368 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [bull. 52 



these, for the facets in all are even more oblique than in man, but 

 rather a modification in the other direction — more advanced than 

 zoomorphic. In this connection it should be recalled that the axes 

 of the condylar facets differ considerably in direction in human atlases, 

 as was shown by Macalister/ and may differ much even on the two 

 sides in the same bone. Their axes prolonged forward gave Macalister 

 angles between 32° and 63°, while those of the Monte Hermoso atlas 

 show 40° or slightly more. The individual variation in the size and 

 form of these facets is in fact so large that no two exactly alike 

 can be found in even a considerable collection (pi. 62). 



The foramina for the vertebral artery were apparentl}^ good- 

 sized and rounded, as in man. There is a possibility that the anterior 

 wall of the canal was partially deficient on one or both sides, as 

 occurs occasionally in modern human atlases. 



The inferior articular facets, like the superior ones, lie somewhat 

 straight antero-posteriorly, but this is of no special import, falling 

 within the range of normal variation of this feature in man. They 

 are large, do not taper forward, and are but moderately inclined 

 toward the central aperture, all of these features agreeing with 

 the atlas in the Indian and in modern man in general; but in the 

 anthropoid and lower apes these facets are relatively smaller, taper 

 forward, and show a decidedly greater inclination (pi. 63). 



Conclusions. — The Monte Hermoso atlas offers certain peculiari- 

 ties, especially a general stoutness, combined with less than an 

 average-sized central aperture and a slightly submedian size of 

 the whole bone. Besides this, its articular facets, particularly 

 the upper one on the right side, are less than ordinarily convergent, 

 and the posterior boundary of the neural canal forms more a section 

 of an ellipse than that of a circle. These are the only respects in which 

 the bone may be said to vary from the average atlas of the Indian. 

 It may be asked then are these features, none of which surpasses or 

 even reaches the limit of individual variation in the modern human 

 atlas, sufficient, singly or collectively, to exclude the specimen 

 from the range of present man and relegate it either to a far-away 

 forerunner of the human being, or to a distinct early species of Ameri- 

 can aborigines ? 



To the above it can be answered only that, if so, then any one 

 finding an atlas or any other bone that would stand in a few charac- 

 teristics somewhere near the limit of its variation, particularly if the 

 circumstances of the find should be obscure or point to possible 

 antiquity (conditions by no means rare), would be justified in basing 

 on such evidence the existence of other precursors or other species oi 

 man. Such procedure would be disastrous to anthropology. 



' Macalister, A., Notes on the Development and Variations of the Atlas; in Jour. Anal, and Physiol.,XX\U, 

 London, 1893, p. 534. 



