Let us turn from a tribe of which the existence is still dubious, to consider the portraits we subjoin of a man and woman, aborigines of Queensland, in a district watered by the Ballone. These are Aidanill, the brother, and Dewan, the sister, members of a hairless family. The indefatigable Miklucho-Maclay went to Gulnarber, 140 miles from Tulba, in order to examine them, and took the photographs from which our illustrations are taken.21

A likeness to the chimpanzee, when deprived of its hair, may be traced in the keel or roof-shaped form of the skull; in the prominence of the supra-orbital arches; in the deep depression between the forehead and nose, of which only the centre of the bridge has a slight vertical elevation; in the broad, flattened nostrils, bounded by deep furrows; in the wide, fleshy mouth, and the large, laterally projecting ears. Gratiolet and Alix give such a head in their treatise on Troglodytes Aubryi (Figs. 25, 26, 27). When we add to this the dark brown skin, the deeply furrowed countenance, and the dark brown eyes, as they are described by Miklucho-Maclay, the external resemblance between many of the Australian aborigines and apes becomes more marked.

Projecting ears are common among men of different races, and I have observed them in Europeans who are otherwise well formed. Even in this latter case the effect is ape-like. Much has been said of the resemblance which may often be observed between the human ear and that of apes. It is admitted that hardly any part of the organism varies so much in its characteristics as the external ear. This is the case with anthropoids, and almost more frequently with men. Individuals of all nations are found with defective development of this or that characteristic helix, angle tragus, notch concha, and fossa, with lobules imperfectly formed or altogether absent. I have frequently observed such misshapen ears, which vary from the perfect type, and bear a certain resemblance to the ear of apes, among the hard-featured peasantry of Germany, Switzerland, France, Italy, and Poland, who cannot be said to count beauty as part of their inheritance. In Africa I found this defective formation more common among the Maltese, Greeks, and Turks who were living in the country, than among the fellaheen, Berbers, and negroes. The latter have been unjustly charged with the possession of “hideous ape-like ears,” whereas, among the African races, these organs are, in the majority of cases, of a pleasing form. With respect to the Australian blacks, and to the Malay, Mongolian, and Indian races, I cannot rely on my personal observation. According to my very limited experience, there is much individual variation among these races, and ears of the hideous, ape-like formation might be sought for with success. The specific resemblance to apes can, indeed, only be ascertained by one who is accurately acquainted with the organism of these animals. These and similar ideas are often expressed by the unlearned, who do not really understand the characteristics in question.

Darwin speaks of the anthropoid form of the ear in the chimpanzee and orang.22 “The ears of the chimpanzee and orang are curiously like those of man, and I am assured by the keepers in the Zoological Gardens that these animals never move or erect them, so that they are in an equally rudimentary condition, as far as that function is concerned, as man. Why these animals, as well as the progenitors of man, should have lost the power of erecting their ears, we cannot say. It may be, though I am not quite satisfied with this view, that owing to their arboreal habits and great strength they were but little exposed to danger, and so during a lengthened period moved their ears but little, and thus gradually lost the power of moving them. This would be a parallel case with that of those large and heavy birds, which from inhabiting oceanic islands have not been exposed to the attacks of beasts of prey, and have consequently lost the power of using their wings for flight.

“The celebrated sculptor, Mr. Woolner, informs me of one little peculiarity in the external ear which he has often observed both in men and women, and of which he perceived the full signification. His attention was first called to the subject whilst at work on his figure of Puck, to which he had given pointed ears. He was thus led to examine the ears of various monkeys, and subsequently more carefully those of man. The peculiarity consists in a little blunt point, projecting from the inwardly folded margin, or helix. These points not only project inwards, but often a little outwards, so that they are visible when the head is viewed from directly in front or behind. They are variable in size and somewhat in position, standing either a little higher or lower; and they sometimes occur on one ear and not on the other. Now the meaning of these projections is not, I think, doubtful; but it may be thought that they offer too trifling a character to be worth notice. This thought, however, is as false as it is natural. Every character, however slight, must be the result of some definite cause; and if it occurs in many individuals deserves consideration. The helix obviously consists of the extreme margin of the ear folded inwards; and this folding appears to be in some manner connected with the whole external ear being permanently pressed backwards. In many monkeys, which do not stand high in the order, as baboons and some species of macacus, the upper portion of the ear is slightly pointed, and the margin is not at all folded inwards; but if the margin were to be thus folded, a slight point would necessarily project inwards and probably a little outwards. This could actually be observed in a specimen of the Ateles beelzebuth in the Zoological Gardens; and we may safely conclude that it is a similar structure—a vestige of formerly pointed ears—which occasionally reappears in man.”

