Hardly any investigations have been made in this country respecting the skulls of criminals, and the inquiries of continental investigators have so far led to very conflicting results.  It is a contention of Lombroso’s that the skulls of criminals exhibit a larger proportion of asymmetrical peculiarities than the skulls of other men.  On this point Lombroso is supported by Manouvrier.  But Topinard, an anthropologist of great eminence, is of the opposite opinion.  He carefully examined the same series of skulls as been examined by Manouvrier—­the skulls of murders—­and he discovered no marked difference between these and other skulls.  Heger, a Belgian anthropologist says that the skulls of delinquents do not differ from the skulls of the race to which the delinquent belongs.  In fact, till more exactitude is introduced into the methods of skull measurement, all deduction based upon an examination of the criminal skull must be regarded as untrustworthy.  A striking instance of this was witnessed at the proceedings of the Paris Congress of Criminal Anthropology held in 1889.  When the skull of Charlotte Corday, who killed the revolutionist Marat, was subjected to examination, Lombroso declared that it was a truly criminal type of skull; Topinard, on the other hand, gave it as his opinion that it was a typical female skull.  On this point Topinard was supported by Benedict.[34] As long as such divergencies of view exist among anthropologists it is impossible to place much stress upon inquiries relative to the conformation of the criminal skull.  Before a beginning can be made with inquiries of this character, there must be some fundamental basis of agreement among investigators as to what is to be accounted asymmetrical in skull measurements and what is not.  Even then it will have to be remembered, before coming to conclusions, that no skull is perfectly symmetrical—­every one showing some variation from the ideal type.  When the extent of this variation has been absolutely demonstrated to be greater in the case of criminals than among other sections of the community, we shall then be approaching solid ground.  At present we must wait for further light before anything can be said with certainty with respect to the criminal skull.

    [34] See Revista Internacional de Anthropologia Criminal y
    Ciencias Medico-Legales, Marzo e April de 1890.

Just as little is known at present about the brain of criminals as about the skull.  Some years ago Professor Benedict startled the world by stating that he had discovered the seat of crime in the convolutions of the brain.  He found a certain number of anomalies in the convolutions of the frontal lobes, and he came to the conclusion that crime was connected with the existence of these anomalies.  But he had omitted to examine the frontal convolutions of honest people.  When this was done by other investigators, it was found that the brain convolutions of normal men presented