A Transitional Form between Man and the Apes. 11 
femur, which, in other respects, was very normal in its form. However, the 
situation of the exostosis below the trochanter minor, into which the psoas is 
inserted, does not well agree with the opinion of Virchow. 
The divergence of opinions regarding the interpretation of the skull-cap has 
been far greater than that concerning the femur. Whilst on the one side 
W. Krause,* at the January meeting of the Berlin Anthropological Society, stated, 
as his opinion, that the skull-cap belonged, without any doubt, to a large Ape, and 
on another occasion declared it to be that of a Hylobates ; whilst Waldeyert stated 
that the skull-cap might be attributed to a Hylobatide, and again (at the Anthro- 
pological Congress of Cassel), that it could only have belonged to a higher form 
of Anthropoid Ape; Professor Cunningham,} at a meeting of the Royal Dublin 
Society, regarded the cranium as undoubtedly human; and also Sir W. Turner§ 
and A. Keith|| considered it as a human remnant. Rudolf Martin] is of the same 
opinion, and finds a total conformity in all real points with the human skulls of 
Neanderthal and Spy. The reviewer in ‘“ Nature”** considers it as that of a 
microcephalic idiot. And more recently Topinardtt declares the skull-cap to be 
human and Neanderthaloid. He considers ‘‘la question jugée,” whilst, nearly at 
the same moment as his article appeared, three other famous Paris anthropologists, 
MM. Hamy, Manouvrier, and Verneau, declared, after having examined the skull 
itself, that it could not be human. At the Leiden Zoological Congress, Virchow 
declared the Java skull to be an Ape skull. In the opinion of Sir William 
Flower and Professor Marsh, who were present at the same session, it cannot be 
human, nor can it be regarded as that of a true Ape. 
Any one can see at a glance that this Java cranium is very large in 
comparison with the skulls of Anthropoid Apes. Its length is 185 mm., its 
breadth 130mm. The same dimensions in a female chimpanzee skull, an 
average one, are 132 and 91, those of the skull of a Hylobates syndactylus 95 
and 69. The three form exactly a geometrical series. The internal capacity of 
the cranium I estimated from a comparison of the length, breadth, and arch of 
the vertex of the skulls of the Chimpanzee and Hylobates, with the same linear 
dimensions of the fossil, and from the actual capacities of those Ape skulls, to 
have been about 1000 c.em. Manouvrier, estimating the capacity through the 
method of the cubic index, came to the same conclusion as I did. According to 
this we may take a skull capacity of about 1000 c.cm. as approaching very near 
the reality. 
What therefore is most striking in these measurements, as already from the 
* W. Krause, ‘‘ Verhandlungen der Berliner Anthropol. Gesellschaft,” 19. Januar 1895, xxvii, 
pp- 79 and 80. 
+ Waldeyer, zdzd., p. 88. { ‘‘ Nature,” 7. ¢. § lc. || 2. ¢. q Zc. e700: 
tt ‘‘L’Anthropologie, Septembre—Octobre, 1895,” tome vi., No. 5, p. 605. 
C2 
