CorreldfloiL of Brain CdpacUi/ and Intdiajence. 243 



iiges with 1100-J"2()() cc, tlic modern day Anstvaliaii alxnigiiuil with 

 T20()-i:{()0 CO., to the learned classes of the '2(ltli tentuvy with their 

 inoo (c. This is still further supi)orted by Buschan's recent work 

 <7;, which investi<j;ated the question as to whether the skulls of to-day 

 permit us to recoj^nise an increase of intelligence as compartHl with 

 those of past ages; with which object he examined a number of 

 French and Hhenish skulls from neolithic to nioilern tiines, and 

 found that in tiie neolithic skulls of France the largest percentage 

 (."50 per cent.) had a cubic capacity of from 1300 to 1400 cc. Of 

 Parisian skulls of the 12th century 37 per cent, had a cubic capacity 

 ■of from 1400 lo 1500 cc. whilst modern Parisian crania had, on an 

 iiverage, a cubic capacity of from 1500 to 1600 cc. iiuschan attains 

 like results with his Rhenish skulls, as also for the ancient Egyp- 

 tians, and in tlu' later he actually finds a diminution of the cubic 

 vapaiity coincident with the mental decline of that ancient and 

 highly civilised people. It seems to us, therefore, on neurological 

 jind anthropological grounds that Miss Lee's opinion is in reality 

 iiTi argument in favour of correlation of size of head and intelli- 

 i;ence. and not against it. as she seems to imagine. 



It consequently follows that if the expression " ([uality of brain '' 

 means anything at all, it denotes an activity of nerve cells due to 

 >>ome subtle and as yet unmeasured and unmeasurable chemical or 

 physical reaction. As thus defined we do not deny the possil)ility 

 of " lirain (piality "' entering into the problem, but there is as yet 

 no jiniof of it. All the facts, as we know then), point to an associa- 

 tion between size of brain and mentality, and per contra we know 

 ■of no evidence cajtalile of scientific investigation which points to 

 <|iialiiy of brain rather than quantity as forming the dominant 

 factor in the mentality of the several classes of mankind. 



From the evidence of the jiresent work, supported by the facts of 

 Others, and confirmed by the great principles of neurology and 

 anthropolt^gy, we are of opinion that there is an appreciable corre- 

 lation between size of head and intelligence in tlie several social 

 liuman classes. 



What holds good for the class should also be true for the indivi- 

 <lual. But here the problem is so obscured by environment, heredity, 

 disease. <lisposition. habits of laziness or industry, and many other 

 more or less distui-bing factors that we entirely concur in the 

 opinion of the In'onietric school of thought as expressed by Miss Lee, 

 wheii she says: " there is no inarked correlation between skull capa- 

 city and intellectual power in the case of eithei- sex aloTie." To 

 argue, however, as she does, that because there is no marked correla- 

 tion in the individual, there is " quite conceivably no correla- 

 tion with racial ability'" seems to us to be erroneous reasoning. 



8a 



