1910-11.] The Place in Nature of the Tasmanian Aboriginal. 65 
the remains, of the greatest interest and importance. From fig. 1 of 
Mr Cross’s paper, it seems to us clear that Pithecanthropus erectus is, as 
Dubois has always maintained, a transitional form, but that he is decidedly 
nearer the anthropoid apes than to Homo primigenius. This conclusion is 
also borne out, as we have previously shown, by an examination of the 
position which Pithecanthropus occupies in the form analysis Table 
XXIX. 
The position of the Cro-Magnon race on the plus side of the Tasmanian 
need cause no surprise. From our figures it is clear that the cranium of the 
Cro-Magnon man has attained a slightly higher stage of morphological 
evolution than has the Tasmanian, but very little. An extract from 
Keane’s Ethnology (20) will suffice to prove our contention that the 
relative position of the Cro-Magnon skull on the plus side of the Tasmanian 
is justified. Keane, speaking of the Cro-Magnon race, says: “Thus is 
explained the appearances of low human types (Neanderthal, Spy, 
Castenedolo) in various parts of Europe during Late Pliocene and Early 
Pleistocene times. They represent the first waves of migration from North 
Africa soon after the arrival of Pliocene man in that region. But they were 
followed later by higher types, such as that of Cro-Magnon, which, radiating 
from the Vezere district, gradually spread over a great part of Europe, and 
is by some ethnologists already regarded as the substratum of the present 
populations of West Europe. De Quatrefages agrees with M. Verneau in 
identifying the Cro-Magnon race with those groups of tall dolichocephalic 
Kabyles (Berbers), of fair complexion, and often characterised by blue eyes, 
who still survive in various parts of Mauritania, and were even represented 
among the Guanches of the Canary Islands.” 
Our placing of the neolithic Cro-Magnon man on the morphologically 
plus side of the eolithic Tasmanian, so far from giving any cause for 
surprise, is seen, j ust as it was for Schwalbe’s classification, to be nothing 
more than confirmatory proof of the position hypothetically allotted to him 
by the ethnologist. 
The exceedingly high evolutionary position of the Cannstatt skull 
number 12 in fig. 1 of Mr Cross’s paper, is at first sight an outstanding 
anomaly, but a closer examination shows that our morphological investiga- 
tion is once more but a proof of the theories of the ethnologist. Speaking 
of the Cannstatt skull, Keane (20) says : “No conclusions can certainly be 
drawn from the skull found at Canstatt nearly two hundred years ago, and 
somewhat hastily taken as representing a palaeolithic ‘ Cannstatt race.’ It 
is even doubtful whether this skull .... is the one actually found, not in 
a quarternary bed, as was said, but associated with some potsherds in the 
VOL. xxxi. 5 
