38o 



NATURE 



[August i8, 1892 



between people and people, so that if we are to preserve in a 

 form fit for future use the shreds which remain of the myths, 

 folk-lore, and Hnguisticusagesof many of the tribes of humanity, 

 we must be up and doing without delay. It is on this account 

 that systematic research such as that which Mr. Risley has 

 advocated with regard to the different races of India is of such 

 pressing and urgent importance. It is for this reason likewise 

 that we hail with pleasure the gathering of folk-lore while yet 

 it survives, and welcome such societies for the purpose as the 

 Folk-lore Congress recently inaugurated. 



I have said that in the department of Physical Anthropology 

 our facilities for research are increasing. The newly-founded 

 anthropometric laboratories are beginning to bring forth results 

 in the form of carefully compiled statistical tables, embodying 

 the fruits of accurate observations, which are useful as far as they 

 go. Were these extended in their scope the same machinery 

 might easily gather particulars as to the physical characters of 

 the inhabitants of different districts, which would enable the 

 anthropologist to complete in a systematic manner the work 

 which Dr. Beddoe had so well begun. I would commend this 

 work to the consideration of the provincial university colleges, 

 especially those in outlying districts. 



Of all the parts of the human frame, the skull is that upon 

 which anthropologists have in the past expended the most of 

 their time and thought. We have now, in Great Britain alone, 

 at least four collections of skulls, each of which includes more 

 than a thousand specimens, and in the other great national and 

 university museums of Europe there are large collections avail- 

 able for study and comparison. 



Despite all the labour that has been bestowed on the subject, 

 craniometric literature is at present as unsatisfactory as it is dull. 

 Hitherto observations have been concentrated on cranial 

 measurements as methods for the discrimination of the skulls of 

 different races. Scores of lines, arcs, chords, and indexes have 

 been devised for this purpose, and the diagnosis of skulls has been 

 attempted by a process as mechanical as that whereby we identify 

 certain issues of postage-stamps by counting the nicks in the 

 margin. But there is underlying all these no unifying hypothesis, 

 so that when we, in our sesquipedalian jargon describe an 

 Australian skull as microcephalic, phsenozygous, tapeino-doli- 

 chocephalic, prognathic, platyrhine, hypselopalatine, leptosta- 

 phyline, dolichuranic, chamaeprosopic, and microseme, we are 

 no nearer to the formulation of any philosophic concept of the 

 general principles which have led to the assumption of these 

 characters by the cranium in question, and we are forced to 

 echo the apostrophe of Von Torok, "Vanity, thy name is 

 Craniology." 



It was perhaps needful in the early days of the subject that it 

 should pass through the merely descriptive stage ; but the time 

 has come when we should seek for something better, when we 

 should regard the skull not as a whole complete in itself, nor as 

 a crystalline geometrical solid, nor as an invariable structure, 

 but as a marvellously plastic part of the human frame, whose 

 form depends on the co-operation of influences, the respective 

 shares of which in moulding the head are capable of qualitative 

 if not of quanitative analysis. Could measurements be devised 

 which would indicate the nature and amounts of these several 

 influences, then, indeed, would craniometry pass from its pre- 

 sent empirical condition, and become a genuine scientific 

 method. We are yet far from the prospect of such an ideal 

 system, and all practical men will realize the immense, but not 

 insuperable, difficulties in the way of its formulation. 



In illustration of the profound complexity of the problem 

 which the craniologist has to face, I would ask your indulgence 

 while I set out a few details to show the several factors whose 

 influence should be numerically indicated by such a mode of 

 measurement. 



The parts composing the skull may be resolved into four 

 sets : there is, first, the brain-case ; secondly, the parts which 

 subserve mastication and the preparation of the food for 

 digestion ; thirdly, the cavities containing the organs of the 

 senses of hearing, sight, and smell ; and fourthly, those 

 connected with the production of articulate speech. If our 

 measurements are to mean anything, they should give us a series 

 of definite numbers indicating the forms, modifications, and 

 relative size of these parts, and their settings with regard to 

 each other and to the rest of the body. 



