580 THE NEANDERTHAL SKULL 
humerus is 11 in. 9 lines long, somewhat curved in its upper half; it is 
solid and heavy, but normal, the greater and lesser tuberosities and 
the linea aspera project strongly, also the condyles and the trochlea 
downwards: the fossa ant. major and minor, as well as especially the 
fossa posterior at the lower articular end are deep. Of the right ulna 
merely the upper part remains. It is convex backwards. Humerus 
and coronoid process are normal, as are the sigmoid and semilunar 
fosse. If the radius (szc) were entire, it would measure 104 inches, 
The bones of the left arm are in a remarkable condition. Of the left 
humerus unfortunately only the middle and lower thirds exist. It is 
thinner than the corresponding part of the right humerus, the linea 
aspera is strong ; while, on the other hand, the internal and external 
condyles are weaker. The trochlea is tuberculated (knorrig), and 
enlarged forwards, posteriorly sharp edged, the processus capitatus 
small, but also rough and tuberculated. 
“ The fovea anterior humeri major is broad and large. The fovea 
minor is almost flat. The fovea posterior especially deep and broad. 
The left radius is wanting, but it can only have been 8 inches 4 lines 
long. The entire ulna, in fact, is only 9 inches long, or shortened by 
14 inches, seeing that if normal it would have been 10} inches long. 
The olecranon is very large, thick and tuberculated, its four articular 
impressions are unequal, and the coronoid process projects strongly, 
The fovea semilunaris for the head of the radius is only indistinct. 
The whole ulna is twisted longitudinally, so that the forearm was 
fixed in a prone position, the radius standing forwards, the ulna out- 
wards. The carpal extremity of the ulna shewed nothing irregular.” 
Professor Mayer’s conclusion from these malformations (of which 
it must be remembered Professor Schaafhausen had already given a 
sufficient account), is, that the Neanderthal Man had been a rickety 
child?—which might account for the peculiarities of the limbs, but 
not, so far as I can see, for those of the skull. However, Professor 
Mayer would get over this difficulty with ease, for he says (1. c. 
Pp §)— 
“The prominence of the superciliary arches is in part, like the 
projection of the crista, occasioned by the corrugator superciliorum 
muscle, but this need but be weak if it has only to lift the already 
raised outer lamella of the frontal bone.” 
A severe critic might, perhaps, find something over-mechanical in 
1 The context seems to show that by ‘radius’ Professor Mayer here means ‘‘ ulna.” Prof. 
Schaafhausen speaks of the right radius as ‘‘ perfect,” but does not give its length. 
? Prof. Schaafhausen, on the contrary, is careful to remark that the ulna ‘‘ shows no trace 
of rhachitic disease”! Miiller’s Archiv. 1858, p. 458. 
