141 B. 46.96 56 35-3/4 0 5 42 51 38 3 -- 24 W. 52.06 64 44-1/2 1 4 11 7 -- -- -- 278 W. 49.05 65 34 7 28 99 97 39 7 1 Here we observe: Dr. Hunt's (1) does not seem warranted; the number (24) of White brains weighed seems too small. But the weights of the 278 Whites show that the smaller weight of the Negro brain is a fact. More extensive observation shows that the Black average is about four ounces below the White. The absence of very large brains among the Blacks comes out most distinctly. There were no Black brains weighing over fifty-six ounces, only five weighing so much as fifty-five; whereas, eight White brains weighed over sixty ounces, and forty weighed over fifty-five. Likewise of the twenty-four Whites, only one fell under forty-five ounces, but forty-one of the 141 Blacks; also, only forty-seven of the 278 Whites; it is plain, then, that large brains predominate among the Whites and small ones among the Blacks. This, however, is not nearly all the evidence on this question. In the course of an elaborate article in the _Philosophical Transactions_ for 1868, pp. 505 sqq., Dr. J. Barnard Davis makes this remark: "As a general conclusion, without analyzing the results of Tiedemann's gaugings of negro skulls, it may be unhesitatingly asserted that the brain-weight of negroes is positively below that of Europeans" (p. 522). "The general mean of our African races, as deduced from 113 skulls, 53 of men and 60 of women, a tolerably equal proportion, is 43.89 ounces, or 1244 grams. This is 3.23 ounces, or ninety-one grams, less than our European general mean" (p. 523). He also finds the mean internal capacity of 393 European skulls to be 92.3 cubic inches, and 113 African skulls to be 86.9 cubic inches--a defect of nearly 7 per cent. Morton found the average capacity of 62 native African skulls to be 83 cubic inches, and of 12 Afro-American skulls to be 82 cubic inches. More recently (1880), Dr. Bischoff has published at Bonn a very thorough work on "Das Hirngewicht des Menschen," in which the present subject is handled minutely and very temperately. We translate some of his remarkably sane and judicial conclusions: "From all of this it follows that we are by no means justified in affirming outright the proposition that brain-weight and spiritual capacity and achievement keep equal pace and that a large and heavy brain of itself betokens a man highly endowed in both respects, a small and light brain a man niggardly equipped. But just as little justified would be the conclusions that size and weight of brain stand in no connection with spiritual gifts and accomplishments. Rather must we be convinced that both factors, brain-weight and spiritual capacity and achievement, are magnitudes too complex for their parallelism to appear to be proved so simply, although the same (parallelism) is none the less present" (p. 142).