gS Memoirs Bcniicc P. Bishop Miisciiin 



On the basis of this Hst I am indined to regard the Samoans as most closely 

 allied to the Mongoloid race of mankind, and to assume that the differences are 

 probably due either to a slightly dift'erent evolution since the time of their separa- 

 tion and isolation from the parental stock, or to the retention in the Samoans of a 

 primitive character which through dift'erent evolutionary processes has been lost 

 in most of the Mongoloid types. 1 think it unlikely that the dift'erences are due 

 to racial intermixture. Take the single character of hair form for an example. 

 When we think of Mongoloid hair, we invariably think of stift", coarse, black hair, 

 though as a matter of fact such hair is one extreme of the variation of hair form 

 in man and most probably an end form in evolution. It seems more probable that 

 the primitive hair form in man was at least slighth- wavy, and that woolly and 

 spiral hair present one end of an extreme specialization, and the coarse, stift', 

 straight hair the other end. 



Another outstanding difference between the Samoans and Mongols in 

 general is the low frequency of the shovel-shaped upper incisor tooth. On the 

 other hand it seems reasonable to assume that the Polynesians at one time had 

 this primitive Mongoloid characteristic and have lost it in part in their recent evo- 

 lutionary history. The incisor teeth in this group have paralleled the tendency of 

 the incisor teeth in European man and have become smaller in size. The absence 

 of this incisor fold is due to a tendency in mankind to a reduction in dentition 

 and is not the result of racial intermixure. j\ly observation leads me to believe 

 that the presence of this character is not one to disappear in mixed peoples. Cer- 

 tainly a fairly high percentage of the part-Hawaiian population have the incisor 

 fold In more than one Mongol group this characteristic is tending to disappear, 

 if that can be inferred from lower frequency. 



In conclusion we may say at least that it is far more difficult to reconcile 

 European racial origin for the Samoans and Polynesians in general, than it is to 

 assume Mongoloid affinities and origins. 



Although the results of the present discussion must be considered as some- 

 what tentative because of the small amount of available data, it is nevertheless 

 time that anthropologists should discontinue the practise of speaking vaguely of 

 European origins for the Polynesians and begin to cite the specific characteristics 

 that lead to their conclusions. Likewise there seems to be little benefit in referring 

 to Melanesian admixture, unless we point out specifically and statisticallv those 

 characters which point in this direction. It is not fair to assume that the facts 

 upon which one's opinions are based are generally known. Scientists who have 

 the privilege of working in inaccessible localities owe it to their colleagues to be 

 as specific as possible in giving the reasons for their generalizations. 



[20] 



