I know many negroes, who, with very prominent jaws, are quite distinguished for their intellectual faculties; yet the projection of the jaws renders the facial angle much more acute, than it would be with the usual conformation of Europeans. In order that the same angle should exist in a European, the forehead must be flattened and retreating. But the foreheads of the negroes in question, on the contrary, are very projecting. Who, under these circumstances, would expect to find the same amount of intellect corresponding to the same facial angle? The facial line cannot be applied to birds, as many naturalists have already observed. From what has been said, we should expect that naturalists would at length renounce the facial angle of Camper; but the most ignorant are generally the most conceited. In spite of this complete refutation of Camper's facial line, Delpit extols it in the following terms:-- "If ever a relation of this kind presented characters of generality and fixedness, adequate to excite a reasonable confidence in matters belonging to the domain of empiricism, rather than that of science, it is the relation or proportion of magnitude, which Camper first perceived and revealed, by comparing the brain of man with that of the different species of animals. We here see a successive decrease of intelligence, proportionate to the acuteness of the facial angle and the consequent diminution of the cerebral cavity. This affords a constant and fixed relation. It can be appreciated with a sufficient degree of exactness by the direct light of comparative anatomy, and by observation of the habits and intelligence of the different classes of animals; it can also be verified by the comparison of men very unequally endowed with intellectual faculties, in whom the contraction of the cerebral cavity and the magnitude of the facial angle exhibit the most remarkable diversities. Here the physiognomical sign has, if I may be allowed the expression, a wide extent of acceptation; it rests upon a broad basis, upon a definite division, and one of easy comprehension and verification; for, if there is some discrepancy of opinion, in regard to the number and nomenclature of the faculties of the mind, the sentiments of the soul, the modifications or shades of character which give birth to particular passions, moral dispositions, habits, whether virtuous or vicious; if these classifications are, in a great measure, arbitrary, and the language used somewhat vague; if, in short, the greater part of these nominal faculties are mere abstractions of the mind, purely imaginary existences, and therefore cannot be actually located in any part of the brain; the case is quite different, when we merely seek to establish a general relation between a constant sign manifested in the organization, and the degree of reason, mind, or intellect, attributed to different men, or the degrees of sagacity attributed to different species of animals. Here, no one is at a