Chapter 31

Footnotes:[1]In these ethnic groups there may further be distinguished several subdivisions due to the diversity of manners, customs, etc.; or, in the groups with a more complicated social organisation, yet other social groups—priests, magistrates, miners, peasants, having each his particular “social type.”[2]Naegeli,Mechanisch-Physiol. Theorie der Abstammungslehre, Munich, 1883.[3]The most recent definitions of species given by Wallace and Romanes approximate closely to that of Cuvier. Eimer has suggested another, based solely on the physiological criterion. His definition has the advantage of covering cases ofpolymorphism, in which the female gives birth to two or several individuals so unlike that we should not hesitate to classify them in two species if guided only by morphology.[4]See on this point, Y. Delage,L’Hérédité, pp. 252et seq.Paris, 1895.[5]The question is summed up by Darwin,Descent of Man, vol. i., p. 264, 2nd edition. London, 1888.[6]In questions of hybridity, it must be observed, we often confound the notions of “race” and “people,” or “social class,” and we have to be on our guard against information drawn from statistics. Thus in Central America we consider “hybrids” all those descendants of the Spaniards and the Indians who have adopted the semi-European manner of life and the Catholic religion, without inquiring whether or not this physical type has reverted to that of one of the ancestors—a not infrequent occurrence.[7]Darwin,loc. cit., vol. i., p. 280.[8]Such is, for example, the scheme of Topinard, consisting of two double parts (Elements d’Anthropologie, p. 216, Paris, 1885), to which corresponds the system newly propounded by Em. Schmidt (Centralblatt für Anthropologie, etc., vol. ii., p. 97, Breslau, 1897). The last-mentioned admits in reality two divisions, Ethnography and Ethnology, in what he calls Ethnic Anthropology; and two others, Phylography and Phylology, in what he names Somatic Anthropology. The two last divisions correspond to the Special Anthropology and the General Anthropology of Topinard.[9]If we include the Lemurs in the order of Primates, the five families just enumerated are all included in a “sub-order,” that ofAnthropoidea. (See, for further details, Flower and Lydekker,Introduction to the Study of Mammals Living and Extinct, London, 1891.)[10]J. H. Kohlbrugge, “Versuch einer Anatomie ... Hylobates,”Zoolog. Ergeb. einer Reise in Ned. Ind., von M. Weber, vols. i. and ii. Leyden, 1891.[11]D. J. Cunningham, “The Lumbar Curve in Man and the Apes,”Cunningham Memoirs of the Royal Irish Academy, No. II., Dublin, 1886.[12]J. Ranke, “Ueber die aufrechte Körperhaltung, etc.,”Corr.-Bl. der deutsch. Gesell. f. Anthr., 1895, p. 154.[13]The enormous development of the laryngeal sacs in the orang-utan is perhaps also in harmony with this protective function, as I have shown in a special work. See Deniker and Boulart, “Notes anat. sur ... orang-utans,”Nouv. Arch. Mus. d’hist. nat. de Paris, 3rd Series, vol. vii., p. 47, 1895.[14]R. Munro, “On Interm. Links, etc.,”Proceed. Roy. Soc. Edinb., vol. xxi. (1896–97), No. 4, p. 349, andPrehistoric Problems, pp. 87 and 165, Edin.-Lond. 1897; Turner, Pres. Address Brit. Assoc., Toronto Meeting,Nature, Sept. 1897.[15]Topinard,L’homme dans la Nature, p. 214. Paris, 1891.[16]Deniker and Boulart,loc. cit., p. 55.[17]Boyd, “Table of Weights of the Human Body, etc.,”Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 1861; Bischoff,Das Hirngewicht der Menschen, Bonn, 1880. The difference remains nearly the same if, instead of the weight of the body, we take its surface, as was attempted by E. Dubois (Bull. Soc. Anthr. Paris, p. 337, 1897).[18]For further details about this plane, see p.59.[19]See on this subject the interesting study of Dr. Török in theCentralblatt für Anthropologie, etc., directed by Buschan, 1st year, 1896, No. 3.[20]Pfitzner, “Die kleine Zehe,”Arch. f. Anat. u. Phys., 1890.[21]Bell,The Naturalist in Nicaragua, p. 209, 1874; Shevyref, “Parasites of the Skin, etc.,”Works Soc. of Naturalists, St. Petersburg, 1891, in Russian.[22]Walter Kidd, “Certain Vestigial Characters in Man,”Nature, 1897, vol. lv., p. 237.[23]See for further details Deniker,Recherches anatom. et embryol. sur les singes anthropoides, Paris and Poitiers, 1886 (Extr. fromArch. de Zool. experim., 30 ser., vol. iii., supp., 1885–86).[24]Deniker, “Les Races de l’Europe,”Bull. Soc. Anthr. Paris, p. 29, 1897.[25]Joest,Verh. Berl. gesell. Anthr., p. 450, 1887; Topinard,Elem. Anthr. gén., p. 436.[26]Manouvrier,Bull. Soc. Anthr. Paris, p. 264, 1896.[27]B. A. Gould,Investigations in the Milit. and Anthrop. Statistics of American Soldiers, New York, 1869.[28]Final Report of the Anthropometric Committee, Brit. Ass., 1883.[29]Pagliani,Lo sviluppo umano per età, etc.Milan, 1879.