218 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 52 



only evidence which makes the existence of man in those regions 

 in the time of the large South American mammals seem highly 

 probable." 



In 1889 also, as already mentioned, the Fontezuelas find is referreji 

 to, but with a bad error, in Ameghino's work on the fossil mammals 

 of Argentina.^ Ameghino concludes that, on the basis of the available 

 data, "this skeleton belongs really to the Superior Pampean, to its 

 most superficial layers, being much more modern than that of Mer- 

 cedes [Arroyo de Frias] and that of the Rio Samborombon." 



In 1891 Kobelt speaks of the find,- following Ameghino, and sug- 

 gests indirectly the name Homo pliocenicus for the new species of 

 man represented by the Fontezuelas skeleton. 



In 1902 Virchow ^ returns in a few words to the "Pontimelo" 

 skull. He says: "Of the oldest crania in America, such as could be 

 ascribed to the diluvial if not to even the Tertiary period, there are 

 known in general only peculiar cases, with whicli one can do but 

 little;" and then deplores his error in having considered the skull of 

 "Pontimelo," on the strength of a photograph, brachycephalic. 



Some brief remarks concerning the Fontezuelas and other Ter- 

 tiary skeletons are found in a later (1906) publication by Ameghino,* 

 which read as follows: 



"The remains of man from the Superior Pliocene (Fontezuelas) 

 indicate a small race, reaching the height of approximately 1.50 m., 

 with a frontal curve of medium elevation, without or with only 

 slight supraorbital swellings, with asternal perforation and 18 dorso- 

 lumbar vertebrae. P] These last characteristics are very primitive 

 and this race was made a distinct species, named by Kobelt Homo 

 pliocenicus.^^ 



Finally, in 1907, the Fontezuelas human bones are dealt with by 

 Lehmann-Nitsche ** who reexamined them and gave a detailed report 

 on their physical characteristics. Nothing is added to the already- 

 mentioned data concerning the circumstances of the find. Lehmann- 

 Nitsche's own statement begins with the rather naive assertions that, 

 "having studied personally the originals at Copenhagen, I can affirm 

 without fear of being mistaken that all the debris of the skeleton 

 came undoubtedly from the Pampean formation. All the peculiar- 

 ities which they present are absolutely identical with those which 

 one observes in the bones of the great mammals that are so well 

 known, which fact has also been expressly remarked by Hansen 



1 Contribuei6n al conorimiento de los mamlfpros f6siles, etc., p. 67. 



The account speaks in one place of the skeleton as having been found in, instead of under, the 

 carapace of a glyptodon, an error later copied by Kobelt. 



^Ameghinos Forschungen in den Argentinischen Pampas; in Globus, Bd., lix. Braunschweig, 1891, pp. 

 132-13G. 



' Crania ethnicaamericana, Berlin, 1892, p. 29. 



* Les formations sedimentaires, etc.; in Anal. Afu.t. Nac. Buenos Aires, xv (ser. 3, t. vni), 1906, p. 447. 



PThe last two features relate to the Samboronib6n skeleton (p. 233). J 



' Nouvelles recherches, etc., pp. 253-2%. 



