315 
his teeth have very large pulp cavities, were consequently amply 
provided with blood-vessels and nerves, and therefore very sensitive 
organs of touch (which are more necessary with vegetarian food 
than with a carnivorous way of living). The robust lower jaw 
possesses no chin, or only a rudimentary one; it is strengthened at 
the place on the inner side (in accordance with the inwardly directed 
masticatory muscles); the angular part, which is blunted on the edge, 
is thin and directed inward, like the masticatory muscles, again 
indicative that the food was rather ground fine than bitten. Nor is 
the upper dental arcade considerably broader than the lower one, 
as in Homo sapiens, but the two arcades cover each other more or 
less. It is remarkable that the form of the nasal aperture differs 
still more from the simian type than that of Homo sapiens. 
It will appear sufficiently from this short description that Homo 
neandertalensis was specialized to such an extent morphologically 
and biologically that first, he must be distinguished as a separate 
species from modern Man — the differences are indeed greater than 
those by which it is usual to distinguish two species of mammals 
of one genus —, secondly that the present type of man cannot 
possibly be derived from him. In many respects modern Man is 
more primitive, less specialized than the Neandertal Man, just as the 
African Elephant of these times is more primitive and less specialized 
than the diluvial Elephas primigenius, the Mammoth. 
It is true that so many primitive or pithecoid characters are still 
very generally ascribed to Homo neandertalensis that this type is 
put at a lower stage of human evolution than modern Man; but 
when we have got to know them better, not a few of these 
characters will probably be explained as the direct consequence 
of particular physiological, mechanical adaptations, as phenomena 
of convergence. It is not astonishing that one species of Homo 
possesses some primitive or pithecoid morphological characters which 
another lacks, and these strike us particularly in Homo neander- 
talensis, because we know those of the other, our own species, 
better. We are, therefore, easily inclined, and think ourselves justi- 
fied in considering some characters as primitive, which in reality 
are not so, and in even supposing other primitive characteristics 
when the species is concerned that is only known in a fossil, i.e. 
incomplete state. We may expect that the number of these will be 
greatly reduced on increase of our knowledge, because it has actually 
already appeared that we have made a mistake in Homo neander- 
talensis as regards the most important character that distinguishes 
Man from the Apes, the very great relative brain quantity. Up to 
