∗ Many weights of the brains of insane persons have been recorded by Dr. Bucknill, Dr. Skae and others, bat hitherto they have only been partially analysed.Google Scholar

† It would be more accurate, with Tiedemam, to weigh the brain entirely denuded of its investing membranes. This, however, has not been generally at. tempted, and is hardly practicable with the encephala of many of the insane. VOL. XII.Google Scholar

∗ In only two cases was the cerebrum weighed as a whole.Google Scholar

† Boyd, , ‘Phil. Trans.’ 1861, vol cli, p. 261.Google Scholar

∗ Wagner, , ‘Vorstudien des Menschlichen Gehirns,’ 1862, ii, 89–92.Google Scholar

∗ Parchappe, , ‘Traité de la Folie,’ 1841, pp. 845–858.Google Scholar

† Bergmann, , “Gewicht des Gehirns.,” ‘Zeitschrift für Psychiatrie,’ 1852, ix, 361.Google Scholar

‡ Boyd, , ‘Tables of Weights of the Human Body and Internal Organs in the Sane and Insane,’ from 2614 post-mortem examinations: ‘Phil. Trans.,’ 1861, vol. cli, p. 261. Dr. Boyd had been preceded in his researches on the weight of the brain and other organs, at the Infirmary of St. Marylebone, by Dr. Sims and by Dr. Clendinning. The valuable tables of the former are printed in the 19th vol. of the ‘Med.-Chir. Transactions’ (1835, p. 352), and those of the latter in the 21st vol. (1838, p. 33). The former weighed 253, the latter 193 brains. Dr. Clendinning's observations show a greater brain-weight in death from disease of the heart, than in death from other canses, phthisis excluded. The difference in the male sex amounted to 2.1 oz., or nearly 5 per cent.; the average weight in disease of the heart being 48.5 oz., in other diseases 46.4 oz., in phthisis 46.2 oz.Google Scholar

∗ Loc cit., p. 260.Google Scholar

† Peacock, , “Tables of Weights of the Brain,” ‘Monthly Journal of Medical Science;’ vol. vii (N. S. i), 1847; reprinted 1861. It is interesting to compare the brain-weights obtained by Dr. Peacock in London (‘ Pathol. Trans,’ vol xii, 1860–61) with those he had previously procured in Edinburgh. They are not numerous, but confirm the view of the average English brain being somewhat lighter than that of the Scotchman. In 28 men, of 20 to 60 years, it was 49 oz., or 1888 grmm., being 1 oz. (29 grmm.) less than in the Scotch. (See p. 636.) Google Scholar

∗ Welcker, , ‘Wachsthum und Bau des Menschlichen Schädels,’ 1862, p. 86.Google Scholar

∗ Wagner, , 1. c, p. 92. Welcker, , 1. c., p. 39.Google Scholar

† Parchappe, , ‘Recherches sur l'Encéphale, Prem. Mémoire,’ 1836, p. 76.Google Scholar

‡ Broca, , “Sur le Volume et la Forme du Cerveau,” p. 15; ‘Bull, de la Soc. d'Anthropologie de Paris,’ 1861, t. ii Google Scholar

∗ Out of these cases, as shown in these tables of Dr. Boyd's (see Table IX), the brain was examined and weighed in forty-three males and thirty-one females; 1. c, pp. 243, 260.Google Scholar

† Sims, , “The inference from this table is, that the average weight of the brain goes on increasing from one year old to twenty; between twenty and thirty there is a slight decrease in the average; afterwards it increases, and arrives at the maximum between forty and fifty; after fifty, to old age, the brain gradually decreases in weight.” ‘Med.-Chir. Trans,’ vol. xix, p. 358.Google Scholar

∗ Broca, , loe. cit., p. 19.Google Scholar

† Tiedemann, , “On the Brain of the Negro, compared with that of the European and the Orang,” ‘Phil Trans.,’ 1886, vol exxvi, p. 503.Google Scholar

∗ Peacock, , 1. c, Tables X and XI, p. 24.Google Scholar

† Dr. Boyd's tables do not enable us to calculate the limits between which the ratios fluctuate. Maxima and minima are given for both the body-weight and the brain-weight, but only for one instance of each, and these are not necessarily in the same individual. It must be remembered that the greater number of these brains were probably those of persons dying from chronic diseases.Google Scholar

∗ Parchappe, , ‘Sur l'Encéphale,’ 1836, pp. 76, 101, 102; Broca, l. c., p. 13.Google Scholar

