16 DR DAVID HEPBURN ON 
us to form classifications for purposes of reference and com- 
parison. 
By such classification it can be shown that certain 
morphological characters are more closely allied to the 
Anthropoid forms, but it does not follow that a single 
civilised individual, presenting morphological characters 
which are distinctive of the lower animals, is himself more 
akin to them, because we know that it is of the nature of 
variations to possess historical rather than prophetic import- 
ance. If, on the other hand, it were characteristic of an 
entire Race or People to present structural affinities with a 
group of animals lower in the scale than Homo, then we 
should be warranted in looking for some explanation other 
than the one of accidental historical repetition. 
Everyone recognises differences and resemblances among 
the members of the human family sufficient to form a 
foundation for such an expression as the “ Races of Men.” 
For the most part these differences and resemblances affect 
the colour of the skin, the character of the hair, speech, 
habits, and geographical distribution. We do not possess 
the material for a comprehensive examination of the soft 
parts of different races, but it is open to doubt whether any 
very outstanding differences would be found, considering 
how very closely the Anthropoid Apes resemble Man in 
regard to the anatomy of soft parts. 
From the comparative ease with which bones are 
preserved and obtained, there is an accumulating amount of 
evidence regarding the skeleton and, in particular, the skulls 
of mankind, and therefore skulls are much taken advantage 
of for purposes of comparison and classification. 
Since the great organ of the central nervous system is 
contained within the skull, it must be evident that all 
information with regard to the skull gains an additional 
importance. It would be quite wrong, however, to insist 
that observations made upon a box, with regard to its 
dimensions and capacity, necessarily affect the quality of 
the contents of the box. At the same time, it would be 
equally mistaken to assume that the capacity of the cranium 
and its various proportions are purely accidental and un- 
important occurrences. 
———T 
ia. 