[30]These figures differ from those up to the present given in most works, according to Topinard (Elem. Anthro. gén., p. 462), who fixes the limits between1 m. 44 (Bushmen of the Cape) and1 m. 85 (Patagonians), but the first of these figures is that of a series of six subjects only, measured by Fritsch, and the second the average of ten subjects measured by Lista and Moreno. This is insufficient, and since the publication of Topinard’s work we have only been able to add a few isolated observations concerning those interesting populations the actual height of which is still to be determined.[31]Topinard,Elem. Anthr. gén., p. 463.[32]Final Report Brit. Assoc., 1883, p. 17.[33]Beddoe,The Stature and Bulk of Man in the Brit. Isles, pp. 148et seq.London, 1870.[34]Houzé,Bull. Soc. Anthr. Bruxelles, 1887; Roberts,A Manual of Anthropometry, London, 1878, andJour. Stat. Soc., London, 1876; Anuchin, “O geograficheskom, etc.,”Geograph. Distrib. of Stature in Russia, St. Petersburg, 1889; Erisman,Arch. f. soz. gesetzgeb., Tübingen, 1888.[35]Collignon, “L’Anthropologie au conseil de révision,”Bull. Soc. Anthr. Paris, 1890, p. 764.[36]Ammon,Die Natur. Auslese beim Menschen, Jena, 1893; Vacher de Lapouge,Les selections sociales, Paris, 1896; Beddoe,loc. cit., p. 180; Ranke,Der Mensch., vol. ii., p. 109, Leipzig, 1887.[37]Boas (Zeit. f. Ethnol., 1895, p. 375) found, however, in thirty-nine series of Indians the difference greater with tribes of high stature (13.5 centimetres) than with tribes of low stature (9.9 centimetres).[38]Rollet,Mensurations des os longs, etc., Lyons, 1889 (thesis).[39]Manouvrier,Mem. Soc. Anthro., 2nd ser., vol. iv., p. 347, Paris, 1893.[40]Rahon,Mem. Soc. Anthro., vol. iv., p. 403, Paris, 1893.[41]Bischoff,Sitzungsber. Mat. Phys. Cl. Bayr. Akad., Munich, 1882, pp. 243 and 356.[42]Galton,Finger Prints. London, 1892.[43]Haeckel,Natur. Schöpfungsgeschichte, 4th ed., p. 603. Berlin, 1873.[44]Pruner-Bey, “Chevelure comme caracterist. des races hum.,”Mem. Soc. Anthr., vol. ii., p. 1, Paris, 1863; Latteux,Technique microscopique, p. 239, Paris, 1883; Waldeyer,Atlas der Menschl. u. Thier Haare, Lahr, 1894.[45]Topinard,Elem. Anthrop. gén., p. 265; J. Ranke,loc. cit., vol. ii., p. 172.[46]Baelz, “Körperl. Eigensch. d. Japaner,”Mitth. Deut. Gesell. Nat. und Völkerk. Ostasiens, vol. iii., fasc. 28, p. 330, and vol. iv., fasc. 32, p. 39, Yokohama, 1883–85; Montano,Mission aux îles Philippines, Paris, 1885 (Extr. fromArch. Miss. Scient., 3rd series, vol. xi.).[47]P. S. Unna, “Ueber das Haar als Rassenmerkmal,”Deutsche Med. Zeit., 1896, Nos. 82 and 83.[48]See Stewart,Microsc. Journ., 1873, p. 54; and T. Anderson Stuart,Journ. Anat. Phys., 1881–82, xvi., p. 362.[49]B. A. Gould,loc. cit., p. 562.[50]Breul, “Vertheil. d. Hautpigments bei verschied. Menschenrassen,”Morph. Arb., directed by G. Schwalbe, vol. vi., part 3. Jena, 1896.[51]Broca,Instructions génér. pour les rech. Anthropologiques sur le vivant, 2nd ed., Paris, 1879.[52]J. G. Garson and Ch. H. Read,Notes and Queries on Anthropology, edit. for the Anthro. Institute, 2nd ed., London, 1892.[53]Fair hair with all its shades is met with especially among the European populations of the North; it is rarer in the South. There are, it is computed, 16 fair-haired individuals to every 100 Scotchmen; 13 to every 100 Englishmen; and 2 only to every 100 Italians (Beddoe). On the other hand, brown hair is met with in 75 cases out of 100 Spaniards, 39 out of 100 Frenchmen, and 16 only of 100 Scandinavians (Gould). The fair variety is rarer among straight-haired races; it is found, however, among the western Finns, among certain Russians, etc.[54]Baelz,loc. cit., vol. iv., p. 40; Matignon,Bull. Soc. Anthr., p. 524, Paris, 1896; Collignon,ibid., p. 528; Sören-Hansen,Bidrag Vestgrönl. Anthr., Copenhagen, 1893; Extr. fromMeddel. om Grönl., vol. vii., p. 237.[55]Havelock Ellis,Man and Woman, p. 223. London, 1897.[56]These characters, in conjunction with several others—the small development of the lower jaw-bone, the frontal sinuses poorly developed, the much greater development of the cranial vault proportionately to its base, the persistence of the frontal and parietal bumps—make the feminine skull approximate to the infantile form. See the works of Broca, Manouvrier, and also Rabentisch,Der Weiberschädel, Morpholog. Arb., Schwalbe, 1892, vol. ii., p. 207; and H. Ellis,loc. cit., p. 72.[57]H. Ellis,loc. cit., p. 89 and onwards; L. Manouvrier, article “Cerveau” in theDict. de Physiol. de Ch. Richet, vol. ii., part 8, Paris, 1897.