This table exhibits the characters visible in the skull in a definite class only, those whom in my “Naturgeschichte des Verbrechers” (“Natural History of the Criminal”) I have, with Lombroso’s approval, designated “primatoid.” Granted that they are typical of the criminal, it has none the less often been maintained that the Italian school is not justified in speaking of a criminal type, for the reason that not one of the individuals described exhibits all these peculiarities. How, then, it is said, can a criminal type be abstracted from such utterly heterogeneous abnormalities? This really depends upon the possibilities of abstraction. Academically correct anthropologists continue to dispute regarding the types of the most important races of mankind, whilst description is always preceded by perception, and perception is not always in a position to comprehend the typical; he who is not endowed with a sense for the significant will see nothing but the insignificant. But there is something extremely typical in the commonest and most important characteristic of the criminal nature—namely, the coexistence of several primatoid characters in the same individual. (Characters are termed “primatoid” which are present in all primates, but which in the normal human being are developed very slightly—in part, indeed, so slightly developed as to be almost imperceptible. But in many criminals these peculiarities, which are chiefly physical, are either more strongly marked than in the normal European, or else they make their appearance in the criminal in a form in which in the normal European they are entirely unknown, whereas they are present in the members of many savage races, as well as in primates lower down in the scale.)