620 Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. [Sess. 
Australian. | 
Tasmanian. 
I. 
III. 
Mini- 
mum. 
Average. 
Maxi- 
mum. 
1. Glabella-inion length 
183 
180 
157 
173 
188 
1 2. Calvarial height .... 
101 
100 
87 
97 
108 
3. Calvarial height index 
55 
55 
48 
56 
62 
4. Maximum breadth .... 
152 
135 
120 
134 
145 
5. Calvarial height breadth index 
66 
74 
66 
72 
79 
6. Half the sum of one and four . 
167 
157 
140 
154 
164 
7. Calvarial height half-sum index 
60 
63 
55 
63 
69 
8. Distance of calvarial height foot 
point from glabella 
106 
101 
85 
102 
115 
9. Calvarial height foot point positional 
index 
58 
56 
53 
59 
65 
10. Frontal angle ..... 
81 
84 
72 
86 
96 
11. Bregma angle ..... 
61 
68 
51 
56 
64 
| 1 2. Distance of bregma foot point from 
glabella 
48 
56 
43 
58 
71 
13. Bregma foot point positional index . 
26 
31 
26 
34 
41 
14. Length of frontal arc 
127 
127 
113 
126 
143 
15. Length of frontal chord . 
109 
115 
97 
109 
120 
16. Curvature index of os frontale. 
86 
90 
81 
87 
97 
17. Angle of frontal curvature 
149 
142 
131 
139 
149 
18. Length of the chord of the pars 
glabellaris 
36 
38 
18 
24 
29 
19. Length of the chord of the pars 
cerebralis ..... 
82 
85 
73 
94 
106 
20. Glabellar cerebral chord index 
44 
45 
18 
25 
36 
21. Length of the parietal arc 
146 
141 
112 
126 
145 
22. Length of the parietal chord . 
122 
119 
98 
113 
127 
23. Curvature index of os parietale 
83 
84 
84 
i 90 
98 
24. Angle of parietal curvature 
139 
136 
125 
134 
141 
25. Parietal frontal arc index 
115 
i 111 
86 
100 
114 
26. Lambda angle ..... 
78 
82 
74 
80 
88 
27. Opisthion angle .... 
33 
36 
34 
41 
47 I 
28. Nasio-inion length .... 
173 
i 174 
... 
29. Glabella-lambda length . 
182 
182 
30. Lambda-glabella inion angle . 
22 
20 
31. Distance of bregma foot point from 
glabella on glabella-lambda line . 
78 
84 
... 
32. Bregma foot point glabella-lambda- 
index ...... 
43 
46 
1 
... 
It need hardly be said that it is not here intended to draw any con- 
clusions from the comparison above instituted of two Australian aboriginal 
heads with the crania of fifty-two Tasmanians, for the insufficiency of the 
Australian material here employed would make it futile to do so. This 
notwithstanding, it is of some interest to note that the two Australians, one 
male the other female, rank, in the majority of the observations, within the 
Tasmanian range. Before pointing out wherein the Australians are not so 
within the Tasmanian range, it may be as well to state that all the figures 
are confined to whole numbers. Where decimal points occurred the nearest 
