April i8, 1895J 



NA TURE 



597 



greater advantages in choosing the human cranium, about which 

 all the other characteristics, internal and external, are grouped. 

 If we select one characteristic, or a number of variable charac- 

 teristics, we shall find ourselves in the same position as other 

 anthropologists who classify by external or accessory traits. It 

 follows that, accepting the cranium as the principal internal 

 characteristic, we impliedly accept the brain in its various 

 forms, and the brain is the most important of human organs. 



The classification of man by means of the cranium alone is by 

 no means new. It will be well to consider these schemes, from \ 

 that of Retzius down to the last, that of Kollmann. Nor, 

 indeed, is the conception of the importance and superiority of 

 the cianium for distinguishing ethnic groups by any means 

 recent. To show that, we have but to refer to the enormous 

 work which has been done, from Morton to Davis and Thur- 

 man, from Broca to G. Retzius, to De Qualrefages, to von 

 Holder, to Ecker, to His and Rutimeyer, to Virchow, to Ranke, 

 to others still more numerous, in Italy, from Nicolucci to 

 Mantegazza. ' 



Notwithstanding so much labour expended on the human 

 cranium, satisfactory results were not reached, nor, indeed, I 

 may affiim, have we yet reached them, at least not in the signi- 

 fication which I intend these results to have. The fault lies in 

 the nature of the method of studying the human cranium, and in 

 the value attributed to craniometry. 



The classification of Retzius is based upon a single charac- 

 teristic of the cranium, which, however, is merely the numerical 

 expression of the norma verticalis of Blumenbach, thit is, the 

 cephalic index. 



According to Retzius we have only two forms of crania, the 

 long and short ; though, in fact, many forms of short and long 

 crania are found differing very much from each other. 



When craniometry was developed in a systematic manner, 

 following principally the work of Broca, it appeared the key of 

 anthropology, and took the first place among means of investi- 

 gations, as being the most effectual method for distinguishing 

 human races. The French exaggerated its value ; the Italians 

 followed with zeal, in spite of the scepticism of Mantegazza, 

 the head of the Florentine school of anthropology ; the Germans 

 have been more rational, and with them the Swiss, represented 

 by His and Rutimeyer. At the head of them I would place 

 Blumenbach, who based his small but valuable book upon a 

 rational foundation.' The Germans try to establish crjinial 

 type almost or entirely independent of the cephalic index ; as 

 one may see from the works of von Holder, of Ecker, of His 

 and Rutimeyer, of Virchow, of Kollmann, of Ranke and others. 

 In my opinion the German method is an approximation to the 

 truth, but unfortunately the conception of type is undeveloped 

 and, I should say, has remained rudimental, because cranio- 

 metry, like a pernicious weed among the grain, injures the 

 harvest. Virchow, the most pronounced scholar in anthropo- 

 logy, and the man who has studied more than all others the 

 crania of all peoples, believes that the germ of a .sound anthro- 

 pology .should develop from it, and concedes only a secondary 

 value to craniometry. 



According to my observations upon craniometry, which has 

 now become cabalistic, especially in France, on account of the 

 abuse of measures and numerical ciphers, the indices of the 

 cranium and face are taken as a means of distinguishing races, 

 human groups, as we might call them, and other measures are 

 either omitied or applied only to individuals. In order to br 

 convinced we should carefully and conscientiously study the 

 craniometrical works of Dr. Danielll, of Florence, upon the 

 Nias and Bengalese. The author has not been able to find 

 satisfactory results after per-evering researches, but whoever 

 would seek evidence of individual variations will find more 

 than enough. It .seems to me, therefore, that the method by 

 measurement may serve this purpose, that is, to discover 

 numeiic.Tlly individual differences, but never those typical of a 

 race. Hut such a discovery is useless, since we are all con- 

 vinced of the existence of individual differences. I will there- 

 fore add that such differences, to be valuable, must be sought, 

 not among forms differing from each other, but among in- 

 dividuals of the same type. That implies, therefore, neces- 

 sarily and always, the search fir types and their distinction, 

 which is not possible by means of ihe craniometrical method. 



