635 



All examiiicxtioii of (lie skulls of papuaiis, broiiglit home by the 

 LoRKNTz' expedition from Dnteh South Nevv-Giiiiiea, augmented with 

 a number of papuan skulls, sent to me by the military-surgeon 

 DE KocK from Ihe same district, showed such relations in the pleric 

 region, that made a closer examination necessary. 



A study of the concerning literature teaches, that the different 

 investigations on tlie proc. frontalis as well as on the pteric bones 

 are nearly all of a statistical nature, and do not reckon with the 

 condition of the two opposite sides of the same skull. As a conse- 

 quence of this way of investigation, the dillerent forms of processus 

 frontalis are always explained in the same way. Only Gkubek ^) 

 mentions two forms of a fronto-temporal suture. 



The examination of 114 papuan skulls drew my attention to three 

 questions, viz. 1 that several forms of proc. frontalis must be dis- 

 cerned. 2 that for the judging of the character of a processus fron- 

 talis the two opposite sides of the same skull must be mutually 

 compared and 3 that the processus frontalis and the pteric bones 

 must be compared with each other. 



Regarding the first point I observe that (wo forms of proc. frontalis 

 ossis temporalis must be distinguished. I call these two forms of 

 proc. frontalis type 1 and type II. 



Type I shows a projecting part at the upper border of the squama 

 temporalis, as is seen in figure 1. By prolonging the suture between 

 temporale and the alisphenoid in upward direction, as is done in 



Fig. 1. 



Fig. 2. 



^) Gruber W.Über die Verbintlung der Schlafenbeinschuppe mit dem Stirnbeine. 1874. 



