| (e) Malayālam. Nāyar. | ||
| 70 | ♦♦ | |
| 71 | ♦♦♦♦♦ | |
| 72 | ♦♦♦♦♦ | |
| 73 | ♦♦♦♦♦♦ | |
| 74 | ♦ | Average. |
| 75 | ♦♦♦♦♦♦ | |
| 76 | ♦♦♦♦ | |
| 77 | ♦♦♦♦ | |
| 78 | ♦♦♦ | |
| 79 | ♦♦ | |
| 80 | ||
| 81 | ||
| 82 | ♦ | |
These tables not only bring out the difference in the cephalic index of the classes selected as representative of the different areas, but further show that there is a greater constancy in the Tamil and Malayālam classes than in the Tulus, Canarese and Telugus. The number of individuals clustering round the average is conspicuously greater in the two former than in the three latter. I am not prepared to hazard any new theory to account for the marked difference in the type of cranium in the various areas under consideration, and must content myself with the observation that, whatever may have been the influence which has brought about the existing sub-brachycephalic or mesaticephalic type in the northern areas, this influence has not extended southward into the Tamil and Malayālam countries, where Dravidian man remains dolicho- or sub-dolichocephalic.
As an excellent of constancy of type in the cephalic index, I may cite, en passant, the following
