ON ETHNOLOGY. 
233 
loperaent, tlie difFerence in tlie facial angle in the heads of apea and in those 
huiiiaD skulls in which it has the smallest measurement, becomes enormous, 
lu the Troglodyte the angle is 35®, and in the Orang or Satyr it is only 30°, 
as we learn from the measurements of Professor Owen. 
The venerable Blumenhacb, whase name will never be forgotkm so long 
M ethnology shall be a subject of study, was really the father of this science. 
He was the first who possessed, or rather with immense labour and assiduity 
collected, the materials requisite for instituting an accurate inquiry into the 
physical differences of the various races of niem Blumcnliach divitlcd the 
fortus of the human head into five varieties. He designated them, not as it 
would perhaps have been better to have done in the first iostance, by descrip¬ 
tive epithets, hut by the names of the races of jmoplc to which they belonged, 
nr of the regions of the world whence these races were supposed to have 
originated. I’he Caucasian form was so termed from Mount Caucasus, to 
which Blumenbaeh observed that ancient tradiilous refer the origin of many 
celebrated nations. He supposed this to be the primitive type of the human 
«ull, and regarded the otiicr forms ns (legeneratious from it These were 
the Mongolian, the American, the Ktliiopian, and the Malayan. The five 
forms were supposed to prevail through five divisions of mankind, compri¬ 
sing between them the whole human family. This distribution w'os com¬ 
plete so far as the ethnographical knowdedge of the time allowed it to be; 
but it would be necesgary in the present day to enumi?ratc many additional 
vanities in the shape of the skull, and to constitute additional human races, 
II we would follow the same method and adapt it to ihe present state of our 
wcjuaintancG with distant regions of the earth and their inhabitants. On 
IIS remark I shall not enlarge at present, since I aliall have, in the sequel, 
to advert to many of the facts which bear upon it. lllumenbachs dclinea- 
Miuis of skulls were admirable, and Ills descriptions of the fonns supposed to 
w most prevalent .are invaluable. There is, however, one very iiiqmrtant 
view of the shape of the liuad which he seems to have overlooked. In c«>m- 
iwrmg the heads of human raci-s with those of apes, the form of the basis of 
Mie skull should be exurnined, since this displays, in the most striking mau- 
tUT, the immense dilfercnee between the structure of the human head and 
toat uf the inferior tribes. This was first pointed out by Professor Owen, 
ihe ^Die comparison is by no means to be neglected in the observation of 
toe distinctive characters of nations. 
The latest classification of skulls, with a view to the discrimination of 
iiatioaal varieties, is that proposed by IVofesaor Uelziiis of Smekholni, an 
ingenious and able anatomisi and a very estimable mmi, who has lately de- 
votw his talents to this investigation. Professor lletzius's researches are 
wrll known, and it is quite needless for me to recapitulate his results. They 
an* pirticularly interesting iii one point of view, not cimteroplated, as it would 
appMr, by the excellent author,—I allude to the Ihet, that he seems to have 
)hshw distinctions in the forms of the skull between nations, who, 
tuigh for many ages separate, are historically known to have descended 
Irotn the same original slock. 
Tile head, as it is well known, is not tlie only part of the human body 
winch displays ditferent forms in diff'ereiit human tribes. Varieties in stature 
aud III the projiortioii of the limbs—in the form of the pelvis and other 
[larta of the bony structure—as w«dl as in the akio, the hair, and other tex¬ 
tures. are well known to distinguish races from each other. With respect to 
all these difiereiiccs auatoroicul researcbea have been made which have an 
obvious bearing on ethnology. 
la the next place I must advert to the aids for the cultivation of ethnology 
