R. Crewdson Bbnington 
335 
prehistoric peoples ; the development of the highly civilised European peoples has 
been in the direction of increased breadth at the expense of cranial height. 
(b) The gnathic index gives almost as uniform and suggestive results as the 
acroplatic index. The Europeans stand at one end of the list, then come the 
prehistoric, historic and modern Egyptians, then primitive races like the Long 
Barrow folk and the Aino, then the Negroes, although the full-blooded Negroes 
are in this respect not clearly differentiated from the Congo-Gaboon group. 
(c) The Upper Face Index is less clear in its indications, the Kaffir-Zulu 
group being to some extent displaced. As in the case of the Zygomatic Upper 
Face Index, this may possibly be due to personal equation. But still the general 
order — Europeans, Egyptians, Primitive Races, Negroes — appears though with 
slight confusion. 
(d) Nasal characters, as we might anticipate, provide a perfectly good scheme 
of classification. We find full-blooded Negroes, Gaboon-Congo group, primitive 
and prehistoric peoples and then the European races in excellent sequence. 
Measurements on the mesodacryal arc and chord are at present too few to be 
of real service, but they suggest that these characters and the mesodacryal index 
may ultimately be of much service for differentiation. The simotic index of 
Merejkowsky fully justifies its introduction. It places the English at one end of 
the scale, the Congo at the other with Egyptians and Gaboon crania as inter- 
mediate links. The flatness of the Negro nose is seen to be due to defect in 
simotic subtense, the chord being almost the same as in European crania. 
(e) We have already referred to the importance of the occipital index, and 
the failure of orbital and palate indices — in the present absence of standardisation — 
to be of real value. 
(v) The Negro mandible is in all respects broader, where comparison is 
possible, than that of the primitive races or the European. Relatively to the 
primitive races and the European, however, it appears (the evidence is still 
slender) to lack height, or chin development. 
(vi) The profile angle measured by the Ranke goniometer and craniophor — 
too often neglected by craniologists — justifies its existence even on the small data 
available. We find the European races head the list, then come the Egyptians, 
followed by primitive races, Congo Negroes and North Africans. Unfortunately 
there are no data for the Kaffir-Zulu group, but other characters would suggest 
that this group will not be found far from our North African Negroes. It is 
much to be desired that the use of the profile angle should be extended. 
(vii) No measures of the variation of the Kaffir-Zulu group have yet been 
taken, but the variability of the Congo-Gaboon group, whether it be judged by 
biometric measures or by the appreciation of anatomical peculiarities, appears in 
no wise less than that of European or of primitive races. Indeed we may even 
suggest without danger that it is greater. This appears to be markedly the case in 
