AUSTRALOPITHECINES — ROBINSON 



487 



"TELANTHROPUS" 



From among the large nmnber of Paranthropus remains which have 

 come from Swartkrans, I found a fragmentary upper and lower jaw, 

 apparently of the same individual, another almost complete mandible 

 along with a few other fragments of what is clearly a different type 

 of hommid. Later an incomplete metacarpal came to light wliich 

 probably belongs to the same form (Napier, 1959). This form was 

 called Telanthropus capensis (Broom and Eobinson, 1949), but sub- 

 sequently this name was sunk in favor of Homo erectus (Robinson, 

 1961). 



The teeth are distinctly smaller than those of either australopithe- 

 cine and agree very closely in size with those of the hominine from 

 Java and Pekin now generally known as Pithecanthropus. From the 

 space available in the mandible and maxilla, it would seem that the 

 canine crowns must have been of about the size of those of Paranthro- 

 pus^ but the roots were reduced compared to those of either of the 

 australopithecines. Besides these there are some important characters 

 fomid only among hominines but not among australopithecines. 

 These are : (1) the structure of the nasal cavity floor and the subnasal 

 surface of the maxilla, (2) the wide U-shape of the internal mandib- 



FiGURE 5. — Mandibular body contours in A, Australopithecus; B, Paranthropus; C, "Telan- 

 thropus"; and D, Homo sapiens (American white). Both australopithecines have 

 narrow interramal distance anteriorly; "Telanthropus" has the hominine condition in 

 this respect. 



fi25,S25- fi2 S3 