I subjoin an illustration of the human ear, in which the pointed tip mentioned by Darwin may be easily discovered. This point may also be perceived in the ears of anthropoids, and especially in those of the orang-utan. Meyer has attempted to show that this Darwinian pointed tip is only due to the abortive development of part of the helix, and in this case we should not regard the occurrence as an ape-like pointing of the helix, but rather as its partial interruption owing to the pathological condition of that organ.23 In a later edition of his work, Darwin admits, in reply to Meyer, that this explanation may apply to many cases in which there are several very small points, or when the whole of the helix is sinuate. In one case, photographed by Darwin, the prominence was so large that, if we were to assume with Meyer that the ear would have been normal if the cartilage had been uniformly developed along the whole extent of the helix, the latter must have occupied a third part of the ear. Two cases were mentioned to Darwin in which the upper edge of the ear had no inner fold, and was so pointed that it was very like that of an ordinary mammal. The ear of the fœtus of an orang given in Darwin’s illustration appears to be pointed, although in the adult animal that organ is very like the human ear. The Darwinian tip may also be seen in the fœtus of an orang described and illustrated by Salvatore Trinchese in the Annali del Museo civico di Storia Naturale di Genova (1870). The tip of the helix is pointed in very young individuals of the gibbon species, especially in Hylobates Lar. Among the lower apes the pointed ear is very common (see Fig. 29).

The eyelids of anthropoids greatly resemble those of man in their structure. In adult gorillas and chimpanzees there is always a semilunar fold (plica semilunaris) corresponding to the membrana nictitans, or third eyelid of birds. In man there exists, instead of this, only a rudimentary apparatus, the caruncula lachrymalis. In some individuals it attains to a considerable size, as I have observed in the fellaheen, Berbers, Shillook, and other tribes. On the other hand, the conversion of the caruncula into a true, although only rudimentary, plica semilunaris has not been observed by me in the human eye. Miklucho-Maclay describes the caruncula in Melanesians (the Papuans of New Guinea), in the Orang-Sakay (of the Malay peninsula), and in the Mikronesians (of the island of Japan and of the Palau archipelago), as two or three times as wide as that of the average European.24

The eye of the young male gorilla which was kept alive in the Berlin Aquarium from 1876–77 was carefully examined by me in June, 1877. I found that the sclerotic membrane of the eyeball was whitish, surrounded by a dark brown ring. A second darker ring, sharply defined, surrounded the cornea. The iris was of a yellowish brown. The sclerotic membrane, however, gradually deepens in colour so as to give the effect of a uniform dark brown. The iris retains a light brown colour for a longer period, but it darkens with age. In an aged animal there is no brightness in the eye, except from reflected light. In the chimpanzee the iris is light brown, verging on yellow; and this is also the case in the orang.

The expressionless, indifferent look of anthropoids has often been observed, and undoubtedly chimpanzees and orangs generally gaze placidly before them. I have, however, observed an animated expression in the eyes of the former species, and W. L. Martin has also observed a flash and brightening of their eyes. I shall never forget the expression of malicious anger in the eyes of the female animal Mafuca, at Dresden, as soon as she was teased. The expression of the eyes of the gorilla in the Berlin Aquarium also changed frequently, especially when he was about to perform some mischievous trick, or when he was provoked to anger. The expression of this animal was very human, but necessarily it could only recall the darkly coloured eyes of negroes and other black races. In 1876 there were two very young orangs in the Berlin Aquarium, one hairy and the other hairless. These animals clung together in a close embrace. If they were separated, their eyes became bright and restless, and they again sought to embrace each other while uttering plaintive cries. On tickling one of the animals under the chin, it made a most absurd grimace, and its eyes brightened, as Martin has observed in similar cases. The eyes of the gibbons which I have observed had a thoroughly mild and placid expression, rarely animated by any fire.

