hrdliCka] 



SKELETAL REMAINS OF EAELY MAN 



339 



can not possibly correspond to conditions that actually existed. 

 But, what is most important, the posing of the fragment was wholly 

 incorrect and is responsible for the apparent resemblances to lower 

 forms on which was based the genus Diprothomo. A num])er of 

 Alsatian skulls were found to show characteristics of the frontal bone 

 closely approximating those of the Buenos Aires fragment (fig. 50). 

 ''The skull-fragment of Diprothomo is that of a true man" and the 

 size of the skull was very respectable. The frontal bone is not 

 excessively narrow nor too long, "its breadth falls within the range 

 of variation of the Alsatian crania," and its length, as well as the 



Fig. .50. Norma lateralis of Diprothomo fragment (shaded, and bounded by hatch-line) and 

 Ameghino's "completion" of such fragment (.shaded and bounded by broken line), compared 

 with norma lateralis of Alsatian skull (unshaded and bounded by solid line). (After Schwalbe; 

 slightly reduced.) 



length-breadth index of the bone, is not seldom exceeded in modern 

 man's skulls. Nor is there any indication that the parietals were 

 relatively or absolutely too short. "All the rest of the features dwelt 

 upon by Ameghino are referable to a wholly false orientation of the 

 specimen." 



On page 235 Schwalbe gives an illustration showing the differences 

 m Ameghino's posing of the fragment and its consequent appearance, 

 with an approximation of the same to the horizontal plane used by 

 the Gorman anthropologists. This drawing is here reproduced 

 (pi. 54). 



