130 />■ ^^- ^- Biichner : 



Martin's Dioptro^rnipli." The rfsultin.L' dia^iraius art' tluM-L'foro stvi<'tly 

 accurate ;ind cori-elativt». 



Klaatsili. however, in his Australian work did not employ mechani- 

 cal methods for Hxation in the plane determined on, but used a yield- 

 intr substance like plasticine. He says: — "In order to obtain exact 

 results, the skull has to be carefully placed in proper position, it 

 being essential that the tracins: of its contour be made on the level of 

 a definite common horizon." But the question arises, can a skull 

 always l)e placed in its proper position without fixed mechanical 

 methods? Personally I think not, and for this reason I have not 

 availed myself of the diagrams furnished in Klaatsch's memoir on the 

 Australian aboriginal, as it is open to doubt whether the orientation 

 is absolutely reliable. Consequently, apart from the few comparative 

 data of the" Zentrum " angle referred to, I do not propose to institute 

 any further craniotrigonometrical comparisons between my Tasmanian 

 results and those of other observers on the Australian. 



I content myself, therefore, witli leaving to those interested the 

 further examination of the various figures now for the first time made 

 available in Table I. 



Concerning, therefore, the value of Klaatsch's craniotrigonometrical 

 system, u)y investigation leads me to the belief that, for reconstruc- 

 tioiial work, such as tliat of the face from the calvaria, the method 

 may be of some value, inasmuch as I have satisfied myself that in the 

 Tasmanian, at all events, the angle formed by the ])asion bregma and 

 glabella lau)l)da. lines is, as averred ])y Kliiatscli, for all skulls, re- 

 markably constant at or about 90 deg. 



Apart from this the method does not appear to ]iossess any ad- 

 vantage whatsoever, as compared with the existinir method of 

 ?!chwalbe. The latter method has been shown, notwithstanding its 

 imperfections, and the fact as proved by Cross (23) that all its data arc- 

 not of ecpial mor])hological value, to l)e of very real advantage for esti- 

 mating the relative evolutionary growth of the brain, and of thus 

 determining the relative positions of pre-historic and recent man of 

 both low and high civilisations, one to another. 



My final conclusion is, therefore, that greater progress will be made 

 in the craniology of peoples by extending the observations o'f Schwalbe, 

 Beriy and Uol)ertson, Cross and others to as many nationalities as 

 possible, than by tlie invention of new methods. 



Concerning the range of vaiiations in the 27 observations herein 

 recorded, it is important, in view of the attention now being almost 

 generally devoted to this cpiestion, to examine it carerully. 



Without going into the modern vexed (piestion of tlie causes of 

 variations and mutations, it may be stated that there are, at all 

 events two widely divergent schools. The views of the one school 



