At the very time when the criminal anthropologists were making a thorough study of this problem, the anatomists (with the exception of Flesch of Wurzburg) and the professorial anthropologists (that is, those in official positions who were interested in this branch of knowledge) were vigorously contesting the idea that there was any difference between the brains of criminals and the so-called normal brains. All the more interesting, therefore, were the data communicated by Professor Johannes Ranke to the German Anthropological Congress at Dortmund in August, 1902, in association with a demonstration of plaster-casts of the heads of decapitated Chinese criminals. According to Ranke, the brains of criminals show no structural deviation from the brains of normal Europeans. This was Professor Ranke’s first contention; but to this there succeeds a little parenthesis, in which he alludes to certain peculiarities in the conformation of the central convolutions. (So, after all, these brains do differ from those of Europeans!) Ranke is straightforward enough to describe the abnormalities in question, but he adds that they are probably to be regarded as racial peculiarities. He gives no grounds whatever for this view, but he prefers to drag in an ethnological hypothesis of this kind rather than to commit himself to the heresy that the brains of criminals exhibit peculiarities; the abnormalities must be labelled “ethnological,” lest they should fall a prize to the heretical school of Lombroso. On the other hand, in the same address (1902), Ranke laid stress on the fact that among the brains of criminals there is a preponderance of exceptionally large and of abnormally small brains, and also that among the skulls of criminals there is, similarly, a marked preponderance of extremely large and extremely small skulls—a fact which he might have ascertained as long ago as 1893 from a study of the very numerous tables of measurements and weights published in my “Natural History of the Criminal.”