Despite the author’s statement that this book “is intended primarily for the first years of a University course,” it is grossly inadequate for classrooms on either side of the Atlantic. The maps are of varying degrees of quality and usefulness. Some are poorly-drawn; some are ill-conceived; others are inappropriately labeled or of doubtful significance. British bias shows in the uneven areal treatment. Bermuda gets more space than Cuba, the Falklands more than Uruguay, and Montserrat more than Paraguay.

Many of the statements need updating, such as “Cuba is . . . a republic in close alliance with the United States” and “[French Guiana] has been used as a penal settlement. . . since 1885.” Some of the author’s judgments are unusual. Argentina is “progressive,” and Paraguay is said to have been “ruled by a dictator. . . before developing along more orthodox lines.” The Chaco’s “potentialities are immense.” British Guiana “needs, above everything else, more people.”

The author is in frequent error in his sketchy historical statements, and one wonders especially about his sources on the Indians. We are told that the North American Indians “were mostly hunters, and roamed over the great grasslands, living mainly on the flesh of wild animals.” “The Incas ruled over a number of tribes. . . including the Chibchas, some of the Mayas, and some of the Aztecs in the eastern part of the Andes in what is now Colombia; the Quichuas. . . and the Amaras. . .” “Most of the Indians remaining [in South America] are very backward, uncivilized races found in such poorly developed and inhospitable tracts as the dark forests of the Amazon.”

As a geography of the Americas, Stamp’s book is rather unique, but its faults are many and serious. Bolton and others have urged the writing of hemispheric history in order to demonstrate parallels and divergences in the peopling of the two continents. A hemispheric geography would be exceedingly valuable for this purpose, but it would have to be written by a Sauer.