34 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL.83 



H. Weinert, the foremost present German student of early skeletal 

 remains of man, has studied the original fragment and reports upon 

 it in his recent meritorious work on the Pithecanthropus.* His first 

 word is : " With this fragment begin our difficulties as to the meaning 

 of the Pithecanthropus finds." It is to be recalled that the fragment 

 came from the same geological deposits as at Trinil though at some 

 distance away, that it was accompanied by the same Kendeng fauna, 

 and that the bone has the .same general aspect, color, and specific 

 gravity as the Pithecanthropus remains from Trinil. Moreover, the 

 root of the premolar of Trinil shows dimensions closely resembling 

 those of a corresponding tooth in the lower jaw. All of which in- 

 fluenced Dubois in attributing the fragment to the genus Pithecan- 

 thropus. Yet the evidence for this is not decisive. Weinert gives 

 several useful measurements of the fragment. They are as follows : 



Height of body between canine and first premolar 27.8 mm. 



Greatest thickness of the bone at same place, at right angles to the 



height 14-4 "ini- 



Depth of the alveolus of the canine, near 14.0 mm. 



There was no broad distance between the canine and the premolar, 

 the breadth of the septum between the two alveoli amounting to 

 14.5 mm. The canine evidently was human rather than anthropoid. 



Small as the fragment is, it nevertheless shows marked differenti- 

 ation in the .sharp external border and the long and broad flattening 

 of the under surface for the insertion of the digastric muscle. The 

 symphysis, however, was human-like and apparently already possessed 

 a slight chin. 



Considering the fragment alone. Dr. Weinert sees hardly any other 

 possibilities than that of regarding it as human. Had it been found 

 in Europe, it probably would have been attributed to the Neanderthal 

 stage. As it is, neither the circumstances of its discovery nor the 

 chemical, physical, and morphological characteristics of the speci- 

 men permit its definite classification. It appears somewhat more 

 human than, judging from the skullcap, would have been expected 

 for the Pithecanthropus. But conclusions one way or the other will 

 only become possible through further discoveries. 



The writer saw the fragment in 1923. Unfortunately so little is 

 left that, as later found by Weinert, definite conclusions appear for 

 the present impossible. The piece, while clearly belonging to a hutnan- 

 like mandible, conveys a strong impression of primitiveness, particu- 

 larly in regard to the lower border. This border presents a remarkable, 



' Weinert, Hans, Pithecanthropus crcctxis. Z. Anat. u. Entwicklungsgesch., 

 Vol. 87, pp. 522-524, I fig., 1928. 



