272 NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS. 



attributed to Dri/ojnfhems foiitani. ]Jubois suggests that the Eppels- 

 heim anthropoid ape was much more hylobatian than Dryopithems, 

 and proposes to name it PJioln/lobate-s eppelslieimensis. Schlosser 

 demurs to this alteration, but as he admits the strongly-marked hylo- 

 batian characters of the femur, we think his position rather weak in 

 this case. In further reference to Dryopithecus, the work of v. Branco 

 on fossil teeth from the Suabian iron-ore deposits is described and 

 criticised. This discovery appears to be of the very greatest interest 

 and importance, for the teeth obtained from this miocene stratum are 

 admitted to be hardly distinguishable from human teeth ; but yet 

 the possibility of their human nature is regarded as inadmissible, 

 because hitherto no human remains have occurred in miocene deposits. 

 This argument does not appear to us to carry much weight, however. 

 V. Branco refers the teeth, therefore, to Dryopithecus, and to this 

 Schlosser seems to give a hesitating assent. 



V. Branco further discusses the relations of INIan and the fossil 

 anthropoid apes, and suggests that the anthropomorphous ancestor will 

 be found to have acquired the erect attitude, and to have possessed 

 arms shorter than its legs (in contradistinction to recent anthropoid 

 apes). As regards Pitliecantl tropics eredus, v. Branco regards it as a 

 member of an early hylobatian stock, from which the human ancestor 

 had already diverged. Dryopithems, too, was probably the represen- 

 tative of another collateral stock contemporary with Tertiary Man. 

 Professor Schlosser next proceeds to discuss the general position of 

 Dryopithecus more fully, and arrives at the conclusion that we must 

 admit that this form was very variable, certainly in regard to the 

 characters of the molar teeth, and probably in respect of other features 

 also, just as is the living Simia satyrus, as Selenka has lately so clearly 

 demonstrated. To Avhat forms Dryopithecus eventually gave rise is 

 not very dogmatically stated, as information is so scanty ; but it is 

 suggested that Simia and Troglodytes niger may represent the evolved 

 forms, but that the case is doubtful for Pithecanthropus eredus and 

 Palaeopjithecus sivalensis, while Man and Gorilla are certainly not to 

 be referred back to Dryopithecus. 



Finally, Pithecanthropus eredus is considered, and the question as 

 to whether it is to be regarded as a gigantic Hylohates is discussed 

 with great ability and lucidity. An additional interest may, perhaps, 

 be added to this part of the subject by mentioning that during the 

 recent International Congress for Prehistoric Archjieology and Anthro- 

 pology, held at Paris, Professor Virchow again affirmed that Pithe- 

 canthropus eredus was a gigantic Gibbon. Two points in Professor 

 Schlosser's comments appear to us specially noteworthy. In the first 

 place, Professor Schlosser deprecates the description of Pithecantli,rnpus 

 erectns as a gigantic HytoJiates, on the ground that small dimensions 

 are essential to such an Hylohates by reason of the terms in which 

 that Primate-form is defined. To speak of a " gigantic " Hylohates 

 would thus amount to a contradiction in terms. But the second, far 

 more important, and in fact the real point at issue, is not so much of 

 conferring a descriptive title on the animal as the answering of the 



