274 NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS. 



dimensions of the femur, are all discussed at length. Then follows a 

 detailed research on the femoral characters of quite a number of 

 Primates of all kinds, and a summary of the results is furnished in a 

 separate table of notes. The Primates are grouped according to their 

 femoral characteristics. The fossil members of this order are also 

 investigated and compared with the existing representatives. As 

 regards the various measurements made and indices calculated, that 

 which the author calls the " Bandradien Index " has proved the most 

 satisfactory. This index is based on the comparison of lines drawn in 

 the horizontal and vertical directions respectively to the margin of the 

 inferior and posterior articular surface of the femur, from the impres- 

 sion indicative of the attachment of the external lateral ligament. 

 The essential difference between the femora of Man and of the anthro- 

 poid apes consists in the fact of the superiority of the vertical over 

 the horizontal radius in the former, whereas in the latter the opposite 

 relation holds good. Perhaps the most interesting part of Dr 

 Bumiiller's work consists in the comparison of the femur of Pithecan- 

 tliropus with those of other Primates. The conclusion arrived at is that 

 the evidence for the intermediate or transitional position of the Javan 

 fossil is insufficient; that the femur of Fithecanfhrojms ered us tested in 

 a variety of ways, shows, time after time, similarities with the femora 

 of lower Primates rather than with those of human beings ; that in 

 consequence, Pithecmitliropus erectus cannot be regarded as human ; 

 and further, that while the femur possesses certain points of similarity 

 with those of the various anthropoid apes, yet it finds its nearest 

 counterpart in proportions, if not in absolute size, among the Gibbons, 

 so that Virchow's opinion is hereby corroborated. It is also important 

 to notice that Dr Bumiiller believes that Pithecanfhwpus erectus had 

 not acquired the erect attitude. AVithout entering into a detailed 

 account of the several arguments, it is not possible to explain the steps 

 which, in Dr Bumiiller's opinion, lead to the latter conclusion. It 

 must suffice to say that the characters of the calvaria of Pitliecantliro- 

 pus include several which will not be easily explained in accordance 

 with that supposition. In Dr Bumiiller's opinion, "the" tooth (pre- 

 sumably that which was first found, although, when Dr Bumiiller 

 ■wrote his dissertation in 1899, two more teeth had been brought to 

 light) presents characters which approximate their possessor to one or 

 other of the larger anthropoid apes rather than to any member of tho 

 Hylobatian family. On the whole, then, this agreement in characters, 

 first with one, then with another member of the Primates, impresses 

 one very strongly with the fact that we have here to deal with a com- 

 paratively generalised form, and not necessarily a gigantic H/jIohafes, 

 as Dr Bumiiller would have us believe. In fact, according to Pro- 

 fessor Schlosser, the Javan primate might, if judged by the calvaria 

 and femur alone, have figured in the direct ancestry of man. From 

 this latter view, however, 1 )ubois himself seems to have withdrawn 

 in his later writings; of this there is, I think, good evidence in the 

 article in the Monthly International Journal of Anatomy and Physi- 

 ology, vol. xiii., as well as in the later paper by Dubois in the Pro- 