The instance we have mentioned of hairless Australians is the more remarkable since these aborigines are for the most part distinguished for their luxuriant growth of hair. The Australian blacks and the Ainos of Yedo are, as a rule, perhaps the most hairy races in the world. It is known, however, that in all countries and climates exceptional cases are found of individuals whose bodies are wholly or partially covered with hair, and these conditions sometimes affect whole families. Interesting historical and morphological researches respecting these hairy men have recently been made by von Siebold, Ecker, Virchow, Bartels, and Ornstein. In many of these cases we are presented with decidedly brute-like phenomena. The Mexican woman Julia Pastrana displays the strongest resemblance to apes. Other hairy men remind us at the first glance of some of the canine species. In all races the women are less hairy than the men. Darwin states that in the females of some species of apes the under side of the body is less hairy than in the males, and this is also the case with anthropoids, especially with the chimpanzee.

The beard is, as we know, common to man and apes. Among apes it is more strongly developed in the male than in the female, and this is also the case in the human species. Darwin points out that the growth of the beard both of men and apes occurs at the period of their sexual maturity, and also that there is a remarkable parallel between men and apes in its colour. For when the human beard varies in colour from the hair of the head, which is frequently the case, it is, without exception, of a lighter, and generally of a reddish hue. Darwin observed this in England, and Hooker found no exception to the rule in Russia. J. Scott carefully observed the numerous races which are to be found in Calcutta, as in other parts of India, namely, the two Sikh races, the Bhoteas, Hindus, Burmese, and Chinese. Although most of these races have very little hair on the face, Scott found that in all cases without exception, in which there was any difference in colour between the hair of the head and the beard, the latter was of a lighter shade. In apes the colour of the beard often differs widely from that of the hair of the head, and in such cases it is always of a lighter shade, often white, sometimes yellow or reddish.

“It is well known,” says Darwin, “that the hair on our arms tends to converge from above and below to a point at the elbow. This curious arrangement, so unlike that in most of the lower mammals, is common to the gorilla, chimpanzee, orang, some species of Hylobates, and even to some few American monkeys. But in Hylobates agilis the hair on the forearm is directed downwards or towards the wrist in the ordinary manner; and in Hylobates lar it is nearly erect, with only a very slight forward inclination; so that in this latter species it is in a transitional state. It can hardly be doubted that with most mammals the thickness of the hair and its direction on the back is adapted to throw off the rain; even the transverse hairs on the forelegs of a dog may serve for this end when he is coiled up asleep. Mr. Wallace remarks that the convergence of the hair towards the elbow on the arms of the orang (whose habits he has so carefully studied) serves to throw off the rain, when, as is the custom of this animal, the arms are bent, with the hands clasped round a branch or over its own head. We should, however, bear in mind that the attitude of an animal may perhaps be in part determined by the direction of the hair; and not the direction of the hair by the attitude. If the above explanation is correct in the case of the orang, the hair on our forearms offers a curious record of our former state; for no one supposes that it is now of any use in throwing off the rain, nor in our present erect condition is it properly directed for this purpose.”25

Darwin also remarks that it is erroneous to deny that apes have eyebrows. In fact, long bristly eyebrows are present in all anthropoids—not growing thickly together like those of men, but scattered among the shorter and thicker growth of hair which clothes the parts above the orbits; nor do they maintain any definite direction. In the white-handed gibbon, these eyebrows are remarkable for their length and stiffness. A growth of hair corresponding to eyebrows may, indeed, be observed above the upper eyelids of all mammals, including seals and pachydermata. On the upper lip of gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangs we may also observe a number of somewhat longer, stiff, and bristly hairs which stand apart from the otherwise short hairs on the lips, and give the impression of a cat’s “whiskers.” In Hylobates albimanus I observed that these vibrissæ attain to a considerable length (Fig. 10).

The external form of the trunk of anthropoids, taken as a whole, does not greatly differ from that of man. We have not, indeed, the well-formed human torso, with its graceful lines; and the formation of the posteriors, together with a want of expansion about the hips, displeases us in its departure from the human type (see Figs. 1 and 6). We shall not be disposed to compare the torso of the Apollo Belvedere, or of the Olympian Hermes with that of a gorilla or chimpanzee. Yet the torso of a powerful male gorilla, from which the hair has been removed, may be favourably compared with that of one of the large-bellied, lean-armed weaklings who are everywhere to be found as living caricatures of the human species.

