Prog naf/i Ism of TosiiKi/nian, Ahoi'iynud. 



130 



ol)en antiefuhrt habe, ueht deutlirh hervor (hiss, wenn wir iiiit einer 

 iiunualen (tI-ossg des Basalwiiikels rochiieai wollen, dieser wohl '.W 

 Grad angesetzfc werden muss. Aus doii TabelU n wird es aber auch 

 deu'tlich, dass die Grosse des Basahvinkels eine so weite Variations- 

 breite hat, dass niiin nicht wie Arthur Thonisoii iind Randall Maidver 

 l»ei ilim eine konstante Grosse annehiiu'ii iind daiiaeh audere anlliru- 

 |M)ioo-isrlie .Merkinale aiitrcben kann.' 



Fig. I [. —Illustrating Thomson and Maclver's Method. 

 N = Nasion : P=:Prosthion : Ba=:Basion. 



Keitli {2^), in describing a new craniouieter, states that '' the most 

 satisfactory index is in the area, of the palate, estimated by plotting 

 out the diameters of the palate on millimetre paper.'' This he does 

 by means of the instrument he describes, but as this was not available 

 in Melbourne, I have been unable to adopt his suggestion. In any 

 case, it is, perhaps, open to question, whether, in view of the fact 

 that the present research is largely comparative, it would have been 

 advisable to adopt methods wliich so obviously restrict the field of 

 comparistm. 



From the foregoing brief analysis of such comparatively modern 

 methods of estimating prognathism, as those associated with the 

 names of Flower, Thomson and JNlaclver, Fiirst and Keith, it is 

 apparent that none are entirely satisfactory, or altogether free from 

 objection. It has been shown that Fiirst differs from Thomson and 

 Maclver, as to the oonstr.ncy of the basal angle, whilst Keith's 

 method not only recpiires a special apparatus, l)ut also special modes 

 ttf inveistigation. Turner (29) had ajtparently this same difficulty in 

 mind when he wrote, in iWerence to the estimation of pyrognathism of 

 the Tasmanian crania in the Oxford collection: — "The diti'er 