[58]According to the quinary nomenclature adopted in many countries of Europe, the indices are grouped by series of five: dolichocephalic from 70 to 74.9; mesocephalic from 75 to 79.9; brachycephalic from 80 to 84.9; hyper-brachycephalic from 85 to 89.9. The two systems might be combined with advantage, as I proposed ten years ago, under the following nomenclature, which I have adopted in this work:—Cephalic index of the skull: From 69.9 and under, hyper-dolichocephalic; from 70 to 74.9, dolichocephalic; from 75 to 77.7, sub-dolichocephalic; from 77.7 to 79.9, mesocephalic; from 80 to 83.2, sub-brachycephalic; from 83.3 to 84.9, brachycephalic; from 85 to 85.9, hyper-brachycephalic; from 90 and upwards, ultra-brachycephalic.[59]Skulls may also be grouped by sections (for instance, ascending to the quinary nomenclature of the cephalic index) to see what is the proportional part of each of these sections. Thus if we take a series of 10 skulls having the following indices, 75, 77, 78, 80, 80, 81, 81, 81, 82, 84, theiraverageindex will be expressed by the figure 80 (the sum of the indices divided by the number of skulls), while the most frequentmeanindex will be 81. Further, the series should be considered as not very homogeneous, for it comprises 1 dolichocephalic, 1 sub-dolichocephalic, 1 mesocephalic, 6 sub-brachycephalic, and 1 brachycephalic.[60]It is rather a line than a plane; the cranium always being asymmetrical, we cannot make a horizontal plane pass exactly through the borders of the two orbits and the two auditory meatus.[61]Broca, “Recherches sur l’indice orbitaire,”Rev. Anthro., p. 577, Paris, 1875.[62]C.E., an abbreviation which is met with in other tables forCrania ethnicaof De Quatrefages and Hamy, Paris, 1882.[63]L. Weiss,Beitr. Anat. der Orbita, part 3, p. 25, Tübingen, 1890.[64]Ten Kate,L’Anthropologie, 1894, p. 617.[65]Ten Kate,Zur Anthropologie der Mongoloiden, Berlin, 1882 (thesis).[66]See P. Broca,Instruc. gén., etc.; Garson and Read,Notes and Queries, etc.; as well as P. Topinard, “Instruc. Anthropometr. pour les voyageurs,”Rev. d’Anthro., p. 397, Paris, 1885.[67]Sergi,Congr. internat. d’Archéol. et d’Anthr. préhist., 11th sess., Moscow, 1893, vol. ii., p. 296.[68]Ehrenreich,Anthr. Stud. Urbewohner Brasiliens, chap. i., Brunswick, 1897.[69]A. Gonner, “Vererbung der Forme ... des Schädels,”Zeits. für Geburtshilfe und Gynäkologie, 1895, vol. xxxiii., p. 1.[70]Spalikowski, “Études d’anthropologie normande,”Bull. Soc. amis Sciences nat. Rouen, 1895, Nos. 1 and 2, p. 113; Ammon,loc. cit., p. 143; Johansson, and F. Westermarck,Skandin. Arch. f. Physiol., vol. vii., 1897, p. 341; Miss Fawcett and K. Pearson,Proc. Roy. Soc. London, vol. 62, 1898, p. 413.[71]Elem. Anthro. gén., p. 567.[72]Regalia, “Orbita ed obliquità dell’ occhio Mongolico,”Archivio p. Antr., vol. xviii., p. 1, Florence, 1888.[73]E. Metchnikof,Zeitsch. f. Ethnol., p. 153, Berlin, 1874.[74]J. Deniker, “L’Étude sur les Kalmouks,”Revue d’Anthropologie, 2nd series, vol. vi., p. 696, Paris, 1883.[75]Collignon, “La nomenclature quinaire de l’indice nasal,”Rev. d’Anthropol., 3rd series, t. ii., p. 8, Paris, 1887.[76]German anthropologists take the measurement of the breadth of the nose, not level with the nostrils, but behind, at the point of their attachment to the maxillary bone, compressing the soft parts; the nasal indices thus obtained are much too low, and not comparable to those which result from the measurements taken according to the Broca-Collignon method.[77]A. Bertillon, “Morphologie du Nez,”Rev. d’Anthro., 3rd series, vol. ii., 1887.[78]P. Broca, “Recher. sur l’ind. nas.,”Rev. d’Anthro., vol. i., Paris, 1872; Houzé, “L’ind. nas. des Flamands et des Wallons,”Bull. Soc. Anthr., Bruxelles, vol. vii., 1888–89; O. Hovorka,Die aussere Nase, Wien, 1893; Hoyer, “Beitr. zur Anthr. der Nase,” Schwalbe’sMorph. Arb., vol. iv., p. 151, 1894.[79]Schwalbe, “R. Virchow’s Festschrift,” 1891; E. Wilhelm,Rev. Biol. du nord de la France, Lille, 1892, No. 6.[80]See the summing up of the question in Cunningham, “The Neural Spine,”Journal of Anat. and Physiol., vol. xx., p. 637.[81]See, for further details, Verneau,Le bassin dans les sexes, etc., Paris, 1875; Turner, “Report Hum. Skelet.,”Rep. of Challenger: Zoology, part 47; J. Garson, “Pelvimetry,”Journ. Anat. Physiol., vol. xvi., London, October, 1881; Henning, “Rassenbecken,”Arch. für Anthr., 1885, andSitzungsb. Naturforsch. Gesell., Leipzig, 1890–91, p. 1; Marri,Archivio per l’Antr., 1892, p. 17.[82]On the index of the shoulder-blade see Broca,Bull. Soc. Anthr., 1878, p. 66; Livon,De L’omoplate(thesis), Paris, 1879; Garson,Journ. Anat. Physiol., vol. xiv., 1879–80, p. 13; Turner,loc. cit.[83]Transformed into terms of the pelvic index of Broca these figures, according to the formula: ind. Turn.: 100 = 100:x, we have the figures: Fuegians, 129.8; Australians, 129.8; Europeans, 126.5; European women, 134.6; Australian women, 130.5; Andamanese women, 131.5.