The neck of anthropoids is generally short and thick. In the gorilla that part of the body has a great backward convexity, owing, as we have said, to the great development of the spinous processes of the cervical vertebræ, and of the muscles attached to them. A short, thick throat, and considerable development of the neck, a bull-neck, as it is called, is also not unfrequent in man. This peculiarity is sometimes supposed to be one of the national characteristics of the African blacks. Burmeister says that “the negro’s thick neck is the more striking, since it is generally allied with a short throat. In measuring negroes from the crown of the head to the shoulder I found the interval to be from nine and a quarter to nine and three-quarter inches. In Europeans of normal height, this interval is seldom less than ten inches, and it is more commonly eleven inches in women, and twelve in men. The shortness of the neck, as well as the relatively small size of the brain-pan, and the large size of the face may the more readily be taken as an approximation to the simian type, since all apes are short-necked, and the relative distance of these animals is somewhat further from the negro than that of the negro from the European. This shortness of the neck in the negro explains his greater carrying power, and his preference for carrying burdens on his head, which is much more fatiguing to the European on account of his longer and weaker neck.”26

Burmeister’s assumption on this subject is, however, much too general. It does not apply to many of the negro races—at any rate, not to those of the Upper Nile valley. A long, thin neck is the characteristic of the Funje, Shillooks, Denkas, Baris, and other large tribes of those regions. Among these people the interval between the top of the head and the shoulder is from ten to eleven, and even from eleven to twelve inches (240 to 260 mm., and 260 to 286 mm.). Burmeister has been thinking exclusively of the Brazilian blacks. Yet I am unable to trace the typical short neck, either in the well-known portraits of slaves by Maurice Rugendas,27 or in the collection of photographs of Brazilian negroes which is in my possession. This characteristic is also absent, even in many portraits of West African and Mozambique blacks, tribes from which the slave population of Brazil has been chiefly drawn. Many Mongolians, Malays, Papuans, and Polynesians have short, thick necks, but this characteristic is more rare among the American aborigines and among Europeans. If we are to recognize an approximation to the simian type in this formation, it is one common to several nations, and it is not confined only, nor even chiefly, to the negro races.

The remarkable elongation of the upper limbs of anthropoid apes cannot be compared with the length of the corresponding limbs in men. For although among negroes and the members of other primitive peoples we may occasionally observe unusually long arms, yet these are individual peculiarities which are also found among Europeans, and cannot be counted among racial characteristics.

The hand of the orang and the gibbon is too long and narrow to be directly compared with the human hand. The chimpanzee and the gorilla, especially the latter, have hands more like those of man. In the case of an adult male gorilla the first glance at this member reminds us of the knotty fist of a black dock labourer or lighterman, like those who, at Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, or La Guayra, lift the heavy bags of coffee and place them on their heads or on their herculean shoulders. Much has been said of the enlargement of the connective skin between the bases of the fingers of a negro hand, and of the pointed extremities of the fingers. Van der Hoeven, in his well-known treatise, De Natuurlijke Geschiedenis van den Negerstam, has described and drawn the hand of an Ashanti boy, formed in this manner. Hence there is a disposition to recognize in this peculiarity an important characteristic of the negro race. As in the hand of the gorilla, the connective web between the bases of the fingers is also extensive, and the ungual phalanges taper at their extremities, there is also an inclination to ascribe an expressly anthropoid character to the negro hand. Yet this structure of the fingers is by no means universal among the negroes. An enlargement of the connective web is not indeed uncommon, but its extent varies considerably. Nor is it wanting in the fingers of other races. An attentive observer will be able to trace it in the labouring population of country districts in Europe. I have myself frequently observed this characteristic in Canton Wallis, and in the Lombard and Genoese provinces, through which I travelled on foot in 1869 and 1871, when I devoted special attention to this point. In Fig. 32 I give a negro hand of a type which seems to be common among the blacks in the inland districts of North-eastern Africa. It can hardly be denied that the form of this hand, which is certainly not flattered, possesses the characteristics of a thoroughly human organization.

With respect to other primitive peoples besides negroes, we have not at present sufficient information, and we ought therefore to beware of premature generalization. The thin shanks, with imperfectly developed calves, found among many primitive races, and especially among the African and Australian blacks, are often and not unjustly adduced as an instance of their ape-like formation. In fact, the general uncomeliness of these parts in the races in question is one of their significant characteristics.

