1913-14.] The Place in Nature of the Tasmanian Aboriginal. 1 83 
lophocephalic, as are also many Australian crania. He states, therefore, 
that lophocephaly is an absolutely characteristic feature of a certain type of 
skull widely spread throughout the islands of the Pacific Ocean and which 
he recognises as the Tasmanian-Australian skull type. The geographical 
distribution of the lophocephalic Tasmanian-Australian skull is given by 
Sergi as extending from the Hawaii Islands in the north to New Zealand 
in the south, and from Australia in the west to Easter Island in the east, 
all inclusive. For the primeval home of this skull type Sergi, for reasons 
with which we are not especially concerned, but which seem sound, instances 
the American continent. For the primitive parent of this skull type he 
further proposes the name Homo tasmanianus, and adds that, whilst it is 
difficult to state exactly when he wandered into the Pacific Ocean from 
America, it is not improbable that the migration took place in late Pliocene 
or early Quaternary times and that he took with him no domestic animals 
of any kind. Homo tasmanianus wandered over the Australian continent 
into Tasmania, and, becoming isolated there, eventually developed into the 
Tasmanian aboriginal of recent times, and for him Sergi proposes the name 
Hesperanthropus tasmanianus spec. 
The many difficulties attending the Australian aboriginal are solved, 
says Sergi, by assuming that on the Australian continent there subsequently 
entered a Polynesian element, and in Sergi’s own words : “ die Kreuzung 
der Polynesier mit den urspriinglichen Australieneinwohnern tasmanischen 
Urspriings erzeugte eine Bastardvarietat, welche die heutigen Australier 
sind . . . die Australier hy bride Tasmanier waren.” For us this quotation 
is of such vital import that we may, perhaps, be pardoned for translating it 
as follows : — 
“ The crossing of the Polynesian with the original inhabitants of 
Australia of Tasmanian origin begot a bastard variety — the Australian 
aboriginal of to-day . . . the Australian aboriginal is a hybrid Tasmanian.” 
For the hybrid Australian Sergi proposes the name Hesperanthropus 
tasmanianus polynesianus, var. hybrida. 
The thesis here briefly set forth Sergi ably supports by many facts and 
different lines of evidence. With these lines of evidence we are not here 
specially concerned, nor are we vitally interested at the moment with the 
Polynesian character of the cross assumed by the distinguished Italian 
anthropologist. For ourselves we should have assumed an earlier cross 
than that emanating from the Polynesian element. This, however, is a 
minor point contrasted with the more important fact that Sergi, working 
by different methods and with additional material from other sources, comes 
to precisely the same results as ourselves — namely, commonality of origin 
