True; but they are not "by themselves." They are in goodly company with a long series of facts already mentioned, with a still longer series immediately to come, and with a wholly overwhelming confirmative history of ten thousand years. It is idle, then, to say "they by themselves are no proof." The question is, Are they, in their own anatomical and historical connection, any proof? It is impossible not to answer, Yes. They are the very strongest proof. Promising "to revert to this subject later on," the savant passes over (p. 312) to the important matter of arrested development. Among such phenomena may be noted that the noses of children are more alike than those of adults. The Mongol nose changes less during adolescence than the White. According to Quatrefages, the Negro basin differs less from foetal forms and resembles more the ape form than that of other races. All of which points to relative lowness of developmental type. "On the other hand, the face of the negro child is less prognathous than that of the adult. In this case we find that the more energetic development tends to produce a type which is apparently lower than that of the white. We may even go a step farther and say that the ontogenetic development of the higher apes and of man is such that the young forms are more alike than the old ones. While in man the face develops moderately only, it grows considerably among the apes. The earlier arrest in this case is, therefore, an indication of higher type. Thus it will be seen that it is not the earlier arrest alone which determines the place of a race, but the direction of this development." Hence he refuses to draw a conclusion against the Mongol, but says nothing more of the Negro. The argument of Dr. Boas, at this point, seems strangely vague and irresolute. It seems hardly possible to join direct issue. But this fact appears noteworthy: The ape face grows more than the human; also the Negro face grows decidedly more than the White--at least relatively to the head, since the adult is more prognathous than the child; this "more energetic development" relates, then, the Negro to the ape more nearly than the White man. The general reply that is made (p. 313) to the argument from arrested development is that the female sex is in all proportions more like the child than the male, "but who would explain this earlier arrest of development of women as mark of a lower type?" We let this go for what it is worth, merely remarking that it is thoroughly invalidated by the remark on page 315 (quoted at p. 144).