The anthropoid foot resembles in structure those of other apes, including those of the New World, and as a rule it differs from the human foot in the flexibility of the great toes. It has, however, been justly observed that many individuals of different races have been able to use the great toe almost as if it were a thumb. Such persons may be found everywhere. Men who have been born without arms, or who have been deprived of them during life, have been able to use their feet like hands, as some compensation for this privation. The most surprising instance of our time has occurred in the violinist without arms, whose performances are heard in various continental capitals. Another, mentioned by Bär, was able to write with his feet. But even people who have the full use of their upper limbs can often grasp with the great toe as if it were a thumb, so as to pick up small objects from the ground, or draw them towards them. Constant practice in such feats produces a certain dexterity. Negroes, Malays, Polynesians, and Indians make use of their outstretched great toes in climbing with as skilful a gripe as our schoolboys and sailors are also able to do in gymnastics, or in climbing up the masts. Among such people the distinction between the foot of man and apes is less marked, since, even when at rest, the great toe is apt to be somewhat detached from the others. This may be seen in A. Buchta’s excellent photographs of individuals of the Central African tribe, the Makraka. Haeckel justly observes that there is no marked physiological distinction between the hand and foot which can be established on a scientific basis. In order to make such a distinction it is necessary to consider their morphological characteristics.28

Structure of the skeleton.—In comparing the skulls of anthropoids with those of men, we should, in the case of the gorilla, chimpanzee, and orang-utan, content ourselves with young specimens rather than with the skulls of adults. In aged apes of these species, the colossal development of the bony crests of the skull, as well as that of the jaws, the prominence of the orbital rim, and the flattening of the occipital bone, present distinctions of such a searching character that we are greatly hindered in the pursuit of the comparative method. But during the process of development the anthropoid skeleton admits of a direct comparison with that of man. In a young animal the rounded skull suggests a parallel between it and the human head. It must be admitted that we find, especially in primitive peoples, many human skulls which in their whole plastic form differ little from the skulls of young gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangs. Even in the way the occipital bone is rounded off, young anthropoids and men are often found in a similar stage of development. The squamous occipital portion in a young negro, Papuan and Malay, is indeed often flatter and more bevelled than it is in a young gorilla or chimpanzee.

We must not, however, assume that the two individuals brought into comparison are of precisely the same age, since such a point cannot easily be ascertained, even when subjects for examination are afforded by one of our larger museums. Savages are seldom able to give their precise age, and the attempt to do so often relies on insufficient data. The direct examination of the skull will afford some information on this point; but the conditions of growth in anthropoids are not so well known as to admit of an accurate estimate. We have to rely on the state of the teeth, on the stage at which the development of the bony crests has arrived, etc., in order to form an approximate estimate of the age of the skull.

On the squamous occipital portion the arrangement of the curved lines which are the boundaries to the attachments of the cervical muscles, is common to men, to anthropoids, and to other apes. Only indications of these lines are to be found in the lower order of mammals. In the human skull there is sometimes a formation belonging to the squamous occipital portion which has a distinctly pithecoid or ape-like character. This is the occipital swelling we have already described (Torus occipitalis transversus), which may be either enclosed by the two upper curved lines, or lie between these and the central curved lines, or may be altogether in the region of the latter. This swelling extends in a gradual manner above and below its bony support. Its edge may be more or less sharp, more or less like a crest in its development, wider or narrower, with or without a central eminence, but its appearance is always striking. In young male and female gorillas, orangs, and chimpanzees this formation represents the completely formed transverse occipital crests, which are found for the most part in aged male animals of these species. These swellings may also be observed on the skulls of adult men of all times and all nations. They are by no means rare in the skulls which are in ordinary use at the Berlin School of Anatomy, and they are remarkably common in many groups of skulls. They are frequent among the skulls, for the most part without their lower jaws, which the late Dr. Sachs disinterred in a Mohammedan burial-ground of the thirteenth century, near Cairo. These are the remains of Mohammedans of different ranks, but, for the most part, of the peasantry or fellaheen. Ecker was able to trace the sagittal crest in the skulls of Australian males, while it is absent in the females. Similar indications of the bony crest have been observed by me in the roof-shaped or scaphocephalic skulls of many negroes, but in these cases I am not aware whether there is a corresponding distinction of sex. It can hardly be denied that this bony prominence is a human characteristic.

