Kathleen V. Ryley and Julia Bell 
395 
we can compare and the general appearance of the Table are both against the 
view that the differences are wholly racial. We believe them to be largely dne 
to personal equation in taking a delicate measurement with a not very reliable 
instrument, and consider that without determination of personal equations by 
direct comparison of measurements on the same individual crania, it is not possible 
at present to compare simotic indices found by different craniologists. 
TABLE II. 
Values of the Simotic Index. 
Eace 
Merejkowsky 
Eace 
Eyley 
6 
? 
6 
? 
Negroes 
25-6 
Congo ... ... 
25-6 
25-7 
Malays 
31-3 
Moluccas 
26-5 
New Caledonians ... 
38-5 
30-6 
Gaboon, 1880 
29-0 
22-9 
Mongols 
40-5 
Sumatra 
29-2 
Melanesians ... 
41-9 
35-2 
Celebes 
29-7 
Marquesas Island ... 
43-9 
34-0 
Borneo 
30-2 
34-7 
Maoris 
47-9 
43 3 
Philippines ... 
30-4 
29-0 
American Indians ... 
48-0 
46-2 
Gaboon, 1864 
30-9 
27-7 
New Hebrides 
49-1 
44-5 
Malay 
33-7 
Hindoos 
51-1 
42-5 
Java and Madura ... 
33-9 
32-7 
Auvergnats ... 
51-8 
45-0 
Nubians 
34-1 
23-4 
Gypsies 
53-8 
Ainos 
43-4 
Tahitians 
54-3 
Veddahs 
43-6 
36-9 
French 
54-8 
47-1 
Egyptians ... 
44-4 
36-9 
Dutch 
58-6 
55-2 
Hindoos 
44-7 
391 
French Cymry 
59-6 
50-3 
English 
50-8 
46-6 
In two points, however, we agree fairly well with Merejkowsky, i.e. in the 
general order of races and in the fact that the simotic index is a marked sexual 
character. In all cases — 22 in number — except the Congo and Borneo crania, 
the female has a lower simotic index than the male and this is true for the apes, 
where we can determine it : 
$ ? 
Chimpanzee 21"4 185 
Gorilla 5(y8 551 
The two exceptions are the Congo crania, where the two sexes are practically 
alike, and the crania from Borneo, where the female has the higher simotic index, 
but the probable errors being introduced, i.e. Borneo : </'s 30"2 + 1*2, $ 's 34<'7 ± 21, 
show us that even here the difference is quite possibly non-significant. Thus we 
conclude that in the female the nasal bones are natter than in the male, and this 
secondary sexual character may be used — as far as it is ocularly appreciable — as a 
help in sexing. It may be remarked — in order to avoid circular reasoning — that 
