110 FUUTHKR NtiTl'.S ()N H A HITS OF TASMANIAN ABORIGINES. 



produce osteological chingcs in ihi Tasmanian aborigines 

 and not also in the Australian natives? This statement of 

 Dr. Bciscdow is absolutely without foundation, and he 

 proves himself by it a worthy disciple of Ilerr Klaatsch, 

 who enjoys such an unenviable notorietv for superficial 

 work. 



In conclusion, 1 may mention another theory promul- 

 gated by Dr. Basedow, viz., the origin of the superciliary 

 ridges. Dr. Basedow believes that they represent a second- 

 ary feature, probably due to the intense glare of the sun 

 in Australia. But what about the Tasm.uiians? Why 

 should they develop such strong supcrciliarv ridges? There 

 is not such a strong glare in Tasmania as in Australia ; the 

 rays of the sun are much more oblique in lat. 43deg. than 

 in lat. 35deg. to 15dcg., and there was, therefore, no need 

 for the Tasmanians to develop such strong ridges in order 

 to protect their eyes from the glare. The logical conse- 

 quences of Basedow's theory are almost too ludicrous for 

 woi'ds. If he were right all I'accs living under the tropical 

 sun should develop strong supercilian' ridges. This is cer- 

 tainly not correct, as far as India is concerned, as I can 

 vouch from my own experience, and I fairly doubt whether 

 the glare of Australia is worse than that of the Indian 

 desert or Baluchistan. All the African and American 

 races living between 43deg. north and 43deg. southern 

 lat. should develop superciliary ridges, if Basedow's theory 

 were coiTect. The Italians, the Spaniards, in fact, any 

 European living south of 43deg. north lat., should develop 

 strong superciliary ridges to protect his eves from the 

 glare, but I am afraid that wp would fail to discover them. 

 I do not think that many will share Basedow's view as to 

 the origin of the superciliary ridges, and I am probably 

 correct if I assume that far the majority will consider them 

 as what they really are, viz., primitive features- 



Since the above was written a very severe criticism of 

 Dr. Basedow's paper has been published in the same jour- 

 nal. Vol. 43, 1911, Pt. II., page 287. Professor Dr. von 

 Luschan. one of the greatest living authorities on crani- 

 ology. points out that Basedow's paper is scientifically 

 valueless, full of errors, mistakes, and wrong deductions. 

 It is hardly surprising that Professor von Luschan notices 

 Basedow's ludicrous theory, and he says: — "Basedow does 

 not tell us how it could happen that the skull of the 

 Tasmanian became broader and the hair more curly 

 because Ta.smania became separated from the Australian 

 continent." Professor von Luschan calls Basedow's paper 



