LECTURE ir. 45 



witli the axis of the curved cranial base, and thus, by its rela- 

 tive length or shortness, indicates the cui'vature of this axis. 



Wliilst by means of the facial quadrangle, and a few trans- 

 verse diameters, the face can easily be characterised in its chief 

 features, the difficulty is much greater as regards the cranium 

 proper. This hollow case presents so many deviations from 

 the oval form, the various points on which the measurement is 

 based are so easily misplaced, that it is extraordinarily difficult 

 to establish a system of diameters, radii, and angles universally 

 applicable to all crania. Huschke, in a big book containing 

 much that is valuable as well as much that is singular, has not 

 only proposed, but carried out on several specimens, a formal 

 triangulation of the skull, by means of which he endeavours 

 to calculate the area of the cranial bones and their relative 

 development. His object was to find the superficial extent of 

 the three cranial vertebrae, which, in accordance with a natural- 

 philosophical idea which Carus has specially defended, bears a 

 special relation to the intellectual functions. No one has 

 hitherto followed this path, and we doubt whether any one 

 will pursue the same method by reason of the irregularity of 

 the cranial bones, and the numerous sources of error incidental 

 to the system, nor does the development of the individual 

 cranial vertebrte stand in constant proportion to that of the 

 brain and its lobes. 



Welcker has selected for the designation of the measure- 

 ments of the skull a geometrical construction, which he terms 

 the cranial net, resembling the reticulated designs used in 

 making paper and pasteboard figures of crystals. 



Though a figure composed of triangles and squares cannot 

 give a correct representation of the skull and face, the cranial 

 nets still exhibit such characteristic forms and pecuHarities, 

 that they afford us considerable assistance in determining 

 cranial measurements. 



At the meeting of anthropologists in Gottingen, Von Baer 

 justly observed, that however many measurements are tabu- 

 lated, they cannot stand in the place of general impressions 

 made by the skull itself examined from various points of view, 

 and that it would be well to agree upon the designation of 

 definite characteristic forms, as is done in botany with regard 



