hudliCka] skeletal EEMAINS OF EAELY MAN 343 



The concluding remark of the paper is: "The capital point to which 

 I call attention is that the orientation which the callotte of Diprothomo 

 assumes in the craniorientor is absolutely the same as that which I 

 have given it on the basis of its morphologic characteristics. This 

 orientation confirms therefore all the distinctive features which I 

 attribute, in my preceding pubhcations, to the Diprothomo." 



Finally, in a terminal footnote of the paper just considered is 

 found Ameghino's preliminary response to Schwalbe's study of the 

 specimen under consideration. It reads: ''At the moment of cor- 

 recting the last proofs of this paper I learn of a recent publication by 

 Professor Schwalbe — where, by means of comparisons that are simply 

 empirical and with an arrogance that is almost aggressive, he afhrms 

 that my description of the Diprothomo rests on a false orientation of 

 the callotte; besides which the work is a general criticism of my re- 

 searches and my theories. My present memoir and former paper on 

 the subject suffice to demonstrate that so far as the posing of the 

 specimen is concerned he is in error. Nevertheless, I intend to 

 counter-criticize the unfounded or badly founded criticism of Pro- 

 fessor Schwalbe, in a forthcoming communication." 



Notes on the Diprothomo Find 

 By Bailey Willis 



The supposed antiquity of the fragment of skull which represents 

 the Diprothomo of Ameghino is deduced geologically from the state- 

 ment that it was dug out of the undisturbed Pampean formation 

 beneath the Rio de la Plata in making the hole which was to serve 

 as a rudder-pit in the floor of a dry dock. As there is no witness 

 to the fact that it was actually found in place in the Pampean, it is 

 peculiarly important to ascertain all attendant circumstances. To 

 this end. Doctor Hrdlicka and the writer called on Mr. Junor, who 

 was immediately in charge of the dock construction at the time the 

 fragment was found, and who had furnished the data published 

 regarding its original position. 



Mr. Junor was found at his home in Flores, a suburb of Buenos 

 Aires, on the evening of May 7, 1910, and we were most courteously 

 received. He appeared to be about 70 years of age, of sanguine 

 temperament, still enthusiastic as in youth, and an ardent believer 

 in the antiquity of man in Argentina. He recited freely his recol- 

 lection of the finding of the skull, stating in substance: The piece of 

 skull was brought to him by the foreman of a gang of workmen who 

 were digging out the rudder-pit. He (Mr. Junor) was very much 

 occupied at the time by duties of supervision of construction and did 

 not see the skull taken out, nor did he examine the place afterward 

 to see where it came from; but he had no doubt that it came out of 



