64 Professor Macalister, 



Table II. 

 Relative Proportion of Forearm to Humerus in length. 



Humerus. Forearm. 



Australian, . . 1*00 -74 



Bushman, . . 1*00 -80 



Negro, . . . 1-00 -76 



European, . . 1*00 -79 



The decimal obtained in this table or antebrachial index is in- 

 teresting, as it shows that this individual had a greater propor- 

 tional length of forearm than the average of Europeans, a pithecoid 

 character. 



Table III. 

 Relative Proportion of Femur to Tibia. 



Femur. Tibia. 



Australian, . . 1*00 '80 



European, . . 1"00 *85 



Negro, . . . l'OO -89 



Bushman, . . l'OO *78 



From this table it appears that the crural index is rather 

 shorter than usual. 



Table IV. 

 Relative Proportion of Forearm and Arm to Thigh and Leg. 



Lower. Upper. 



Australian, . . 1*00 -69 



Bushman, . . 1*00 -87 



European, . . l'OO -70 



This intermembral index shows that in this Australian the 

 proportion of the arm to the leg is smaller even than the European. 



The three methods of measurement adopted above are, I think, 

 calculated to give us more definite results as to the relative 

 regional developments of extremities than any other plans hither- 

 to used. With many of the most interesting aboriginal tribes it 

 is impossible to get whole skeletons, and when got, the spinal 

 unit, so important a factor in Professor Humphry's whole 

 number, is rather a vague one, on account of the varying thick- 

 nesses of intervertebral substance, unless the observer has obtained 

 the skeleton while fresh. Limb bones, on the other hand, are 

 easily obtained, and by a series of measurements like those given 

 above and carried out on an extensive scale, we can easily formu- 

 late in the simplest possible manner, the relative developments of 



