Distance between the zygomata gives breadth to the _face_. Distance between the parietal bones, to the _head_. _The Nasal bones._--The flatter the nasal bones the flatter the nose. They are generally flat in tribes of Central Asia and Africa; prominent, or saddle-shaped, in those of Europe. _The Upper Maxillary bone._--In this are inserted the teeth of the upper jaw. In the European it is nearly perpendicular. In the Negro it projects forwards; hence, in the European, the insertion of the teeth is _perpendicular_, in the African _oblique_. The effect of a projecting maxilla is a character upon which Prichard has founded one of his primary divisions. When the insertion of the teeth is perpendicular, or nearly perpendicular to the base of the nose, the skull is _orthognathic_;[3] when projecting forwards, _prognathic_.[4] [Illustration: Fig. 4.] Upon these distinctions are founded the following forthcoming terms: occipito-frontal diameter, parietal diameter, occipito-frontal[5] profile, frontal profile, nasal profile, maxillary profile, zygomatic development. Next to the head, the bony structure of the pelvis has drawn most attention; the importance thus given being natural and reasonable. The form of the pelvis determines the erect posture of man. These, however, and other numerous minor details will be noticed as occasion requires. Notwithstanding the anatomical character of the principles upon which the varieties of the Human Species have been arranged, the terms denoting the chief divisions have not been given upon anatomical grounds. Hence we do not talk of the _zygomatic_ or the _occipito-frontal_ tribes, but of the _Negro_, or the _Mongolian_, &c. In other words, the term is taken from that particular variety which has the most characteristic conformation. How many of such terms are necessary is a disputed point; the number of the primary divisions being undetermined. My own opinion is in favour of it being limited to _three_,--the Mongolian, the African, and the European. To these, many would add a fourth, and fifth, the Malay and American; whilst others would raise the Australian and Hottentot (and many other) conformations into separate and primary types. As terms, these will be retained. Their value, however, as the names of groups and divisions, will be subordinate to that of the three great types first named; a circumstance which brings us to the terms, _typical_, _sub-typical_, _transitional_ and _quasi-transitional_. A Malay and an American, although different, agree between themselves much more than either of them would with a Negro. Furthermore, each of them differs from the Mongolian and Chinese; less, however, than from the African and European. Now, so far as this difference is concerned, the terms _typical_ and _sub-typical_, in their usual sense, are sufficient; the Mongolian being the _type_ of the variety which he represents, whilst the Malay and American each illustrate a _sub-typical_ modification.