W. R. Macdonell 
241 
series with which we are acquainted. Further it is closely in accord with a second 
series from an entirely different burial spot on the opposite side of the city of 
London. We can therefore assert that in the 17th century there certainly did 
exist a remarkable type in the city of London, which is unlike any continental 
type with which we are familiar, and which is markedly different from what some 
authorities have supposed the English type to have been or at least now to be. It 
is quite true that isolated English skulls are to be found in museums which provide 
measurements not wholly in agreement with those of our two series*, but such 
skulls have often been selected as "fine" specimens, and the total material available 
in no way approaches the long series with which we are dealing. Until another long 
series or two of English skulls are measured, and are shown to differ sensibly from 
our two series, we may I think fairly assume that our results describe the English 
skull, or at least that of the typical citizen of London, in the only series that at 
present have reasonable weight. Indeed a proof that we are not dealing with 
anything very local and exceptional may be obtained by the comparison of the 
biometric constants of our Whitechapel series with those for the whole of 
Sir William Turner's Scottish series which I have calculated, correcting a few 
arithmetical slips in his Table XVI, and placed for comparison in Table XVIII 
below. 
The most marked differences are here in the length, breadth and resulting 
cephalic index, as well as in the orbital measurements. The latter, however, 
differ so from observer to observer that they can hardly be used as a criterion. 
The general correspondence is apparent and considering the heterogeneity of the 
Scottish series, remarkable. 
When we turn to our series we see that it is markedly differentiated not only 
from existing continental types but from earlier racial types in Britain by its 
extreme length. This extreme length seems closely associated with protuberance 
of the occiput or even bathrocephalic abnormality. In the first gathering of the 
Whitechapel crania, which covered Nos. 7037 — 7127 of our Tables there was a 
distinct attempt to collect skulls of anatomical interest f, but afterwards the whole 
material was brought to University College. Of course if any large number of 
the crania had been stolen between the two removals, this would have emphasised 
the proportion of remarkable skulls in the series. But we do not believe that any 
sensible effect was produced in this way; and we hold this for the simple reason 
that in the crania from Moorfields, there is at least an equally large proportion 
of abnormal or remarkable crania ; the latter collection was made on one occasion 
and embraced we believe the complete series of excavated skulls. Indeed bathro- 
* Modern English skulls essentially of the present type are indeed to be found in museums, for 
example the skull No. 565 of the Oxford Collection, which the cataloguer finds "remarkable for its 
length." Did he compare it with any collection of English crania, or only with those of the crania of 
other races in the museum ? Professor Pearson is in part responsible for the inferences drawn in this 
concluding section. 
t This fact will explain the extension of the "Remarks" peculiar to these numbers in the Tables of 
measurements. 
Biometrika iii 
31 
