UPON THE SERIES OF PREHISTORIC CRANIA. 637 



It is undoubtedly an important fact that in no skull from any- 

 long' barrow, that is to say, in no skull undoubtedly of the stone age, 

 examined by us, has the breadth been found to bear so high a relation 

 as that of 80 : 100 of the length ; for this alone would suffice to show 

 that Retzius's classification of skulls into two great divisions of 

 dolicho-cephalic and braehy-cephalic cannot, even when taken to 

 connote merely the strictest geometrical proportions, be summarily 

 set aside as an artificial one. But, as Professor Cleland has well 

 pointed out in a memoir (Philosophical Transactions, 1870, vol. 150, 

 p. 145), the value of which is in the inverse ratio of the attention 

 it has received, at least from foreigners ; by ' dolicho-cephaly ' and 

 ' brachy-cephaly ' respectively, Retzius intended that much more 

 should be connoted than that ' ordinarily the longitudinal diameter 

 of the dolicho-cephalous skull surpasses the breadth about one 

 fourth, while in the brachy-cephalous the diiference varies between 

 a fifth and an eighth ^.' I propose here to enumerate the various 

 points, mostly, thoug'h not entirely, those specified by Retzius, 

 which characterise the two sets of dolicho-cephalic and brachy- 

 eephalic crania with which I have here to deal, besides and beyond 

 those which are etymologically implied by these names ; and having 

 done this I shall attempt to give some rationale of the existence of 

 these differences. 



The peculiarities of the contour of the braehy-cephalic crania 

 already described have been repeatedly alluded to above, pp. 571— 

 601 ; of these peculiarities the most important as well as the most 

 constant is, I incline to hold, the relation held by the posterior 

 aspect of the skull to the plane of the parietal tubera. In the 

 braehy-cephalic skull the parietal tubera are usually situated high 

 up on the sides of the skull, and almost invariably the profile 



1 Retziiis confined himself to this binary division of skulls, and I have in the fore- 

 going Description of Skulls followed his example in this matter. Other writers have 

 made many subdivisions of the two primary divisions of Retzius, which may be 

 seen given in a tabular form by Ihering, Zeitschrift f tir Ethnologic, bd. v. 1873, p. 12. 

 The subdivision suggested by Ihering himself, p. 141, has claims upon the attention of 

 those who wish for additional subdivisions constituted upon the principle of actually 

 existing proportions. He proposes to call 



Skulls with a relation of breadth to length of 80 and upwards, ' Brachy-cephalous.' 

 „ „ „ 72 and below, ' Dolicho-cephalous.' 



„ „ „ 72-80, ' Meso-cephalous.' 



And of ' Meso-cephalous,' those with index from 72-76, ' Meso-dolicho-cephalous.' 

 „ „ „ 76-80, 'Meso-brachy-cephalous.' 



A far more important subdivision has been suggested by Professor Cleland, I. c. 

 p. 148, whereby each of the two primary divisions would be subdivided according as 

 they are ' latiores ' or ' angustiores,' whilst retaining the contour characteristic of theii* 

 respective types. 