[84]It has been thought that this frequency was due to the facility with which the thin lamella in question forming the bottom of the cavity can be destroyed after prolonged interment. However, there are prehistoric burial-places, as, for example, certain long barrows of Great Britain, in which not a single perforated humerus in a series of from ten to thirty bones has been found.[85]Houzé, “Le 3etrochanter,”Bull. Soc. Anthr., Brussels, 1883.[86]See the summary of the question by Dwight inJourn. of Anat. Physiol., vol. xxiv., pt. i., London, 1889, p. 61; also that by Costa, inArchivio per l’Antr., vol. xx., 1890, p. 280; and by Poirier in hisTraité d’Anatomie, vol. i., p. 221, Paris, 1890.[87]Manouvrier,Mémoires Soc. Anthr., 2nd ser., vol. iii., Paris, 1888.[88]Ibid., vol. iv., 1890.[89]Hamy,Rev. d’Anthrop., 1872, p. 79.[90]Topinard,L’homme dans la Nature, p. 126.[91]Rojdestvensky, “Proportions of the Head,”Bull. Soc. Friends of Nat. Sc., vol. xc., part 1, Moscow, 1895 (in Russian).[92]Ivanovsky, “Mongols, etc.,”Bull. Soc. Friends of Nat. Sc., vol. lxxi., Moscow, 1893 (in Russian); Topinard,Elem. Anthro. générale, p. 1076.[93]See Ivanovsky,loc. cit., p. 257; Topinard,loc. cit., p. 1089.[94]Deniker and Boulart,loc. cit., p. 53.[95]M. Bartels,Arch. f. Anthr., vol. xiii., 1880, p. 1.[96]Lartschneider, “Die Steissbeinmuskeln, etc.,”Denkschr. K. Akad. Wiss. Wien. mat. nat. Kl., vol. lxii., 1895.[97]See on this subject, Le Double,Traité des variations du Syst. musc. de l’homme, 2 vols., Paris, 1897; and Testut,Anomalies muscul., Paris, 1884.[98]Hovelacque and Hervé,Précis d’Anthro., p. 301. Paris, 1887.[99]Ten Kate, “Sur quelques points d’ostéologie ethnique,”Revista del Museo de La Plata, vol. vii., 1896, p. 263.[100]R. Blanchard, “Observations sur le tablier ... d’après Peron et Lesueur,”Bull. Soc. Zool. de France, 1883, with Figs.[101]H. Ploss,Das Weib, 5th edit., by Max Bartels, vol. i. Leipzig, 1897.[102]Topinard,L’homme dans la Nature, p. 215.[103]Topinard,Elem. d’Anthrop. génér., p. 571.[104]According to the same author, the average weight of the brain of 364 Bavarians is 1372 grammes.[105]Manouvrier, “De la quantité dans l’encéphale,”Mém. Soc. Anthr., 2nd ser., vol. iii., p. 162. Paris, 1888.[106]Elem. Anthr. gén., pp. 611et seq.The figures are drawn from the series of Broca and Flower, the latter being augmented by 64 c.c. (the mean difference established by Topinard and Garson between the two systems of determining cranial capacity).[107]Article “Cerveau,” in theDict. de Physiol.of Ch. Richet, vol. ii., part 3, p. 687. Paris, 1897.[108]“11 Ossetes, 1465 grammes; 15 Ingush-Chechen, 1454 grammes; 11 Georgians, 1350 grammes; but 12 Armenians of medium height of 1634 mm. give 1369 grammes for the brain.”—Gilchenko,Congr. Intern. Arch. préhis., vol. i., p. 183, Moscow, 1892.[109]C. Voit, “Gewichte d. Organe,”Zeitsch. für Biologie, 1894, p. 510.[110]Manouvrier has demonstrated (Dict. Phys., p. 688), working on three series of from 54 to 58 Frenchmen, that individuals of low stature have a lighter brain (1329 grammes) than those of high stature (1398 grammes); two series of women (23 and 27 individuals) yielded a similar result (1198 grammes for the low-statured, and 1218 for the tall). A series of 44 distinguished men ofallnations andallstatures gave a mean weight of 1430 grammes—that is to say, exceeding that of the French of high stature and the Scotch. From this may be drawn the conclusion thatintelligencecauses an increase in the weight of the brain independently of the stature. Here, by way of documents, are several data of this interesting series. The minimum of this series belongs to the anatomist Döllinger, who died at the age of seventy-one (1207 grammes), the maximum to the novelist Thackeray, who died at the age of fifty-three (1644 grammes). Between these two extremes are inserted, Harless (1238 grammes), Gambetta (1294 grammes), Liebig (1352 grammes), Bischoff (1452 grammes), Broca (1485 grammes), Gauss (1492 grammes), Agassiz (1512 grammes), and De Morny (1520 grammes), to mention only the best known names ranging between these extremes. M. Manouvrier has excluded from this series exceptionally heavy brains, like those of Schiller (1781 grammes), of Cuvier (1829 grammes), of Tourgenieff (2012 grammes), and lastly of Byron (2238 grammes).[111]According to Danilevsky and Dr. Regibus, the weight of the grey substance represents 37 or 38 per cent. of the total weight of the brain.[112]Every nerve-fibre of the adult is composed of an axis-cylinder which communicates with the nerve-cells and with a myeline sheath formed around it. In the course of the development of the embryo this sheath appears after the formation of the axis-cylinder.[113]Flechsig,Gehirn und Seele, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1896;Die Localization der geistigen Vorgänge, Leipzig, 1896.

