HORN EXPEDITION—ANTHROPOLOGY. 
147 
to be found in the fact that the crania in question are undoubted examples from 
Central Australian tribes of which few, if any, skulls have hitherto been described. 
It may be noted that the two crania differ from one another in general form 
to a considerable extent, this difference being well brouglit out in prohle projection- 
drawings taken with Broca’s craniograph. The most striking differences are those 
correlated with the low cephalic index and greatly depressed conceptacular region 
characteristic of skull No. 2. 
It will be observed that, although the latter skull possesses a distinctly 
longer maximum longitudinal diameter (glabello-occipital) and a lower cephalic 
index than skull No. 1, still the latter has an equal, or even greater, total 
horizontal projection, and this latter feature is seen to be dependent upon a 
greater facial projection and a more extreme angle of facial prognathism, as 
evidenced both by direct measurement and by trigonometrical determinations. 
Both skulls arc equally phsenozygous, giving an angle of + 14° with the 
parietal goniometer. While both are dolichocephalic. No. 2 tends towards the 
extreme in this direction. In both skulls the “ vertical ” height-length index falls 
distinctly below the “ cephalic ” breadth-length index. 
The dolicho-platycephalic character here alluded to is interesting, since its 
more frequent occurrence in the southern part of Australia, and more especially in 
the neighbourhood of the Adelaide seaboard, has been held to indicate a racial 
distinction amongst the tribes of Australian aborigines. The evidence for and 
against this view has been summed up by Turner. He regards the evidence as 
inconclusive as regards any existing racial distinction of ti’ibes now co-existing in 
Australia, but he is prepared to believe that the undoubted prevalence, in the 
south, of dolicho-platycephaly may indicate a former racial intermixture with “a 
people in whose crania the height index was normally below that of the breadth.” 
According to the “gnathic index” of Flower and Turner, neither of the 
skulls is prognathous, but mesognathous. Turner’s average for his Australian 
crania was mesognathous, while Flower’s (103'6) was just within the limits of 
prognathism. The angle expressive of this same relation (the ophryo-alvcolo- 
condylar) has been criticised by Topinard as failing to afford a character of racial 
importance, such as he finds, e.g.^ in the spino-alveolo-condylar angle, expressive of 
alveolar or sub-nasal prognathism. 
According to the latter criterion, Australian aborigines are amongst the most 
prognathous of men. Topinard gives their average angle as 64° 24'. I have 
20a 
