August 26, 1922J 



NA TURE 



283 



for Nature, are photographs of a most convincing 

 character, in which the Hesperopithecus molar (Fig. 2, 

 1-4), in three aspects, is placed directly between 

 corresponding molars of a chimpanzee (right and left) 

 which most nearly resemble it. It will be seen at once 

 (1) that the Hesperopithecus molar, although greatly 

 water-worn, has entirely different proportions from the 

 chimpanzee molar : it is much broader transversely ; 

 it is much narrower in the fore-and-aft dimensions. 

 This affords positive evidence that Hesperopithecus 

 had a shorter facial region than the chimpanzee. In 

 this respect it approaches the mongoloid human type 

 (Fig. 2, 5) more closely than it does any of the anthro- 

 poid ape types ; (2) the roots of the Hesperopithecus 

 molar are much more robust and more human in pro- 

 portion than those of any of the frugivorous apes ; (3) 

 the upper molar of Hesperopithecus, while resembling 

 the upper molars of certain American Indians of 

 mongoloid type in several absolute measurements, 

 differs widely in the more asymmetrical form of the 

 crown, which is broader in front and narrower behind, 

 whereas in the mongoloid human molars the crown is 

 more symmetrical ; (4) the type upper molar of 

 Hesperopithecus differs from the corresponding molar 

 in the Trinil Ape-man (Pithecanthropus) (Fig. 2, 3) in 

 nearly all its absolute measurements ; but it resembles 

 the Pithecanthropus molar in the great size of the 

 internal (lingual) fang, also in the wide separation of 

 the internal (lingual) and external (anterobuccal) fangs. 

 It also resembles Pithecanthropus in the evenly concave 

 depression of the grinding surface, which is quite unlike 

 .the ridged form of the grinding surface observed in a 

 chimpanzee molar (Fig. 2, 2-6) ; (5) as for the com- 

 parison suggested by Dr. Smith Woodward with the 

 third lower molar of the Pliocene bear (Hyjenarctos), 

 the differences are so fundamental that it is difficult to 

 find any single point of agreement ; the molar of 

 Hesperopithecus very clearly conforms to the flattened 

 tritubercular to quadritubercular type which character- 

 ises all the upper molars of anthropoid apes and of man. 

 Thus, after making due allowance for the characters 

 resulting from the prolonged natural usage of the 

 Hesperopithecus molar, also for characters due to long 

 exposure to erosion and stream action, and to percussion 

 by the sharp sand of the river bed, there nevertheless 

 remain five outstanding characters, as well as many 



highly significant details of character, which tend to 

 show that this tooth belongs to one of the higher 

 Primates, and that this genus ultimately may be 

 included either within the Simiids (anthropoid apes), or 

 near certain ancestors of the Hominidas (human stock). 



I desire to summarise with emphasis my original 

 statements about this tooth, namely, that among exist- 

 ing anthropoid apes it is nearest to m 2 of the chimpanzee, 

 but the resemblance is still very remote . . . that the 

 proportions of the molar crown of Hesperopithecus are 

 about the same as in Homo sapiens mongoloideus 

 (American Indian) type . . . that there is also a distant 

 human resemblance in the molar pattern of Hespero- 

 pithecus to the low, basin-shaped, channelled crown in 

 certain examples of Homo sapiens . . . that the 

 Hesperopithecus molar cannot be said to resemble any 

 known type of human molar very closely. It is certainly 

 not closely related to Pithecanthropus erectns in the 

 structure of the molar crown ... it is therefore a new 

 and independent type of Primate, and we must seek more 

 material before we can determine its relationships. 



My original characterisation and description have 

 been fully confirmed by the intensive research of the 

 past two months. I have not stated that Hespero- 

 pithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of 

 human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible 

 that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiida;) with 

 teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidas), just 

 as we have discovered in the true Piltdown man 

 (Eoanthropus) teeth closely imitating those of the 

 chimpanzee. There are so many crisscross adaptations 

 of this kind among the mammals that we can never be 

 sure about the family relationships of an animal until 

 we secure not only the teeth but considerable parts of 

 the skeleton as well. No anatomist in the possession 

 of Pithecanthropus molars only would have discovered 

 the human resemblance which is indubitably established 

 by the roof of the cranium, by the shape of the brain, 

 and by the shape of the thigh bone. For similar skeletal 

 parts of Hesperopithecus we are making most deter- 

 mined and prolonged search in the type locality ; it is 

 not at all probable that the desired evidence will be 

 easy to secure. Until we secure more of the dentition, 

 or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be 

 certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the 

 Simiidas or of the Hominidae. 



Science in Egypt. 



By Col. H. G. 



THE important part which modern science can play 

 in the economical development of natural re- 

 sources is generally recognised to-day, but nowhere 

 may this be seen more clearly than in Egypt, with its 

 subtropical climate, its controlled water-supply, and its 

 immunity from the vagaries of the weather which 

 affect more northern latitudes. Here a population 

 which in 1882 was under seven millions has now grown 

 to more than twelve millions, and inhabits a cultivable 

 area which does not exceed seven million acres all 

 intensively cultivated ; for much of the area, which 

 was formerly flooded annually and then furnished a 

 single crop after the river had fallen, is now under 

 perennial cultivation with a supply of water at all 



NO. 2756, VOL. I IO] 



Lyons, F.R.S. 



seasons, and consequently up to five crops in two years 

 are taken from it. Under these conditions the most 

 economical use of the material resources that science 

 can devise, and all the improvements that it can 

 suggest, are of the utmost importance to the country. 



During Egypt's period of financial difficulty the pro- 

 vision for scientific work was very meagre, but with 

 the reorganisation of the irrigation and the introduc- 

 tion of reforms, an improving revenue enabled gradu- 

 ally increasing grants to be made to state departments, 

 and many of them have, during the past thirty years, 

 established services in which scientific work of value 

 and importance has been carried on. 



Some scientific work had been initiated at a much 



