822 
ANTHROPOLOGY. 
indefinite number of species. So too, in speaking of the 
inhabitants of Australia, who are regarded as belonging to 
and springing from one family by all anthropologists, Hom- 
bron (“ Zoology,” i., p. 312, in Urville, Voy. an Pole Slid) 
speaks of them as being members of different varieties, and 
considers the inhabitants of Van Dieman’s Land as belong¬ 
ing to a distinct species. 
Waitz (“Anthropology,” vol. i., p. 234), commenting on 
the division established by Cuvier, says:—“If the Malay 
and the American be added to the three chief forms adopted 
by Cuvier, we can scarcely avoid adding the Australians, 
Austral Negroes (Negrillos), the Papuans, and the Hottentots. 
Nor will this be sufficient; all the intermediate tribes between 
the Negroes and the White, namely the Kaffirs, Nubians, 
Gallas, Abyssinians, and Berbers, have an equal claim to 
consideration. This applies also to the Battas, the cranial 
form of whom is intermediate between that of the Europeans 
and Malays.” With the Mongolian type there is further 
associated the so-called Hyperborean type, though the 
assumption of a separate polar race presents many difficul¬ 
ties, and, as already shown by Vater in his “ Mitliridates” 
(vol. iii., p. 317), indicates a considerable deviation. 
But least of all can the aboriginal Americans be compre¬ 
hended in the division, for whatever Morton and his school 
may assert as to the similarity of the cranial type in all the 
varieties of South and North America, it is shown by their 
own researches that differences of shape are as considerable 
there as in those parts in which they are considered funda¬ 
mentally different. Some are long-headed and some are 
sliort-lieaded, others again are round-headed; the present 
Peruvians having small square skulls, with a compressed 
occiput (“ Morton Oran. Am.,” pp. 65-115); and Tsclmdi has 
pointed out three essential distinct cranial forms of the original 
inhabitants of Peru.” 
Retzius, however, was the first who reduced the study of 
the cranium to a fixed basis, which may be regarded as correct 
so far as it decides the shape and form of the skull. The 
basis of his theory was on the principle that “ psychical 
individuality of a people must be founded on, and expressed 
by, the development of the brain, as indicated by the skull,” 
and he established from his cranial observations two dis¬ 
tinguishing classes, the dolichocephalous, from the Greek 
do\cxos, “long,” Ke(pa\r}, “head,” which term is applied to dis¬ 
tinguish a cranium elongated from front to rear, or, to express 
this idea numerically, a cranium the longitudinal diameter of 
which is to its transverse diameter as 100 is to 68 ; and the 
