THE VARIETIES OF THE HUMAN SPECIES. 1 5 



hypsi-brachycephalic form of cranium, will not understand why the 

 illustrious author constitutes of them different types, defining 

 them always with the often-repeated proposition, " Die Form des 

 Schadels ist hypsi-brachycephal." That the forms of such crania 

 differ is evident from the fine lithographs, and not from the 

 description^ much less from the definition. Why has the cele- 

 brated anthropologist stopped on the way and has not developed 

 the idea already promulgated by him and by his compatriots? 

 I find in the Crania Helvetica and in the Crania Germanica of von 

 Holder and of Ecker that the conception of type is more evident 

 and has also a nomenclature, which is the only means of distin- 

 guishing typical forms. 



According to my observations upon craniometry, which has now 

 become cabalistic, especially in France, on account of the abuse 

 of measures and numerical ciphers, the indices of the cranium and 

 face are taken as a means of distinguishing races, human groups, 

 as we might call them, and other measures are either omitted or 

 appHed only to individuals. In order to be convinced we should 

 ■carefully and conscientiously study the craniometrical works of 

 Dr. Danielli, of Florence, upon the Nias and Bengalese. The 

 author has not been able to find satisfactory results after persever- 

 ing researches, but whoever would seek evidence of individual 

 variations will find more than enough. It seems to me, therefore, 

 that the method by measurement may serve this purpose, that is, 

 to discover numerically individual differences, but never those 

 typical of a race. But such a discovery is useless, since we are all 

 convinced of the existence of individual differences. I will there- 

 fore add that such differences, to be valuable, must be sought, not 

 among forms differing from each other, but among individuals of 

 the same type. That implies, therefore, necessarily and always, 

 the search for types and their distinction, which is not possible by 

 means of the craniometrical method. 



Craniometry considers two forms, with a third of transition : the 

 cranium long, and relatively narrow; the cranium wide, and rela- 

 tively short, that is, dolicho- and brachycephalic, the form between 

 which is mesocephalic. These forms, as I have said, are expres- 

 sions of the normal line of Blumenbach, but imperfect, inexact 

 and insufficient, as a brief demonstration will show. 