∗ The only brain-weights I find for the French not insane (” a l'état normal”) are those of M. Parchappe (‘Sur l'Encéphale,’ 1836, Table IX). Out of forty-aeren brain-weights in this table, there are only sixteen for the ages between twenty and sixty years, so that the average given above, as regards the French, must be taken merely as provisional. It is, indeed, much below the probable weight. I hare shown, from the large series of 357 skulls from the cemeteries of Paris, which have been gauged by M. Broca, that the probable mean capacity of the male French skull is 1502 cubic centimetres, or 91 inches English. This capacity corresponds with a brain-weight of 1435 grmm. or 50.6 oz., which exceeds that of the Scotch, but requires to be corrected by the weight of the dura mater and fluids. Morton's cranial capacity for the “English”, of 94 inches, corresponds with a brain-weight still greater, viz., 1480 grains. ‘Memoirs of Anthropological Society of London,’ vol. i, 1865, p. 464.Google Scholar

† Welcker, , loc. cit., p. 37, 140.Google Scholar

‡ Hedemann, , 1. c, ‘Phil. Trans.,’ 1836; ‘Das Hirn des Negers,’ 1837. The tables of skulls in the separate work are expanded by many additional instances. I follow the figures as given by Welcker,. p. 41, from Huschke.Google Scholar

§ Meigs, , ‘Catalogue of Human Crania,’ 1857, p. 17; Nott and Gliddon, ‘Types of Mankind,’ 1854, p. 450. When the catalogue of the very large collection of crania made by Dr. J. Barnard Davis is published, we shall be able to speak with greater confidence of the cranial capacity of different races.Google Scholar

∗ L. c, p. 511. Tiedemann did not calculate the averages of his figures; had he done so he must have detected his error. He evidently wrote under a strong predilection for the Negro race, and with the view of justifying, as he expresses it, “the situation in society which had so lately been given to the Negro by the noble British Government” It was possible for a physiologist to write thus in 1836; it would scarcely be so for any one, avoiding partisan extremes on both sides of this controverted political question, to do so in 1866.Google Scholar

† Peacock, , “On the Weight of the Brain in the Negro” ‘Memoirs of Anthropological Society of London,’ voL i, 1865, pp. 65, 520. The two Negresses' brains, on the average, equal the weight of those of European females; and it is a curious fact that, according to Tiedemann, the twelve skulls of Negresses gauged by him rather exceeded in capacity that of twenty skulls of European women. We need further observations on this point.Google Scholar

∗ Barkow, , ‘Skelett und Gehirn Lehre,’ 1865, s. 81, 46, 61. The ever-varying German weights are most troublesome; but, I believe, the equivalents are correctly given above. The German ‘Med.-Gewicht’ was in the first place reduced to oz. troy, by multiplying by 960; the ounces were then converted into grains, and these again into ounces avoirdupois.Google Scholar

† The brain of the Bushwoman, so carefully and ably described by Professor John Marshall, F.R.S., is reported by him to have weighed 81 5 oz., or 893 grmm., or less than two thirds that of the average European female. The brain of the Bushwoman, known as the Hottentot Venus, was a very little larger. “On the Brain of a Bushwoman; and on the Brains of two Idiots, of European Descent;” ‘Phil. Trans,’ 1864, voL cliv, pp. 501, 508, 566. Dr. B. Quain gives the brain-weight of a Bosjes girl, aged 14, in height 40 inches, and who died of phthisis, as 34 oz., or 963 grmm. (‘Pathol. Trans.’ 1850, vol. ii, p. 182. This falls short even of the average weight of the brain of the female English child, between two and four years of age, in whom, according to the tables of Dr. Boyd, the brain-weight is 34 97 oz. (991 grmm.), and the average stature 31 6 inches. See Table IX, port; and ‘Phil. Trans,’ vol. cli, p. 247.Google Scholar

∗ Broca, , “Sur la Capacité des Crânes Parisiens,” ‘Bull de la Soc d'Anthrop.,’ 1861, t. iii.Google Scholar

† It is not unimportant to observe that the low brain-weight of the insane of the pauper class of Wilts and Somerset is not peculiar to those counties, but seems to apply to the south-west of England generally. I have tabulated the 122 cases for Devonshire, published by Dr. Bucknill, and find the average weight at 20–60 years, to be 46 oz. (1303 grmm.), for men, and 43 5 oz. (1233 grmm.), for women. Reports of the brain-weights obtained for the insane in some of the asylums of the Northern and Eastern Counties are much to be desired.Google Scholar

∗ The weights of the brain obtained at the St. Marylebone Infirmary by Dr. Sims, several years before those by Dr. Boyd, give, when analysed, precisely the same average of 47 8 oz. for men between 20 and 60 years, as the much larger series by the later observer. Sims's weights for women, at the same period of life, are heavier than those of Dr. Boyd, by 11 oz. (42 5 grmm.). and average 44 6 oz. (Peacock, , l. c , p. 19.)Google Scholar

