162 Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. [Sess. 
skeleton, and has kindly furnished us with the necessary Tasmanian data 
under Tables A to E inclusive for comparison with the Australian. 
Secondly, as regards the numerical order of the Tables. In our previous 
Tasmanian work, Tables I. to XXVII. were simply set forth in the accidental 
order in which the observations were recorded. Our fellow-worker, Dr 
K. Stuart Cross, subsequently showed (4) that these morphological observa- 
tions were not all of equal morphological value. He set them forth in their 
correct order of value, and in this vrork we have arranged Tables I. to 
XXVII. in Dr Cross’s order. Table II. of the Tasmanian work becomes 
therefore now Table I., Table XVII. similarly becomes Table II., and so on 
as determined by Dr Cross. Tables A to E still retain their accidental 
order of observation. 
Thirdly, as already stated, additional objects of comparison have been 
incorporated in the present tables whenever it was possible to secure 
accurate data. It is, however, a matter for regret that so few figures 
dealing with the morphological form analysis of the human skull on the 
lines advocated by Schwalbe and Klaatsch are as yet available, and hence, 
although extended, the present tables are not even yet as complete as we 
should have desired. If our colleagues in Europe would undertake the 
necessary researches on British long and round barrow skulls, on modern 
Europeans, on pre-historic and modern Egyptians, and so forth, the problem 
of the true place in Nature of the Australian and Tasmanian aboriginal 
inhabitants would be rendered simpler. These difficulties notwithstanding, 
a comparison of our previously published Tasmanian tables with those now 
incorporated will show that the latter have been increased. Thus the 
Egisheim and Stangenas primitive crania have been included (Frederic, 8) 
whenever the necessary figures were available. The 17 Maories first 
mentioned in Table VII. are from the work of Mollison (9). The 
Andamanese Islanders and the 90 Italians incorporated in Table XXI. are 
from the Royal College of Surgeons Catalogue of Osteology, and have been 
worked out therefrom by ourselves. The 176 Europeans (Scotch) mentioned 
in the same table are from the work of Sir William Turner (10). 
The Relative Evolutionary Positions of the Australian and 
the Tasmanian. 
In our previous Tasmanian communication we stated that we thought 
the Australian would stand on the plus side of the Tasmanian — that is to 
say, we confidently expected to find that the Australian would be a more 
highly evolved morphological type than the Tasmanian. This expectation 
