THE STUDY OF MAN. 309 



the inhabitants of different districts, which, would enable the an- 

 thropologist to complete in a systematic manner the work which 

 Dr. Beddoe had so well begun. I would commend this work to 

 the consideration of the provincial university colleges, especially 

 those in outlying districts. 



Of all the parts of the human frame, the skull is that upon 

 which anthropologists have in the past expended the most of 

 their time and thought. We have now, in Great Britain alone, at 

 least four collections of skulls, each of which includes more than 

 a thousand specimens, and in the other great national and univer- 

 sity museums of Europe there are large collections available for 

 study and comparison. 



Despite all the labor that has been bestowed on the subject, 

 craniometric literature is at present as unsatisfactory as it is dull. 

 Hitherto observations have been concentrated on cranial measure- 

 ments as methods for the discrimination of the skulls of different 

 races. Scores of lines, arcs, chords, and indexes have been devised 

 for this purpose, and the diagnosis of skulls has been attempted 

 by a process as mechanical as that whereby we identify certain 

 issues of postage-stamps by counting the nicks in the margin. 

 But there is underlying all these no unifying hypothesis ; so that 

 when we in our sesquipedalian jargon describe an Australian 

 skull as microcephalic, phsenozygous, tapeino-dolichocephalic, 

 prognathic, platyrhine, hypselopalatine, leptostaphyline, dolichu- 

 ranic, chama?prosopic, and microseme, we are no nearer to the for- 

 mulation of any philosophic concept of the general principles 

 which have led to the assumption of these characters by the 

 cranium in question, and we are forced to echo the apostrophe of 

 Von Torok, " Vanity, thy name is Craniology." 



It was perhaps needful in the early days of the subject that it 

 should pass through the merely descriptive stage ; but the time 

 has come when we should seek for something better, when we 

 should regard the skull not as a whole complete in itself, nor as a 

 crystalline geometrical solid, nor as an invariable structure, 1ml 

 as a marvelously plastic part of the human frame, whose form 

 depends on the co-operation of influences, the respective shares of 

 which in molding the head are capable of qualitative if not of 

 quantitative analysis. Could measurements be devised which 

 would indicate the nature and amounts of these several influences, 

 then, indeed, would craniometry pass from its present empirical 

 condition, and become a genuine scientific method. We are yet 

 far from the prospect of such an ideal system, and all practical 

 men will realize the immense, but not insuperable, difficulties in 

 the way of its formulation. 



In illustration of the profound complexity of the problem 

 which the craniologist has to face, I would ask your indulgence 



