"MISSING LINKS" — MILLER 453 



Martin, R. Weitere Bemerkungeu zur Pithecanthropiis-Frage. Ziirich, pp. 

 1-18, 1 pi., March, 190<3. 



Reviews literature to date and reaffirms his earlier views with slight 

 modifioatious. 



(Matschie, p.] Anthropopithecus (sic) orcctus Eug. Dubois. Naturwiss. 



WocheiLschr., vol. 9, pp. 59-GO, Feb. 4, 1894. 

 Matsciiie, p. Noch eiumal Anthropopithecus (sic) crectus Eug. Dubois. Natur- 



wiss. Wochenscrift, vol. 10, pp. 81-82, Feb. 17, 1895. 



The fossils are not certainly all parts of one individual. Femur not ape ; 

 teeth not very different from human ; skullcap essentially human, perhaps 

 pathological. 



Matthew, W. D. The Ape-Man of Java. Natural History, vol. 28, pp. 577-588, 

 7 figs., December, 1928. 



It is simpler to assume that the fragments all belonged to one species. 

 " The probabilities are that the Pithecanthropus was in some respects 

 nearer to man, in others to one or another of the great apes, and hiid like- 

 wise some peculiarities of its own " (p. 5SG). 



McGkegor, J. H. Recent Studies on the Skull and Brain of Pithecanthropus. 

 Natural History, New York, Vol. 25, pp. 544-559, figs. 1-9, 1925. 



Discusses restorations of the skull and endocranial cast. Reproduces 

 original photographs of the teeth, 4 views of each (fig. 10). 



MiJSBEaiG, W. A. Over het in 192G te Trinil gevonden en ten onrechte als rest 



van het schedelkak van een praehistorischen mensch beschouwde fossil. 



Geneesekundig Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsch-Iudie, Afi. 1, Deel. G7, pp. 1-7, 



1927. 

 Miller, Gerrit S., Jr. Notes on the Casts of the Pithecanthropus Molars. Bull. 



Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., Vol. 48, pp. 527-530, figs. 14-15, Dec. 4, 1923. 



^ Photographs of casts compared with the corresponding teeth of IG 



Bornean orangs. So far as can be judged from this comparison, the Java 

 teeth have no characters which would separate them generically from the 

 orang or indicate any relationship with man. 



Nehking, a. Menscheureste aus einem Sambaqui von Santos in Brasilien, unter 

 Vergleichung der Fossilreste des Pithecanthropus crectus Dub'.iis. Verb. Berl. 

 Gesellsch. Authrop., in Zeitschr. fiir Ethnologic, vol. 27, pp. 710-721, figs. 1-4, 

 1895. 



All the parts belong to the same species which represents a " Mittelform " 

 between the lowest human races and the highest authropomorplis. The form 

 of the skullcap is approached by that of a human skull from a prehistoric 

 deposit near Santos, Brazil. 



Nehking, A. Ein Pithecanthropus ahnlicher Menscheuschiidel aus den Samba- 

 quis von Santos, in Brasilien. Naturwiss. Wochenschr., vol. 10, pp. 549-552, 

 November 17, 1895. Text slightly different from that of previous paper. 



Nehring, a. Die Capacitiit des Schjidels von Pithecanthropus erectus. Natur- 

 wiss. Wochenschr., vol. 11, pp. 344-345, July 12, 1896. 



No reason to place tlie genus in a family distinct from the Hominidai. 



Neviani, a. II Pitecantropo o la scimmla-uomo e la teoria dell' evoluziwue. 

 Rivista di sociologia, Roma, vol. 8, pp. 205-233, 1896. 



Neviani, A. II Pitecantropo e la origine naturale dell' Uomo. Riv. Ital. Sci. 

 Nat., vol. 16, pp. 113-117, 135-139, 1896; vol. 17, pp. 12-18, 38-44, 1897. 



Obeemaieb, Hugo. Der Mensch der Vorzeit, 1912. 



Pithecanthropus, pp. 370-375. Concludes that the skullcap came from 

 one kind of ape {Pithecanthropus proper), the teeth from another, not yet 

 described, while the femur may have been human. 



24034—29 30 