Footnotes:

[1]In these ethnic groups there may further be distinguished several subdivisions due to the diversity of manners, customs, etc.; or, in the groups with a more complicated social organisation, yet other social groups—priests, magistrates, miners, peasants, having each his particular “social type.”

[2]Naegeli,Mechanisch-Physiol. Theorie der Abstammungslehre, Munich, 1883.

[3]The most recent definitions of species given by Wallace and Romanes approximate closely to that of Cuvier. Eimer has suggested another, based solely on the physiological criterion. His definition has the advantage of covering cases ofpolymorphism, in which the female gives birth to two or several individuals so unlike that we should not hesitate to classify them in two species if guided only by morphology.

[4]See on this point, Y. Delage,L’Hérédité, pp. 252et seq.Paris, 1895.

[5]The question is summed up by Darwin,Descent of Man, vol. i., p. 264, 2nd edition. London, 1888.

[6]In questions of hybridity, it must be observed, we often confound the notions of “race” and “people,” or “social class,” and we have to be on our guard against information drawn from statistics. Thus in Central America we consider “hybrids” all those descendants of the Spaniards and the Indians who have adopted the semi-European manner of life and the Catholic religion, without inquiring whether or not this physical type has reverted to that of one of the ancestors—a not infrequent occurrence.

[7]Darwin,loc. cit., vol. i., p. 280.

[8]Such is, for example, the scheme of Topinard, consisting of two double parts (Elements d’Anthropologie, p. 216, Paris, 1885), to which corresponds the system newly propounded by Em. Schmidt (Centralblatt für Anthropologie, etc., vol. ii., p. 97, Breslau, 1897). The last-mentioned admits in reality two divisions, Ethnography and Ethnology, in what he calls Ethnic Anthropology; and two others, Phylography and Phylology, in what he names Somatic Anthropology. The two last divisions correspond to the Special Anthropology and the General Anthropology of Topinard.

[9]If we include the Lemurs in the order of Primates, the five families just enumerated are all included in a “sub-order,” that ofAnthropoidea. (See, for further details, Flower and Lydekker,Introduction to the Study of Mammals Living and Extinct, London, 1891.)

[10]J. H. Kohlbrugge, “Versuch einer Anatomie ... Hylobates,”Zoolog. Ergeb. einer Reise in Ned. Ind., von M. Weber, vols. i. and ii. Leyden, 1891.

[11]D. J. Cunningham, “The Lumbar Curve in Man and the Apes,”Cunningham Memoirs of the Royal Irish Academy, No. II., Dublin, 1886.

[12]J. Ranke, “Ueber die aufrechte Körperhaltung, etc.,”Corr.-Bl. der deutsch. Gesell. f. Anthr., 1895, p. 154.

[13]The enormous development of the laryngeal sacs in the orang-utan is perhaps also in harmony with this protective function, as I have shown in a special work. See Deniker and Boulart, “Notes anat. sur ... orang-utans,”Nouv. Arch. Mus. d’hist. nat. de Paris, 3rd Series, vol. vii., p. 47, 1895.

[14]R. Munro, “On Interm. Links, etc.,”Proceed. Roy. Soc. Edinb., vol. xxi. (1896–97), No. 4, p. 349, andPrehistoric Problems, pp. 87 and 165, Edin.-Lond. 1897; Turner, Pres. Address Brit. Assoc., Toronto Meeting,Nature, Sept. 1897.

[15]Topinard,L’homme dans la Nature, p. 214. Paris, 1891.

[16]Deniker and Boulart,loc. cit., p. 55.

[17]Boyd, “Table of Weights of the Human Body, etc.,”Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 1861; Bischoff,Das Hirngewicht der Menschen, Bonn, 1880. The difference remains nearly the same if, instead of the weight of the body, we take its surface, as was attempted by E. Dubois (Bull. Soc. Anthr. Paris, p. 337, 1897).

[18]For further details about this plane, see p.59.

[19]See on this subject the interesting study of Dr. Török in theCentralblatt für Anthropologie, etc., directed by Buschan, 1st year, 1896, No. 3.

[20]Pfitzner, “Die kleine Zehe,”Arch. f. Anat. u. Phys., 1890.

[21]Bell,The Naturalist in Nicaragua, p. 209, 1874; Shevyref, “Parasites of the Skin, etc.,”Works Soc. of Naturalists, St. Petersburg, 1891, in Russian.

[22]Walter Kidd, “Certain Vestigial Characters in Man,”Nature, 1897, vol. lv., p. 237.

[23]See for further details Deniker,Recherches anatom. et embryol. sur les singes anthropoides, Paris and Poitiers, 1886 (Extr. fromArch. de Zool. experim., 30 ser., vol. iii., supp., 1885–86).

[24]Deniker, “Les Races de l’Europe,”Bull. Soc. Anthr. Paris, p. 29, 1897.

[25]Joest,Verh. Berl. gesell. Anthr., p. 450, 1887; Topinard,Elem. Anthr. gén., p. 436.

[26]Manouvrier,Bull. Soc. Anthr. Paris, p. 264, 1896.

[27]B. A. Gould,Investigations in the Milit. and Anthrop. Statistics of American Soldiers, New York, 1869.

[28]Final Report of the Anthropometric Committee, Brit. Ass., 1883.

[29]Pagliani,Lo sviluppo umano per età, etc.Milan, 1879.

[30]These figures differ from those up to the present given in most works, according to Topinard (Elem. Anthro. gén., p. 462), who fixes the limits between1 m. 44 (Bushmen of the Cape) and1 m. 85 (Patagonians), but the first of these figures is that of a series of six subjects only, measured by Fritsch, and the second the average of ten subjects measured by Lista and Moreno. This is insufficient, and since the publication of Topinard’s work we have only been able to add a few isolated observations concerning those interesting populations the actual height of which is still to be determined.

