ANTIQUITY OF THE HUMAN RACE 2OJ 



ductlon of the Neanderthal type ; while according to Quatre- 

 fages, 10 the skull of the Bishop of Toul in the fourth century 

 &quot;even exaggerated some of the most striking features of the 

 Neanderthal cranium. The forehead is still more receding, the 

 vault more depressed, and the head so long that the cephalic 

 index is 69.41.&quot; :1 



Macnamara, as we saw, found the average 

 cranial capacity of a considerable number of Aus 

 tralian and Tasmanian skulls under his observa 

 tion to be less than that of the Neanderthal man, 

 while Klaatsch and other equally representative 

 authorities recognized in the Neanderthal skull all 

 the characteristics that can commonly enough be 

 met with among the Australian negro in our 

 day. 12 



Unfounded therefore as is the assurance of 

 the Princeton lecturer upon the subject of the 

 missing link, his authority in the matter of dates 

 must evidently be discounted in the very same 

 manner. This/the above argument already makes 

 plain. There is certainly an immense difference 

 between Professor Conklin s statements and those 

 set forth in 1875 by James C. Southall, in his mas 

 sive work on &quot;The Recent Origin of Man.&quot; 

 While later discoveries have added to our knowl 

 edge, it still is true that Southall s conclusions are 

 far more scientific than the thousands of as- 



10 Quatref ages, &quot;Human Species,&quot; p. 310. 

 u Wright, &quot;Man and the Glacial Period,&quot; p. 276. (Appleton, 

 1896.) 



&quot; Chapter XIII. 



