82 PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 
Tables of dimensions, §:c.—Continued. 
Collectors’ No. 
bs reas 
= | fe 
: Bo) ines 
A A a eet 1 e fa | - . id 5 } n QD 
2 ec is | Sg oe (od ESE il ile i see bes 
Ao ajy|| eatin | 4 Wee ey ane cathe |: As ae 
j ] I mo. mos Pte pa el | Bak eT en ie | - | 
Dimensions. SS |S8| 5a} Ss | SS] 54 / So | Ss | 5S | "ae oo) | oe 
opr of ops | yan aloo ora oN aL epe- (hie oc 2B mos 
jon | o@ kan | og | oS | oS | oF | oF | OS |] BAI gs = 
A aS teg= |) ax en = am |] an an 1 Oo & fa 
—, | —o = — |e = = = tt 2 3) oO 
D ( o a) o ; wo v ; o iy b b b 
2g 2 | + ~ {ees » » | +2 pers | ra | 
PRIDE UMP e | iror Nah | e7. a D n A 4 < 
= SS ——E — fae ——— = = — = — ae — ee 
S | | | | 
Supposed sex....-....-..- o Soe ee ona f°) Q 
mm.| mm. mm. mm. mm. , Mmm. , MM.; mM. mM. | 
3. Distance from coro- | | | | | 
noid process to in- | | | | | i 
ferior, posterior | | 
anoles... 88 Pe ace | 280 | 280, 292 | 290} 256 
4. Distance from tuber- | | 
ositas of posterior | | 
margin of vert. ram. | | | 
to inferior, posterior | | | 
| 
320 | 308] 307| 316) 321 280 314 
angle .-.--- -..-----| 161 | 188! 189] 181 | 154/|191 | 201 | 190! 184) 909) d7aje0ie5 
. Height of symphysis | | | 
at posterior margin 85 86 86 | 81 88; 90; 93 94 | 108 90 85 | 95 
. Smallest breadth of 
vertical ramus. ----. Lae, LOS) PLUG) PTS) 98 120 119 | 5 124 119 111 119 
. Distanceofcondyles..| 244 225 254 250 230 231 | 225 242 232 | 219 241 230 
. Distance between the | | | | H 
inferior, posterior | | | | | | | 
anglest: Antette. s- 139 | 145 187 164 | 152; 96 91 | 124 129 | 107 157 109 
| | | 
_ 
e 
i) 
ont a on 
* These jaws evidently do not belong to the skulls having the corresponding numbers on the forego- 
ing table, although they were brought to me together by the natives. As the skulls and mandibles are 
seldom found together, the natives choose the best-preserved mandible or the one corresponding best 
as to color, the more as these bones are by no means scarce.. This I had decided long before we had 
conjectured the difference of the sexes, and it will be seen that the remark is also applied to a specimen 
(No. 1056) in which the supposed sex in both parts agrees. 
As [have already remarked, it is very unusual to get a skull with its 
authentic mandible, for which reason they in all cases ought to be 
looked upon with critical eyes. The only instance in which I am sure 
that the two parts belong together is my No. 1110, and as this specimen 
(in a very good state of preservation) has been regarded by us as the 
type of the male form, the lower jaws showing a different style are con- 
sequently considered to belong to the females. 
The differences between the two groups are perhaps more striking in 
the mandibles than in the other parts of the skull, although the in- 
dividual variations are very conspicuous too. In general the supposed 
female mandible is higher, with broader rami, higher symphysis, and 
more protracted posterior angles, which are bent inwardly towards 
each other, while in the male they are straight or somewhat turned out- 
ward. Thus the proportion between the distance of the two angles and 
the height of the vertical ramus is very different in the two sexes and 
may be formulated as follows: 
In the male the distance from the articular surface of the condyles to 
the posterior angle is less than twice the distance between the tips of — 
the posterior angles, while the proportion is the reverse in the female. — 
The words “ articular surface of the condyles ” can also be replaced by 
‘“‘coronoid process,” only that the formula then must be altered so as to 
read, that the distance from the coronoid process to the posterior angle 