Broca has given the term pterion to the H-shaped connection formed by the sutures between the parietal bone, the greater wing of the sphenoid bone, the squamous portion of the temporal bone, and the frontal bone. One of the most common disturbances in the symmetry of the connecting suture, as we have already briefly mentioned, arises from the insertion of a frontal process of the squamous portion of the temporal bone between the lower angle of the parietal bone, the fore-part of the frontal bone, and the greater wing of the sphenoid bone. This process of the temporal bone varies in size, and may occur on one or both sides. A similar formation is common among gorillas, chimpanzees, macacas, magots (Inuus), and baboons.29 It is less frequent among orangs,30 gibbons, marmosets, and American species (howlers, hooded apes, etc.).

Virchow and W. Gruber have agreed in representing this frontal process as theromorphological—that is, as a characteristic of the lower animals, and more especially of apes. Virchow has found this abnormal formation of the skull to be more common in some races than others. None of those in whom it occurs appear to belong to the Aryan races, and the existence of this process and stenocrotaphy, or temporal stenosis, seem to be due to a defective development of the greater wing of the sphenoid bone, and to the compression of the bones in its vicinity, by which the whole temporal region is contracted. This is a characteristic of the lower, but by no means of the lowest, races of men.

Stieda, Hyrtl, Gruber, and Calori have sought to controvert the fact that this temporal process is a characteristic of the lower races. Stieda asserts that it may occur exceptionally in all races of men.31 He himself, aided by Anutschin, has ascertained the existence of this anomalous pterion on more than 10,000 human skulls, and he has also received information from others. He considers the frequency of this frontal process in man to be theromorphological, or indeed pithecoid. According to Anutschin, this anomalous condition is not equally common in all races. In the dark-skinned and woolly-haired races (Australians, Papuans, and negroes) the frontal process is most widely diffused; it is less frequent among Mongolians and Malays; and among Americans and white men its occurrence is from five to six times more uncommon than in the black races. Sometimes the frontal process occurs on the intercalary bone (Ossa epipterica), which is fused into the squamous portion of the temporal bone; and sometimes the process grows out of the squamous portion of the temporal bone. These imperfect processes or intercalary bones are not regarded by Anutschin as pithecoid, since they are more rare in apes than in men. Schlocker has sought to show that the frontal process of the squamous portion of the temporal bone, the less common temporal process of the frontal bone, and the temporal intercalary bone (Ossa epipterica) are of equal value from the genetic point of view.32 This author regards the frontal process and the immediate connection of the frontal and squamous portion of the temporal bones, as theromorphological characteristics, but he does not believe the occurrence of this process to be restricted to the lower races.33 This is also the opinion of Ten Kate. However this may be, the establishment of this theromorphological formation is important. Its immediate value as a contribution to the theory of the origin of species remains, as we shall presently see, even if we cannot trace it through intermediate and lower types.

In the great prominence of the supra-orbital ridges which has been observed in some pre-historic human skulls, a likeness to the corresponding feature in anthropoids has been traced. And indeed there is such a likeness, especially to the female chimpanzee, in the well-known Neanderthal skull, which is very dolichocephalic, with prominent supra-orbital arches, only divided from each other by a shallow depression. In the same skull the development of the supra-orbital ridges is related to that of the frontal sinuses. In this pre-historic specimen—which, by the kindness of Professor Schaafhauser, I was able to examine closely at the congress of anthropologists at Berlin in 1880—the forehead retreats in a marked manner towards the flattened region of the crown. De Quatrefages and Hamy say that the skull is both flattened and long (dolichoplatycephalic). The temporal ridges are not only very marked, but they approach each other in the region of the coronal arch (Fig. 35). This also occurs in the adult female chimpanzee, as well as in the young male gorilla, in the aged female orang, and in the gibbon.

It may here be observed that our men of science differ widely in opinion respecting the origin and ethnological significance of the Neanderthal skull, of which I will cite only a few instances. Pruner regards it as the skull of an idiot.34 Virchow considers the specimen, and the similar one from Kailykke in the Copenhagen Museum, as an altogether individual formation,35 a typical form modified by disease,36 in other words, a pathological skull.37 King regards the skull as one belonging to one of the primitive races.38 Schaaffhauser has, indeed, endeavoured to make an artistic portrait of such a primitive man. Spengel holds that skulls which are “Neanderthaloid” in form are to be found chiefly in Europe.39 If Huxley says decidedly that the Neanderthal skull can by no means be regarded as the remains of a human being which was a link between man and apes. At most this discovery only proves the existence of a man whose skull reverted in some respects to the simian type, just as a carrier or tumbler pigeon may sometimes display the plumage of their original ancestor, the rock-pigeon (Columbia livia). And although the Neanderthal skull is more like that of the ape than any other human skull with which we are acquainted, yet it is by no means so isolated as it at first appears, but is rather the ultimate expression of a series which may be gradually traced back from the highest and most fully developed type of human skulls. On the one side it approximates to the flattened Australian skulls, from which other Australian forms gradually lead to skulls which rather resemble the type afforded by the Engis skull. On the other side, it is still more closely allied with the skulls of certain ancient races which were either contemporaries or successors of those which dwelt in Denmark during the Stone Age, people whose kitchen middens have been discovered in that country.40

