290 BUREAU OF AMEEICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 52 



of bones of the rest of the skeleton, but they are in a very bad state of 

 preservation. It is the skull of a female. 



"Fourth example: Pieces of another cranium, which accompanied 

 the preceding and presents the same features." 



The principal characteristics of the crania of the Homo pampaeus 

 are outlined by Ameghino in footnote 3 on page 127 in his paper 

 on the Diprothomo, where, speaking of the Necochea skulls, he says: 



"These three skulls are of the same age as that of Miramar on 

 which I have founded the Homo pampseus. They all present the 

 same characteristics, including the excessively sloping forehead, 

 which is natural and not the result of an artificial deformation, as has 

 been alleged; all have the rostrum much prolonged forward and 

 the alveolar border and the denture orthognathic; all present a 

 glabella without backward inversion below, so that there is no 

 fronto-nasal depression; all present the last molar placed forward 

 of the most posterior part of the anterior border of the orbits; all 

 show the inferior border of the orbit placed considerably more forward 

 than the superior one; all are very dolichocephalic, with excessively 

 narrow forehead, great orbits, and other characteristics." 



In consequence, "Judging from the paleontologic standpoint, 

 Homo pampseus is a species very different from Homo sapiens; it 

 differs much more from the latter than the Homo primigenius. It is 

 even possible that when better known the Homo pampseus will result 

 to be a veritable Prothomo." 



The various specimens above named call for separate detailed 

 consideration. 



The Miramar (La Tigra) Skeleton 



history and reports 



The Miramar skull (pis. 35, 36) was first mentioned and pictured 

 by Ameghino in 1898.^ In 1900 the announcement was commented 

 on by Sievers^ and by Lehmann-Nitsche.^ The skull is mentioned 

 again prominently by Ameghino in 1906,^ and was described with 

 the rest of the bones of the skeleton by Lehmann-Nitsche in 1907.^ 

 Finally the cranium was noted extensively by Ameghino in 1909. 



Strangely enough, with all the prominence and attention the speci- 

 men has been given, almost nothing of importance is known about 

 its discovery. Ameghino ^ gives merely the general locality, with the 



'Ameghino, F., Sinopsis geol6gico-paleontol6gica; in Segundo Censo Nacional de la Republica Argentina, 

 1895, Buenos Aires, 1898, 1, p. 148, fig. 1.5. 



2 Sievers, P., Review of Ameghino's Sinopsis, etc., in Petermanns Mittheilungen. xwi. 1900, p. 72. 



5 Lehmann-Nitsche, R., Review of Ameghino's Sinopsis, etc.; in Cenlr. fiir Anthr., Ethn., und Urg., 

 V, Jena, 1900, pp. 112-113. 



'Ameghino, F., Les formations s6dimentaires ducr6tac6supericuret clu tertiairede Patagonie; in Anal. 

 Mus.Nac. Buenos Aires, XV (ser. iii, t. viii), 1906, pp. 447-450. 



^ Lehmann-Nitsche, R., Nouvelles recherches, etc. 



^Ameghino F., Le Diprothomo platensis; in Anal. Mus. Nac. Buenos Aires, xix (ser. iii, t. xii), 1909, pp. 

 156-190. 



