would be proportionally powerful for evil. The Philoprogenitiveness is moderate. The following is the measurement and development : 8 12 14 14 11. Love of Approbation, v. large, 20 28. Tune, rather small, 12. Cautiousness, extra large, 23 29. Language. 10 30. Comparison, rather full, 6 32. Wit, full, The Toucan's head is curious, in so far as it is many times smaller than the bill. The head is about an inch in diameter, while the bill is a foot long and several inches broad. As a bird of prey, too, it requires a vision like the eagle's, and its eye alone is about the size of, or rather a little larger than the whole brain. It first occurred to us that the curious honeycomb texture in the bill is a process for the prolongation of the olfactory nerve, which, in birds that flock to carrion from a distance, has been considered powerful; but this is a mistake; the texture is a mere diploe to give the bill strength. It is now ascertained by experiment, that birds of prey and put see and do not smell their prey. Very putrid carrion was enclosed in a basket which gave free passage to its effluvia, put in the way of vultures and other birds of prey. It attracted none of them till exposed to view, when several almost instantly appeared. This sudden appearance is accounted for by these birds soaring at an altitude out of our sight; while their prey on the ground, however minute, is seen by them, so that their appearance at any time is merely their descent to within the scope of human optics. The Toucan, in India, generally arrives for its food with the vulture, but remains a little in the rear till the larger bird is glutted; while smaller birds of prey, at a more retired distance still, pay the same homage to the Toucan. It is said to be amusing to observe the marked and well-understood gradations of rank which they thus exhibit and jealously maintain. ARTICLE IX. EVIDENCES AGAINST PHRENOLOGY, BY THOMAS STONE, ESQ. We are requested by Mr Combe to give the following correspondence a place in this Journal, for the information of such of our readers as may not have an opportunity of seeing the Edinburgh newspapers. LETTER FROM MR GEORGE COMBE. To the Editor of the Caledonian Mercury. SIR.In a recent publication you gave a critical notice of “ The Evidences against the System of Phrenology, by Thomas Stone, Esq." and commended it as a formidable attack. The assertions and arguments of which it is composed have been so frequently brought forward by previous opponents, and so fully refuted in the Transactions of the Phrenological Society and the Phrenological Journal, that I consider any farther reply to them as superfluous. I refer particularly to the following articles as containing answers to his ar guments, viz. Observations on the Objections of Dr Barclay,' in the Phrenological Transactions; A Historical Notice of early Opinions regarding the Brain,' in Phrenological Journal, No 7, article 8th; an essay on Size in the Organs as a Measure of Power in the Faculties,' in No 14, article 1st; an essay on Materialism,' in No 1, article 13th; and to the following articles as specimens of the evidence on which Phrenology is founded, viz. Phren. Journal, vol. 1st, on Destructiveness, p. 25; on Constructiveness, p. 247; vol. 2d, on Philoprogenitiveness, p. 1; on Acquisitiveness, p. 217; History of the Discovery of the Phren. Organs, p. 450 and 513; on Com bativeness, p. 543; vol. 3d, Dr Gall's Visit to the Prisons of Berlin and Spandau, 297; vol. 4th, on the Organ and Faculty of Locality, p. 524; besides innumerable other articles. Any person who desires to know the real merits of Mr Stone's work will be quite able to form a sound judgment of its novelty, profundity, and fairness, after perusing the essays here particularly indicated. I would not have troubled you even with this notice, but for one statement in his Evidence, which directly charges me with imposition. In the Phrenological Journal, vol. iv. p. 388, in reference to my lecture in the Assembly Room, in answer to Sir William Hamilton, it is stated, that I " mentioned to the audience, that Mr Syme, lately lecturer on anatomy, and now on surgery, who is not "a Phrenologist, had kindly favoured me with the use of all the 66 open skulls in his collection, which I then exhibited along with "the whole open skulls belonging to the Phrenological Society, "thereby enabling any individual present, after ocular inspection, "to decide for himself on the parallelism of the inner and outer "tables of the cranium, as well as on the frequency and extent of "the frontal sinus. By using Mr Syme's specimens the charge of "selection was obviated; and by producing all of them, no room "was left for suspecting intentional omission of any, while, at the same time, an opportunity was afforded of contrasting them with "the phrenological collection, and detecting any partiality in the "latter if it existed." 