THE HISTORY OF THE PRIMATES 



Figure 67. Palate and Upper Teeth of an Australopithecine (A) and of a 

 Gorilla (B). (From Clark, "The History of the Primates," 3rd Ed., British Museum 

 of Natural History, 1953. ) 



character. The canines are larger than in modern man, but much smaller 

 than in any modern ape. Further, the shape of the tooth rows is altogether 

 different. In the apes, the canines, premolars, and molars form parallel 

 rows, with the incisors being set at right angles to them at the front of 

 the jaws. In man and in the australopithecines, the entire tooth row is 

 more evenly curved (Figure 67). Finally, the occipital condyles, by 

 which the skull articulates with the spinal column, are set much farther 

 forward on the ventral surface of the skull in the australopithecines than 

 in any living ape. This suggests a relatively erect posture. 



The rest of the skeleton gives evidence which corroborates that of the 

 skulls. The limb bones also indicate that this southern ape may have been 

 erect or nearly so in posture. There is no indication of the overdevelop- 

 ment of the arms which goes with brachiation. The hip bone is character- 

 istically long and narrow in apes, but in man and in the authralopithecines 

 it is broad and flat, an anatomical feature which is associated with erect 

 posture. 



These, then, are some of the major facts relative to the Australopithe- 

 cinae. Regarding the factual findings, there is no disagreement, but there 

 is much disagreement regarding their interpretation. Some highly com- 

 petent anthropologists, including Broom and Robinson, believe that the 

 details in which they agree with man are too extensive and exact to be 

 explainable on any basis other than that they were in the direct line of 

 descent leading to man. Others equally distinguished, such as Weiden- 

 reich, believe that the australopithecines belong to a line of descent which 

 preserved some of the primitive characters of the original anthropoid 

 stock, but did not lead to any modern group. LeGros Clark takes an inter- 

 mediate position, considering that they are certainly closely related to the 

 ancestors of man, but possibly not old enough to be themselves our an- 



187 



