332 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 52 



of the sagittal increases in width as usual from before backward, 

 reaching 11 mm. at the break. 



Ventrally, the Diprothomo fragment shows some rather large 

 depressions for Pacchionian bodies and shallow impressions of brain 

 convolutions. The cavity for the frontal lobes is fairly spacious 

 and the frontal portion of the brain was broadly rounded from side to 

 side, as general in modern man. The meTopic ridge is very moderate. 



Finally, the thickness of the Diprothomo bone, ranging from 3.5 to 

 7.5 mm. for the frontal squama and from 4.5 to 9 mm. for the 

 parietals, is quite ordinary as compared with the same measurement 

 in the Indian and even in the white. 



As to the size of the Diprothomo skull when entire, the evidence 

 available indicates that it was between 18.5 and 19 cm. long, and 

 between 13.6 to 13.9 cm. broad. It was fairly but not very high; its 

 capacity was surely not below 1,350, more probably between 1,400 

 and 1,500 cc. 



CONCLUSIONS 



The sum of the results of the writer's study of the Buenos Aires 

 skull fragment, regardless of its uncertain liistory, is that the 

 specimen fails utterly to reveal any evidence which would justify its 

 classification as a representative of a species of ancient Primates, pre- 

 mediate forerunners of the human being, the Diprothomo. Every 

 feature shows it to be a portion of the skull of man himself; it bears 

 no evidence even of having belonged to an early or physically primi- 

 tive man, but to a well-developed and physically modern-like human 

 individual. While this individual was in all probabihty an Indian, 

 a decisive racial identification in the absence of so many important 

 parts of the specimen is impossible. The few pecuharities wliich the 

 skull possesses are, even if taken all together, of only secondary bio- 

 logic importance, such as are found in many Indians. The faulty 

 anthropologic status given the specimen in the first report thereon 

 was in the main the result of the before-mentioned fundamental 

 error of placing and considering the fragment in a wrong plane, an 

 incident wliich only accentuates the need of placing all similar speci- 

 mens having an apparent or real bearing on man's antiquity, in 

 the hands of an experienced anthropologist. 



The ordinary nature of the fragment will be further appreciated 

 from the measurements given in the table that follows: 



