132 
Cra n ial Type- Contours 
Dr Crewdson Benington made a slip in reading his head-spanner*, but if we 
presume him to have read from the end of the V-block instead of the reading 
edge, his value of the auricular height would be 135"9 instead of 125 - 9, a value 
far closer to other observations. If we take, however, the auricular height as 
obtained for 100 Whitechapel crania, 111*5, it seems possible to reconcile it with 
Dr Crewdson Benington's result of 125'9 mm. For the cranial measurement is 
from the top of the auricular passage, and the living head from the centre line. 
The difference may amount to 5 to 6 mm. If we give 6 to 7 mm. flesh thickness 
at the apex of the cranium, we should expect the living head to show at a 
maximum 13 mm. more auricular height than the skull. This would give the 
English of the 17th century an auricular height of 1115 -f 13 = 1245 mm., which 
is very close to Dr Crewdson Benington's observed result on the Royal Engineers. 
But such a large difference in auricular height as that between the Oxford 
men and the Engineers has not been hitherto noted between social classes. If 
it were confirmed, it would be a matter of very considerable interest. There 
seems, however, some chance of an error. It would be a most useful anatomical 
investigation to determine with some exactness the difference between the auricular 
height measured on the flesh-covered head and on the cranium. We see that the 
Engineers are heavier (because they are older), they are slightly shorter, and 
have smaller and slightly more dolichocephalic heads than Oxford undergraduates. 
If we now compare the living head of the Royal Engineers with those of the 
17th century English, we are met by the question of what is the correct allowance 
to be made for flesh (and of course hair) in taking the contours. If the reader 
will place Fig. XXVIII in the tissue series upon Fig. XXXI of the text series 
so that their median verticals coincide, and further make their No. 6 horizontals 
agree, he will, I think, be surprised at the correspondence of the two contours. 
An even more striking result is obtained if the No. 7 horizontals be made to 
agree. In the latter case we have an almost uniform distribution of flesh of 
6 mm. thickness, but there is a greater divergence of the auricular lines (9 mm.) 
than I consider reasonable. In the former case we have flesh thicknesses varying 
from 5 to 7 mm. with a divergence of 7 mm. between the auricular lines, which 
is just possible. Now let the reader put down Fig. XXXI in tissue on the Congo 
skull, Fig. X, or the nearest approach to the English in this series, the Guauche, 
Fig. XXV, and he will find the accordance by no means so good; the "general 
parallelism " is wanting, and in one part or another — often where in actuality the 
flesh is thinnest — he will have to suppose 9 to 10 mm. thickness. On the whole 
it appears to me that the 5 to 7 mm. of flesh thicknessf demanded when we 
* Dr Benington worked with a Pearson spanner and I personally showed him how to use it, and 
where to read it. 
t It must be remembered that this 5 to 7 mm. thickness covers also the hair thickness, which must 
come under the lead tape. Welcker has given 6 to 7 mm. for the thickness of the cranial flesh, Merkel 
6 mm., Gladstone 4 to 5 mm., Derry 3-5 to 4 mm., but these values do not include the hair: see 
Phil. Tram. Vol. 196 A, 1901, p. 250; Biometrika, Vol. iv. p. 110, and Vol. viii. p. 69. It is possible 
to avoid taking the hair into account with a well-designed head-spanner. It is of course impossible 
in the case of the contours taken by lead tapes. See Note added p. 137. 
