The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1901-10-20

deficient evolution Of q special part OF the
skull corresponds to q deficiency In q special
part Of tbs brain. and. consequently. there
must he a deficiency In the function Of the
latter. IL han been objccted that
there are In the skull very many accidental
secondary prominences which have no
counterparts In tho brain. Fairly consid-
cred, however, this objection Ia not very
material. inssmuch as Il refers only 10 un-
important and chaneeable details and
comparatively rare abnormitie-. No
scientific man. even II he does not alto
gether agree with Gall, disputes the doc
trine that the construction Of the saul IL re-.
markably proportionate to the whole an
thropolosical organization in brutes and In
man: and the whole Of crsniology. ~ Il Is
understood by anatomists and anthropol-
gists. would have no meaning II this idea
were not N. leading one To the same
effect spoke Prof. Alexander Macalister.
Al the meeting Of the British Association held
In Edinburgh In 1892: The largest part OF
the skull Is that which IL at once the re-
ceptacle and the protector of the brain; 1t is
n part which. when u~nmodifed by external
pressure. premature svnostosis. or other
adventitious conditions, owes it, form 20
that OF the cerebral h~enispheres which II
contains And again: The study OF the
brains development shows that the CON
volutioning Of the cerebral hemisphere u
primarily due t. the connection and differ
ent rate Of growth Of the superficial layer
Of cells with tho underlying LAYERS at hite
nerve fbrpe and that. so far from the shape
OF the brain being seriously modified 10y the
constraining influence Of the surrounding
embryonic skull. the form Of the soft mem
branotis brain-ca-a II previously moulded
upon the brain within Il, whns.' shape, how
ever. IL may h.. 20 some extent, y secondary
agent In modifying In later growth. We
have also learned that the cerCbrum Is not
n single organ acting as a functional unit
hut consists of parts. each Of which has It's
specific province; that tho increase In the
number Of c'lls In any area II correlated
with AN increase Ia the size and the com
plexity ~ pattern Of the couyolutions Ut
that area. and that this, la turn, influences
the shape Of tho inclo-ing shell Of mem
brane. and. subsequently. Of bone AZ
the German An~thrupological Congress
which me, at Danzig in 1901. y Ranke stated
In al address. ION the Relations Of Brain
and skull that 'hc differences In the form
OF lHt ~hNll NV 'iAlAl'AN ''' W. -" ''
enccs in the development Of the brain
DIR. Hollander next draws attention 10
th. fac, that Gall himself was the first TO
point ont the irregularities ~ tho skull
in his article on the Uranium. in the Die
tionary Of Mesiical Science" II was pre-
sumption. Therefore. on the part 10 anti
Shrenologis's. lik" DR. .. W Holme~, 10
write as n the foundcrs u phrcnology
had baen ignorant Of elementary anatomy.
Gall wrote The circumstance hat the
two tables Of tho Uranium are not parallel
In their whole circumference and NJ all
periods 81 life would certainly h" 81 the
greatest importance " | had over pre-
tendei to judge u all the minute shades
Of difference that exist in the convolutions
Of the brain. On tho contrary, ] have en-
dcavored To- acquaint my hearers and read
ers with all tho circums' anc's IN question.
! have spoken of the frontal sinus. 81 the
separation % the two tabbs- Of the Uranium
In men and in animals ! wrote upon II
In my article, 'Cranitfrn' In he Dictionary
OF Medical science | was the first 20
mention that II was impossible for Ms to
determine with exactness the development
Of certain convolutions 10y the inspection
Of the external surface Of the Uranium ]
wa the first IN treat in detail the vaf-
ations In the thickness 81 the Uranium
which occur in old age, in insanity. nc.
I was the first to teach that In certain cases
the external table 81 the Uranium II not
parallcl To the internal one, | have called
the attention Of anaiomiSts 10 all these
circumstances l. Il fair. then, 81 these
anatomisi- ,o turn these facts into weapons
against craniology' Why had they not
the frankne-s 10 state 10y h means
have removed many 81 these difficulties.
and tn ~confc~~ that | pursued my researches
with candor. and considered the subject
In all its aspects with impartialitv DIR.
Hollander submits that the best proof
that there really exists = uniform CORE
spondence between certain forms OF head.
skull or brain and certain character 81
mind h found In the numerous contrma-
tons that the OSCILLATIONS made by Gall
have received from clinical evidence In
recent times, to which combinations Dr.
Uollander would add the testimony fur
ni.hcd In the 40 cases described In the
hook before us.