234 . GENEBAL REMARKS 



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

 it has received, at least from foreigners, by ' doliehocephaly ' and 

 ' brachycephaly' respectively, Retzius intended that much more 

 should be connoted than that ' ordinarily the longitudinal diameter 

 of the dolichocephalous skull surpasses the breadth about one 

 fourth, while in the brachycephalous the difference varies between 

 a fifth and an eighth V I propose here to enumerate the various 

 points, mostly, though not entirely, those specified by Retzius, 

 which characterise the two sets of dolichocephalic and brachy- 

 cephalic 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 brachycephalic crania 

 already described have been repeatedly alluded to above, pp. 175- 

 203 ; 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 

 brachycephalic skull the parietal tubera are usually situated high 

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

 line of the vertical arch as viewed in the norma lateralis dips into 

 the posterior aspect of the skull at a point very little behind the 

 plane of these tubera. The skull, in other words, and from another 

 point of viewing it, that namely of the norma verticalis, rounds 

 itself off somewhat abruptly from the level of the parietal bosses, 

 instead of tapering as in the other type somewhat gradually 



1 Retzius 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 fur Ethnologie,' 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, ' Brachycephalous.' 

 „ „ „ 72 and below, ' Dolichocephalous.' 



„ „ „ 72-80, 'Mesocephalous.' 



And of * Mesocephalous,' those with index from 72-76, ' Mesodolichocephalous.' 

 „ „ „ 76-80, * Mesobrachycephalous.' 



A far more important subdivision has been suggested by Professor Cleland, 1. 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 their 

 respective types. 



