y 

 336 MENTAL FACULTIES. 



which hides the face. In the Ethiopian, the narrow, slanting, forehead 

 permits the face to appear, whilst the cheeks and jaws are compressed 

 laterally and elongated in front ; and in the Tungoose, the maxillary, 

 malar, and nasal bones are widely expanded on each side ; and the two 

 last rise to the same horizontal level with the space between the frontal 

 sinuses the glabella. Blumenbach's method, however, only affords us 

 the comparative dimensions of the two bones in one direction. It does 

 not indicate the depth of either, or their comparative areas. The view 

 thus obtained is, therefore, partial. 



Finding the inapplicability of other methods to the greater part of 

 the animal creation to birds, reptiles, and fishes, for example M. Cu- 

 vier 1 suggested a comparison between the areas of the face and cranium 

 under the vertical section of the head. The result of his observations 

 is that, in the European, the area of the cranium is four times that 

 of the face, excluding the lower jaw. In the Calmuck, the area of 

 the face is one-tenth greater than in the European; in the negro, one- 

 fifth, and in the sapajou, one-half. In the mandril, the two areas are 

 equal; and, in proportion as we descend in the scale of animals, the 

 area of the face gains over that of the cranium; in the hare, it is one- 

 third greater; in the ruminant animals double; in the horse, quad- 

 ruple, &c. ; so that the intelligence of the animal appeared to be 

 greater or less as the preponderance of the area of the face over that 

 of the skull diminished or increased. 



The truth, according to Sir Charles Bell, 2 is, that the great differ- 

 ence between the bones of the cranium and face in the European and 

 negro is in the size of the jaw-bones. In the negro, these bear a much 

 greater proportion to the head and to the other bones of the face than 

 in the European; and the apparent size of the bones of the negro 

 face was discovered to proceed solely from the size and shape of the 

 jaw-bones; whilst the upper bones of the face, and, indeed, all that 

 had no relation to the teeth and to mastication, were less than those of 

 the European skull. 



Other methods, of a similar kind, have been proposed by natu- 

 ralists, as Spigel, 3 Herder, 4 Mulder, 5 Walther, 6 Doornik, 7 Spix, 8 and 

 Oken, but they are all insufficient to enable us to arrive at a satis- 

 factory comparison. 9 Blumenbach asserts, that he found the facial 

 and occipital angles nearly alike in three-fourths of known animals. 



1 Leons d'Anatomie Compar., No. viii. art. i. tom^ii. p. 1. 



2 Anatomy of Expression, 3d edit., Lond., 1844. 



s Linese Cephalometricae Spigelii, in Spigel, De Human. Corpor. Fabric., i. 8. 



4 Nackenlinien (Linese nuchales Herderi), in Herder's Ideen zur Philosophic der Geschichte 

 der Menschheit, Th. iii. s. 186, Tubing., 1806. 



6 Vorderhauptwinkel (Angulus sincipitalis Mulderi), in art. Kopflinien, in Pierer's Anat. 

 Physiol. Real Worterb., iv. 524, Leipz., 1821. 



6 Schitdelwinkel (Angulus Cranioscopicus Waltheri), in Walther, Kritische Darstellung 

 der Gallschen Anat. Physiol. Untersuch. des Gehirn und Schildeibaues, s. 108, Zurich, 

 1802. 



7 Wijsgeerig Natuurkundig Onderzoek aangande den Oorsprongliken Mensch en de 

 Oorspronglike Stammen van deszelfs Geslacht, Amsterd., 1808. 



8 Cephalogenesis, Monach., 1815. 



9 Oken, Lehrbuch der Zoologie, Abth. ii. s. 660. A description of all these methods is 

 given by Choulant, in Pierer, loc. cit. 



