1864.] Kina on the Reputed Fossil Man of the Neanderthal. 93 
ral features of resemblance between tho Australian, Neanderthal, and 
ancient Danish crania; but it appears to me, judging from the figures 
(31 and 82) in the deeply philosophical work, ‘Man’s Place in Na- 
ture,’ that a closer resemblance is assumed than really exists. No one 
would have any hesitation in admitting that the Borreby skull, repre- 
sented under one of the figures cited, is strictly human,— nay, from 
what I have seen myself, I have no hesitation in saying that precisely 
the same cranial conformation is often repeated in the present day ; 
but it has yet to be shown that any skulls hitherto found are more 
than approximately similar to the one under consideration. 
The proposition at present contended for is apparently invalidated 
by the fact that, among certain species of animals—notably those under 
domestication—skulls very dissimilar from each other may be found. 
It is, therefore, to be apprehended that, however clearly the Neanderthal 
fossil may be shown to be inadmissible into the human species, an attempt 
will be made to set aside the consequent conclusion by an appeal to 
the fact alluded to. But this I contend is not a case in point, as will 
be evident after a moment’s reflection on the various breeds of the Dog 
—the best known of our domesticated species. These breeds, so re- 
markably differentiated by cranial peculiarities, are artificial, whereas 
the varieties of mankind are natural. The dissimilar skulls met with 
in the former are merely striking illustrations of organic or structural 
modifiability, produced by what Darwin calls Natural Selection, but 
nothing more. 
Again, some weight seems to be due to the consideration that the 
human species (in which I include all the existing races of man) is 
characterized by a great variety of skulls. We have abundant ex- 
amples affording characters which closely iink together the most dis- 
similar forms, so that it is impossible to draw a line of demarcation 
between the extremes of dolichocephaly and brachycephaly,* or between 
the lofty forehead of Indo-Europeans and the depressed one of the 
Australian. Nay, the most degraded race we are acquainted with — 
the Mincopies of the Andaman Islands — may be strictly regarded as 
closely affined by cranial conformation to the highest intellectual races. 
It might, therefore, be urged that the Neanderthal skull is simply 
an aberrant form, but which is, nevertheless, inseparably linked on to 
the Indo-European type. If sufficient has not yet been adduced to 
dispel this idea, the following additional evidences, referring to the 
particular parts of the bones composing the fossil cranium, will, it is 
thought, be deemed fully adequate for the purpose. 
Commencing with the Frontal.—Fuhlrott and Huxley have satis- 
factorily shown that this bone is furnished with large frontal sinuses ; 
and apparently they regard these as the cause of the excessive pro- 
minency of the superciliary ridges. It may be reasonably doubted, 
however, that this is the case. Frontal sinuses, it is well known, do 
not always coexist with prominent brow-ridges, as, for example, in the 
Australian and the Chimpanzee: on the other hand, the former may 
exist without being associated with any more than an ordinary de- 
* Professor Retzius distinguished long skulls, and short or round skulls, re- 
spectively by the names dolichocephalic and brachycephalic. 
