atomists generally recognise four sncli centres, arranged in pairs, the
two lower uniting first, and afterwards the two upper, so that, he*
tween this superior and inferior portion, a line of demarcation
— sutura proræ — remains until the time of birth. According to
Meckel, the superior portion is developed from two hony puncta.
In consequence of this distinct ossification, the superior angle of
the os occipitis continues as a separate piece during intra-uterine
life, as was long ago noticed and described by Gerard Blasius,
in his work (Anatome Contracta) published at Amsterdam, in 1666.
The interest attached to this embryonic feature arises from its remarkable
persistence as a triangular inter-parietal or supra-occipital
hone, in juvenile Peruvian skulls, as first pointed out by Dr. P. B ellamy,
in a paper read before the Naturalists’ Society of Devon and
Cornwall, and afterwards by Dr. T sc h u d i , in a paper on the ancient
Peruvians.3 Dr. M in c h in , in a recent highly philosophical article,
entitled, Contributions to Craniologyf while contending for the central
or vertical origin of the bi-parietal bones, is disposed to question the
existence of this supernumerary hone as an ordinary normal condition
of foetal life. However, his argument on this special point is by
no means conclusive. The os inter-maxillare, found in some of the
Quadrumana as a permanent character, has also been demonstrated
as a transitional mark in the human embryo.5 Did my space permit,
other examples might he given, illustrative of the value of human
embryology as a guide in the study of the specific and generic characters
of the animal kingdom.
The want of information, such as above set forth, led Monhoddo
and Rousseau, men of undoubted learning, to speak of the relationship
of the genus Homo to the Quadrumana in terms contradictory
to all correct anatomy and physiology. “ H est bien démontré,” says
Rousseau, “ que le Singe n’est pas une variété de l’Homme, non
seulement parcequ’il est privé de la faculté de parler, mais, surtout,
parcequ’on est sur que son espèce n’a point la faculté de se perfectionner,
qui est le caractère spécifique de l’espèce humaine; — expériences
qui ne paroissent pas avoir été faites, sur le Pongos et
l’Ourang-Outang, avec assez de soin, pour en tirer la même conclusion.”
6 Monhoddo, less cautious, expressed his belief in the specific
identity of man and the orang. Even White, not properly understanding
Nature’s method in that “ Gradation” upon which he wrote,
3 Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 1844, p. 252.
4 Dublin Quarterly Journal of Medical Science, Nov., 1856.
3 See some remarks on the inter-maxillary bone, by Prof. Leidy, in Quain and Sharpey'9
Human Anatomy, 1st Amer. Edit., vol. 1, p. 143.
6 Discours sur les Causes, &c., note 10.
speaks of the orang as having the person, manner, and actions of
man.7
Still higher and more complex propositions engage the attention
of the cranioscopist. What is the nature of the skull as a whole,
and what is the nature respectively of its different parts? Why
should it be composed of 22 hones, and no more ? What is the
meaning of the sutures, and what their relation to individual and
race forms of the skull ? What are the relations of the cranium to
the bony skeleton on the one hand, and to the delicate organ of
thought and sensation, which it encloses, on the other ? What are
the laws of its development ? When has it obtained its full growth,
and what are the indications of this fact ? Is this period the same
in all the varieties of men ? Does the cranium giye form to the
brain, or, vice-versa, does the latter mould the former to itself?
What are the relations of cranial form to mental and moral manifestations,—“
to capability of civilization, and actual progress in arts
sciences, literature, government, &c. ?” Is there one, or are there many
primitive cranial types or forms ? If one, how have originated the
distinctions which we now perceive ? If many, what are the distinguishing
peculiarities of the primitive forms ? Are these peculiarities
primordial and constant, or can they he adequately accounted
for by the action of external causes ? To what extent is the form of
the cranium modified by climatic conditions, habits of life, age, sex,
intermarriage, &c. ? Does intellectual cultivation modify the form
of the skull ? Can acquired modifications of cranial form he transmitted
hereditarily ? If so, what are the laws of this transmission ?
Is there for skull-forms, as Elourens has said of races, “ an art of
preserving their purify, of modifying them, altering and producing
new ones ?’’8 Are the few leading cranial types which we at present
encounter m the human family, primary results of certain cosmogonic
causes, which ceased to act the moment after their formation;
or, are they the secondary, or even tertiary and quaternary results'
as Count de Gobineau supposes, of the intermixture of races, occurring
at periods antedating all historical and monumental record?9
Such are a few of the leading questions which arise from a thoughtful
examination of the human cranium,—questions which I indicate
here, rather as exemplifying the scope and philosophical character of
cranioscopy, than with the view of answering them in detail. In-
7 An Account of tbe Regular Gradation in Man, and in different Animals and Veeetables
&o. By Chas. White. London, 1799. S ’
*121 1InStmCt 6t de 1,Intelligence des Animaux, par P. Flourens: 3me Edit., Paris, 1851,
"Essai sur l’lndgaliti des Races Humaines, par M. A. de Gobineau: Paris, 1853 vol. 1
p« *45.