438 PRINCIPAL SIR WM. TURNER ON 



acters which he has especially emphasised ; but I recognise that the points of corre- 

 spondence and difference cannot be regarded as altogether determined until a larger 

 number of skulls has been minutely studied. 



In Part I., whilst allowing for variations in individuals of both races. I pointed out 

 easily recognisable differential features : the elongated ovoid cranium with its roof- 

 shaped vault ; the marked dolichocephalic proportion due to its greater length and 

 smaller breadth, the height being usually more than the breadth ; the stronger 

 glabella, superciliary ridges and supra-orbital borders ; the more receding forehead ; 

 the more prognathic upper jaw ; the feeble maxillo-nasal spine ; the longer and narrower 

 hard palate, and the stronger lower jaw and chin possessed by the Australians 

 in comparison with the Tasmanians. On the other hand, the Australians did not 

 exhibit in similar degree the characteristic markings on the fron to-parietal vault, the 

 prominent parietal eminences and the frequent pentagonal outline of the Tasmanians. 

 In both peoples the skulls were phoenozygous, platyrhine, usually microseme, and 

 normally of small cranial capacity. Other features of difference and resemblance will 

 now be detailed. 



Supra-orbital Region. — In his account of the Australian skulls and their correspond- 

 ence in certain characters with the anthropoid apes and palaeolithic man, Klaatscii 

 discussed the supra-orbital region and its modifications in ancient and in the modern 

 human types. He referred to Schwalbe's observations on the torus supra-orbitalis, 

 formed by the fusion of the pars (arcus) supra-orbitalis and the pars (arcus) super-ciliaris, 

 and to the opinion which Schwalbe expressed that its presence in the Neanderthal and 

 other examples of palaeolithic man constituted a character which distinguished ancient 

 man and the anthropoids from modern man. Whilst Klaatsch recognised that in the 

 Australians generally the super-ciliaries and supra -orbitals were not continuous with 

 each other, he cited an Australian skull, R. 62, of the Kalkadun tribe, * N.W. Central 

 Queensland, in which the torus resembled that found in anthropoids, Pithecanthropus 

 and the Neanderthal skull. Though he regarded this specimen as absolutely unique in a 

 modern human skull, he considered it sufficient to show that there is not such a funda- 

 mental difference between the Neanderthal type and the Australian aborigines as 

 Schwalbe had stated. The exceptional formation in the Kalkadun skull is not, how- 

 ever, so rare as Klaatsch supposed. In a memoir " On the Evolution of the Eyebrow 

 Region of the Forehead," f Professor Cunningham described and figured two Australian 

 skulls in the Anatomical Museum \ of the University of Edinburgh in which a massive, 

 projecting torus supra-orbitalis extended from the glabella to the fronto-malar suture, 

 similar in appearance and construction to that present in the Neanderthal and Spy 

 crania. I may also refer to my description of a Tasmanian skull, No. 6 in the first 

 part of my memoir on this race, in which I stated that the superciliary ridge was directly 



* See Klaatsch's figure 59. 



t Trans. Roy. Hoc. Edin., vol. xlvi., part ii., p. 283, 1908. 



J B. 1, from New South Wales ; A. 10, from Queensland. 



