October i, 1903] 



NATURE 



543 



Neanderthal is 204 mm., and the greatest transverse 

 diameter, which is over the parietal region, is 152 mm. — 

 an inde.\ of 7451 — while the much smaller Trinil calvaria, 

 with a length of 181 mm. and a breadth of 130 mm., has 

 an index of 71-8. Both these skulls are therefore slightly 

 dolichocephalic. Schwalbe has corrected these figures by 

 making reductions in their lengths on account of the frontal 

 "outworks," so that he estimates the true length-breadth 

 index of the Neanderthal as 80 and that of the Trinil as 

 75-5. These indices, thus raised about 5 per cent., are 

 considered to represent approximately the length-breadth 

 index of the cranial cavity. A comparison of the external 

 and internal measurements of many recent skulls with 

 prominent glabellae would, I suspect, show a greater differ- 

 ence than that calculated by Schwalbe for the Neanderthal 

 and Trinil specimens. In a male skull, probably an 

 aboriginal Australian, with a cranial capacity of 1227 c.cm. 

 I found that the glabella-occipital length was 189 mm., and 

 the transverse diameter at the parieto-squamous suture 

 127 mm., which gives an index of 6720 and makes the 

 skull decidedly dolichocephalic. The length of the cranial 

 cavity, however, was 157 mm. and the breadth 121 mm. 

 (an index of 77 07 and a difference of nearly 10 per cent.), 

 so that while from external measurements the skull is 

 distinctly dolichocephalic, the proportions of its cavity are 

 such that it is mesaticephalic. It is probable that many 

 .skulls owe their dolichocephalic reputation simply to the 

 prominence of the glabella and supra-orbital ridges. An 

 excessive development of these structures is also liable to 

 give the erroneous impression of a retreating forehead. In 

 the Australian skull just mentioned the thickness of the 

 cranial wall at the glabella was 22 mm. ; from this level 

 upwards it gradually thinned until 41; mm. above the 

 glabella it was only 6 mm. thick. When the bisected skull 

 was placed in the horizontal position the anterior surface 

 of the frontal bone sloped from the glabella upwards and 

 distinctly backwards, while the posterior or cerebral surface 

 was inclined upwards and forwards. In fact, the cranial 

 cavity in this region was separated from the lower part 

 of the forehead by a wedge-shaped area having its apex 

 upwards and its base below at the glabella. 



The cranial wall opposite the glabella is not appreciably 

 thicker in the Neanderthal calvaria than in the Australian 

 skull to which I have already referred, and the form of 

 the cranial cavity is not mere masked by this prominence 

 in the Neanderthal than in many of the existing races. 



.Although the Neanderthal skull is by no means complete, 

 the base of the cranium and the face bones being absent, 

 still those parts of the cranial wall are preserved that are 

 specially related to the portion of the brain which subserves 

 all the higher mental processes. It includes the frontal, 

 parietal, and upper part of the occipital bones, with parts 

 of the roof of the orbits in front, and of the squamous 

 division of the temporal bones at the sides. On its inner 

 or cranial aspect there are markings by which the bound- 

 aries between the cerebrum and the cerebellum can be 

 determined. In a profile view of siich a specimen an inio- 

 glabellar line can be drawn which will correspond very 

 closely to the lower boundary of the cerebrum, and indicate 

 a horizontal plane above which the vaulted portion of the 

 skull must have contained nearly the whole of the cerebrum. 



Schwalbe ' has devised a series of measurements to illus- 

 trate what he regards as essential differences between the 

 Neanderthal skull-cap and the corresponding portion of the 

 human skull. From the inio-glabellar line another is drawn 

 at right angles to the highest part of the vault, and by 

 comparing the length of these two }ines we can determine 

 the length-height index. .According to Schwalbe this is 

 404 in the Neanderthal, while the minimum in the human 

 skull is 52. He further shows that the frontal portion of 

 the vault, as represented by a glabella-bregmatic line, 

 fornis a srnaller angle with the base or inio-glabellar line, 

 and that a vertical line from the posterior end of the frontal 

 bone (bregma) cuts the inio-glabellar further back than in 

 the human subject. Prof. King, of Gal way, attached 

 special importance to thej shape and proportions of the 

 parietal bones, and more particularly to the fact that their 

 mesial borders are shorter than the lower o*- temporal, 

 wheieas the reverse is' the case in recent man. '*:his feature 

 is obviously related to the defective expansfmi of the 



1 "Ueber die specifischen Merkmale des Neanderthalschf.dels," Vtr^ 

 handl. dcr anatomischen Cesellschaft in Bonn, tgot 



NO. 1770, VOL. 68] 



Neanderthal vault, and Prof. Schwalbe also attributes con- 

 siderable significance to this peculiarity. 



