824 
ANTHROPOLOGY. 
which may be explained by intermixture. Africa has a 
predominant type in the dolicliocephake prognatlias, long 
headed and projecting jaws ; and America gives us alternately 
forms belonging to the third and fourth divisions, dolichoce- 
phalae prognatliae and bracliyceplialae prognatliae, not excluding 
examples of the second, bracliycephalic orthognathic type. 
Thus we have in Europe (“Muller’s Arcliiv.,” p. 271, 1848) 
examples of the brachycephalas ortliognatlue—short headed, 
upright jaws or flat faces, in the Turks, Lapps, Slavs, Basques; 
Asia giving examples of these crania in the Samoiedes, 
Burates, Afghans, and Persians. In the East Indies and 
South Seas the Tahitians, Malays, and Papuans belong to the 
bracliycephalic prognatlue, or short - headed long-jawed 
examples ; the Negroes, Hottentots, and Kopts being 
examples of the long-headed projecting-jawed races — 
dolichocephalic prognathas. It will he noted from the 
foregoing remarks how great the variety and mingling 
of types is, and the questionable result of any attempt 
at classification on cranial mensuration only, when they 
transgress the distinguishing bond of the three chief 
types as illustrated by the Negro, the Mongol, and the Euro¬ 
pean (Zeune in “ Ueber Scliadelbildung,” 1846) ; yet the 
investigations of those who have done so much for Anthro¬ 
pology, although they may not quite harmonise with more 
recent discoveries, must not be depreciated, since they 
have aimed at elevating the study of man, and arriving 
at some recognised classification of the various types 
from the development of a cranial race theory. Never¬ 
theless it is highly probable that there does exist a 
distinguishing type of national cranial form in every people, 
which, if only this could be established, would prove one of 
the greatest discoveries in the interests of Ethnography; 
but our knowledge of the variation of shape in individual 
national types is yet too small to enable us, with that pre¬ 
cision so necessary to any science, to determine what ranges 
itself within, and what classes itself without, any particular 
type. The observations and studies of Hueck “Be Craniis 
Estlionum,” Zeune, Tsclmdi (“Muller’s Arcliiv.,p. 277, 
1845), and Meyer (Ibid, p. 510, 1850), all illustrate the 
difficulty of assuming the cranial form as an absolute mark 
of race, but I am inclined to believe that this apparent 
mingling of types can and will be eventually explained away 
by a careful investigation, and an attentive application of the 
rule set forth by Blumenbach, that any investigation must 
not be based on extremes, but that such studies must be made 
only by all the intermediate terms and shades possible, from 
