Mr. Alfred R. Wallace said he had examined the extensive series of crania in the Museum at Oxford, where there are crania of New Zealanders, of Australians, the natives of New Guinea, and of other aboriginal tribes, for the purpose of observing if there were any corresponding peculiarities. He was enabled to discover that some of the Australian crania agreed with the Neanderthal skull, in general shape, in the slanting forehead, the orbital ridges, and in other particulars, and the impression on his mind was that they were exactly of the same type. But that was not, however, the usual form of Australian skulls, for there were others very different. The majority of them, indeed, were totally different, whilst there were others that had an intermediate form. The skulls of the Van Dieman's Land natives also approached in general form to the Neanderthal skull. In some burial grounds in this country there are occasionally to be found skulls which nearly approximate to those of Australians. These facts showed how difficult it is to draw general results from agreements in the forms of different crania. He felt satisfied that there was no reason to believe that the Neanderthal skull belonged to any other than a savage race of man in a low state of development, and that it was not the skull of an idiot, but of a common man of the same race.

    Mr. Bouverie Pusey said the speech of Mr. Wallace suggested the question whether the Australian skulls he examined at Oxford belonged to natives of the same tribe, or whether they were the skulls of different tribes?

    Mr. Wallace said he was unable to answer the question.

    Sir Charles Nicholson observed that his own experience and recollection confirmed Mr. Wallace's statement respecting the resemblance of the skull in question to those of some skulls of Australians. It reminded him strongly of skulls he had seen in Australia, though there were some peculiarities in it . . .