800 KEPORT— 1903. 



From the combined results of these and other measurements Schwalbe arrives 

 at the very important and interesting conclusion that the Neanderthal skull pos- 

 sesses a number of important peculiarities which diflerentiate 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 palseontologists by whom specific characters are 

 frequently founded upon much less marked difl'erences. 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 

 Jlomo sajnens, 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 

 justif}^ 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 ty])e. 



While yielding to no one in my admiration for the thoroughness and ability 

 with which Schwalbe has conducted his elaborate and extensive investigations on 

 this question, I must confess that in my ophiion he has not surticiently recognised 

 the significance of the large cranial capacity of the Neanderthal skull in deter- 

 mining the zoological position of its owner, or made suHicient allowance for the 

 great variations in form wliich skulls undoubtedly human may present. 



The length and breadth of the Neanderthal calvaria are distinctly greater than 

 in many living races, and compensate 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 anthropoid ape. 



A number of the characters upon whicli Schwalbe relies in difi'ere'Aliating the 

 Neanderthal skull-cap are due to an appreciable extent to tlie 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 sup- 

 posed to be developed as buttresses for the purpose of alfording support to the large 

 upper jaw and enable it to resist the pressure of the lower jaw due to the contrac- 

 tion of the powerful muscles of mastication. These processes, however, are usu- 

 ally feebly marked in the microcephalic, prognathous, and macrodout negro skull, 

 and maybe well developed in the macrocephalic and orthognathous skulls of some 

 of the higher races. Indeed, their variations are too great and their significance 

 too obscure for them to form a basis for the creation of a new species of man. 

 lioth Huxley and Turner have shown that the low vault of the Neanderthal 

 calvaria can be closely parallelled by specimens of existing races. 



If the characters of the Neanderthal calvaria are so distinctive as to justify the 

 recognition of a new species, a new genus ought to be made for the Trinil skull- 

 cap. In nearly every respect it is distinctly lower in type than the Neanderthal, 

 and yet many of the anatomists who have expressed their opinion on the subject 

 maintain that the Trinil specimen is distinctly human. 



' ' The Reputerl Fossil Man of the Neanderthal," Joiirnnl of Scioicc, 1864. 

 - 'The Genealogy of Man,' T/ie American Naturalist, vol. xxvii. 1893. 

 ^ 'The Fos.sil Skull Controversy,' Jo?/r««Z of Science, 1864. 



