "blame."

66

It will, of course, be observed that this opinion of Von Meyer is founded on my drawings alone, and is therefore of course subject to a revision on an examination of the slab itself. But there certainly appears to be a case made out for careful investigation by those more competent than I am to form an opinion in such a case. Its extreme importance as bearing upon the great question of the Origin of Species must be evident to all, and I for one can see no reason why a creature presenting so many anomalies as the Archæopteryx, all of which however tend to link together the two great classes of Birds and Reptiles, should not also have been endowed with teeth, either in lieu of, or combined with a beak, in the same manner as in the Rhamphorhynchus with which it exhibits other affinities. The tooth-like serrations in the beaks of many birds-and notably in the Merganser Serrator, where they closely approach in character to real teeth though connected only with the horny covering and not with the bones of the mandible, are sufficient to prove that the presence of feathers does not of necessity imply that the beak with which to preen them should be edentulous.

422

XXXVI. PROceedings of THE SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES OF LONDON,

1. ETHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY. (4, St. Martin's Place.)

Feb. 21st, 1865.

THE following paper was read:-1. "On Cannibalism in Relation to Ethnology." By Mr. J. Crawfurd, F.R.S.-The author's conclusions, from the facts stated in his paper, were, that it is highly probable that the races of man, in their tedious march towards civilization, must have passed through all the usual stages, not excepting that of cannibalism. Man was more naked than the beasts of the field, and in this respect came only to be on an equality with them after he had robbed them of their clothing. His food consisted of raw flesh or of raw fish cast dead on the shore. To this he added a few wild roots and fruits, also eaten raw. His dwelling consisted of caves and the hollows of old trees. In this matter, therefore, he was on a parity with the bear and the opossum, but far worse accommodated than the beaver or even the fox or hyena. The superior qualities of his brain were now called into exercise. Then were invented implements of stone and bone, with fire; and man lived almost exclusively by hunting and fishing. In this state of difficult subsistence, and rancorous hatred of one tribe against another, contending for food, most probably induced the practice of eating one another's flesh. In the third stage, to the implements, still of bone or stone, there were added the net and the canoe, and a few plants began to be cultivated, and in some places a few animals to be domesticated. This was found to be the state of society in the great islands of Hispaniola and Cuba, and of several of the islands of the Pacific Ocean, in some of which cannibalism had ceased, whilst it continued in others. In Asia and its islands we have no examples of a people in the stage just named, and we are only assured of its having existed in Europe through the discoveries of modern science. The pile-builders of the Swiss lakes appear to have been exactly in this stage. In France, Germany, Spain, and the most civilized parts of Britain, 2000 years ago, cannibalism had ceased, but human sacrifices continued in France and Britain to a hideous extent. With the exception that they did not partake of the flesh of their victims, the ancestors of most of the present civilized nations of Europe were in the same state as are now the Bataks of Sumatra, and the Dyaks