"MISSING LINKS" MILLER 429 



(1) 



The deposits in which the fossils were found are of Tertiary age 

 (lower to upper Pliocene, therefore old enough to be reasonably 

 expected to contain remains of a creature ancestral to man) (Dubois, 

 Hilber, Marsh). 



The deposits in which the fossils were found are of Quaternary age 

 (lower to middle Pleistocene, therefore not old enough to be reason- 

 ably expected to contain remains of a creature ancestral to man) 

 (Branca, Obermaier, Pervinquiere, Ramstrom, Schuster, Volz). 



(2) 



The way the bones were deposited in the ancient stream bed counts 

 against the reference of all these parts to one individual (Ramstrom, 

 Virchow). 



The way the skullcap, teeth, and femur were deposited in the an- 

 cient stream bed at considerable distances from each other does Twt 

 count against the reference of all these parts to one individual 

 (Branco, Dubois, Jaekel, Marsh). 



(3) 



The remains came from one animal (Dubois, Nehring, and many 

 others). 



The remains did not certainly come from one animal (Matschie). 



The remains came from two kinds of animal — teeth and skullcap 

 from a gibbon, and femur from a man (Krause) ; skullcap and femur 

 from a man, teeth from an orang (Topinard). Diagram 5, p. 426. 



The remains came from two or perhaps three kinds of animal — 

 skullcap, one ape ( Pithecamthropus ) \ teeth another ape, not yet 

 named; and femur perhaps human (Obermaier). 



(4) 



The characters of the femur are those of ordinary man (Hepburn, 

 Houze, Kolbe, Manouvrier, Martin, Turner, Vallois). 



The characters of the femur are those of a peculiar man 

 (Hrdlicka). 



The characters of the femur are those of a gibbon (Kollman, 

 Virchow). 



(5) 



The size of the femur is too great for the bone to have pertained 

 lo the same individual as the skullcap (Virchow). 



The size of the femur is not too great for the bone to have per- 

 tained to the same individual as the skullcap (Nehring). 



