46 C. W. M. Poynter 



brecher-Gehirne ziegen Abweichungen vom Normaltypus, unci 

 die Verbrecher sein als eine anthropologische Varietat ihres Gesch- 

 lechtes oder wenigstens der Kulturrassen aufzufassen." 



Giacomini (1883) studied 23 criminal brains; he did not find 

 Benedikt's type of confluent fissures common among those and 

 thought that at least among Italians no peculiar type characters 

 existed, but that they presented the same variations and in the 

 same percentage as other brains, and farther those variations 

 found were in no way related to crime. Flesch (1885) agreed 

 with Benedikt in so far that he found that criminal brains pre- 

 sented deviations from the normal, but thought that such varia- 

 tions did not belong entirely to the convolutions and no criminal 

 type existed. 



Bardeleben (1882) opposed the idea of anatomical determina- 

 tion of criminality on the ground that there was no established 

 type for normal brains, hence no significance in convolution pat- 

 terns. " Es giebt eben keinen ganz feststehenden Typus, kein 

 Gehirn gleicht dem andern wie es uberhaupt ja weder in mensch- 

 lichen Korper noch sonst in Nature zwei vollstandig gleiche Ge- 

 bilde giebt." Schwedendick (1881) concluded, from a study of 

 ten brains of criminals, that while there were irregularities of 

 development there was no constant factor to indicate a type or 

 indeed that they belonged to criminals ; moreover he saw no factor 

 that would warrant the assertion that there was reversion. He 

 agreed with Pansch, Ferrier, Fallot, and Tenchini in concluding 

 that Benedikt's statement that the criminal brain filled the gap be- 

 tween the human and carnivora brains was without foundation, 

 and thought that Benedikt overlooked the facts of cerebral devel- 

 opment in reaching his conclusions. Dr. Osier (1882) apparently 

 based his opinion of criminal type of brains on the conclusions of 

 Benedikt without either an independent investigation or reference 

 to the literature of other investigators. 



Waldeyer (1895), from a review of the work on criminal brains, 

 considered the following characters significant: (i) frecjuent an- 

 astomosis of the fissures, (2) forking of the sulcus centralis; (3) 

 surface annectants in the sulcus centralis; (4) absence of the 

 central sulcus; (5) the four-convolution type of the frontal lobe; 



390 