† Parchappe, , ‘Recherches sur l'Encéphale, Prem. Mémoire,’ 1836, pp. 77,101, 102. Though not reasserted, I am not aware that this opinion, in regard to the brain-weight of the imane in general, has been retracted by M. Parchappe.Google Scholar

∗ Parchappe, , ‘Recherches sur l'Encéphale, Deuxième Mémoire,’ 1838, pp. 144, 181, 186.Google Scholar

† Parchappe, , ‘Traité de la Folie’ 1841, pp. 345–350.Google Scholar

‡ In ‘Brit, and For. Med.-Chir. Review,’ Jan. 1865, vol. xxw, p. 219, and in ‘Journ. Mental Science’ Jan. 1865, vol. x, p. 512, Dr. Boyd gives papers and tables on the brain-weight of the insane as observed by him in the Somerset Co. Asylum, in which the weight, as influenced by the different forms of insanity, is treated. The greatest average weight was, for men, in mania; and, for women, in epilepsy, combined with idiocy. From the former of these papers we must regret the absence of the extended tables to which it refers. What we require to know, as regards the brain-weight, is not the form of insanity when the patient was brought under care, but that which existed at the time of death.Google Scholar

∗ Bucknill, , “Pathology of Insanity,” ‘Brit, and For. Med.-Chir Review,’ 1855, v. xv, p. 207; Bucknill, and Tuke, , ‘Psychol. Medicine,’ 2nd ed., 1862, p. 419.Google Scholar

† ‘Edin. Monthly Journ. of Med. Science’ Oct. 1854, p. 289.; ‘Annual Report of Royal Edinburgh Asylum for 1854.’ Appendix, p. viii.Google Scholar

∗ Bastian, , “On the Specific Gravity of the Brain,” ‘Journal of Mental Science,’ 1866, vol. xi, p. 465. Dr. Bastiane researches afford grounds for doubting whether the true average specific gravity of the gray matter in the insane has yet been ascertained.Google Scholar

† Bucknill, , ‘Psychol. Medicine,’ 1862, p. 486 Google Scholar

∗ M. Parchappe has published the brain-weights of five male idiots and one female. (‘Traité de la Folie,’ p. 366–72). Two of the male sex were likewise epileptic; the weights varied between 970 and 1320, and had an average of 1141, grmm., or 40 2 oz.; being only a little less than those observed by myself, The brain of the female idiot weighed 720 grmm., or 25 4 oz nce the above was written Dr. Down has favoured me with a summary of the brain-weights in the 50 cases most recently examined by him; in which for the two sexes, 5–33 years, the average was 42 75 oz., or 1211 grmm.; being a little more than that observed by myself. The minimum weight, in a boy of 18, was 16 oz. (425 grmm.); the maximum, in a man of 22, was 59 5 oz. (1404 grmm.), or more than that of Whewell. Weight or quantity of the brain is not everything.Google Scholar

† I here Substitute the term megalocephalous, introduced by Professor Lucae, for that of macrocephalous, as employed by Virchow in the same signification. The latter might, perhaps, have been the better for our language, had it not been applied by Hippocrates to the distorted long-heads of a people near the Caucasus; and had not modern craniologists, after the example of Von Bae, generally agreed to apply it to the skulls supposed to be those of the people described by the Father of Medicine. Yirchow and Lucae agree in dividing their macroeephaly and megalocephaly into water-heads and great-heads,-hydrocephaly and kephalones, It is with the brains of these last that we are here concernea. Welcker was the first to lay down a standard for judging of the commencement of kephalony.Google Scholar

∗ Welcker, , ‘Wachsthum und Bau, des Menschlichen Schädels,’ p. 140, comp. pp. 38–40.Google Scholar

† Broca, , ‘Sur le Volume et La Forme du Cerveau,’ loe. cit., p. 22.Google Scholar

∗ Thurnam, . The frontal portion of the falx major was absent, and the frontal lobes were invested in a common covering of pia mater and arachnoid. In Dr. Peacock's case (No. 5), the anterior portion of the falx was likewise deficient.Google Scholar

† Parchappe, , ‘Traité de la Folie,’ pp. 368, 371.Google Scholar

‡ ‘Trans. Pathol. Soc. Lond.,’ 1859, vol. x, p. 15.Google Scholar

§ ‘Trans. Zool. Soc.,’ vol. i, p. 343. Mus. St. Barth. Hosp., A, 123. In this case Professor Owen observes, “Nature may be said to have performed for us the experiment of arresting the development of the brain, almost exactly at the size which it attains in the chimpanzee, and where the intellectual faculties were scarcely more developed. Tet no anatomist would hesitate in at once referring the cranium to the human species.” Vogt refines on this opinion. Eng. ed., pp. 145, 198.Google Scholar

