338 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bill. 52 



The anthropologic discussion of Mochi's opinions is reserved by 

 Ameghino for still another occasion and the paper ends without hav- 

 ing brought forth what could be regarded as the slightest additional 

 evidence on the DiprotJiomo, or on any of the other Argentine 

 discoveries. 



In a short paper, published toward the end of 1910/ referring to a 

 lecture given in June of that 3'ear, Lehmann-Nitsche gives in regard to 

 the Diprothomo skull the following: "It is probable that a human 

 frontal bone discovered years ago in a dry-dock of the Puerto Madero 

 (Buenos Aires) proceeds also [like the remains of the Baradero 

 skeleton, p. 258] from the intermediary Pampean formation; by its 

 characteristics it is distinguished in nothing from the corresponding 

 bone of skulls that are derived from the Superior Pampean and con- 

 sequently from the actual ones. There is, therefore, no justification 

 for attributing tliis fragment to a new species or even a new genus of 

 the Hominidse, and for calling it Diprothomo platensis, as has been 

 done by Senor Ameghino." 



At about the same time as the last-mentioned article there appeared 

 an important contribution to the Diprothomo question, by Schwalbe.^ 

 No one is more competent to deal with questions relating to the mor- 

 phology of man, particularly early man, than tliis author and his 

 statements claim careful attention. In addition the paper contains 

 an interesting contribution by Steinmann on the age of the formation 

 in wliich presumably the specimen was discovered. 



Steinmann regards the pampa formation as Quaternary. If the 

 skull lay under a layer of tosca, it might be of a young diluvial age, 

 or about as ancient as the Mousterian remains in Europe; but if it was 

 not under the tosca, then it might be of even a very late alluvial 

 origin. 



In subsequent lines Schwalbe cites two other opinions concerning 

 the Diprothomo. The first (p. 222) is from a letter by Lehmann- 

 Nitsche, in which the correspondent states that "the skull-cap in 

 question has long been known to him but that he was not able to see 

 anything about it which would differentiate it from human " The 

 other quotation is from a manuscript reference to the Paleontology 

 of Vertebrates, by Deninger, to the effect that Ameghino 's data con- 

 cerning the Diprothomo are based simply on false orientation of the 

 specimen. 



Schwalbe himself finds that first of all the outline figures in Ame- 

 ghino's memoir on the Diprothomo do not harmonize with the photo- 

 graphic ones, exaggerating some of the features. In the second place, 

 Ameghino 's reconstructions of the skull are wrong, worthless, and 



1 I.ehmann-Nitsche, R., El hombre fosil pampeano; in Bol. Oftc. Nac. Estad, La Paz, Bolivia, VI, 1910, 

 pp. 363-366. 



* Schwalbe, G., Studien zitr Morphologie der siidamerikanischen Primatenformen; in Zeitschr. fur 

 Morph. undAnthr., Band xra, Heft 2, Stuttgart, 1910, pp. 20&-258. 



