thinking that regards a proposition and its "reverse" as "at least just as true." Remembering that _faculty_ is related to _facio_, we accept the statement as to what it "designates;" but to say that it "depends upon the stages of culture through which he has passed and the one he has reached," is like saying that a youth's mathematical faculty depends upon the fact that he "has passed through" the Freshman, Sophomore, and Junior "stages of culture" and "has reached" the Senior. He may do this with the genius of Gauss, or he may do it in a perfunctory manner, without the ability to grasp and master such elementary notions as derivative and integral. If Waitz should now reply that such a youth has not really "passed through these stages," then we answer that he thereby assigns a new meaning to the phrase and evacuates his words of all definite import. In common parlance, the mathematical faculty of Gauss, his power to do in the immediate future, was amazing in his childhood, before he reached any notable "stages of culture" in mathematics. Still more striking is the case of Pascal. We do not deny that there may be some occult sense in which Waitz's words are true; but it is scarcely worth guessing at and, when divined, it will hardly add much to the clear deliverances of Bischoff, Donaldson, and others.[24] [24] See _supra_ pp. 92-96. The address before us now examines (p. 319) some of the "mental qualities" held to be "racial characteristics" of the "primitives," and rejects them one by one as "not proven." Such are "impulsiveness," "inability of concentration," "lack of originality." In our judgement, the most important of all instincts of civilization is the speculative, the pure-scientific, the impulse to know simply for the sake of knowing--most splendidly present in the Greek and the Teuton. It seems hard to believe, and certainly there is not a scintilla of evidence, that any such is a native quality of the Negro or Australian mind. But in these pages we find no firm basis for contention; the facts are not yet definitely ascertained. Enough that, if along these lines no case is made out against the primitive--and we have carefully refrained from trying to make out any--yet avowedly no case is made out for him; and the evidence, as far as it goes, is certainly not in his favour. In conclusion, page 324 raises the important question whether "the faculty of man has been improved by civilization, and particularly, if that of primitive races may be improved by this agency." Civilization and domestication cause analogous anatomical changes, and it is likely that "mental changes" "go hand in hand with them." But no more.