If we endeavour to combine the physiognomical peculiarities of the criminal type with the data of anthropological investigation, we obtain a somewhat monotonous picture in widely different climates, notwithstanding the fact that it is not permissible to speak of a perfectly uniform type. The reason why this is impossible is one to which I have already alluded more than once—namely, the fact that the extreme cases, very great or very small values of linear dimensions, surfaces, and weights, of the human body and its parts, are encountered far more frequently among the inmates of our great prisons than they are among an equivalent number of non-criminals; for example, among several hundred factory employés, soldiers, emigrants—in a word, any other category of mankind. It must not, however, be supposed that what we find is, in one-half of the criminals we examine, that everything is too large, and in the other half, that everything is too small. What we find is: one dimension too large, and another dimension too small, side by side in the same individual. An extremely common combination is: too small a cranium, with jaws unduly large; beard too scanty; ears too large. As regards an immediate general impression, and on superficial observation, there can be no question of a “type.” The type first becomes manifest as a result of intimate study. Anthropometrically, the criminal type represents the extreme values; zoologically, it represents the primatoid characters; developmentally, cases of incomplete development, such as are found here and there in all nationalities. Such is the meaning of the doctrine of the criminal type, which, intentionally or unintentionally, has been continually misunderstood.