164 HUMAN FOSSILS III 



cranium is a little longer than it is represented " 

 in Schmerling's figure. The only other remark 

 worth quoting is this : 



" The aspect of the Tinman bones differs little from that of 

 the cave bones, with which we are familiar, and of which there 

 is a considerable collection in the same place. With respect to 

 their special forms, compared with those of the varieties of 

 recent human crania, few certain conclusions can be put forward ; 

 for much greater differences exist between the different specimens 

 of well-characterized varieties, than between the fossil cranium 

 of Liege and that of one of those varieties selected as a term of 

 comparison." 



Geoffrey St. Hilaire's remarks are, it will be 

 observed, little but an echo of the philosophic 

 doubts of the describer and discoverer of the 

 remains. As to the critique upon Schmerling's 

 figures, I find that the side view given by the 

 latter is really about -j^ths of an inch shorter 

 than the original, and that the front view is 

 diminished to about the same extent. Otherwise 

 the representation is not, in any way, inaccurate, 

 but corresponds very well with the cast which is 

 in my possession. 



A piece of the occipital bone, which Schmerling 

 seems to have missed, has since been fitted on to 

 the rest of the cranium by an accomplished anat- 

 omist, Dr. Spring of Liege, under whose direction 

 an excellent plaster cast was made for Sir Charles 

 Lyell. It is upon and from a duplicate of that cast 

 that my own observations and the accompanying 



