speak of island position and island character (insularity) to indicate the whole complex of phenomena due to isolation itself.

Isolation, especially on islands, usually gives rise to various peculia-rities in the development of plants and animals, and it is long known that it makes itself feit in a similar manner in the historical development and in the character of the population, though up tili now its scientific investigation and valuation was but rarely attempted.

From an almost purely biological stand-point A. R. Wallace*) considered the problem of island life in his standard work, but he restricted himself to islands according to the usual quantitative method, and therefore he did not include Australia in his analysis as one of the islands, though mentioning the most characteristical features of its insular character just from a biological stand-point.

F. Ratzel**) devotes a number of pages both in his anthropogeo-graphy and in his political geography to a most clever discussion of this problem, ascribing to Australia the highest degree of insularity, as just on account of its isolation it became the horne of a special human race. But in his further discussions he neglects the effects of this island position on the population of Australia, again, because he considers it as an independent continent on account of its size and offering the conditions of existence for a numerous population, having all the things required for human progress.

Other human geographers, inasmuch as they do not content themselves with certain modifications of Ratzeľs ideas and with additions to them, are clearly fond of studying the influence of isolation on smali geographical units. This applies especially to J. Brunhes ***), according to whom every smali region characterized by isolation is an island from an anthropogeographical point of view, the oases in the deserts as well as isolated mountain Valleys, and even Clearings in the continuous tropical and boreal forest. The examples furnished by him cali forth new ideas and open new lineš of investigations.

L. Febvre†) is right in deploring that up tili now the effects of isolation and island position were treated but in a very perfunctory manner, and we agree with him that the problem of insularity or isolation is one of the most intricate questions of human geography. He is right in emphasizing that insularity or isolation has to be considered not only as a biological fact, but likewise and even particularly as a sociological fact. According to him the effects of isolation are not only due to natural conditions of which man would be an almost passive victim, but chiefly to the direct initiative of man as a social being. They result not only from the geographical position and division of the surface of the globe and from the changes which the isolated units or islands in a wider sense experienced in the course of the