570 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1909. 
shovel had caused the two halves to separate along the line of sym- 
physis. It was discolored, and marked by incrustations of sand 
exactly as are all fossil bones from the Mauer sands. <A limestone 
pebble was so firmly cemented to the left half of the jaw, covering 
the premolars and first two molars, that the crowns of all four stuck 
to the pebble when the latter was removed. Both the jaw and the 
pebble were marked by dendritic formations. 
Fic. 19.—Sand pit at Mauer. The lower jaw was found at the spot marked with a 
cross. After Schoetensack, Der Unterkiefer des Homo Heidelbergensis, Taf. II, Leip- 
zig, 1908. 
Perhaps the first thing to attract one’s attention is the absence of 
a chin (pl. 13). The region of the symphysis is somewhat goril- 
loid, while the ascending ramus suggests rather the gibbon. The 
teeth, however, have a distinctly human stamp, not only in their gen- 
eral appearance, but also in point of size—larger than the average, 
but smaller than in exceptional cases to be found among the Aus- 
tralians, for instance. One is impressed, in fact, by the relative 
smallness of the teeth as compared with the massive jaw in the case 
of Homo heidelbergensis. The alveolar arch is almost long enough, 
for example, to allow space for a fourth molar. JT noted the same 
phenomenon in a collection of recent crania from Gazelle Peninsula, 
New Britain. In one of these the alveolar arch of the upper jaw 
@ American Anthropologist, 1902, n. s., vol. 4, 474. 