66 On this statement Mr Stone makes the following remarks:"On visiting Mr Syme's museum, I find that his collection of open "crania amounts only to three, one of which, being that of an in"fant of about two years of age, would in no wise have affected the present question. Here indeed we might pause to ask what con"fidence is to be placed upon the authority of men who can have "recourse to so flagrant a misrepresentation to misguide their cre"dulous disciples, and impose on the understanding of the public? "What can we think of that system which requires even its ablest "advocate to defend it by such a miserable expedient ?" One of the greatest advantages which I have derived from Phrenology is a thorough practical conviction that the modes of thinking and acting of individuals bear reference to the development of their mental organs. Hence I view the foregoing sentences of Mr Stone as a characteristic display of a particular combination of organs in his brain; I freely forgive his unmannerly and unfounded reproaches, and simply request you to publish the following letters for my vindication with the public: "To James Syme, Esq. "Edinburgh, 26th April, 1828. 1 "MY DEAR SIR,-I beg leave to refer you to Evidences against "the System of Phrenology, by Thomas Stone, Esq., p. 56, and to "solicit your answer to the following questions: : "Had I the use of all the open skulls in your museum in my "lecture in the Assembly Rooms? and how many specimens were "there?-I am,. &c. "GEO. COMBE." ANSWER BY MR SYME. "To Geo. Combe, Esq. "MY DEAR SIR,-I have had the pleasure of receiving your "queries, and beg to reply, 1st, That all the open skulls in my museum, which could be transported with safety, were present at your lecture in the As"sembly Rooms. "2dly, That the number of these skulls was seven. "I regretted at the time they were so few, but you know that it "is not usual for teachers of anatomy or surgery to open any more "skulls than they require to display the internal structure.—I re"main, &c. 1 "75, George Street, 26th April, 1828." "JAMES SYME. Allow me to add, that the reason why I applied to Mr Syme was, that I knew he had taken no part in the phrenological controversy; that his collection of skulls was precisely that which he used for the teaching of anatomy and surgery; and hence, that, whatever the number of open skulls might be, they would afford examples of every fact on the internal structure which he considered of importance to his students. To his collection were added an interesting example of a very large sinus borrowed from Dr John Scott, and eleven or twelve specimens from the Phrenological Museum; several of which were presented to the Society, for the purpose of exhibiting the sinus in large dimensions; so that no charge could be more unfounded and unmerited than that I deceived the public on the occasion alluded to.-I am, Sir, your obedient humble servant, GEO. COMBE. P. S. Since writing the foregoing letter, I have received the following note from Mr Syme: “ To George Combe, Esq. “MY DEAR SIR,On looking over the skulls in my museum more carefully, along with Mr Stone, I find that there were eight open “ crania at your lecture in the Assembly Rooms, and not seven, as stated in my answer to your note of the 26th.--Yours ever, &c. « JAMES SYME. " 75, George Street, Wednesday, 30th April." 66 LETTER FROM MR STONE. To the Editor of the Caledonian Mercury. Sir, In reply to a letter from Mr Combe, which has appeared in your paper, I beg leave to state, that I decidedly do not consider myself at all responsible for any mis-statement contained in “ The “Evidences against the System of Phrenology," respecting the number of open crania in Mr Syme's museum. In consequence of the imposing account given by Mr Combe of the crania in the possession of that gentleman, I visited his museum, not with the intention of inquiring how many open crania it contained, but with the intention of examining the frontal sinuses in the many specimens which, from the statements already alluded to, I expected to find. I applied, therefore, to Mr Syme himself on the occasion, who politely referred me to his assistants, stating, that they would give me every in- . formation I desired. I was then shown the three open crania, to which I have before adverted, and was informed that they were all the specimens of the kind in the museum. I now perceive that Mr Syme, in reply to Mr Combe, has stated, first, that all the open crania “ which could be transported with safety” from his museum were present at his lecture, and the number of these was seven ; and, secondly, He has addressed another letter to him, stating that the number of these was eight. I need simply, therefore, remark, that as Mr Syme was himself deceived after Mr Combe's application, and has given that gentleman two different statements, so was 1, in the first instance, misled, and I do not consequently consider that my own veracity can, in the slightest degree, be impeached. I am exceedingly happy that the mistake is rectified, but must distinctly avow that this explanation does not at all exonerate Mr Combe ; for even taking the maximum of these skulls at eight, I do not conceive so small a number as this would warrant the language he has used respecting them. On the contrary, the disingenuous nature of his present communication involves hím only in a deeper difficulty. The question at issue between us relates to the number of these crania that exhibit the frontal sinus, as the charge brought against Mr Combe is that of having announced to the public that: he refuted Sir William Hamilton's objections respecting the frontal sinus, not only by the specimens belonging to the Phrenological So a |
