4 INTRODUCTION [CHAP. 



which he devised, and through which his name will be perpetuated in the 

 literature of craniometry. 



The work of John Hunter (1728-1793) stands in a category apart from all 

 others. If not avowedly anthropological, the researches carried out by Hunter 

 in Comparative Anatomy define the field or extent of the larger part of 

 modern Physical Anthropology. For the rest, it must be added that while in 

 Hunter's work the anatomical notes are numbered in thousands, the physio- 

 logical background is never lost to view. Herein, it is fair to believe, a clue 

 will be found to Hunter's success. This vitalizing principle was rigidly main- 

 tained and may be studied to-day, not only in the literary monuments left by 

 Hunter, but also in the noble Collection by which his memory is perpetuated. 



The accomplished anatomist Soemmering published (in 1785) a monograph 

 on the anatomy of a Negro, which has become classical. The author extended 

 the comparative methods employed by Camper in the case of the external 

 characters, to the details of every part and structure of the body. In this 

 research again, we may notice the substitution of exact and precise information 

 for speculative surmise. Not the least important point made by Soemmering 

 was his observation that the brain-weight of his subject exceeded that of most 

 Europeans. This very paradox (as it seemed even then to Soemmering) 

 led him to anticipate (in part at least) important researches carried out 

 a century later by Snell and Dubois. For Soemmering found that while the 

 Negro's brain exceeded that of the European in weight, it held nevertheless 

 a more lowly position when judged by a comparison of its size with the 

 combined mass of the cerebral nerves. The absolute weight taken alone is 

 thus deprived of value as an index of developmental status. It is further- 

 shewn that for the interpretation of the significance of the brain-weight, the 

 size and complexity of the organs supplied by those nerves must be held 

 accountable for a certain part (now called the " corporeal concomitant "). 

 And finally, it is on the part which remains over, called by Soemmering the 

 " superfluous quantity," that judgment as to the real " size " of the brain is to 

 be passed. 



Bluinenbach is distinguished particularly by his studies in comparative 

 human craniology (cf. Fig. 3). Born at Gotha in 1752, Bluinenbach studied 

 successively at Jena and at Gbttingen, at which latter University he obtained 

 a professorial chair: and at Gottingen Bluinenbach died in 1840. Three 

 characteristics seem to be prominent before all others in the character of this 

 remarkable man. His extraordinary versatility in scientific pursuits has 

 rarely been surpassed, even in the fatherland of Goethe, Helmholtz, and 

 Virchow. Scarcely less impressive was his enormous range of literary 

 acquaintance. A third point is that he was eminently a laboratory worker 

 (sesshaft, as the Germans style it), for he travelled but little. 



Blumeubach's principal contributions to science consist' of a treatise on 

 the "Natural Varieties of the Human Species" and of numerous craniological 

 descriptions, to which must be added certain essays on the Natural History 

 of Man, including an anatomical comparison of Man with other animals. 



