case with the pyramidal skulls. Retzius bases his division of nations into long-skulled and short-skulled (Dolichokephali and Brachykephali), on the size of the posterior lobe; he includes in the first the elongated and oval (Ethiopian and Caucasian races), and in the second the pyramidal (Mongolian race). He divides both classes again according to the position of the jaw, with which the inclination of the forehead harmonizes, into straight-jawed and slanting-jawed nations (orthognathous and prognathous). In this way he gets four principal types. To the long-skulled races with straight jaws belong the Celtic, Germanic, Romance, and Hindoo races; to the round-skulled races with straight jaws, the Slavs, Lapps, Persians, Turks, Polynesians, etc.; to the round - skulled with slanting jaws, the Tartars, Mongols, Malays, and several West American tribes; to the long-skulled races with slanting jaws, the Australian, Chinese, Japanese, Negroes, Eskimos, and most East American tribes.

You will observe-and this is not unimportantthat these different groups do not correspond. The differences between the different tribes would be much more remarkable if the same races which differed in colour differed also in form of the skull, and if, according to the classification of Blumenbach and that of Retzius, the same races could be joined and the same separated. But this is not the case. Blumenbach's classification, according to the form of the skull, gives no separate place to the Americans and Malays. In his system the Germanic and Slavic peoples belong to one group, as they do also in point of colour. In Retzius' system they belong to different groups. On the other

hand, Retzius includes Negroes, Australians, and Greenlanders in one group, whereas Blumenbach divides them. Each principle of classification therefore, if we hold to it alone, leads us to combinations and divisions which according to the other principle of classification are unnatural. We may therefore conclude from this that there is not so clear a line of demarcation between the races of mankind as there is between species of animals which, though they resemble one another, are yet different.

If we group the races of mankind according to the shape of the skull, we must except not only the pathological abnormal instances which occasionally occur, but also those which we occasionally find in whole races, which are produced not naturally, but artificially. In many races, for instance, there is a custom of pressing or binding up the skull directly after the birth of the child, so as to give it a shape which approaches to that considered as the ideal of a beautiful skull in those tribes, some trying to flatten the skull as much as possible, others to make it as high as possible. This practice exists principally amongst American races, but it occurs in other countries, and it was found sometimes in ancient times, as old writers tell us. Savants still dispute whether such artificial shaping of the skull if it is carried out throughout a series of generations may not become hereditary."

The measurement and classification of skulls has been carried out very vigorously and carefully in late years by anthropologists. But unfortunately craniologists have not yet decided on any certain process of

1 A. Wagner, ii. 39. Burmeister, Geschichte der Schöpfung, p. 514 (631). Archiv für Anthropologie, ii. 21.

2

measurement,' and therefore skulls are classed by them very differently. Instead of Retzius' classification, Aeby divides skulls into broad and narrow, Eurykephalous and Stenokephalous; Hermann Welcker into narrow or long skulls (Dolichokephalous), straight skulls (Orthokephalous),-which are called middle skulls (Mesokephalous) by Broea and others,—and broad or short skulls (Brachykephalous), and he bases this division on the relation of the diameter in length to the diameter in breadth at one given place in the skull. If the first is taken as 100, the "index of breadth," as the percentage of the diameter of breadth is called, varies between 58 and 98, or if we leave out exceptional cases, between 67 and 85. If the index of breadth sinks below 74, the skulls are called Dolichokephalous; if it rises above 78, Brachykephalous; skulls with an index of breadth of 74-78 are called Orthokephalous or Mesokephalous. The index of height, as the measure of the height of the skull given in percentage of the diameter of length is called, varies between 70 and 82, and by it we distinguish between high and flat skulls, Hypsikephalous and Platykephalous. As a rule the narrower skulls are higher, and the broader, flatter. In the same

3

way, in recent times the human brain has been carefully measured and weighed, and the facial angle has been measured more accurately than by Camper;

1 Cf. H. v. Ihering, Die 5, allgemeine Versammlung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anthropologic, etc., Dresden 1874, Brunswick 1875, p. 68. Archiv für Anthropol. i. 90, 250.

2 Die Schädelformen, p. 28.

3 Peschel, Volkerkunde, p. 55. Archiv für Anthr. i. 127. Pfaff, Schöpfungsgeschichte, p. 715.

Welcker

enumerates prognathous, orthognathous (mesognathous) and opisthognathous skulls, and it has been found that generally speaking prognathism occurs in narrow skulls, whereas the middle and broad skulls are mostly mesognathous, and sometimes opisthognathous.1

Considering the accuracy which modern anthropologists hold to be necessary in these measurements, many more skulls, from more countries than has hitherto been possible, must be measured before any certain conclusions can be arrived at. But even the measurements which have been made hitherto show that great variations exist within single tribes, and hence it seems very unlikely that we shall be able to found a distinct classification of races on the basis of the different skull formations. The index of breadth in the Malays, for instance, varies between 73 and 82. The Negro skulls are universally narrow and high; the index of breadth falls as low as 68, and the index of height rises to 69; but still Negro skulls occur in which the index of breadth is 77, and Slavic and German skulls whose index of breadth is less than 73. principally among the lower races; but Welcker reckons the Eskimos and Hottentots amongst the mesognathous races, and cases of prognathism among the English and French are not unknown.

Prognathism occurs

The pelvis, the circle of strong wide bones at the lower end of the hollow of the stomach, is also differently formed; four principal forms have been distinguished: the oval, round, square and wedge shaped; or three if the oval and round forms are united. This point,

1 Peschel, Volkerkunde, p. 77.

2

2 M. J. Weber, Die Lehre von dem Ur-und Rassenformen der Schädel

however, is of minor importance to our object, as the differences in this respect are less evident and constant than in the case of the skulls.

Lastly, speech is considered; some anthropologists, as e.g. the Englishman Latham, make use of the differences of speech as the main principle of classification, and treat the differences in bodily shape as of secondary importance. I shall return to this point; but other anthropologists are evidently not wrong in saying that in a natural history of the varieties of mankind the differences in the bodily formation of man must be first attended to. Language is at any rate a much more unstable element than the bodily type. It can be transmitted from our race to another, quite different in bodily formation and in descent.

Our next task therefore will be to examine what weight must be attached, first to the differences in the shape of the skull and in the colour of the skin, and then to the differences in language, in face of the similarity which we find among all men. The characteristics which are common to all mankind, and among them specially the power that all races have of crossbreeding, prove at any rate that the races of men are not different species of a genus, but varieties of a species.1

und Becken des Menschen, Düsseldorf 1830. Prichard, i. 377. A. Wagner, ii. 96. Peschel, Volkerkunde, p. 80.

"If the colour of the Negro were of such importance, that because of it Negroes and Europeans must be pronounced by natural science to be two different species of the human race, all the parts of the body would differ in them just as generally as does the colour, and this is not the case. We do no doubt find slight differences between every limb of the Negro and of the European, but they are differences of degree and not of kind as would be the case if the two bodies belonged to different species. Look at the differences between the horse and the donkey, or the ox and