ANATOMICAL STRUCTURE OF ANTHROPOID APES. 121 



slightly retreating. Gaudry considers that the Bryo- 

 fiihecus was about the size of a man. The incisor 

 teeth were small. The cusps of the back molar teeth 

 were less rounded than in Europeans, and more like 

 those of Australians. It has been surmised, although 

 the fact cannot be established, that the last molar 

 teeth were only cut after the canine teeth, as is the case 

 with the human wisdom teeth. Gaudry gi vesthe illus- 

 tration of the lower jaw of a Tasmanian, from eleven to 

 twelve years old, together with that of Dryopithecus 

 Fontanii. In the human jaw the first molar tooth is 

 larger than in the Dryopifheous, while the canine tooth 

 and the pre-molars are much weaker. This distinc- 

 tion is important, since the smaller size of the front 

 teeth is connected with the slight projection of 

 the face, which is always a sign of human superiority. 

 Although the canine tooth of the Dryopithecus is 

 broken, we can see that it must have been consider- 

 ably higher than the other teeth, and indeed the 

 canine teeth of the male animal must have been very 

 powerful. There is also a slight prominence in the 

 teeth of this ape, which is absent in those of men. 

 Mesopitheous, from the Miocene of Pikermi, Attica, 

 was an ape less closely resembling the anthropoids. 

 In the structure of the head it resembles the slender 

 ape (^Semnopithecus), and in the structure of the limbs 

 it is like a macaca (Macacus). Gaudry believes that 

 Sansan's Pliopithecus was related to the gibbon. An 

 ape of the size of the orang-utan, which belongs to 

 the slender apes (Semnopithecus sub-himalayanus)* 



* Gaadry, Les enchainements dv, monde animal, p. 232 : Paris, 

 1878. 



