310 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [edll. 52 



toward the posterior part and, in prolonging the same to complete 

 the segment wliich is wanting, one obtains an almost identical 

 contour of the vault as that of the first-known example [Miramar], 

 which is raising so much unjustified criticism. . . . 



"The prolongation forward of the rostrum gives rise to facial 

 prognathism so considerable that the anterior alveolar border of the 

 intermaxillary is 3 cm. more forward than the most prominent part 

 of the glabella." 



One of the characteristics which according to Professor Amegliino 

 distinguish Homo immi^seus is the position of the teeth; these are 

 said to be placed considerably farther forward than in Homo sajnens, 

 a " condition which stands in relation with the primitive prognathism 

 of the rostrum." To obtain an idea of this forward position of the 

 denture, one needs, according to Ameghino, only to trace a vertical 

 line tangent to the most posterior point of the orbital arch — this line 

 passes back of the last superior molar and the same is the case in the 

 first example [Miramar]. "It is then plainly a distinctive character- 

 istic of this species. . . 



"Tliis same vertical Ime if prolonged upward separates an anterior 

 segment of the frontal bone the surface of which is flattened and 

 faces upward in the Diprothomo, is feebly arched and facing upward 

 and forward in the Homo pamqyxus, and is strongly convex in Homo 

 sapiens of elevated race, forming an arch the convexity of which 

 faces forward. 



[P. 173] "As to the lower jaw, the chin is very prominent. In the 

 tliird example [^] here figured the chin is as protruding as in the first 

 [Miramar]. . . . This conformation, which is believed to be very 

 recent, is to the contrary excessively ancient and reaches probably to 

 the very origin of the Hominiens." 



The foregoing information was evidently considered sufficient, for 

 it is all that we have from Ameghino on the Necochea specimens of 

 the HoTYio pampseus. 



The Necochea finds here dealt with are merely touched on in 1910 

 by Lehmann-Nitsche ^ but are considered later in that year more in 

 detail by Mochi.^ 



Lehmann-Nitsche sees nothing, morphologically, in these remains 

 that would separate them from the Indians; in age he regards them as 

 Quaternary, Superior Pampean. 



Mochi devotes considerable attention to the Necochea skull No. 2 

 (Homo pampsFMS, example No. 3), the specimen described and pictured 



[1 Third example of Homo pampseus, illustrated in Ameghino's " Le Diprothomo" memoir, in figs. 7-11 of 

 Mochi's paper and in pis. 43-45 of the present work. It is No. 5008 of the Museo Nacional. The reference 

 to these skulls as first, second, etc., is confusing.] 



2 Lehmann-Nitsche, R., EI hombre f6sil pampeano; in Bol. Oflc. Nac. Est., La Paz, Bolivia, vi, 1910, 

 p. 364. 



3 Mochi, A., Appunti sulla paleoantropologia argentina; in Arch, per I'Anir. e la Etn., XL, Firenze, 1910, 

 p. 224 et seq. 