To take the last point first, it needs but a small consideration 

 to show that the parts of the skull are arranged above and below 

 a certain horizontal plane, which is definite (although not easily 



NO. II 90, VOL. 46] 



ascertained) in every skull, human or animal. This is the plane 

 of vision. The familiar lines of Ovid— 



Pronaque cum spectent animalia cetera terram, 

 Os homini lublime dedit ; coelumque tueri 

 Jussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus — 



are anatomically untrue, for the normal quadruped and man 

 alike, in their most natural position, have their axis of vision 

 directed to the horizon. Systems of measurement based upon 

 any plane other than this are essentially artificial. There are 

 at the outset difficulties in marking the plane accurately on the 

 skull, and it is to be deplored that the anthropologists of 

 different nations should have allowed themselves to be affected 

 by extraneous influences, which have hindered their unanimous 

 agreement upon some one definite horizontal plane in cranio- 

 metry. 



The Frankfort plane drawn through the upper margins of the 

 auditory foramina and the lowest points of the orbital borders 

 has the advantage of being easily traced and differs so little 

 from the plane of vision that we may without substantial error 

 adopt it. 



The largest part of the skull is that which is- at once the re- 

 ceptacle and the protector of the brain, a part which, when 

 unmodified by external pressure, premature synostosis, or other 

 adventitious conditions, owes its form to that of the cerebral 

 hemispheres which it contains. Speaking in this city of George 

 and Andrew Combe, I need not do more than indicate in this 

 matter that observation and experiment have established on a 

 firm basis certain fundamental points regarding the growth of 

 the brain. The study of its development shows that the con- 

 volutioning of the cerebral hemisphere is primarily due to the 

 connection, and different rate of growth, of the superficial layer 

 of cells with the underlying layers of white nerve fibres ; and 

 that so far from the shape being seriously modified by the con- 

 straining influence of the surrounding embryonic skull, the form 

 of the soft membranous brain-case is primarily moulded upon 

 the brain within it, whose shape it may however be, to some 

 extent, a secondary agent in modifying in later growth. We 

 have also learned that, although in another sense from that of 

 the crude phrenology of Aristotle, Porta, or Gall, the cerebrum 

 is not a single organ acting as a functional unit, but consists of 

 parts, each of which has its specific province ; that the increase 

 in the number of cells in any area is correlated with an increase 

 in the size and complexity of pattern of the convolutions of that 

 area ; and that this in turn influences the sbape of the enclosing 

 shell of membrane and subsequently of bone. 



The anatomist and the physiologist have worked hand in 

 hand in the delimitation of these several functional areas, and 

 pathology and surgery have confirmed what experimental 

 physiology has taught. The topography of each part of the 

 cerebrum, so important to the operating surgeon, should be 

 pressed into the service of the anthropologist, whose measure- 

 ments of the brain-case should have definite relation to these 

 several areas. In the discussion which is to take place on this 

 subject, I hope that some such relationships will be taken 

 account of. This is not the place to work out in detail how 

 this may be done ; I only desire to emphasize the fundamental 

 principle of the method. 



The second factor which determines the shape of the indi- 

 vidual skull is the size of the teeth. That these differ among 

 different races is a matter of common observation ; thus the 

 average area of the crowns of the upper-jaw teeth in the male 

 Australian is 1,536 sq. mm., while in the average Englishman 

 it is only 1,286 sq. mm., less than 84 per cent, of that 

 size. ^ 



It is easy to understand how natural selection will tend to 

 increase the size of the teeth among those races whose modes of 

 feeding are not aided by the cook or the cutler ; and how, on 

 the other hand, the progress of civilised habits, assisted by the 

 craft of the dentist, interferes with the action of selection in this 

 matter among the more cultured races. 



For larger teeth a more extensive alveolar arch of implanta- 

 tion is necessary ; and as the two jaws are commensurate ly 

 developed, the lower jaw of the macrodontal races exceeds 

 that of the meso- or microdontal races in weight. Thus that of 

 a male Australian exceeds that of the average Englishman in 

 the proportion of 1 00 : 91. 



To work this heavier jaw more powerful muscles are needed. 



1 These and the succeeding averages are from my own measurem ents, 

 taken from never less than ten individual cases. 



