

ANTHROPOLOGY OF ASIA o 



the hope that in a second edition of the valuable Lehr- 

 buch the errors of the tables will be corrected. 



In the table of stature there appears on page 213, an 

 author " Gischiga J? who had measured the Jukagiri and 

 the Tungusi : everything instead shows that here we have 

 to do with Mrs. Jochelson-Brodsky, and that Gischiga 

 is not an anthropologist, but is only a district of the 

 extreme N. E. of Siberia called by that name or rather 

 Ghiscighinsk. Checking individual figures, we may 

 correct several : for example, the average stature of the 

 Igorot $ given by Bean is 1540 mm. arid not 1549, 

 that of the Semangs </ measured by Annandale is 

 1528 and not 1520 which represents the span between the 

 arms. An error has crept in with reference to the 

 Kayans indicated by the statures ^ 1572 and 9 

 1440, which are erroneously attributed to Haddon, while 

 instead we have here those measured by Nieuwenhuis and 

 published by Kohlbriigge : the 21 Kayans $ of 

 Haddon have the average of 1550 and do not appear in 

 Martin's table. 



The same inaccuracies can be pointed out in the table 

 of the cephalic index on page 674 for the Kayans $ 

 and 9 who are attributed to Haddon but belong 

 instead to Kohlbriigge. On page 672 the cephalic index 

 79'9 of the Lepchas is attributed erroneously to Legendre 

 while it appears in the " Census of India " for 57 Lepchas 

 of Sikkim. 



In the table of nasal index there are given some data 

 that cannot be compared with one another on account 

 of the technically different methods adopted for the 

 measurement of the nasal length or, as it is sometimes 

 improperly called, the nasal height. It can be measured 

 by the method of taking a shorter length, viz., the distance 

 from the point of the lowest depression of the nasal 

 dorsum (instead of the nasion) to the sub-nasal point .and 



