54 J- V. HuiiTKEANTZ 



and the reconstructed lower maxilla in (heir natural mutual position. 

 Compare PI. IV., fig. 5, which shows the original skull and the lower 

 jaw fragment. 



The circumstances discussed above seem to prove beyond a 

 doubt the possibility that the skull and lower maxilla are from the same 

 individual, and even in some measure to argue for the probability that 

 such is the case. Any positive efficiency as proofs can, nevertheless, 

 hardly be ascribed to the above circumstances, as the question was 

 only concerning the general characters of the maxillse, which in this 

 case did not differ greatly from the ordinary type. 



An argument of much greater value may, however, be extracted 

 from the relation of the teeth. Attention has already been called above 

 to the fact that the skull in question, at the time when the plaster 

 cast was taken, in the year 1823, still retained the right eye-tooth, 

 that its crown was worn off almost all the way to the root, and that 

 it showed two facets of detrition facing obliquely outwards. I con- 

 sider it allowable to draw from the last-mentioned facts the con- 

 clusion, that the cranium had a more than usually protruding lower 

 jaw; it is, namely, well known, that as a rule the eye-teeth, as well 

 as the incisors, of the upper jaw, jut somewhat forewards over the row 

 of teeth in the lower jaw, for which reason they are only slightly sub- 

 jected to detrition, and this principally on their inner side. 37 But it is 

 not less important in this connection, that the far-advanced wearing 

 of the eye-tooth in this case could not have taken place, if the oppo- 

 site teeth of the lower jaw, namely, the canine and the first bicuspid 

 of the same side, had not been preserved very far into old age and 

 enabled its use for chewing during a long succession of years. If we 

 now take a glance at the fragment of the lower maxilla before us, we 

 find that this exactly answers to the demands just made, for it still pre- 

 serves manifest remains of the canine and the bicuspids on the right 

 side (PI. IV., tigs. 1 — 2). The strong disintegration of the object unfor- 

 tunately makes impossible a closer study of the facets of detrition on 

 these teeth, but even their presence in the highly decayed row of 

 teeth very strongly supports the supposition that the cranium and the 

 lower maxilla belong together. 



