ant or only occasional manifestations, admits of as much doubt as
the exceptions in Professor Sophocles's Greek grammar, which are often
coextensive with the rule.[4]

The typical Eskimo skull, according to popular notion, is one exhibiting
a low order of intelligence, and characterized by small brain capacity,
with great prominence of the superciliary ridges, occipital
protuberance and zygomatic arches, the latter projecting beyond the
general contour of the skull like the handles of a jar or a peach
basket; and lines drawn from the most projecting part of the arches and
touching the sides of the frontal bone are supposed to meet over the
forehead, forming a triangle, for which reason the skull is known as
pyramidal.

The first specimen, examined from a vertical view, shows something of
the typical character as figured in A, and when viewed posteriorly there
is noticed a flattening of the parietal walls with an elongated vertex
as shown in D; while a second specimen, represented by B, shows none of
the foregoing characteristics, the form being elongated and the parietal
walls so far overhanging as to conceal the zygomatic arches in the
vertical view, so that if lines be drawn as previously mentioned,
instead of forming a triangle they may, like the asymptotes of a
parabola, be extended to infinity and never meet.

For purposes of comparison a number of orthographic outlines, showing
the contour of civilized crania, from a vertical point of observation,
are herewith annexed. No. 1 is that of an eminent mathematician who
committed suicide; No. 2, a prominent politician during the civil war;
No. 3, a banker; and No. 4, a notorious assassin. Nos. 5 and 6 are negro
skulls. Further comparison may be made with the Jewish skull, as
represented in No. 7, in which the nasal bones project so far beyond the
general contour as to form a bird-like appendage.

[Illustration: A]

[Illustration: B]

[Illustration: C]

[Illustration: D]

A collection of Aleutian heads, as seen from a vertical point of
observation, when I looked down from the gallery of the little Greek
church at Ounalaska, presented at first certain collective characters
by which they approach one another. But anatomists know that a careful
comparison of any collection will show extremely salient differences. In
fact, individual differences, so numerous and so irregular as to prevent
methodical enumeration, constitute the stumbling-block of ethnic
craniology.