252 Original Articles, [ April, 
A question of much interest at once suggests itself by this com- 
parison. Are we to regard the occupant of the Belgian cavern as of 
the same race as the dweller on the banks of the Somme? ‘The geo- 
graphical distance between the two localities is not great, but the 
geological distance as regards time between the cotemporary of the 
mammoth and woolly rhinoceros and the inhabitant of the North of 
France at a period not more remote than the Gallo-Roman age is, as 
all present evidence indicates, indeed enormous. The answer to the 
above question, then, will doubtless be regulated by the opinion which 
may be entertained of the value of cranial characters, as an element in 
ethnical comparison. Many ethnologists of eminence consider, and 
with much reason, the form of the skull as one of the most important 
tests to be employed in determining the affinities of races, for the 
crania of individuals of the same race possess a strong general resem- 
blance throughout long periods of time. But whatever opinion may 
be formed of the identity or non-identity as regards race of the two 
individuals to whom these crania belonged, there can, I think, be no 
doubt that, as this skull from St. Acheuil proves, the cranial confor- 
mation, and presumably the cerebral conformation also, of the geolo- 
gically ancient Belgian was in no respect inferior to this inhabitant 
of France during a period in its history not more distant than the 
Gallo-Roman time. 
Tue NEANDERTHAL SKULL. 
The circumstances connected with the discovery of this cranium 
have been so well detailed by Dr. Fuhlrott, Professor Schaaffhausen, 
and Sir C. Lyell, and its anatomical characters have been so carefully 
described and figured by Professor Schaaffhausen, Mr. Busk, and Mr. 
Huxley, that it is needless forme to enter into any detailed descrip- 
tion of them, more especially since Professor King has already placed 
many of the most important facts connected with it before the readers 
of this Journal in the number for January. My object will be suffi- 
ciently carried out if I especially discuss those features in its struc- 
ture which either are, or are supposed to be, its peculiar character- 
istics, and which are considered to distinguish it from all other known 
human crania. 
The skull, when looked at even by one not skilled in human ana- 
tomy, is seen to possess remarkable features, The flattened vertex, 
the low retreating forehead and strongly projecting supra-orbital 
ridges, at once attract attention, and show that it is an exceptional 
form of human cranium. To these more obvious characters Mr. 
Huxley has added yet another, in the shape of the occipital region, 
which he looks upon as even more striking to the anatomical eye. 
The consideration of these peculiarities, together with some others 
of minor importance, has led Professor King to look upon the being 
to whom this cranium belonged as specifically, nay more, as generi- 
cally, distinct from man. But in coming to this conclusion, that 
observer appears to me to have estimated far too lightly the amount 
of variation to which the human body is subject, in the structure and 
arrangement of its constituent parts. J allude not merely to diverg- 