I( it were true, and there were no doubt respecting the value 



of th..- celebrated cephalic index in determining crani,il forms, it 



would follow that all human crania of whatever type and volume 



1 " De generis li«[n.ini varietate nativa." Ilia edit. (Guttingcn, lygs) 



should be placed in the three categories of dolicho-, meso-, 

 and brachycephalic, or of hypsi-, ortho-, and chamKcephalic. 

 Thus all the populations of the earth, either of white, yellow, 

 black or red skin, would have crania belonging to the three 

 categories. A classification solely according to the cephalic 

 index is therefore an absurdity. It is incoherent and without 

 meaning, as are those of Retzius and Kollmann. 



This conclusion is so true that such anthropologists are obliged 

 to add descriptions to the forms of each part of the cranium, in 

 order to distinguish it, recognising the insufficiency of cranial 

 data. Such descriptions can, to a certain degree only, supply 

 the defect of the method, but they always remain incomplete, 

 and leave the forms or types of the human cranium of various 

 populations and regions indefinite. The French school has gone 

 still farther, and has supplied the deficiency with an infinite 

 number of measurements, which only increase the obscurity, 

 leaving the conception of the form moie uncertain, and fatiguing 

 the most patient student, who becomes convinced of never 

 reaching any satisfactory result from such a confused accumula- 

 tion of numbers. 



In order to render classification more definite, or for the sake 

 of finding a second characteristic which might be associated 

 with the cephalic index, Retzius turned his attention to the 

 prognathism and the orthognathism of the molar teeth ; 

 Kollmann to the facial index. Use could be made of the nasal 

 index instead of the facial, or the orbital index, or any isolated 

 characteristic, and we should have the same results. The com- 

 binations given by Retzius and Kollmann are possible, but 

 cannot indicate races or varieties, from the fact that they are 

 hybrid associations. 



I need not make a longer demonstration of what I have 

 affirmed, that classifications of human gi^oops have been 

 attempted by means of the cerebral cranium, but have not been 

 successful on account of deficiency of method ; and that the 

 craniometrical method, still so undeveloped, has not yet, nor 

 cannot, give those results while there is an exaggeration of an 

 exact principle, that of expressing numerically facts relating to 

 the cranium. It seems to me, after several years of study, and 

 after having adopted the accepted form of craniometry, for 

 want of a better, that it is time to establish for our use and for 

 the study of the variations of man, a natural method, resembling 

 that which is used in zoology and botany, and of which I laid 

 the foundation about two years ago. 



With Ihe observations and the methods which I propose, I 

 believe that many errors will be eliminated from anthropology. 

 Those errors have been accepted because we have never 

 possessed natural scientific methods for the study of human 

 classification, such as we have in zoology. Blumenbach, in a 

 valuable little book, attempts to apply the zoological method to 

 man, not cnly for classification, but for the explanation of the 

 causes of animal and human varieties. De Quatrefages, in his 

 last work, employs the same method and the same scientific 

 freedom. Unfortunately the followers or successors of both 

 have only followed their masters in form, but not in method. 

 Blumenbach, who, after various researches, reduces the human 

 species to five varieties, finds, however, that human variations 

 are infinite in number. If his method had been followed strictly, 

 the number of human varieties would long ago have been 

 increased, both in respect to the structure and the cranial forms. 



The neglect of such methods and the failure to distinguish 

 human varieties by means of the cranium has caused a curious 

 error, that of regarding certain forms which are typically normal, 

 as pathological, as I shall have occasion to demonstrate in the 

 future when I speak of cla.ssified forms. This is apt to happen 

 when new and unrecognised forms are placed before the observer. 



One of the important characteristics in classifying the cranial 

 varieties of man is the frania! capacity, which has a direct 

 relation to the volume and weight ol the brain ; hence classifica- 

 tion by crania means the classification of brains estimated by 

 their form and external configuration. Its importance is for us 

 increased by the fact that that which we find among races of 

 animals occurs also in man ; that there are races ol small and 

 large animals, races differing in size. This is also repeated in 

 man, and we therefore have large, medium and small varieties, 

 as measured by stature. The orrgin of such varieties is perfectly 

 analogous to that in other .animals. Nor is it an accidental 

 phenomenon, because it is confirmed by heredity, through 

 numerous and indefinite generations. 



I have concluded, in studying cranial varieties morphologic- 



NO. 1329, VOL. 51] 



