sex of an individual, or even, indeed, whether he was a prehistoric savage, an idiot, or a gorilla.

3. As for the third assumption of phrenology, namely, that brain development is reflected in the cranial size or protuberances, it should be sufficient to point out that even if this were so it would be meaningless for our purpose, since we are compelled to abandon the belief in a relation between mass of tissue and even the simplest sensory or motor capacity. But such further disproof as may be required is readily furnished by an actual attempt to remove from their cranial boxes the brains of various animals, and by noting that the shape and thickness of the bones gives little indication as to whether brain tissue, cerebrospinal fluid, or supporting tissues are to be found underneath a given protuberance or depression.

4. The fourth assumption of phrenology, that sparse and casual observation of striking cases is sufficient ground for generalization, we should be able to dismiss at once as utterly inadequate and miscalculated. It is impossible to find consistent recorded instances in which groups of individuals, selected at random, with definitely determined and measured mental or moral characteristics, have been shown to confirm, by their cranial geography, even the most elementary doctrines of that phrenology which still offers to diagnose the individual's psychic constitution and to commend to his future consideration the vocation of engineering, publishing, or preaching, as the case may be. Practicing phrenologists have repeatedly been invited to submit one bit of objective evidence for their pretensions, or to submit themselves to tests under controlled conditions. The invitations are refused, and the inquirer is referred instead to the dogma of some foreign and deceased authority. Such investigations as have been recorded have resulted in negative conclusions, or in contradictory data, or in coefficients with such high probable errors as to make the figures unreliable.

THE PSEUDO-SCIENCE OF PHYSIOGNOMY

Very often practicing phrenologists and phrenological vocational experts seek to justify their operations and pretensions by pointing out that they do not rely solely on the cranial geography, but more often on other characteristics of the individual's body, such as the concavity or convexity of his profile, the shape of his jaw, the texture of his skin, the shape of his hands, the color of his hair and eyes, the proportions of his trunk, etc. Contemporary vocational counsellors who have enjoyed considerable vogue and commercial repute are especially given to citing these criteria; several recently published tables of these clues are available. Historically, the attempts to formulate principles of physiognomy antedate phrenology by many centuries. Logically, however, physiognomy follows phrenology, as a transition from the formulation of structure to the formulation of behavior. There is a very widespread belief that many mental and moral characteristics betray themselves in special facial items. The shifting eye, lofty brow, massive jaw, thin lips, large ear, protruding or receding chin, dimple, wrinkle, tilted nose, thin skin, prominent veins, and many other characteristics have come, in fiction and in table-talk, to symbolize specific characteristics. The same thing is true of the shuffling gait, the erect body, the protruding paunch, the curved shoulders, enlarged knuckles, stubby or elongated fingers, the short neck, the long arm, and the manner and rate of stride. It is but a step from these to the signs afforded by clothing, its selection, care, and mode of wearing.

Here is indeed a most confused mass of fact and fancy which finds credence in varying degrees on diverse occasions. Seldom has it been analyzed into the definite types of material which it really contains, and its evaluation is commonly left to the haphazard opinion of each individual. There is no doubt that we all tend to form our opinion of a stranger's probable characteristics partly on the basis of these physiognomic, physical, and sartorial factors. To what degree can these items be formulated so as to afford reliable criteria in the analysis of personality, as in the case of vocational selection and employment? We may perhaps best answer this question by noting the various sources of the belief in the validity of physiognomic and similar signs.

1. It is first of all true that many of these marks are the result of habitual activity, and in so far as they originate in the expression of a trait, they may be said to be signs of it. That the studious come to be round-shouldered, the cheerful to have smooth countenances, the guilty to have furtive eye-movements, may well be expected. But it is quite another thing to reverse the proposition and to take stooped shoulders as a universal sign of academic interests, dimples as a sign of guilelessness, and nystagmus as the symptom of a criminal past. It is, however, often safe to use these traits as reliable signs of the established general habits and attitude which they express. We have all done this since earliest childhood; yet any attempt to classify formally the signs and effects of habit and constant expression would be pedantic. Unfortunately for the purposes of vocational guidance of youth, these expressions require for their formation habits of fairly long standing, and the critical period for psychological guidance is likely to be passed long before these settled habits have set the features into their identifiable molds.

Somewhat more hopeful is the reliance on expressive movements as indicative of passing and transient emotional states and attitudes. Not easily can we conceal from the astute observer the momentary passion that may be stirring us. Prolonged intimate acquaintance with an individual's emotional experiences and expressions may in time reveal to such an observer the deeper lying and more permanent affective trends, the moods and sentiments which indicate what we are accustomed to call the temperament of the individual. Insight into the nature of these expressive movements is one of the useful things to be derived from long and patient study of human nature, both at first hand and through the classical descriptions of emotional expression. The more one observes and the more individuals he observes, the more he is impressed with the final variety and informal complexity of these expressive movements, and their dependence on a vast detail of circumstance, which again forbid rule-of-thumb formulation.

2. Another apparent source of these beliefs is in analogy. The clammy hand, the fishy eye, the bull neck, the "blotting paper" voice, the asinine ear, the willowy figure, the feline tread, and scores of such phrases indicate that these characteristics remind us definitely of various species or objects other than the human being, and that we expect to find back of them the characteristic traits, habits, and instinctive tendencies of those species. We seldom proceed so far as to check up our expectations with facts, under controlled conditions.

3. The affective value of these analogies and their incorporation in poetry, song, and fiction as adequate figures of speech lead us to react to these traits in ways determined largely by the traditional usage. We are humble before the "high-brow," merry in the presence of the dimpled, cautious and prudent before him of the shifting eye. In so far as human reactions are determined by the implied expectations of associates and the demands of immediate circumstances, we should be surprised indeed if the "high-brow" did not, on the strength of his cranium, evade our office-door sentinel, the dimpled one respond to our facetious