DISCUSSION 181 



been some justification for Dr. Plotz' s in- 

 dignation, but I was careful to guard myself 

 against any possible misinterpretation. 



Dr. Plotz said that he did not consider the matter 

 to be by any means so simple. He referred to the 

 five cranial lines on a photograph shown during 

 the third lecture. (He was alluding to Macna- 

 mara's five cranial lines.) Father Wasmann had 

 shown in a very convincing way that the cranial 

 line of the Neandertal man and that of the Austra- 

 lian black almost coincided with one another. 

 But it was possible for the audience to notice in 

 silence that the cranial line of the Pithecanthropus 

 erectus, the ape-man from Java, occupied a position 

 midway between that of the Neandertal man and 

 the outline sketched beneath it, which represented 

 the skull of a gibbon. (The speaker meant to say 

 a chimpanzee.) This was an opportunity of supply- 

 ing Father Wasmann' s omission. 



From the size of the Java skull nothing can 

 be inferred, as I said in my lecture, than that 

 its owner must have been a very large ape. 



To enable us to appreciate justly the relative 

 positions of the Neandertal man and of the Pithec- 

 anthropus, Dr. Plotz regarded it as essential to 

 compare their estimated or calculated cranial 

 capacity with that of an ape on the one hand, and 

 that of a man on the other. This comparison would 



