348 DR MATTHEW YOUNG. 



The skulls were obtained in a Glasgow burial-ground, during the course of 

 excavations preparatory to the erection of a building on the site, but beyond, that 

 little is known as to the exact period of time to which the skulls belong. In one of 

 the graves a token was found, bearing the date 1840, but such evidence does not carry 

 us far, and probably many of the skulls belong to a period antecedent to that date. 



The skulls are undoubtedly, in the great majority of cases, Scottish skulls, and 

 the remarkable uniformity of the series, which is evident even to the untrained eye, 

 points to the fact that they, for the most part, belong to one type. Proof of this 

 uniformity will be supplied afterwards when we consider the variability exhibited by 

 the series. No doubt there may be a few " foreign " skulls present in the collection, 

 but the number is certainly small, and in my calculations in this paper I think that 

 in most cases I work with a series sufficiently large to prevent a few aberrant speci- 

 men influencing at all, or at most to a trifling degree, the final results. 



In order to pursue my investigations in connection with this subject I have found 

 it necessary to subdivide the series into the following subsidiary groups : — 



(A) A group of 405 presumably male skulls. 



(B) ,, ,, 100 female skulls. 



(C) ,, ,, 90 skulls of doubtful sex. 



(D) ,, ,, 45 male metopic skulls. 



(E) ,, ,, 20 female metopic skulls. 



. (F) ,, ,, 45 juvenile skulls of various ages. 

 (G) ,, ,, 100 taken from group (A) for the application of Klaatsch's 

 and Schwalbe's methods of examination, and afterwards 

 for median sagittal section. (Series K in Appendix.) 



It will be seen that, in arranging these skulls in the above sub-groups, I have 

 endeavoured to arrange them according to their sex. This is not a difficult task 

 when one is confronted with typical male and female specimens presenting well- 

 marked distinguishing features peculiar to the two sexes (Plates I, II, and III), but in 

 a series of the magnitude of the present one, as in other collections, there are many 

 skulls which present no very definite distinguishing sexual features, which lie on the 

 border-line between the two sexes as it were, and which might reasonably be placed 

 in either division. These I have placed, for the present, under the heading of 

 " doubtful sex." The problem of allocating skulls to the proper sex when there are 

 no other skeletal remains to assist one, has presented difficulties to most craniologists 

 who have attempted the task.* 



The 405 skulls put down in the subsidiary group as males have what are usually 



regarded as the distinguishing male features pretty well marked, and I have little 



hesitation in affirming that the great majority of those are the skulls of males, 



* Turner (1 and 2), Bartel (3), Aeby, Virchow (4), Klaatsch (5), Warren (6), Parsons (7), Pearson (8), 

 Robertson (9), and Bryce (10) all agree that it is sometimes difficult, if not impossible, to ascribe certain skulls to 

 their proper sex. 



