WHOLE VOL. SKELETAL REMAINS OF EARLY MAN — HRDLICKA 



97 



The differences of the Mauer jaw from that of a recent German 

 are very marked, especially in the antero-posterior dimensions of the 

 whole bone, in its bicoronoid breadth, in the breadth of the ramus, 

 in the depth of the notch, in the an<^lc, in the antero-posterior diameter 

 of the condyles, in the thickness of the body, in the proportions of the 

 dental arch, and in those of the molar teeth. 



COMPARISON OF THE DIMENSIONS OF THE MAUER JAW WITH 

 THOSE OF A RECENT JAW OF A STRONG MALE ESKIMO^ 



Whole Bone: Median 



length 



Breadth: 



Bigonial 



Bicoronoid 



Bicondylar 



Corpus: Length, mean.. 

 Ramus: 



Height, mean 



Breadth min., mean. 

 Notch, depth max. . . 



Angle 



Condyles: Transverse 



diam 



Antero-post. diam. . . 

 Corpus: 



Height less teeth at 



symphysis 



at M I 



at M2 



Thickness max. at 



symphysis 



at M I 



at M2 



Mauer Eskimo 



cm. 

 10.5 



10.8 

 113 

 131 

 12.3 



6.85 



51 

 0.8 



105° 



2.25 

 I 35 



3-5 

 3-35 

 317 



2-5 

 1.87 

 2.07 



cm. 

 9 3 



12. 1 



9 9 



12.8 



113 



71 



4 95 



1 .2 



118° 



2.45 

 I 25 



4-5 

 3-95 

 3 65 



2.0 



1.8 



1.85 



Dental Arch: Median 



length 



Breadth max., ext. . . 



Index 



Teeth: Length of the 3 



molars in position . 



Relative Sizes 



Ml, labiolingual 

 diam 



M2, length 



breadth 



index 



Mauer 



cm. 

 5.85 

 705 

 83.0 



36 

 M2 



Ml 



M3 



mm. 



II .2 



12.8 



12.0 



93-7 



Eskimo 



cm. 



58 



6.7 



86.6 



3-5 

 Ml 

 M2 

 M3 

 mm. 



12.5 



12.0 



12.3 



102.5 



' No. 339,064, U. S. Nat. Mus.; from Tanunuk, Nelson Island, Western Alaska; collected 1927 

 by Collins and Stewart. 



An even more interesting comparison perhaps will be that of the 

 Mauer jaw with a recent powerfully developed jaw of an Eskimo 

 the ascending rami of which, both in their breadth and form, approach 

 considerably those of the fossil bone. The measurements are given 

 in the above table. 



Notwithstanding the approach of the Eskimo to the Mauer jaw in 

 various respects it is seen nevertheless that the fossil specimen still 

 exceeds the recent one in total length in the bicoronoid and bicondylar 

 breadth, in the antero-ix)sterior diameter of the condyles, in the 



