carefully noted that the statements just given of these reasons do not tell us how 'red,' a sensation, differs from 'pleasantness,' an affection, in mental experience. They are sufficient indication that a real difference exists; but the difference itself cannot be described-it must be experienced."

It remains to be seen how this theory, or rather Prof. Titchener's restatement of it, will be met by the adherents of the Wundtian view. As to the verbal innovation, the terms pleasantness and unpleasantness would be more welcome if the proposed meanings accorded better with ordinary usage. Both words, especially the second, are suggestive of a very mild form of feeling; and until we became accustomed to the change it would excite our sense of the ludicrous to call the feeling connected with a violent toothache or an intense abdominal pain unpleas ant.-H. C. WARREN.

Further Comments on Prof. Baldwin's "New Factor in Evolution."-In a " Note" in THE AMERICAN NATURALIST, October, 1896, Prof. Baldwin declares that I have grossly misunderstood his views, and that, to quote his words, "Dr. Nichols' home thrusts are all directed at my view of pleasure and pain, which he considers, quite mistakenly, the point of my paper. On the contrary, the 'factor' is entirely the influence of the individuals adaptation on the course of evolution; not at all the particular way in which the individual makes its adaptation."

This quotation is typical of the author's style of thinking and writing; of which his critics unanimously complain. The word "influence" is frequently misused by careless writers, as in the above, to denote the results of a factor, rather than the factor itself. A "factor" is a set of influences or circumstances contributing to produce a result. It is true that an author, if of expansive mind, may run ahead of his subject. It is true, as Prof. Baldwin above declares, that his mind was chiefly on the results supposed by him to be worked by his factor. But he should not forget that he declared himself, in his title, to be writing about his new factor"; and it was quite correct that be should write about it, since one ought, in Science, to establish the existence of a thing before discussing its effects. It was this last I had in view when, in my paper, I directed my discussion toward demonstrating that his new factor, as specificly described by Prof. Baldwin, was a myth.

66

I directed my discussion against Prof. Baldwin's views of pleasure and pain because he completely identified his "factor" with his particular and all-expansive views of pleasure and pain. On p. 451 of his

pamphlet, he sums up his June paper in these words: "It seems proper, therefore, to call the influence of Organic Selection "a new factor; The ontogenetic adaptations are really new, not performed; and they are really reproduced in succeeding generations, although not physically inherited." Here the author correctly, though in flat contradiction to his Note, declares in so many words his factor to be Organic Selection, and "ontogenetic adaptations" is for it but another name. Of this fact the words which he italicized leave no doubt. Naturally, to find out most accurately what Prof. Baldwin means by Organic Selection, we go to that part of his writing which most professedly expounds it. This is done in Part IV, p. 541, under the caption: "The Process of Organic Selection." After preliminary remarks, which I shall speak of later, Prof. Baldwin's exposition is in the following words:

"There is a fact of physiology which, taken together with the facts of psychology, serves to indicate the method of adaptations or accommodations of the individual organism. The general fact is that the organism concentrates its energies upon the locality stimulated, for the continuation of the conditions, movements, stimulations, which are vitally beneficial, and for the cessation of the conditions, movements, stimulations, which are vitally depressing and harmful. In the case of beneficial conditions we find a general increase of movements, an excess discharge of the energies of movement in the channels already open and habitual; and with this as the psychological side, pleasurable consciousness and attention. This form of concentration of energy is called the "circular reaction." It is the selective property which Romanes pointed out as characterizing and differentiating life. It characterizes the responses of the organism, however low in the scale, to all stimulations-even those of a mechanical and chemical natureNow, as soon as we ask how the stimulations of the environment can produce new adaptive movements, we have the answer of Spencer and Bain-an answer directly confirmed, I think, without question, by the study both of the child and of the adult, i. e., by the selection of fit movements from excessively produced movements, that is, from movement variations. So, granting this, we now have the further question: How do these movement variations come to be produced when and where they are needed?"

.

Having reduced his problem of "the selection of fit movements," i. e., of Organic Selection, to this pointed inquiry, Prof. Baldwin then proceeds to state his still more explicit exposition of his selective "factor" in full, as follows:

'But, as soon as we inquire more closely into the actual working of pleasure and pain reactions, we find an answer suggested [an answer to the last above quoted question]. The pleasure or pain produced by a stimulus-and by a movement also, for the utility of a movement is always that it secures stimulation of this sort or that-does not lead to diffused, neutral, and characterless movements, as Spencer and Bain suppose; this

is disputed no less by the infants movements than by the actions of unicellular creatures. There are characteristic differences in vital movements wherever we find them. There is a characteristic antithesis in vital movements always. Healthy, overflowing, overstretching, expansive, vital effects are associated with pleasure; and the contrary, the withdrawing, depressive, contractive, decreasing, vital effects are associated with pain. This is exactly the state of things which the theory of the selection of movements from over-produced movements requires, i. e., that increased vitality, represented by pleasure, should give the excess movements, from which new adaptations are selected; and that decreased vitality, represented by pain, should do the reverse, i. e., draw off energy and suppress movement.

"If, therefore, we say that here is a type of reaction which all vitality shows we may give it a general descriptive name, i. e., the "Circular Reaction," in that its significance for evolution is that it is not a random response in movement to all stimulations alike, but that (it distinguishes etc.) it distinguishes in its very form and amount between stimulations which are vitally good and those which are vitally bad, tending to retain the good stimulations and to draw away from and so suppress the bad. This kind of selection, since it requires the direct co-operation of the organism itself, I have called Organic Selection."

