86 







called Dryopiihe&A8, only by the figures published in the 43rd 

 volume of the Comptes Rendus de TAcademie des Sciences. From 

 these it appears that the canine, two premolars, and first and 

 second true molars are in place. The socket of the third molar is 

 empty, but widely open above; from which I conclude that the 

 third molar had also cut the gum, the crown being completed, but 

 not the fangs. If the last molar had existed as a mere germ, it 

 would have been preserved in the substance of the jaw. 



In a young siamang, with the points of the permanent canines 

 just protruding from the socket, the crown of the last molar is 

 complete, and on a level with the base of that of the penultimate 

 molar, whence I infer that the last molar would have cut the gum 

 as soon as, if not before, the crown of the canine had been com- 

 pletely extricated. This dental character, the conformation and 

 relative size of the grinding teeth, especially the fore-and-aft 

 extent of the premolars, all indicate the close affinity of the 

 Dryopitliecus with the Pliopitliecus and existing gibbons; and 

 this, the sole legitimate deduction from the maxillary and dental 

 fossils, is corroborated by the fossil humerus, fig. 9, in the above- 

 cited plate. 



There is no law of correlation by which, from the portion of 

 jaw with teeth of the Dryopitliecus^ can be deduced the shape of 

 the nasal bones and orbits, the position and plane of the occipital 

 foramen, the presence of niastoid and vaginal processes, or other 

 cranial characters determinative of affinity to man ; much less any 

 ground for inferring the proportions of the upper to the lower 

 limbs, of the humerus to the ulna, of the pollex to the maims, or 

 the shape and development of the iliac bones. All those charac- 

 ters which do determine the closer resemblance and affinity of the 

 genus Troglodytes to man, and of the genus Hylobates to the tailed 

 monkeys, are at present unknown in respect of the Dryopitliecus. 

 A glance at fig. 5 (Gorilla), and fig. 7 (Dryopithecus), of the plate 

 of M. Lartet's memoir, would suffice to teach their difference of 

 bulk, the gorilla being fully one-third larger. The statement that 

 the parts of the skeleton of the Dryopitliecus as yet known, viz., 

 the two branches of the lower jaw and the humerus, ' are sufficient 

 to shew that in anatomical structure, as well as stature, it came 

 nearer to man than any quadrumanous species, living or fossil, 

 before known to zoologists 1 ,' is without the support of any ade- 



1 Sir Chas. Lyell, Supplement to the Fifth Edition of a Manual of Ele- 

 mentary Geology, 8vo., 1859, P- X 4- 



