that he ought, injustice to his subject, to have made it plain 

 that this view of the portion of the cranium in question is 

 not universally held. Without mentioning other writers, 

 reference may fairly be made to the exhaustive paper by 

 Macnamara in the Archie fur Anthropologie for 1 903 (xxviii, 

 ss. 349-360), the conclusion arrived at in which is that the 

 Java skull and that of a chimpanzee so closely resemble one 

 another that there can be little doubt that both belong to the 

 same or nearly allied families, that is, that the Java skull is 

 that of an ape not an ape-like man. We might also be allowed 

 to point out that the nature of eoliths is still a most contro- 

 verted question, and that their origin as the work of human 

 hands has been rendered, to say the least of it, doubtful by 

 recent observations made in France. Moreover, even if they 

 are of human make, their gealogical position is by no means 

 as clearly defined as the writer would have us believe. 

 Finally, we may utter a plaint that a book so full of facts 

 as this is should have been allowed to have been issued from 

 the press without a preface. B.C.A.W. 



