A Transitional Form between Man and the Apes. Z. 
Sir William Turner,* A. Keith,t also a reviewer in ‘‘ Nature,’t and further 
Paul Matschie,§ Rudolf Martin,|| and A. Pettit,4] consider both the femur and 
the calvaria for anatomical reasons as human remains. Professor Cunningham 
and Sir William Turner only doubt their individual connection, but only because 
they misunderstood my too short statements of the circumstances of their 
discovery. 
Others, indeed, deny all organic connection of the fossil skull and femur. 
They declared the skull simian, the femur human. 
Till very recently nobody followed me in absolutely regarding the remains 
as evidence of a transitional form between Man and Apes. Only Professor 
Manouvrier** in Paris, and Professor Marshtt in America, admitted the possibility 
of it. 
Regarding the femur, almost all who have made any observations on it, from 
my description or from personal inspection, agree on this point that they take it 
for the thigh-bone of a Man. With this, indeed, the fossil bone accords so well 
respecting its dimensions as well as considering the mechanical relations and the 
contours, asI myself already emphatically stated, that this interpretation seems to 
be the right one. Nobody, further, had the slightest doubt that the femur must have 
belonged to a form with an erect posture. Virchow}{} alone repeatedly maintained— 
even after having personally examined the bone—the possibility that it might have 
belonged to an Ape, especially to a Hylobates, because it has, in his opinion, a 
straight candle-like shaft, such as never occurs in Man, but is characteristic of 
the femur in the genus Hylobates. One can easily see, however, that the shaft of 
the fossil bone is by no means straight. It may be that the bending forward is 
not so strong as on the average in Man; in many human thigh-bones we can find 
it in a corresponding degree. Neither can I follow Virchow in his opinion that 
the fossil femur shows no essential differences with that of a Hylobates. We have 
only to compare their condyles with one another and with those of Man and the 
larger Anthropoid Apes, to be convinced that, indeed, a great difference exists. 
* Sir W. Turner, ‘‘ Journal of Anatomy and Physiology,” vol. xxix., p. 444. 
} A. Keith, ‘Science Progress,’ July, 1895, vol. iii., No. 17, pp. 8348-369. 
t ‘‘ Nature,” January 24th, 1895, vol. li., p. 291. 
§ P. Matschie, ‘‘ Naturwissenschaftl. Wochenschrift,” 1895, Bd. x., pp. 81, 82. 
|| R. Martin, ‘‘ Globus,” 1895, Bd. Ixvii., pp. 213-217. 
q A. Pettit, ‘‘ L’ Anthropologie,” 1895, tome vi., pp. 65-69. 
** TL, Manouvrier, ‘‘ Bulletins de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris,” Discussion du 3 Jany. 1895, 
pp. 12-47. 
tf O. C. Marsh, ‘‘ American Journal of Science,” vol. xlix., Feb., 1895, pp. 144-147. 
tt R. Virchow, ‘‘ Verhandlungen der Berliner Anthropologischen Gesellschaft,” 19. Januar 1895. 
Jahrg. xxvii., pp. 86, 87; and ‘‘ Die Nation,” 26, October 1895, p. 54. 