‖ Wagner, , ‘Vorstudien,’ ii, 3, 19.Google Scholar

¶ ‘Phil. Trans.’ 1864. vol. cliv, p. 626. ‘Anthxop. Review,’ 1863, vol. i, p. viii.Google Scholar

∗ ‘Brit and For. Med.-Chir. Rev.,’ 1855, vol. xv, p. 216.Google Scholar

† Sims, , ‘Med.-Chir. Trans.,’ vol. xix, p. 353.Google Scholar

‡ Parcbappe, , ‘Traite de la Folie,’ pp. 368, 371.Google Scholar

§ Dr. D. H. Tuke has reported the examination of the brain of this idiot, who for many years was under my care and observation. Take, and Bucknill, , ‘Psychol. Medicine,’ ed. 2, 1862, p. 96.Google Scholar

‖ ‘Phil. Trans.,’ 1836, vol. cxxvi, p. 502.Google Scholar

¶ ‘Anthrop. Review,’ 1863, vol. i, p. 168. ‘Phil. Trans.,’ 1864, vol. cliv, p. 625.Google Scholar

∗∗ Wagner, , “Vorstudien,” ii, ‘Ueber den Hirnbau der Mikrocephalen,’ p. 83.Google Scholar

∗ Marshall, , 1. c, ‘Phil. Trans.,’ 1864, pp. 528, 529.Google Scholar

† In the four cases distinguished by the letter E, Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 10, the patient suffered from epilepsy, which was the cause of death in all the cases.Google Scholar

∗ The observations of Professor James Forbes, read to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and printed in the English edition of Quetelet “On Man,” 1842, p. 113, give both a heavier average weight and higher stature to the Scotch, than to the English.Google Scholar

† I follow M. P. Broca “Sur le Volume du Cerveau,” ‘Bull. de la Soc. d'Anthrop.,’ t. ii), in giving the weight of Cuvier's brain as 1830 (“1829 96”), and not 1861 grammes, as it appears in the great table of Wagner; in which, even when thus corrected, it will still stand as the heaviest healthy brain. The difference between the two weights is 1 3 oz., or 31 grammes.Google Scholar

‡ As reported by Professor Goodsir, ‘Edin. Med. Surg. Journ.’ 1845, vol. lxiii, p. 231. For the brain of Spurzheim, see ‘Phrenol. Journ.,’ ix, 567.Google Scholar

∗ The brain-weight of the Lord Chancellor Campbell I take finom the report by Mr. Acton (‘Lancet,’ Ang., 1861, ii, 193); that of the Duc de Moray from the newspapers, as confirmed by a distinguished anthropologist of Paris.Google Scholar

† See, for the brain of Chalmers, Dr. Begbie, in ‘Edin Monthly Journ. Med.,’ vol. xii, p. 202, March, 1851; and the unsatisfactory article on the brain of Daniel Webster, ‘Edin. Med. Surg. Journ.,’ April, 1853, vol. lxxix, p. 355.Google Scholar

‡ For the brain-weights of the Gottingen professors, and for that of Tiedemann, see Wagner, , ‘Vorstudien des Menschlichen Gehirns,’ I, 33; II, 93. Bischoff expressly names the atrophy of Tiedemann's brain. Welcker, ‘Zwei Difform,’ p. 12.Google Scholar

§ I take the weight assigned to the brain of Dupuytren in the ‘Lancette Francaise,’ 1835, No. 20, and which is generally received in Paris; but according to other reports, and as from his portraits one might readily believe, it was much heavier. (Wagner, , ‘Vorstudien,’ i, p. 96, ‘Northern Journ. Med.,’ x, Feb., 1845.)Google Scholar

‖ As this is passing through the press, the brain-weight of an English philosopher, of wonderful versatility, industry, and power,” William Whewell, D.D., who died at the age of 71, is reported by Dr. Humphry, of Cambridge, as 49 oz., or 1390 grmm. (‘Lancet,’ March 17, 1866, i, p. 279.) The brain, though “shrunken” and in “an atrophie state,” must have once been megalocephalous. Google Scholar

∗ See Table VII. 1335 grammes, or the mean between 1365 and 1306 grmm.Google Scholar

† Wagner, , ‘Vorstudien,’ II, 1862. ‘Nachrichten Gott.,’ 1862, Nov. 12, p.478.Google Scholar

‡ Broca, , “Sur le Volume et la Forme du Cerveau,” ‘Bull, de la Soc. d'Anthrop.’ 1861, t. ii, passim .Google Scholar

§ “Gehirngrösse und Intelligenz,” in ‘Zwei seltnere Difformitäten,’ 1863, 12–19.Google Scholar

‖ ‘Sur L'Homme,’ iv, 1.Google Scholar

¶ Vogt, , ‘Vorlesungen über den Menschen,’ 1863, in, 102, Eng. ed., p. 86. VOL. XII.Google Scholar