hrdliCka] skeletal EEMAINS OF EARLY MAN 217 



layer of humus, because the individual bones did not occupy their 

 natural relative positions, but were scattered over a rather large 

 surface and seem to have been exposed to some change of location at 

 a time when the water of the river stood higher. The carapace of the 

 Glyptodon mentioned was lying on the back, but somewhat obliquely, 

 and projected from the surface above the pelvis and a femur of the 

 same animal. [^1 However, no other bones of the animal were found, 

 and the Glyptodon had remained undisturbed until Roth dug it up. 

 Even if the human bones were in reality lying underneath the carapace, 

 which is not quite certain, it is out of the question to regard the cir- 

 cumstances of the deposit as trustworthy proof that the Pontimelo 

 man lived simultaneously with, or before, the Glyptodon. The Pampean 

 layer consists of a mass so loose and mobile that the objects contained 

 in it can not remain in all probability long in their original position. 

 Roth himself in one of the letters to Vogt has given a very significant 

 account of these conditions." 



The principal measurements of the Fontezuelas skull are (Hansen) : 



cm. 



Length 18. 5 



Breadth 13. 6 



Cephalic index '. 73. 5 



Basion-bregma height, about 14. 



Circumference 52. 



Transverse arc 31.5 



Nasion-opisthion arc 39. 



Diameter frontal minimum 9.7 



The stature is estimated at 151.5 m. The illustrations of the skull 

 are here reproduced (pi. 18). 



In 1889 Roth \vrote to Kollmami on the subject of the "Pontimelo " 

 skull. ^ This letter was incited by the remarks of Hansen, We learn 

 from it that the statement in Vogt, which refers to the finding below 

 the carapace of the glyptodon, of the pelvis and a femur of the same 

 animal, is erroneous and should read "pelvis and a femur of man." 

 Of the glyptodon there existed only a part of the carapace. There 

 are then references to the Carcarana, Saladero, and Baradero finds 

 of "fossil" human bones, with additional remarks on finds of ancient 

 stone implements and baked earth, but there is nothing further 

 concerning the details of the Fontezuelas discovery. 



In answer to this letter, Kollmann (ibid.) says, "the decision [as 

 to the antiquity of the skeleton] lies with the geologists. . . . We 

 in Europe can contribute next to nothing to the solution of these 

 pending questions ; we can only bring forward, as Hansen did, doubts 

 and reflections. Fortunately the skull of Fontezuelas is not the 



[' Copies Vogt's error; should read "of man."] 



2Uebcr den Schiidel von Pontimelo (richtiger Fontezuelas): in Mitth. anat. InstfVesalianum zu Basel, 

 1889, pp. 1-4; and in Lehmauu-Nitsuhe, NouvcUes recherches, etc., pp. 470-487. 



