262 PROFESSOR OWEN ON THE EXTERNAL CHARACTERS 
may be concluded that the third molar had also cut the gum, the crown being com- 
pleted, but not the fangs. If the last molar had existed as a mere germ, it would more 
probably have been preserved in the substance of the jaw. 
In a young Siamang, with the points of the permanent canines just protruding from 
the socket, the crown of the last molar is complete, and on a level with the base of 
that of the penultimate molar; whence I infer that the last molar would have cut the 
gum as soon as, if not before, the crown of the canine had been completely extricated. 
This dental character, the conformation and relative size of the grinding teeth, espe- 
cially the fore-and-aft extent of the premolars, all indicate the close affinity of the 
Dryopithecus with the Pliopithecus and existing Gibbons ; and this, the sole legitimate 
deduction from the maxillary and dental fossils, is corroborated by the fossil humerus, 
fig. 9, in the above-cited Memoir. 
There is no law of correlation by which, from the portion of jaw with teeth of the 
Dryopithecus, can be deduced the shape of the nasal bones and orbits, the position and 
plane of the occipital foramen, the presence of mastoid and vaginal processes, or other 
cranial characters determinative of affinity to Man; much less any ground for inferring 
the proportions of the upper to the lower limbs, of the humerus to the ulna, of the 
pollex to the manus, or the shape and development of the iliac bones. All those 
characters which do determine the closer resemblance and affinity of the genus Troglo- 
dytes to Man, and of the genus Hylobates to the tailed Monkeys, are at present un- 
known in respect of the Dryopithecus. A glance at fig. 5 (Gorilla) and fig. 7 (Dryo- 
pithecus) of the plate of M. Lartet’s memoir would suffice to teach their difference of 
bulk, the Gorilla being fully one-third larger. The statement that the parts of the 
skeleton of the Dryopithecus as yet known, viz. the two branches of the lower jaw and 
the humerus, ‘‘ are sufficient to show that in anatomical structure, as well as stature, 
it came nearer to Man than any quadrumanous species, living or fossil, before known 
to zoologists',” is without the support of any adequate fact, and in contravention of 
most of those to be deduced from M. Lartet’s figures of the fossils. Those parts of the 
Dryopithecus merely show—and the humerus in a striking manner—its nearer approach 
to the Gibbons ; the most probable conjecture being that it bore to them, in regard to 
size, the like relations which Dr. Lund’s Protopithecus bore to the existing Mycetes. 
Whether, therefore, strata of such high antiquity as the miocene may reveal to us 
“forms in any degree intermediate between the Chimpanzee and Man” awaits an 
answer from discoveries yet to be made; and the anticipation that the fossil world 
‘‘may hereafter supply new osteological links between Man and the highest known 
Quadrumana®” must be kept in abeyance until that world has furnished us with the 
proofs that a species did formerly exist which came as near to Man as does the Orang, 
the Chimpanzee, or the Gorilla. 
' Sir Charles Lyell, ‘Supplement to the Fifth Edition of Manual of Elementary Geology,’ 8vo, 1859, p. 14. 
* Ibid. 
