HRDLifKA] SKEIxETAL. REMAINS OF EARLY MAN 341 



In discussion of the preceding comminiication ^ v. Luschan 

 remarked that when he first learned of Ameghino's pubhcation on the 

 DiprotJiomo, he hoped that it would pass without notice, in which, 

 regi'ettably, he was mistaken. "1 want to say without reservation 

 that I regard Ameghino's description as completely erroneous 

 (vollstdndige Entgleisung) . In another South American periodical 

 there was once described with much emphasis a newly discovered 

 intermediary form between the Amphibia and fishes, which afterward 

 developed to be a tadpole. Ameghino's DiprotJiomo is scarcely a less 

 sad error {Entgleisung) and must positively be refused to be accepted 

 for what it is given. When the fragment is properly posed it becomes 

 at once clear that it can proceed only from man who did not differ 

 in the least from the normal average present-time European. Every 

 large cranial collection contains dozens of modern skulls from Europe, 

 Asia, America, and Oceania, from which could be cut out a piece 

 entirely equal to that representing the DiprotJiomo. I place here 

 side by side illustrations of one such piece and that of the Dipro- 

 tJiomo fragment, and I also beg you to compare the skull from which 

 the piece is derived with Ameghino's attempt at a reconstruction 

 [of the skull of the DiprotJiomo]. ... I believe that no more words 

 are necessaiy to demonstrate the absolutely untenable nature of 

 Ameghino's conception." 



In the middle of February, 1911, Ameghino published his before- 

 mentioned third paper which deals with the DiprotJwino. In this he 

 devoted himself particularly to the subject of the orientation of the 

 specimen.- In the first paragraph we read: "The anthropologists, in 

 their researches on the orientation which should be given to the 

 DiprotJiomo callotte, continue to employ the method of direct compari- 

 son with man, seeking to give the fragment a position similar to that 

 which a corresponding part occupies in man. The particular con- 

 formation of this specimen appears to their eyes only in a human form 

 and, naturally, proceeding in this manner they obtain very different 

 results from those which I have reached." And on the second page: 

 "My morphologic conception is independent of measurements and of 

 all mechanical procedure or of that of precision. In this case, having 

 always in mind a perfect idea of simian morphology in general, my 

 eyes judge on the basis of this conception, and I have more con- 

 fidence in what my eyes see, in accord with my knowledge, than in 

 all the mechanical procedures and measurements that can be imag- 

 ined. I can turn the callotte of the DiprotJiomo in all the possible 

 positions, turn it even upside down, and my eyes will always see it 

 of the same form. I accept mechanical procedures, or those of 



1 See Friedemann, Vorlage eines Gipsabgusses des Schadeldaches von DiprotJiomo platennis Ameghino; 

 in Zeitschr.fiir Ethn., Benin, 1910, Heftfi, pp. 935-938. 



2 Amegliino, F., La callotte du Diprothomo d'apres I'orionlation frontoglabellaire; in Anales del Museo 

 Nacional de Buenos Aires, xxn (ser. iii, t. sv), 1911, pp. 1-9, pis. 1-4. 



