48 



NA TURE 



\_May 21, 1874 



square lor a diameter drawn parallel to its two sides. 

 Such a skull, notwithstanding its actual length by 

 measurement, is properly classed as brachycephalic. But 

 take such a form as that which I have designated a 

 " Peruvian dolichocephalic skull " (" Prehist. Man," 2nd 

 ed. Fig. 50, p. 449). It is reproduced here ; Fig. I. 

 Compare it with the above-cited example, in Dr. Davis's 

 collection ; or again compare the Peruvian child's 

 dolichocephalic skull ("Prehist. Man," Fig 60, p. 451), 

 also reproduced here, Fig. 3, with another juvenile skull, 

 from the Peruvian cemetery of Santa, but of the brachy- 

 cephalic type, as shown here, Fig. 2, reduced from 

 Morton's " Crania Americana," pi. vii. The question is 



Dolichoceplialic Skull. 



not, as Dr. Davis and Dr. Wymann would have it, whether 

 the one is in its natural state, and the other artificially 

 elongated .'' but whether it would be possible, by any 

 elongation of the one, or abbreviation of the other, to 

 reduce Ihem to the sume form? Compare the juvenile 

 skull, Fig. 3, which is little, and probably not at all de- 

 signedly, aflected by ait, with another of the same type, 

 but purposely deformed by artificial means, Fig. 4. The 

 same form is traceable in both, notwithstanding the 

 modification of art. Both I conceive to be of the true 

 dolichocephalic type ; in contrast to the Santa skull, 

 Fig. 2, which, whether or not affected by the parieto- 

 occipital flattening so commonly resulting from the cradle- 



board, is no less obviously of the brachycephalic type ; 

 and could not be transformed into the other. 



The primary form of the skull, as determined, for 

 example, by the relative proportion of the parietal bones, 

 remains a factor to the last, however extreme may be the 

 modifications superinduced by art. Only in the case of 

 premature ossification of the sutures, consequent on the 

 pressure applied in one direction, can this fail; though, 

 no doubt in two approximate head-forms, the one only 

 slightly dolichocephalic, and the other equally slightly 

 brach) cephalic, the original distinctive characteristics 

 may escap: observation m the modified skulls. 



The question, then, turns mainly on this point — strangely 

 ignored by Dr. Davis and his correspondent, — that a 

 dolichocephalic and a brachycephalic skull are equally 

 susceptible of distortion ; but the same compression 

 applied to the two types will beget different results ; — will 

 not, in any strongly marked example of either type, wholly 

 efface the original character ; — could not transform such 

 a dolichocephalic skull as Fig. i, into anything analogous 

 to the elongated brachycephalic skull. Fig 78, of Dr. 

 Davis's " Thesaurus." 



I have necessarily left untouched various collateral 

 points, for want of space ; but enough has been said to 

 show that what strikes Dr. Wymann as so " curious," and 

 manifestly in his estimation so "conclusive" against me, 



in the projection of the occiput f irther on the left than on 

 the right side, is a feature I am very familiar with, in 

 skulls which 1 should still call " natural," as distinguished 

 from those designedly modified by art. 



I shall refer only to two marked examples of this irregu- 

 larity, in proof of such unsymmetrical forms existing 

 among races in no way given to artificial cranial distor- 

 tion. The first— a brachycephalic one — is " the skull of a 

 young Greek," No. 1,354 of the Morton collection ; a 

 cast presented by Retzius. Dr. J. A. Meigs describes it 

 minutely in his catalogue, p. 29, but takes no notice of 

 its symmetry ; although when viewed vertically it re- 

 sembles some of the distorted Flathead skulls. The 



second — a dolichocephalic skull— Dr. Wymann will find 

 alongside of tlie Peruvian skulls. No. 15 in the Warren 

 Collection at Boston. It is that of a " Chinese," or was at 

 any rate brought from China by Capt. Edes. It approxi- 

 mates in malformation to the " Hochbelaga skull," Fig. 67, 

 '' Prehist. Man, " p. 501, as an example of posthumous dis- 

 tortion. But in this skull from China the sutures are 

 close, with no trace of dislocation or other indications of 

 posthumous modification of forms. Those are extreme 

 examples ; but I repeat what I have long ago asserted ; 

 that a perfectly symmetrical head is the exception, rather 

 than the rule. Daniel Wilson 