[31]Topinard,Elem. Anthr. gén., p. 463.

[32]Final Report Brit. Assoc., 1883, p. 17.

[33]Beddoe,The Stature and Bulk of Man in the Brit. Isles, pp. 148et seq.London, 1870.

[34]Houzé,Bull. Soc. Anthr. Bruxelles, 1887; Roberts,A Manual of Anthropometry, London, 1878, andJour. Stat. Soc., London, 1876; Anuchin, “O geograficheskom, etc.,”Geograph. Distrib. of Stature in Russia, St. Petersburg, 1889; Erisman,Arch. f. soz. gesetzgeb., Tübingen, 1888.

[35]Collignon, “L’Anthropologie au conseil de révision,”Bull. Soc. Anthr. Paris, 1890, p. 764.

[36]Ammon,Die Natur. Auslese beim Menschen, Jena, 1893; Vacher de Lapouge,Les selections sociales, Paris, 1896; Beddoe,loc. cit., p. 180; Ranke,Der Mensch., vol. ii., p. 109, Leipzig, 1887.

[37]Boas (Zeit. f. Ethnol., 1895, p. 375) found, however, in thirty-nine series of Indians the difference greater with tribes of high stature (13.5 centimetres) than with tribes of low stature (9.9 centimetres).

[38]Rollet,Mensurations des os longs, etc., Lyons, 1889 (thesis).

[39]Manouvrier,Mem. Soc. Anthro., 2nd ser., vol. iv., p. 347, Paris, 1893.

[40]Rahon,Mem. Soc. Anthro., vol. iv., p. 403, Paris, 1893.

[41]Bischoff,Sitzungsber. Mat. Phys. Cl. Bayr. Akad., Munich, 1882, pp. 243 and 356.

[42]Galton,Finger Prints. London, 1892.

[43]Haeckel,Natur. Schöpfungsgeschichte, 4th ed., p. 603. Berlin, 1873.

[44]Pruner-Bey, “Chevelure comme caracterist. des races hum.,”Mem. Soc. Anthr., vol. ii., p. 1, Paris, 1863; Latteux,Technique microscopique, p. 239, Paris, 1883; Waldeyer,Atlas der Menschl. u. Thier Haare, Lahr, 1894.

[45]Topinard,Elem. Anthrop. gén., p. 265; J. Ranke,loc. cit., vol. ii., p. 172.

[46]Baelz, “Körperl. Eigensch. d. Japaner,”Mitth. Deut. Gesell. Nat. und Völkerk. Ostasiens, vol. iii., fasc. 28, p. 330, and vol. iv., fasc. 32, p. 39, Yokohama, 1883–85; Montano,Mission aux îles Philippines, Paris, 1885 (Extr. fromArch. Miss. Scient., 3rd series, vol. xi.).

[47]P. S. Unna, “Ueber das Haar als Rassenmerkmal,”Deutsche Med. Zeit., 1896, Nos. 82 and 83.

[48]See Stewart,Microsc. Journ., 1873, p. 54; and T. Anderson Stuart,Journ. Anat. Phys., 1881–82, xvi., p. 362.

[49]B. A. Gould,loc. cit., p. 562.

[50]Breul, “Vertheil. d. Hautpigments bei verschied. Menschenrassen,”Morph. Arb., directed by G. Schwalbe, vol. vi., part 3. Jena, 1896.

[51]Broca,Instructions génér. pour les rech. Anthropologiques sur le vivant, 2nd ed., Paris, 1879.

[52]J. G. Garson and Ch. H. Read,Notes and Queries on Anthropology, edit. for the Anthro. Institute, 2nd ed., London, 1892.

[53]Fair hair with all its shades is met with especially among the European populations of the North; it is rarer in the South. There are, it is computed, 16 fair-haired individuals to every 100 Scotchmen; 13 to every 100 Englishmen; and 2 only to every 100 Italians (Beddoe). On the other hand, brown hair is met with in 75 cases out of 100 Spaniards, 39 out of 100 Frenchmen, and 16 only of 100 Scandinavians (Gould). The fair variety is rarer among straight-haired races; it is found, however, among the western Finns, among certain Russians, etc.

[54]Baelz,loc. cit., vol. iv., p. 40; Matignon,Bull. Soc. Anthr., p. 524, Paris, 1896; Collignon,ibid., p. 528; Sören-Hansen,Bidrag Vestgrönl. Anthr., Copenhagen, 1893; Extr. fromMeddel. om Grönl., vol. vii., p. 237.

[55]Havelock Ellis,Man and Woman, p. 223. London, 1897.

[56]These characters, in conjunction with several others—the small development of the lower jaw-bone, the frontal sinuses poorly developed, the much greater development of the cranial vault proportionately to its base, the persistence of the frontal and parietal bumps—make the feminine skull approximate to the infantile form. See the works of Broca, Manouvrier, and also Rabentisch,Der Weiberschädel, Morpholog. Arb., Schwalbe, 1892, vol. ii., p. 207; and H. Ellis,loc. cit., p. 72.

[57]H. Ellis,loc. cit., p. 89 and onwards; L. Manouvrier, article “Cerveau” in theDict. de Physiol. de Ch. Richet, vol. ii., part 8, Paris, 1897.

[58]According to the quinary nomenclature adopted in many countries of Europe, the indices are grouped by series of five: dolichocephalic from 70 to 74.9; mesocephalic from 75 to 79.9; brachycephalic from 80 to 84.9; hyper-brachycephalic from 85 to 89.9. The two systems might be combined with advantage, as I proposed ten years ago, under the following nomenclature, which I have adopted in this work:—Cephalic index of the skull: From 69.9 and under, hyper-dolichocephalic; from 70 to 74.9, dolichocephalic; from 75 to 77.7, sub-dolichocephalic; from 77.7 to 79.9, mesocephalic; from 80 to 83.2, sub-brachycephalic; from 83.3 to 84.9, brachycephalic; from 85 to 85.9, hyper-brachycephalic; from 90 and upwards, ultra-brachycephalic.

