EEPOET ON THE HUMAN CEANIA. 
61 
The mean palatomaxillary index of eleven crania was 112, and this index was prac- 
tically the same in the two sexes. The maximum palato-maxillary index was 121 (female), 
the minimum was 104, also a female. The palate exhibited, therefore, as a rule, no great 
disproportion between its breadth and its length, it was mesuranic, and like the crania of 
the Fiji Islanders measured by Prof. Flower, was in its form rather intermediate between 
the parabolic and the hypsiloid. 
As seven of the crania had holes in the squamous temporals, and one other was slightly 
imperfect near the foramen magnum, the cubic capacities could only be estimated 
approximately. The mean capacity of eleven crania was 1285 cubic centimetres. 1 That 
of six males was 1377'5, that of five females was 1154. The maximum cranial capacity 
in one (male) was 1528 ; the minimum in one (female) was 1068. Only one skull 
classified as female exceeded in capacity the lowest of the skulls classified as males. 
This classification was based upon the general characters of the skulls, and not upon 
their capacities. If we take 1350 cubic centimetres as the lowest limit of mesocephalism, 
then four of the eleven skulls exceeded it, and these were probably male skulls. Of 
these four, one was megacephalic, and three were mesocephalic. The two remaining 
male skulls were microcephalia The male crania, therefore, may be regarded as in the 
average mesocephalic in capacity, the female as microcephalic ; and the general average 
capacity of the series was microcephalic. The ratio between the sexes is as 100 to 84, 
which is a low average for the female. 2 
To summarise the conclusions now arrived at from the analysis of the table of 
measurements, I may state that the crania of the Admiralty Islanders are distinctly 
dolichocephalic ; on the line between tapeinocephalic and metriocephalic ; cryptozygous ; 
on the line between mesognathism and prognathism ; on the line between the leptor- 
1 These figures of the cubic capacity differ somewhat from those printed in the abstract in the Trans. Inter. Med. 
Congr., for the measurements I had made at that time were with sand, whereas those now given have been taken with 
shot in the manner described in the introduction to this Eeport. 
2 In the collection was another skull, marked in Prof. Moseley’s handwriting, “Admiralty Islander?,” In a letter to 
me, Mr. Moseley states that he found the skull unlabelled in one of the cupboards of the laboratory on the Challenger, but 
could get no one to identify it with certainty. From various circumstances he was disposed to think that it came from the 
Admiralty Islands, and wrote therefore upon it, but with a query. Owing to the uncertainty as to where it came from, 
and from the differences between it and the skulls which undoubtedly came from one of those islands, I have not 
included it in the description. The length of the cranium was 178 mm., its greatest breadth was 142 mm.; its basi- 
bregmatic height 135 mm. It was not only absolutely shorter than the greater number of the Admiralty Island skulls 
described above, but it was very much wider than even the widest of them, so that its cephalic index was 80. Its vertical 
index was 76, which places it considerably above the mean of the other crania. The gnathic index was 100 ; the palato- 
maxillary index was 126, the palate being distinguished by its great width in relation to its length. This skull had a 
very different appearance from those above described. Its great width gave it the rounded brachycephalic form. Its 
interzygomatic breadth was 140 mm., which gave a breadth to the face much in excess of the widest face amongst the 
above crania. No pigment had been smeared over the bones. If they were natives of the Admiralty Islands 1 have no 
hesitation in saying that this skull did not belong to the same race, so that if it were collected on Wild Island, it was a 
representative of a different people from those whose crania are described in the text. As they were the rule and it the 
exception, it was, granting the accuracy of its place of collection, probably an imported specimen, not unlikely a 
brachycephalic brown Polynesian. 
