MAN. 97 
Such experiences should prevent us from making any 
assertions respecting the primitive character, in race or 
physical conformation, of these cave-dwellers. Indeed, 
Prof. Huxley, in a very careful and elaborate paper upon 
the Neanderthal and Engis skulls, places an average skull 
of a modern native of Australia about half-way between 
those of the Neanderthal and Engis caves. Yes, he says 
that, after going through a large collection of Australian 
skulls, he “found it possible to select from these crania 
two (connected by all sorts of intermediate gradations), 
the one of which should very nearly resemble the Engis 
skull, while the other would somewhat less closely ap- 
proximate to the Neanderthal skull in size, form, and 
proportions.” “The Engis skull, perhaps the oldest 
known, is,” according to Prof. Huxley, “a fair average 
skull, which might have belonged to a philosopher, or 
might have contained the thoughtless brain of a savage.” 
In this opinion Mr. Huxley is supported by one of the 
greatest anthropologists of his time, Daniel G. Brinton, 
who says concerning the cave-man of France and Bel- 
gium: Neither in stature, cranial capacity, nor in muscu- 
lar development did these earliest members of the species 
differ more from those now living than do these among 
themselves. We have no grounds for assigning to these 
earliest known men an inferior brain or a lower intelli- 
gence than is seen among various savage tribes still in 
existence.” 
Every new find; upon investigation, proves the truth 
of Virchow’s words: “We must really acknowledge that 
there is a complete absence of any fossil type of a lower 
stage in the development of man. Nay, if we gather 
together all the fossil men hitherto found, and put them 
parallel with those of the present time, we can decidedly 
pronounce that there are among living men a much great- 
er proportion of individuals which show a relatively in- 
