336 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 52 



below the superior orbital borders. This descending part is developed 

 more or less in man, but it is never missing. It is completely absent 

 in the Dijirothomo." 



The conclusion is that ''notwithstanding the characteristics which 

 approximate the Diprothomo to man, he departs from the same more 

 than the Anthropomor'phs and the larger part of other apes by the 

 features wliich I have examined." And the last sentence is especially 

 noteworthy: "The anthropologists can class it in the genus Homo, 

 but from the point of view of the zoologists and the paleontologists 

 it constitutes a distinct genus, one wliich is considerably removed 

 from that of man." 



Toward the end of 1910 * Mochi published his second paper on the 

 "fossil" human remains of Argentina but the Diprothomo receives no 

 further consideration. Soon afterward, however, Ameghino published 

 two more papers on the subject of the Diprothomo and some of the 

 other "fossil" human remains of Argentina previously described by 

 him. The first of these notes will be referred to later. In the second 

 Ameghino 2 deals further with ISIochi's statements: He points out that 

 the Itahan writer made his observations (in regard to the Diprothomo 

 as well as on the other specimens he examined) too hastily and that 

 he "falls very frequently into errors more considerable than those he 

 pretends to correct." As to the geologic questions, Mochi "treated 

 them superficially and without even a mediocre knowledge either of 

 the facts or of the corresponding literature." As to the more recent 

 strata, especially, his presentation "is a veritable pele-mele of ideas, 

 facts, and of almost inextricable quotations, where the facts are 

 tortured under all possible forms to make them accord with the 

 prejudices which here burst from all sides" (p. 62). And there is 

 more of tliis, for which, however, the reader must be referred to the 

 original. It wdll suffice to say that the paper is devoted principally 

 to the refutation of Mochi' s statements of a geologic and paleon- 

 tologic nature, Amegliino defending and retaining without any 

 modification his position concerning the Diprothomo as well as the 

 other finds he described. To Mochi' s statement about the lack of 

 proofs for the great age (Pliocene) of some of the human remains 

 Ameghino answers that, "in closing one's eyes in presence of proofs, 

 one forms for himself the illusion that they do not exist — wliich has 

 happened to M. Moclii. The Phocene age of the Pampean formation 

 remauis unshaken and consequently the human remains which it 

 incloses are clearly of Pliocene age" (p. 72). As skeletal remains of 

 man of Tertiary age have not been found elsewhere and "abound" in 



1 Mochi, A., Appunti sulla paleoantropologia argentina; in Arch, per I'Anlr. e la Etn., XL, Firenze, 

 1910, pp. 20a-254. 



2 Ameghino, F., L'&ge des formations sMimentaires tertiaires de I'Argentine en relation avec I'anti- 

 quite de I'homme; in Anales del Musco Nacional de Buenos Aires, xxii (ser. iii, t. xv), 1911, pp. 45-75. 