Another distinctive feature of the Neanderthal skull is the 

 relation of the orbits to the cranial wall. Schwalbe shows 

 that its brain-case takes a much smaller share in the form- 

 ation of the roof of the orbit than it does in recent man, 

 and King pointed out that a line from the anterior inferior 

 angle of the external orbital process of the frontal bone, 

 drawn at right angles to the inio-glabellar line, passed in 

 the Neanderthal in front of the cranial cavity, whereas in 

 man such a line would have a considerable portion of the 

 frontal part of the brain-case anterior to it. 



From the combined results of these and other measure- 

 ments Schwalbe arrives at the very important and interest- 

 ing conclusion that the Neanderthal skull possesses a 

 number of important peculiarities which differentiate it 

 from the skulls of existing man, and show an approximation 

 towards those of the anthropoid apes. He maintains that 

 in recognising with King ' and Cope ^ the Neanderthal skull 

 as belonging to a distinct species, Homo Neanderthalensis, 

 he is only following the usual practice of zoologists and 

 palaeontologists by whom specific characters are frequently 

 founded upon much less marked differences. He maintains 

 that as the Neanderthal skull stands in many of its 

 characters nearer to the higher anthropoids than to recent 

 man, if the Neanderthal type is to be included under the 

 term Homo sapiens, then this species ought to be still more 

 extended, so as to embrace the anthropoids. 



It is interesting to turn from a perusal of these opinions 

 recently advanced by Schwalbe to consider the grounds 

 on which Huxley and Turner, about forty years ago, 

 opposed the view, which was then being advocated, that 

 the characters of the Neanderthal skull were so distinct 

 from those of any of the existing races as to justify the 

 recognition of a new species of the genus Homo. Huxley, 

 while admitting that it was " the most pithecoid of human 

 skulls," yet holds that it " is by no means so isolated as 

 it appears to be at first, but forms in reality the extreme 

 term of a series leading gradually from it to the highest 

 and best developed of human crania." He states that " it 

 is closely approached by certain Australian skulls, and even 

 more nearly by the skulls of certain ancient people who 

 inhabited Denmark during the stone period." Turner's* 

 observations led him to adopt a similar view to that 

 advanced by Huxley. He compared the Neanderthal 

 calvaria with savage and British crania in the Anatomical 

 Museum of the University of Edinburgh, and found amongst 

 them specimens closely corresponding to the Neanderthal 

 type. 



While yielding to no one in my admiration for the 

 thoroughness and ability with which Schwalbe has con- 

 ducted his elaborate and extensive investigations on this 

 question, I must confess that in my opinion he has not 

 sufficiently recognised the significance of the large cranial 

 capacity of the Neanderthal skull in determining the zoo- 

 logical position of its owner, or made sufficient allowance 

 for the great variations in form which skulls undoubtedly 

 human may present. 



The length and breadth of the Neanderthal calvaria are 

 distinctlv greater than in many living races, and compen- 

 sate for its defect in height, so that it was capable of 

 lodging a brain fully equal in volume to that of many 

 existing savage races and at least double that of any anthro- 

 poid ape. 



A number of the characters upon which Schwalbe relies 

 in differentiating the Neanderthal skull-cap are due to an 

 appreciable extent to the great development of the glabella 

 and supra-orbital arches. Now these processes are well 

 known to present very striking variations in existing human 

 races. They are usually supposed to be developed as 

 buttresses for the purpose of affording support to the large 

 upper jaw and enable it to resist the pressure of the lower 

 jaw due to the contraction of the powerful muscles cf 

 mastication. These processes, however, are usually feebly 

 marked in the microcephalic, prognathous, and macrodont 

 negro skull, and may be well developed in the macrocephalic 

 and orthognathous skulls of some of the higher races. 

 Indeed, their variations are too great and their significance 

 1 "The Reputed Fossil Man of the Neanderthal," Journal of Science, 



* 2 "The Genealogy, of Man," The American Naturalist,\vo\. xxvii. 1893. 

 » "The Fossil Skull Coauoi/my," Journal 0/ Science, 1864. 



