146 
dr. j. cleland on the variations oe the human skull. 
introduced by Broca and others* has been to convert, in the attempt at precision, a natural 
classification into one as artificial as the Linnean system in botany. 
The superiority of Betzius’s point of view over the more recent one is well illustrated 
by what has taken place with regard to German skulls. Welcker, writing from Halle, 
has pointed out the prevalence of a very high cephalic index in Germans, and Ecker has 
shown that in the South Germans it is still more remarkable ; and on that account they 
throw those skulls into the brachy cephalic group, and in this are followed by others ; 
while Gustave Betzius in defending the opinion of Anders Betzius, whose works he 
edits, labours to show that Welcker’s estimate of the cephalic index in the German 
skull is too high. The measurements of the eight German skulls given in this memoir 
support Welcker’s view that the German cephalic index is high, some of them, perhaps 
South Germans, being extremely broad ; but they are all of them in then- antero-poste- 
rior mechanism completely dolichocephalic in character. Their height compared with 
their length is low, and this is true of the broadest of them ; they have the occipital 
squama prominent, and the tuberosity particularly so ; and the arch of the profile, instead 
of sinking “precipitously” in the region between the parietal eminences, “ forms an 
oval curve from the forehead to the occipital protuberance,” all which are mentioned by 
Betzius in his letter to Duvernoy as characteristics of the dolichocephalic skull, and 
are circumstances which, apart from any such historical consideration, point out the 
propriety of associating the German with dolichocephalic forms. 
Sandwich-Islanders and New-Zealanders were both considered by Betzius as brachy- 
cephalicf. The description which he gives of a Sandwich-I si and skull applies perfectly 
to the two skulls of the Kanaka race presented by Dr. Barnard Davis to Mr. Goodsir, 
and used in the preparation of this Memoir. Had Betzius classified according to a 
numerical rule, he would have had no difficulty in settling the place of any specimen; 
but he sought a natural classification which would take into account the lvhole character 
of the skull, and therefore he was “ at first somewhat doubtful about the right place ” 
of his Sandwich-Islander, and the thoroughly accurate decision to which he came was 
arrived at notwithstanding “ the considerable length compared with the small intermas- 
toid distance ”J. The comparison which he makes between the Sandwich-Islander and 
the N ew-Zealancler is quite borne out by the diagrams of the tw 7 o Kanaka skulls and the 
Maori skull now before us. His words are, “ compared with a New-Zealander’s skull, 
this skull (the Sandwdch-Islander’s) shows much agreement therewith, but is distin- 
guished from it especially by the compression referred to in the lower part of the occi- 
pital bone. The occipital bone in the New-Zealander is almost quite flat and more 
* Thubnau, Ancient British and Gaulish Skulls, p. 50 ; and Laixg and Huxley, Prehistoric Remains of 
Caithness, p. 84. 
t Ethnologische Schriften, pp. 65 and 66. 
7 Dr. Babnaed Davis, in his ‘ Thesaurus Craniorum/ vindicates the decision of Retzius on the ground of the 
proportion of breadth to length, the average of 116 Kanaka skulls of both sexes having given the proportional 
breadth as '80 : it is noticeable, however, that the 64 males gave the proportion ’79, which falls short of the 
arbitrary limit of brachy cephalism. 
