428 H. J. T. BIJLMER 



be indentified vvith the Negrito race and it is to this race that the small stature of some of 

 the tribes of New-Guinea must be ascribed". 



According to FRITSCH [50] there does not exist in Australia an uniform type and 

 Stratz [208] also mentions repeatedly the great variability of the Australians. Von LUSCHAN 

 too [in 87] points to the remnants of a high-skulled, frizzly-haired élément — Melanesian he 

 sa y S — that may not be overlooked in the Australians. In SPENCER and GlLLEN's book on 

 the Northern Australians [204] we read, how the hair-form, not only individually, but also 

 in respect to the tribes, varies from wavy to very curly and that the growth of the beard 

 is also liable to great variations. Keane [The World's Peoples 1908], in accordance with 

 FLOWER and LlJDEKKER and HOWITT, states : "Despite a gênerai physical and mental likeness, 

 most observers now recognise two original éléments — a black and perhaps a low Caucasian ■ — 

 in the constitution of the Australian aborigines". CURR [9] and also DE QUATREFAGES maintain 

 the duality of the Australian; both présume that the negro is one of their éléments. 



It is true that there are also advocates as to the unitary type of the Australians: 

 Klaatsch, Huxley, Schôtensack belong to the best known. 



Recently BERRY, ROBERTSON and STUART CROSS [g], having made a biometrical study 

 on Australian, Papuan and Tasmanian skulls, hâve corne however to the following conclusion: 

 "We do not definitely state that the Australian is a dual type; we merely maintain that 

 biometrical investigation proves that the Tasmanian is the purest of the three racial types 

 hère compared, the Papuan is the least pure and the Australians are about midway between 

 the two ; this however is évidence, which those ethnologists who maintain the duality of the 

 Australian oboriginal vvill doubtless wellcome and make the most of it. For ourselves we 

 regard this as one link in the chain of évidence concerning the heterogeneity of the Australian 

 as contrasted with the homogeneity of the Tasmanian." 



As for the Dravidians, THURSTON in his "Castes and Tribes of Southern India" [213] 

 draws still more positive conclusions. He states considérable variation in the cephalic index: 

 from 74,3 in the jungle tribes up to 80,4 in the more civilised groups. Moreover, ail nose- 

 types are represented, what induces him to say: "This table demonstrates very clearly an 

 unbroken séries ranging from the jungle-men, short of stature and platyrrhine to the leptor- 

 rhine Nayars and other classes." 



"Between a Brahman of high culture with fair complexion and long, narrow nose on 

 one side, and a less highly civilised Brahman with dark skin and short broad nose on the 

 other side, there is a vast différence, which can only be reasonably explained on the assumption 

 of racial admixture, and it is no insuit to the higher members of the Brahman community 

 to trace, in their more lowly brethren, the resuit of crossing with a dark-skinned and broad- 

 nosed race of short stature. Whether the jungle tribes are, as I believe, the microscopic 

 remnants of a pre-Dravidian people or, as some hold, of Dravidians driven by a conquering 

 race to the seclusion of the jungles, it is to the lasting influence of some broad-nosed ancestor 

 that the high nasal index of many of the inhabitants of Southern India must, it seems to me, 

 be attributed." 



This conclusion leaves nothing to be desired, even if the word Negrito is not used. 

 It is quite compréhensible that in the British-Indies is sought for the little Negro, but even 

 though Lapicque is forced to acknowledge that : "les petits sauvages crépus", are missing, he 



