October 30, 1903.] 



SCIENCE. 



555 



anderthal skull is the relation of the orbits 

 to the cranial wall. Schwalbe shows that 

 its brain-case takes a much smaller share in 

 the formation of the roof of the orbit than 

 it does in recent man, and King pointed 

 out that a line from the anterior inferior 

 angle of the external orbital process of the 

 frontal bone, drawn at right angles to the 

 inio-glabellar line, passed in the Neander- 

 thal in front of the cranial cavity, whereas 

 in man such a line would have a consider- 

 able portion of the frontal part of the 

 brain-case anterior to it. 



From the combined results of these and 

 other measurements Schwalbe arrives at 

 the very important and interesting con- 

 elusion that the Neanderthal skull pos- 

 sesses a number of important peculiarities 

 which differentiate it from the skulls of 

 existing man, and show an approximation 

 towards those of the anthropoid apes. He 

 maintains that in recognizing with King* 

 and Copef the Neanderthal skull as be- 

 longing to a distinct species. Homo nean- 

 dcrthalensis, he is only following the usual 

 practice of zoologists and paleontologists, by 

 whom specific characters are frequently 

 founded upon much less marked differ- 

 ences. He maintains that as the Neander- 

 thal 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 Homo sapiens, 

 then this species ought to be still more ex- 

 tended, so as to embrace the anthropoids. 



It is interesting to turn from a perusal 

 of the.se opinions recently advanced bj' 

 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 Ne- 

 anderthal skull were so distinct from those 



* ' The Reputed Fossil Man of the Neanderthal,' 

 Journal of Science, 1864. 



t'The Genealogy of Man,' The American Nat- 

 uralist, Vol. XXVll., 1893. 



of any"6£ the ' existing races as to justify 

 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 iso- 

 lated as it appears to be at first, but forms 

 in reality the extreme term of a series lead- 

 ing gradually from it to the highest and 

 best developed 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 Neander- 

 thal calvaria with savage and British 

 crania in the Anatomical Museum of the 

 University of Edinburgh, and found 

 amongst them specimens closely correspond- 

 ing to the Neanderthal type. 



"While j^ielding to no one in my admira- 

 tion for the thoroughness and ability with 

 M-hich Schwalbe has conducted his elabo- 

 rate and extensive investigations on this 

 question, I must confess that in my opinion 

 he has not sufficiently recognized the sig- 

 nificance of the lai'ge cranial capacity of 

 the Neanderthal skull in determining the 

 zoological position of its owner, or made 

 sufficient allowance for the great varia- 

 tions in form which skulls undoubtedly 

 human may present. 



The length and breadth of the Neander- 

 thal 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 any existing savage races and at 

 least double that of any anthropoid ape. 



A number of the characters iipon which 

 Schwalbe relies in differentiating the Ne- 

 anderthal skiill-cap are due to an appreci- 



*'Tlie Fossil Skull Controversy,' Journal of 

 Science, 1864. 