[59]Skulls may also be grouped by sections (for instance, ascending to the quinary nomenclature of the cephalic index) to see what is the proportional part of each of these sections. Thus if we take a series of 10 skulls having the following indices, 75, 77, 78, 80, 80, 81, 81, 81, 82, 84, theiraverageindex will be expressed by the figure 80 (the sum of the indices divided by the number of skulls), while the most frequentmeanindex will be 81. Further, the series should be considered as not very homogeneous, for it comprises 1 dolichocephalic, 1 sub-dolichocephalic, 1 mesocephalic, 6 sub-brachycephalic, and 1 brachycephalic.

[60]It is rather a line than a plane; the cranium always being asymmetrical, we cannot make a horizontal plane pass exactly through the borders of the two orbits and the two auditory meatus.

[61]Broca, “Recherches sur l’indice orbitaire,”Rev. Anthro., p. 577, Paris, 1875.

[62]C.E., an abbreviation which is met with in other tables forCrania ethnicaof De Quatrefages and Hamy, Paris, 1882.

[63]L. Weiss,Beitr. Anat. der Orbita, part 3, p. 25, Tübingen, 1890.

[64]Ten Kate,L’Anthropologie, 1894, p. 617.

[65]Ten Kate,Zur Anthropologie der Mongoloiden, Berlin, 1882 (thesis).

[66]See P. Broca,Instruc. gén., etc.; Garson and Read,Notes and Queries, etc.; as well as P. Topinard, “Instruc. Anthropometr. pour les voyageurs,”Rev. d’Anthro., p. 397, Paris, 1885.

[67]Sergi,Congr. internat. d’Archéol. et d’Anthr. préhist., 11th sess., Moscow, 1893, vol. ii., p. 296.

[68]Ehrenreich,Anthr. Stud. Urbewohner Brasiliens, chap. i., Brunswick, 1897.

[69]A. Gonner, “Vererbung der Forme ... des Schädels,”Zeits. für Geburtshilfe und Gynäkologie, 1895, vol. xxxiii., p. 1.

[70]Spalikowski, “Études d’anthropologie normande,”Bull. Soc. amis Sciences nat. Rouen, 1895, Nos. 1 and 2, p. 113; Ammon,loc. cit., p. 143; Johansson, and F. Westermarck,Skandin. Arch. f. Physiol., vol. vii., 1897, p. 341; Miss Fawcett and K. Pearson,Proc. Roy. Soc. London, vol. 62, 1898, p. 413.

[71]Elem. Anthro. gén., p. 567.

[72]Regalia, “Orbita ed obliquità dell’ occhio Mongolico,”Archivio p. Antr., vol. xviii., p. 1, Florence, 1888.

[73]E. Metchnikof,Zeitsch. f. Ethnol., p. 153, Berlin, 1874.

[74]J. Deniker, “L’Étude sur les Kalmouks,”Revue d’Anthropologie, 2nd series, vol. vi., p. 696, Paris, 1883.

[75]Collignon, “La nomenclature quinaire de l’indice nasal,”Rev. d’Anthropol., 3rd series, t. ii., p. 8, Paris, 1887.

[76]German anthropologists take the measurement of the breadth of the nose, not level with the nostrils, but behind, at the point of their attachment to the maxillary bone, compressing the soft parts; the nasal indices thus obtained are much too low, and not comparable to those which result from the measurements taken according to the Broca-Collignon method.

[77]A. Bertillon, “Morphologie du Nez,”Rev. d’Anthro., 3rd series, vol. ii., 1887.

[78]P. Broca, “Recher. sur l’ind. nas.,”Rev. d’Anthro., vol. i., Paris, 1872; Houzé, “L’ind. nas. des Flamands et des Wallons,”Bull. Soc. Anthr., Bruxelles, vol. vii., 1888–89; O. Hovorka,Die aussere Nase, Wien, 1893; Hoyer, “Beitr. zur Anthr. der Nase,” Schwalbe’sMorph. Arb., vol. iv., p. 151, 1894.

[79]Schwalbe, “R. Virchow’s Festschrift,” 1891; E. Wilhelm,Rev. Biol. du nord de la France, Lille, 1892, No. 6.

[80]See the summing up of the question in Cunningham, “The Neural Spine,”Journal of Anat. and Physiol., vol. xx., p. 637.

[81]See, for further details, Verneau,Le bassin dans les sexes, etc., Paris, 1875; Turner, “Report Hum. Skelet.,”Rep. of Challenger: Zoology, part 47; J. Garson, “Pelvimetry,”Journ. Anat. Physiol., vol. xvi., London, October, 1881; Henning, “Rassenbecken,”Arch. für Anthr., 1885, andSitzungsb. Naturforsch. Gesell., Leipzig, 1890–91, p. 1; Marri,Archivio per l’Antr., 1892, p. 17.

[82]On the index of the shoulder-blade see Broca,Bull. Soc. Anthr., 1878, p. 66; Livon,De L’omoplate(thesis), Paris, 1879; Garson,Journ. Anat. Physiol., vol. xiv., 1879–80, p. 13; Turner,loc. cit.

[83]Transformed into terms of the pelvic index of Broca these figures, according to the formula: ind. Turn.: 100 = 100:x, we have the figures: Fuegians, 129.8; Australians, 129.8; Europeans, 126.5; European women, 134.6; Australian women, 130.5; Andamanese women, 131.5.

