500 



ANNUAL KEPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1913. 



The impression which a comprehensive study of the whole skull 

 cap carries to the observer is, that it represents a hitherto unknown 

 primate form, which, whatever it may eventually be identified with 

 and whether or not man's direct ancestor, stands morphologically 

 between man and the known anthropoid apes, fills an important space 

 in the hitherto existing large void between the two, and constitutes 

 a precious document for the natural history of man. 



Dubois's theoretical restoration of the whole cranium of the Pithe- 

 canthropus, which in all probability comes fairly near to the reality, 

 is shown in the foregoing illustration (fig. 2). 



The two teeth attributed to the Pithecanthropus are the second left 

 and the third right upjDer molars. The latter is shown, in reduction, 

 on plate 4. According to Dubois, they both present the same type, 

 which, particularly in the development of the cusps, is markedly ape- 

 like ; but Tomes ^ pronounces them " not exactly like any known 

 teeth, either human or simian." Judging from the models of these 

 teeth which the writer saw at Haarlem, they are decidedly unlike 

 any human molars, but approach those of the higher anthropoids. 

 Both have bulky but rather low crowns, and stout, not too long, 

 strongly diverging roots. In size they exceed considerably the same 

 teeth in man, as will be seen from the comparisons given herewith; 

 their relative dimensions (that is, the ratio of breadth to length) 

 are, however, rather nearer the human form than that in most of 

 the large apes. 



Comparison of the corresponding molars of modern white man and the Pithe- 

 canthropus. 



Second left upper 

 molar. 



Greatest 

 length 



(sieittal 

 diam- 

 eter). 



Greatest 

 breadth 

 (trans- 

 verse di- 

 ameter). 



Third right upper 

 molar. 



Greatest 

 length. 



Greatest 

 breadth. 



Average white man, approximate. 

 Pithecanthropus 



mm. 

 9.5 

 12.0 



mM. 

 11.0 

 14.0 



mm. 

 9.0 

 11.3 



mm. 

 10.5 

 15.3 



On the whole, it seems evident that the two teeth represent a higher 

 primate form; in all probability they come from one individual, 

 and their morphological characteristics are such that they may well 

 have belonged to the same species or even the same individual as the 

 before- described skullcap. Their size, as seen from a comparison 

 with the teeth of larger existing anthropoid apes, is not incompatible 

 with the size of the skullcap, and that even if the latter belonged 

 to a female individual. 



' Dental anatomy, 8°, London, 1904, p. 560. 



