1280 
much taller European; we may, therefore, assume that this brain 
quantity, alsocalculated in relation to the body- 
weight, exceeded thatofthe present European. 
This bigh cephalisation of Homo neandertalensis can, in my 
opinion, be explained by the fact that he was in possession of par- 
ticularly powerful muscles, which may be inferred from the robust 
character of his bones and the comparative shortness of his limbs, 
especially of his legs '). In this respect the Neandertal Man resembles 
the Japanese, the Eskimos, probably also the Chinese and Javanese, 
in general the Mongolian race ’). 
ManouvrieR®) was the first to point out that the cranial capacity 
of men with thin limbs (as the Hindus and the Australians) is 
comparatively small, of men with “carrure’ which are “trapus” 
and “robustes” (mountaineers, Eskimos) comparatively large. About 
the ‘“carrure” he says: “Ce facteur me paraît avoir une importance 
considérable d’apres mes propres observations. Il est certainement 
plus important que la longueur du corps, et cela s’expliquerait par 
le fait que l'énergie motrice des muscles est bien plus en rapport 
avec leur section transversale qu’avec leur longueur’’. (p. 686). He 
sees a connection between the great cranial capacity of the Eskimos 
and the fact that they are “trapus et actifs’. (p. 219). [lay particular 
stress on the last word. 
Later Matiecka‘) has demonstrated from Prague section reports 
that there exist relations between the brain weight and muscularity 
and also the more or less powerful build of the bones. 
These relations of the brain weight and its dependence on the 
build of the body, especially on its breadth, can be much better 
studied now than formerly, by comparison of the human races. 
In the first place it may now be considered as certain that among 
the present human races it is not the Europeans, but the Mongoloids 
that possess the greatest relative quantity of brain. The best data 
1) M. Bouts, loc. cil., p. 125-170 and p. 120. 
*) After what precedes it will be self-evident that it is not my intention, to have 
recourse here to the well-worn path of relationship. 
5) L. MANOUVvRIER, Sur l’interprétation de la quantité dans l’encéphale. Mémoires 
de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris. 2me série. Tome 3, p. 217—219. 1885, 
— and under “Cerveau” in Dictionnaire de Physiologie par CHARLES RICHET, 
p. 686—687. Paris 1898. 
*) H. Matigcxa, Ueber das Hirngewicht, die Schädelkapacität und die Kopfform, 
sowie deren Beziehungen zur psychischen Tatigkeit des Menschen. Sitzungsberichte 
der Kön böhmischen Gesellschafft der Wissenschaften. Mathem.-Naturw. Classe. 
Jahrgang 1902. XX, p. 13—14 and 44. Prague 1903. 
