614 Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. [Sess. 
from my figures, is, for the Australian, extraordinarily high. It results 
in the figure 11*90, with a probable error of *651. This figure is so high 
that it can only mean one or other of two things : either that the Australian 
nose is not that of a homogeneous type, or that the nasal index is a 
morphological feature of very little value. 
With our present knowledge it is impossible to express any opinion as 
to which of the two possibilities just indicated by the standard deviation 
is the correct one. On the one hand we have the mathematical work of 
Berry, Robertson, and Cross (42) on the Tasmanian, Australian, and Papuan, 
tending to indicate the impurity of the Australian aboriginal ; and, on the 
other hand, we have Reche (43), who is of opinion that the nasal index 
hitherto employed does not sufficiently indicate the difference between the 
lower and higher forms of nose, because it is influenced in an equal degree 
by an increasing nasal breadth and great length. 
Whichever of these two possibilities may eventually prove to be correct, 
it is clear that in the Australian aboriginal there is an enormous diversity 
of nasal form, as indicated by the standard deviation of nasal index and 
by the great range of variation in the index itself. In my series this 
index ranges from a minimum of 79 to a maximum of 133. I can therefore 
confirm Cunningham’s statement when he says “ it is evident that there 
is a considerable amount of variation in Australian aboriginals ” in respect 
to the shape of the nose, but I cannot agree with his statement that the 
“ greatest number of examples are ranged in the immediate vicinity of the 
index 94,” nor that the relative breadth of the nose in the Australian is 
not so great as in the Negro. Cunningham’s errors, if errors they be, are 
due not to defective observation, but to insufficiency of numbers. Biometri- 
cal methods — the most rigidly exact which can be employed — show that 
the average nasal index of the Australian altogether exceeds that for the 
Negro, as has already been pointed out. 
On the shape and form of the nose of the living subject there is 
therefore much still to be done, not only for the lower races, but for all 
other races as well. 
The Ear. 
In view of the large amount of attention which has been directed 
by criminologists, and to a lesser extent by anthropologists, to the ear, 
it will be advisable to say something of this feature. 
The criminological literature of the ear is already very extensive, but 
as this work is not specially concerned with this aspect of the question it 
is unnecessary to say anything thereon. 