"This" (note the last sentence), then, is the "Organic Selection" which Prof. Baldwin himself specifically declares (p. 451) he names a new factor." As the reader must see for himself, the author's description of it is a description of pleasure-pain functions pure and simple. and nothing more. It is not merely the old pleasure-pain tradition, for nothing remains inexpansive in this vigorous author's hands. But it is the orthodox tradition unfolded to "a type of reaction which all vitality shows;" which "distinguishes in form and amount between stimulations which are vitally good and those which are vitally bad;" "which is a characteristic antithesis in vital movements always; " which "is the selective property which Romanes pointed out as characterizing and differentiating life;" and which performs its task of the "selection of fit movements" generally, by its universal exercise in all creatures from first to last and at all times.

It is dangerous to grapple with an author who is so macrocosmic in his thought, and so amorphous in his diction. But I discussed Mr. Baldwin's "New Factor" from the point of view of his "expanded" pleasure-pain functions because he so completely identified it with them. I cannot conceive this to have been done more explicitly and completely than in the author's specific exposition of Organic Selection in his Part IV. Under this situation it was surely "to the point" to prove Mr. Baldwin's New Factor a myth. The tone of Mr. Baldwin's " Note" seems to indicate that this was done with peculiarly exhaustive effect.

A word remains to be said about Mr. Baldwin's complaint that his pamphlet distinctly insisted on the fact of Organic Selection, without regard to any " particular way" it may be accomplished. Prof. Baldwin did file such a caveat upon all possible ways which man may ever invent for proving that Organic Selection may be a fact. But this is not the method of Science. She does not feel called upon to invent all possible ways before she rejects the sole one offered. When Prof. Baldwin does give us some other " particular way" than the one he did give for the operation of his factor, I will, perhaps, then be able to show him it cannot be called "new" with any sort of justice to Darwin and to biologists commonly.

Of the personal tone of Mr. Baldwin's "Note" I have nothing to remark, save by way of gratification, that it is unmatched in American Science. HERBERT NICHOLS.

Boston, Oct. 14, 1896.

ANTHROPOLOGY.'

Pictured Caves in Australia.-In West Australia, New South Wales, Queensland, and doubtless in other parts of Australia, where the geology is favorable, rock shelters and caves have been recently noticed, whose walls are decorated with native allegorical designs and figures of men, birds and animals outlined in colour. Mr. T. Wornsop addressing the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science at Brisbane in January, 1895 refers to a great number of rock paintings of Kangaroos, Lizards, Emus, Flying birds, Snakes and other forms. Refering to discoveries of these strange and impressively decorated shelters by Sir George R. Grey, Mr. Stockdale, Mr. O. Donnell and others, he states that a general similarity characterizes the designs wherever found, and describes further the curious method of painting generally noted, which appears to consist in smearing the rock surfaces with animal fat, pressing the object to be represented against the greased rock, and then blowing dry color against it so as to thus stencil the outlined form by a surrounding area of contrasting tint. When wet color was splashed on, no grease would have been needed. Mr. W. J. Enright, the discoverer of numerous painted caves and Mr. R. H. Matthews describe in particular the abundant figures of human hands with 1 This department is edited by H. C. Mercer, University of Pennsylvania.

out stretched fingers apparently painted and stenciled in this manner, often in red, in nearly all the caves. Along the Glen Lake river valley near Kimberly, West Australia and on Bulgar Creek, New South Wales the caves display hearts, white human figures on black backgrounds, staring faces outlined in red, with yellow lines, figures of the rising-sun, and Phallic symbols, where the stenciling according to Mr. Enright has often been done by blowing powered pipe clay from a deposit near at hand (sometimes white and sometimes stained yellow by oxides) upon the greased rock. Strangest sight of all must be the weird shelter on Nardo Creek in Central Queensland where a diabolical picture 70 feet long seems to represent a lake out of which are stretched hundreds of brown human arms pointing, grasping and knotted in many positions as if writhing in torture.

Mr. Wornsop and others looking in vain for a clue to the meaning of the rock paintings, have set in evidence the refusal of neighboring natives to account for them, just as earlier observers in America, were wont to quote indian ignorance of mounds, and earthworks. But on the other hand Mr. Enright noting the fresh appearance of many of the designs, speaks of one of the decorated caves recently inhabited by a native named Cutta Muttan, without doubting that the later had done the painting. No doubt he did, and small question that natives now living in Australia could if sympathetically approached by Ethnologists (who living with them had gained their confidence), explain all the designs. -H. C. MERCER.

Man and the Fossil Horse in Central France.-Not many hundred yards from the classic rock shelters of Laugerie Haute and Laugerie Basse (which contain according to the French classification Magdalenian and Solutrean culture layers) a recently exposed talus, along the Manaurie brook an affluent of the Vezere (department Dordogne Commune Tayac, France) has revealed an interesting and surprising deposit of human remains associated with bones of the fossil horse. M. M. Chauvet and Riviere digging a trench 17 meters long, 1.80 meters broad and 3 meters deep, found in one day, three hundred and more horse-teeth together with other horse bones generally broken by human hands, besides the remains of the badger (Meles taxus) and the canine tooth of a large carnivore. No fresh water or marine shells were found but with the bones about two hundred chipped flint axes ("Turtlebacks") of so-called Chellean type, or of similar ovate form worked only on one side, were unearthed in a few days, with three Mousterian racloirs, four discoidal flints, two Magdalanian flakes, two scrapers,