s, instead of
being thoughtlessly occupied in the mere details of dissection without
rising to a comprehension of the Divine plan. Indeed, the
phrenological school have positively misconceived and misstated the
principles of cerebral development. We can hardly be said to have had
any phrenological anatomists since the time of Gall and Spurzheim
sufficiently interested in comparative human development to trace its
basis in anatomy, for the able work of Solly presented the brain
solely as seen by the science of dissection, and not by the science of
development and psychic function.

Gall and Spurzheim, understanding cerebral structure themselves,
failed to state certain principles which were necessary to guard
against misconception; and they did not realize its necessity, because
their methods did not include the functions of the base of the brain.
Mr. George Combe, who has been the great popular exponent of their
system, for which he was well qualified by his clear, philosophic
mind, adopted the erroneous idea, in which he has been followed by all
subsequent writers on the subject, that the cerebral organs were to be
regarded as so many cones, starting from their apex at the medulla
oblongata and extending to their base at the surface of the skull.
Hence their development was to be estimated by measuring the distance
(with a pair of callipers) from the cavity of the ear (which
corresponds very nearly to the medulla oblongata) to the locations of
the organs on the frontal superior and posterior surfaces of the head.

In my first study of phrenology over fifty years ago, I adopted this
method, and diligently measured heads with callipers, relying on the
results, until I found them decidedly erroneous. I came upon the
astounding fact that the head of a prominent citizen of New Orleans,
when measured in this way, indicated by the height of the upper region
a character entitling him to rank among the saints, when in fact he
was notorious for the unrestrained energy of his violent and vicious
propensities. Engaging then in more careful study and dissection of
the brain, I found why the rule was so deceptive; as the basilar
region is developed below the ventricles, giving depth, while the
coronal region developed above gives height, and the measurement from
the ear to the top of the head included both depth and height, it
might be a very large measurement from animal predominance or basilar
depth alone, as it was in the case