I.
“ How much may the anatomist see in the mere stni] of man! How much
more the physiognomist I And how much the most the anatomist, who is a
physiognomist! I blush when I think how much I ought to know, and of
how much I am ignorant, while writing on a part of the body of man which
is so superior to all that science has yet discovered—to all belief, to all
conception!
“ I consider the system of the hones as the great outline of man, and the
skull as the principal part of that system.”
Lavater, Essays on Physiognomy.
A com pr eh ens iv e and carefully conducted inquiry into the cranial
characteristics of the races of men, constitutes a subject as unlimited
in its extent and variety, as it is important in its results. Such an
inquiry is essentially the zoological consideration of man, or, in
other words, the consideration of man as a member of the great
animal series, and the consequent application to him of those fundamental
laws which concern the subordination of parts, and the establishment
and correlation of specific forms.
The first step in this inquiry, is the determination of those differences
by which we are enabled to discriminate between the
human cranium and that of the lower orders of animals. L awrence
long ago indicated, in his valuable Lectures, the importance of this
procedure. “As the monkey-race,” says he, “ approach the nearest
to man in structure and actions, and their forms are so much like
the human, as to have procured for them the epithet, anthropomorphous,
we must compare them to man, in order to find out the
specific characters of the latter; and we must institute this comparison
particularly with those called orang-outangs.” 1 Such a
comparison between the cranium of a negro and that of a gorilla,
has been admirably drawn by Prof. Owen.2 The second step leads
to a recognition of the points of difference and resemblance between
the crania of the various groups composing the human family. How
in elucidating these resemblances and differences, we lay the foundation
of anthropology, or man zoologically considered. But our
cranioseopy, to be properly initiative or introductory to anthropology,
must be comparative, —not humanly comparative only, but
zoologically. In other words, as naturalists—using that term in
its most comprehensive sense—we must recognize the commence-
1 Lectures on Comparative Anatomy, Physiology, Zoology, and the Natural History of
Man. By Wm. Lawrence, F.R.S. London, 1848, p. 88.
2 Descriptive Catalogue of the Osteological Series contained in the Museum of the Royal
College of Surgeons, n . 785. 1853.
ment of cranioseopy in the lower series. If we first compare the
crania of the lowest types of man with the most anthropoid of those
of the monkey group, and then carefully observe the nature of the
relation between the so-called superior and inferior forms of each
group, respectively, and finally compare these relations together, we
commence our studies properly. For in so doing, we in reality
study the extent, nature, and significance of the wide gap which
appears effectually to separate man from the brute creation. I say,
appears and I say it advisedly, inasmuch as in nature’s plan there
may be no gap at all; the intervening forms may have become
extinct, they may, unknown to us, be living in some unexplored
regions of the earth ; or they may yet appear, at some future period,
to substantiate that harmonious and successional unity which seems
to underlie the entire system of the universe.
In the accompanying table will be found a series of figures representing
the juvenile, or immature, and adult skulls of the anthropomorphous
monkeys, the adult or permanent forms of the lower types
both of men and monkeys, and, lastly, a well-known representation
of the highest form of the “ human head divine,” — all arranged in
conformity with what appears to be the indication of nature. Such
an arrangement shows us, at a glauce, that among the different tribes
o monkeys, as among the various races of men, there are numerous
lypes or forms of skull ; that for each of these natural groups, there
is a gradation of cranial forms ; that the greatest resemblances between
the two groups —resemblances indicating the existence of a
transitionary or connecting link as a part of nature’s plan—are to be
sought for m or between the lower types of each, and not between
the lowest man and highest monkey, as is generally supposed; that
the undeveloped crania of the Chimpanzee, Orang, and other higher
types of monkeys, more closely resemble the human form tbar» when
fully evolved ; that for each of the lower human types of skull, there
appears to exist among thé monkeys a rude representative, which
seems remotely and imperfectly to anticipate the typical idea of the
ormer, and to bear to it a certain ill-defined relation ; and, lastly,
that the best formed human skull stands immensely removed from
the most perfectly elaborated monkey cranium.
From the comparative methods above referred to, we learn that
the human head differs from that of the brute creation in many important
respects,—such as the proportion between the size and areas
of the cranium and face, the relative situation of the face, the direction
and prominence of the maxillæ, the position and direction of the
occipital foramen, the proportion of the facial to the cranial half of
t e occipito-mental diameter, in the absence of the os inter-maxillare,