PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY i 47 



individuals, as well as those which are still swarming, as foreign bodies, ingesting and 

 devouring them instead of admitting them into the plasmodial organisation. 



The nuclei of myxomycetes and of the fungi resemble the nuclei of higher plants, and 

 in those which have a known sexual phase nuclear meiosis is intercalated at some stage 

 in the life history. 



See W. Bally, " Cytologische studen an Chytridineen," Prings. JaTirb., Bd. 50 (1911); 

 Claussen, "Zur entwicklungsgesch. d. Ascomyceten," Zeitsch. fur Botanik, Bd. iv (1912); 

 J. H. Paul, "The Cytology of the Laboulbeniales," Annals of Botany, vol. 25 (1911); E. 

 Jahn, "Myxomycetenstudien," 8, Ber.Deut. Bot. Gesellsch,, 25 (19.11); A. Meyer, Die Zelle 

 der Bakterien, (Jena 1912), a useful summary of our knowledge of the bacterial organism. 



(J. B. FARMER.) 



ANTHROPOLOGY 



r ; .,; I,. Physical Anthropology. 1 



i. Fossil Man; Homo Primigenius. In the course of the last five years, additions 

 of exceptional value: have been made to the stock of material evidence bearing on the 

 characters of early prehistoric man. The outstanding general result consists in the 

 complete recognition now accorded to the remains of Homo primigenius as a distinct 

 type differing from all others whether prehistoric or modern. Prior to the finding 

 of the Piltdown skull, late in 1912 (see under BIOLOGY above),; the discoveries of 

 greatest importance were made in France and Germany, 2 and their significance may 

 be summed up as follows. 



. For many years the skeleton from the Neanderthal (E. B. xix, 321) remained 

 almost isolated. The fossil jawbone from La Naulette (Belgium) and the Forbes 

 Quarry skull (Gibraltar) had been in evidence almost as long, but the former is but a 

 small fragment, and the importance of the latter was neglected or ignored. Moreover 

 the real significance of the Neanderthal skeleton was a subject of speculation, owing 

 partly to the lack of precise information as to its exact surroundings. Thirty years 

 after that discovery, the announcement that skeletons of comparable form had been 

 found near Spy in Belgium (1887) restored the Neanderthal man to prominence, and 

 revived all the interest of this department of prehistoric anthropology. 



Yet another decade had to elapse before the Krapina specimens were added (1899) 

 to the list, though in that interval Professor Dubois had made his wonderful discovery 

 of Pithecanthropus at Trinil in Java (1892). The site at Krapina (in Croatia) continued 

 to reward the labours of Professor Kramberger until 1905, but from other regions no 

 further records of importance are to be noted before the year 1907. From that time 

 onwards, additional evidence has accumulated, and it is fair to say that if the Trinil 

 fossils be excepted, the finds of the last five years are of more importance than the* 

 sum total of those made during the preceding half-century. Thus between 1907 and 

 the finding of the Piltdown remains the following examples were placed on record: (a) 

 The fossil jaw from the Mauer sands near Heidelberg; (b) The skeleton from the 

 Moustier in France; (c) The skeleton from La Chapelle-aux-Saints (France); (d) The 

 fossil teeth from S. Brelade's Bay (Jersey); (e) The skeleton from La Quina (France); 

 (f) The three skeletons from La Ferrassie (France). 



The Mauer jaw claims by far the greatest interest of these specimens, and it was 

 equalled indeed up to 1912 by the Trinil fossils alone. With the exception of the 

 Mauer jaw, the remaining " finds " are unhesitatingly referable to one and the same 

 type,.m. that of the men of the Neanderthal, Spy and Krapina. The details upon 

 which this conformity is established are accessible in the exhaustive accounts furnished 

 by Professors Boule, Schwalbe, and Klaatsch, and it will suffice here to note that the 

 advent of the new material is not merely confirmatory of views based upon the earlier 

 finds, for it supplies information on numbers of details which were previously unknown. 

 Thus the osteological characters of Homo primigenius can be illustrated now by a 

 wealth of material which is almost comparable to that available for such extinct animals 



1 See E. B.\\, 108 et seq., and allied articles (see E. B. Index Volume, p. 883). 



2 Duckworth, Prehistoric Man, 1912 (for a general review and bibliography). 



