454 ANNUAL, REPORT SMITHSONIAN" INSTITUTION, 192 8 



OsBOBN, Henry F. Men of the Old Stone Age. New York, ed. 2, 1916. 



Pithecanthropus, pp. 72-84, figs, 29-41. 

 OsBOEN, H. F. Dawn-Man Appears as Our First Ancestor. The New York 

 Times, Sunday, Jan. 9, 1927, Sec. XX, p. 3, figs. 5. 



The Trinil man is a dawn man and not an ape man. He walked erect, 

 he thought as a man, he probably spoke as a man, although his vocabulary 

 was limited. ... A welcome gift from anthropology to humanity is 

 this banishment of the myth and bogie of our ape-ancestry. 



Pe-\rsall, W. Booth. The teeth of Pithecanthropus ei-ectus. British Dental 

 Journal, vol. 28, pp. 869-874, figs. 1-3, August 15, 1907. 



The teeth are accepted as human ; the worn molar is m^ left, the unworn 

 molar is m"" right. Both could have come from one individual. 



Peevinquiere, L. Le Pithecanthrope et I'homme fossile de la Chapelle-aux- 

 Saints. Rev. Sci., Paris, ser. 5, vol. 11, pp. 39^1, Jan. 9, 1909. 



Pithecanthropus was a contemporary of quaternary man and therefore 

 not a human ancestor. The fossil is interesting but so fragmentary as to 

 provide an open door to discussions. 



Pettit, a. Le Pithecanthropus erectus. L'Anthropologie, vol. 6, pp. 65-69, 

 February, 1895. 



Gives several reasons for rejecting Dubois' view and regarding the re- 

 mains as human. 



Ramstrom, Martin. Der Java-Trinil-Fund " Pithccanthropos'" oder konnen die 

 " Eoanthropos "- and Pithccanthropos-Fuude uns zuverliissige Aufschliisse 

 fiber die Anthropogenesis gebenV Upsala Lakareloreuings Forhandl., N. F., 

 vol. 26, Festskr. Prof. J. Aug. Hammar, art. 29, pp. 1-37, 1921. 



Rosenberg, E. [Remarks on Pithecanthropus.l C.-R. Troisieme Congr. 

 Internat. Zool., Leiden, 1895, p. 272, 1896. 



Expresses doubt as to whether the femur differs from that of man. Th? 

 skullcap indicates that its possessor did not walk erect. 



ScHLOSSER, M. Die neueste Litteratur fiber die ausgestorbenen Anthropomor- 

 phen. Zool. Anzeiger, vol. 23, pp. 289-301, May 28, 1900. 



Pithecanthropus, pp. 299-301. The known material is insuflScient to 

 supply a basis for positive conclusions. So far as it goes it merely proves 

 that Pithecanthropus is more widely separated from the great apes than 

 from man. Can not be a gigantic gibbon. 



Schuster, J. Ein Beitrag zur PifhicantJa-opus-Fvagt.'. Sitzungsber. k. bayer. 



Akad. Wissensch., Mfinchen, Math.-phys. Klasse, Jahrx. 1909, Abhandl. 17, 



1910. 

 Schuster, J. Monographie der fossilen Flora der Pitheo^nthropusSchichten. 



Abhandl. k. bayer. Akad. Wissench., Mfinchen, Math-phy^. Klasse, Vol. 25, 



Abhandl. 6, 1911. 

 ScHWAi.BE, G. Studien fiber Pithecanthropus erectus Dubr^is. 1. Theil. 



1. Abtheilung. Zeitschr. ffir Morph. u. Anthrop., vol. 1, pp. 16-^228, 1899. 



The skullcap can not be that of a large gibbon, nor can it be referred 

 to a member of any of the other living genera of anthropoids; on the con- 

 trary it rather nearly resembles the corresponding part of Neanderthal 

 man in the majority of its characters. 



ScHWALBE, G. Studien zur Vorgesch. des Menschen. Zeitschr. fur Morph. und 

 Anthrop., vol. 9, Sonderheft, pp. 5-228, pis. 1-4, text figs. 1-13, May 26, 1906. 



Regards Pithecanthropus as a member of the Hominidae and a direct 

 ancestor of Neanderthal man, which in turn is a direct ancestor of modern 

 man. The line thus formed diverged from the line of the great apes 

 in the Miocene, and the common stock for both may be represented by 

 Dryopithecus (p. 24). 