Huxley justly observes that some of the skulls drawn by Busk, and taken from the tumuli of Borrely, resemble the Neanderthal skull, especially in the abruptly retreating forehead. Some other European skulls may, within certain limits, be compared with the Neanderthal skull, as, for instance, those found at Brüx, Staengenaes, Olmo, Louth, Clichy, Bougon, Cro-Magnon, Grenelle, Furfooz, Engisheim, Cannstadt, and Toul. These all present interesting peculiarities of structure—strongly developed supra-orbital arches, a retreating forehead, a flattened crown, etc., although none of them are so remarkable in these particulars as the Neanderthal skull. It has not, however, yet been proved that this skull represents a definite racial type, and it seems more probable that it was simply an individual form.

The skulls of the Australian aborigines are, as Spengel justly observes, distinguished from the Neanderthal skull, and from others of like character, by their pronounced scaphocephalism. On the other hand, they have the prominent supra-orbital arches, the retreating forehead, the skull compressed in the temporal region, the prognathous countenance, relatively shorter than that of Europeans, and in all these respects the skulls of the Australians greatly resemble those of anthropoids. If, for instance, we turn to the illustration given by de Quatrefages and Hamy of a skull procured from Camp-in-Heaven, Arnhem’s Land, North Australia, and also Dr. Schadenburg’s negro skull, the most determined sceptic must be struck by their resemblance to the anthropoid skull.41

Similar characteristics to those which we have already mentioned as distinguishing the structure of the Australian skull, enable us to determine the anthropoid character of the skulls of many individuals belonging to the dark-skinned African races. These consist chiefly in the retreating forehead, the flatness and compression of the coronal arch, the pronounced prognathism, and the obtuse angles of the lower maxillary bones, which may be noted in so many negro skulls. On the other hand, the prominence of the supra-orbital arches is, as a rule, less marked in African races than in anthropoid species. There are specimens, however, as, for instance, the Congo skull given by de Quatrefages and Hamy,42 which give an overwhelming impression of anthropoid characteristics. And we find the same to a surprising degree in the skulls of intelligent, warlike, and light-skinned races of Central and Western Africa, and as the Monbuttre, Haussaua, Bakale, Fan, etc. This character may be discovered in all races of men, and especially among the Papuans and some African negroes.

A mutual approximation of the temporal ridges in the coronal region may be observed in the skulls of various nations. This formation is most frequent in the long-headed negro and Papuan skulls. In these cases it is generally allied with the shortness of the interval between the sides of the skull, taken in its transverse diameter (stenocephalism).

In an adult female chimpanzee, the parietal bones often rise abruptly towards the sagittal suture, and in its vicinity there arises a longitudinal bony prominence, of which the sides pass gradually into the external surface of the parietal bones. The sagittal suture sometimes remains intact, and is sometimes included by this process. This produces a modified development of the so-called keel-shaped skull (scaphocephalus). Such a formation may be often observed in negroes and Papuans, and more rarely in the skulls of other races. The occurrence of a divided malar bone in human skulls, especially in those of the Ainos and Japanese, has been considered to be theromorphic, since it is occasionally observed in the skulls of apes.43 I have myself, in a very few instances, found obscure traces of such a formation among anthropoids.

In 1863 Boucher de Perthes found at Abbeville half of a human lower jaw deposited in a black layer of clay and sand mixed with iron, and lying on the chalk. As far as we can judge from illustrations which are for the most part imperfect, there was nothing remarkable about it except its abruptly retreating ramus (Fig. 36), but the specimen aroused great attention at the time, and it was assigned by many intelligent observers to the primitive men of the diluvial period. Unfortunately it was afterwards proved to be a gigantic imposture.44