THE HUMAN SKULL 151 



which, renders it absolutely hopeless to count this 

 skull in the building up of any theory, since 

 opinions differing from one another toto coelo have 

 been set forward by men of equally great dis- 

 tinction and equal right to come to a conclusion 

 on the matter. I will leave aside the question of 

 the femur ; and with regard to the molars, which 

 are unusually large, will only quote the opinion 

 of A. Keith, that, from the size of the tooth, it is 

 clear that the animal which possessed it must have 

 had a long palate and very large temporal muscles, 

 whilst the fragment of skull shows only very small 

 indications of this muscle. I will turn to the frag- 

 ment of skull itself, that being the subject with 

 which we are now concerned, and will quote first 

 of all Dubois' own summary of the opinions con- 

 cerning it as given in his paper published by the 

 Royal Dublin Society : " Whilst on the one side 

 W. Krause, at the January meeting of the Berlin 

 Anthropological Society, stated, as his opinion, 

 that the skull-cap belonged without any doubt to 

 a large ape, and on another occasion declared it to 

 be that of a hylobates ; whilst Waldeyer stated 

 that the skull-cap might be attributed to a hylo- 

 batide, and again (at the Anthropological Congress 

 of Cassel) that it could only have belonged to a 

 higher form of anthropoid ape. Professor Cunning- 

 ham, at a meeting of the Royal Dublin Society, 

 regarded the cranium as undoubtedly human ; 

 and also Sir W. Turner and A. Keith considered 

 it as a human remnant. Rudolf Martin is of the 

 same opinion, and finds a total conformity in all 

 real points with the human skulls of Neanderthal 



