As important a question to ask about a skull as either of the two relating to the two indices just mentioned, is, to my thinking, the question, does the cranium when resting, in the absence of its lower jaw, with the grinding surfaces of its teeth on a flat surface, touch that surface posteriorly with its occipital condyles, or with its inferior occipital squamæ? Accordingly as the former or the latter portions of the occipital bone give support posteriorly to a skull so placed, is the cranial curvature lesser or greater, and with it the antero-posterior arc described by the brain it contains. Tried by this test, first suggested by Prof. Ecker (_Archiv. für Anthrop._, iv. 1870, p. 288), the six Bushman crania in the museum whence I write, have four of their number resting on the occipital squamæ, as opposed to two which show the lesser curvature. I incline to think that this is a higher average than West Coast Negro crania would show, but Abantu skulls are very frequently so well developed as to have a considerable interval left between their occipital condyles and a flat surface, touching anteriorly the grinding surface of their teeth, and posteriorly their _conceptacula cerebelli_. Another important point given us in that most instructive of _normæ_, the _norma lateralis_, is that of the junction or non-junction of the squamous to the frontal. This question is easily answered, as in no single one of my six Bushman crania does the squamous approximate itself at all more closely to the frontal than it would do in an equal number of European crania. Indeed, in all but one of these crania the alisphenoid is wide from before backwards, as though to furnish adequate lodgment for the temporo-sphenoidal lobe of the cerebrum, which, we know, alike from Gratiolet (_Mémoire sur les Plis Cérébraux_, p. 97), and Professor John Marshall (_Phil. Trans._, MDCCCLXIV, p. 510), to take a large development in the Bushman race.[68]