[84]It has been thought that this frequency was due to the facility with which the thin lamella in question forming the bottom of the cavity can be destroyed after prolonged interment. However, there are prehistoric burial-places, as, for example, certain long barrows of Great Britain, in which not a single perforated humerus in a series of from ten to thirty bones has been found.

[85]Houzé, “Le 3etrochanter,”Bull. Soc. Anthr., Brussels, 1883.

[86]See the summary of the question by Dwight inJourn. of Anat. Physiol., vol. xxiv., pt. i., London, 1889, p. 61; also that by Costa, inArchivio per l’Antr., vol. xx., 1890, p. 280; and by Poirier in hisTraité d’Anatomie, vol. i., p. 221, Paris, 1890.

[87]Manouvrier,Mémoires Soc. Anthr., 2nd ser., vol. iii., Paris, 1888.

[88]Ibid., vol. iv., 1890.

[89]Hamy,Rev. d’Anthrop., 1872, p. 79.

[90]Topinard,L’homme dans la Nature, p. 126.

[91]Rojdestvensky, “Proportions of the Head,”Bull. Soc. Friends of Nat. Sc., vol. xc., part 1, Moscow, 1895 (in Russian).

[92]Ivanovsky, “Mongols, etc.,”Bull. Soc. Friends of Nat. Sc., vol. lxxi., Moscow, 1893 (in Russian); Topinard,Elem. Anthro. générale, p. 1076.

[93]See Ivanovsky,loc. cit., p. 257; Topinard,loc. cit., p. 1089.

[94]Deniker and Boulart,loc. cit., p. 53.

[95]M. Bartels,Arch. f. Anthr., vol. xiii., 1880, p. 1.

[96]Lartschneider, “Die Steissbeinmuskeln, etc.,”Denkschr. K. Akad. Wiss. Wien. mat. nat. Kl., vol. lxii., 1895.

[97]See on this subject, Le Double,Traité des variations du Syst. musc. de l’homme, 2 vols., Paris, 1897; and Testut,Anomalies muscul., Paris, 1884.

[98]Hovelacque and Hervé,Précis d’Anthro., p. 301. Paris, 1887.

[99]Ten Kate, “Sur quelques points d’ostéologie ethnique,”Revista del Museo de La Plata, vol. vii., 1896, p. 263.

[100]R. Blanchard, “Observations sur le tablier ... d’après Peron et Lesueur,”Bull. Soc. Zool. de France, 1883, with Figs.

[101]H. Ploss,Das Weib, 5th edit., by Max Bartels, vol. i. Leipzig, 1897.

[102]Topinard,L’homme dans la Nature, p. 215.

[103]Topinard,Elem. d’Anthrop. génér., p. 571.

[104]According to the same author, the average weight of the brain of 364 Bavarians is 1372 grammes.

[105]Manouvrier, “De la quantité dans l’encéphale,”Mém. Soc. Anthr., 2nd ser., vol. iii., p. 162. Paris, 1888.

[106]Elem. Anthr. gén., pp. 611et seq.The figures are drawn from the series of Broca and Flower, the latter being augmented by 64 c.c. (the mean difference established by Topinard and Garson between the two systems of determining cranial capacity).

[107]Article “Cerveau,” in theDict. de Physiol.of Ch. Richet, vol. ii., part 3, p. 687. Paris, 1897.

[108]“11 Ossetes, 1465 grammes; 15 Ingush-Chechen, 1454 grammes; 11 Georgians, 1350 grammes; but 12 Armenians of medium height of 1634 mm. give 1369 grammes for the brain.”—Gilchenko,Congr. Intern. Arch. préhis., vol. i., p. 183, Moscow, 1892.

[109]C. Voit, “Gewichte d. Organe,”Zeitsch. für Biologie, 1894, p. 510.

[110]Manouvrier has demonstrated (Dict. Phys., p. 688), working on three series of from 54 to 58 Frenchmen, that individuals of low stature have a lighter brain (1329 grammes) than those of high stature (1398 grammes); two series of women (23 and 27 individuals) yielded a similar result (1198 grammes for the low-statured, and 1218 for the tall). A series of 44 distinguished men ofallnations andallstatures gave a mean weight of 1430 grammes—that is to say, exceeding that of the French of high stature and the Scotch. From this may be drawn the conclusion thatintelligencecauses an increase in the weight of the brain independently of the stature. Here, by way of documents, are several data of this interesting series. The minimum of this series belongs to the anatomist Döllinger, who died at the age of seventy-one (1207 grammes), the maximum to the novelist Thackeray, who died at the age of fifty-three (1644 grammes). Between these two extremes are inserted, Harless (1238 grammes), Gambetta (1294 grammes), Liebig (1352 grammes), Bischoff (1452 grammes), Broca (1485 grammes), Gauss (1492 grammes), Agassiz (1512 grammes), and De Morny (1520 grammes), to mention only the best known names ranging between these extremes. M. Manouvrier has excluded from this series exceptionally heavy brains, like those of Schiller (1781 grammes), of Cuvier (1829 grammes), of Tourgenieff (2012 grammes), and lastly of Byron (2238 grammes).

[111]According to Danilevsky and Dr. Regibus, the weight of the grey substance represents 37 or 38 per cent. of the total weight of the brain.

[112]Every nerve-fibre of the adult is composed of an axis-cylinder which communicates with the nerve-cells and with a myeline sheath formed around it. In the course of the development of the embryo this sheath appears after the formation of the axis-cylinder.

[113]Flechsig,Gehirn und Seele, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1896;Die Localization der geistigen Vorgänge, Leipzig, 1896.

Back to Index Next