132 THE HUMAN SKULL, ETC. ER03I PILTD0WN. Rlarch 1913. 



If this restoration prove to be correct, the length of the alveolar 

 border in front of the molars is 60 mm., instead of 30 to 40 mm., 

 as in all known human jaws ; and it seems difficult to fill this 

 space without assuming that a relatively large canine was present. 

 That the canine in any case cannot have been very prominent, 

 seems to be proved by the remarkable flatness of the worn surface 

 of the molar teeth (PI. XX, fig. 2c: m. 1, m. 2). Enamel and 

 dentine have been equally worn down by very free movements in 

 mastication, and such a marked regular flattening has never been 

 observed among apes, though it is occasionally met with in low 

 types of men. Although the cusps have been worn down to the 

 plane of the central area in each tooth, very little dentine is 

 exposed — much less, in fact, than is seen in the similarly worn 

 teeth of apes. Both the first and second molars are noteworthy for 

 their considerable length in proportion to their width, each being 

 provided behind with a large fifth cusp. They are constricted in 

 the ordinary manner at the base of the crown (figs. 2 & 2 a, m.l, 2), 

 and in each tooth the two divergent roots are completely separate 

 to their upper end. They are thus very different from some human 

 teeth with fused roots which are claimed to be of Palaeolithic age. 1 

 The first molar measures 11*5 mm. in length by 9 - 5 mm. in width ; 

 while the second molar is larger by 0'5 mm. in each direction. 

 The third molar, which is situated almost completely on the inner 

 side of the ascending portion of the jaw, is represented only by its 

 well-preserved socket (fig. 2 c, m. 3), which shows that its two 

 divergent roots resembled those of the other molars in not being 

 fused together. The anterior root must have been wider than the 

 posterior root, and impressed by a vertical median groove along its 

 hinder face. The posterior root is shown to have been the thicker 

 antero-posteriorly. The tooth must have been relatively large, not 

 less than 11 mm. in length, and inclined a little inwards. The 

 molar teeth, therefore, although distinctly human, are of the most 

 primitive type, and must be regarded as reminiscent of the apes 

 in their narrowness. The first molar may be compared with a 

 detached specimen already known from Taubach, in Saxe- Weimar.' 2 

 A restored model of the mandible, skilfully made to fit the skull 

 by Mr. Frank 0. Barlow, is shown from the left side and from 

 above and below in text-figs. 4-6 (pp. 133-37). It assumes that 

 the actual fossil extends just to the symphysis, and the result is 

 distinctly striking. The jaw is rather wide, but the nearly straight 

 rnolar- premolar series of the two sides converge only gradually 

 forwards ; while both canines and incisors are, of necessity, large 

 and spaced. 



While the skull, indeed, is essentially human, only approaching 

 a lower grade in certain characters of the brain (see pp. 145-47), 

 in the attachment for the neck, the extent of the temporal muscles, 



1 Homo neanderthalensis var. Jcrapinensis, Kramberger, Mitth. Anthrop. 

 Gesellsch. Wien, 1902, p. 191. Homo breladensis, Keith & Knowles, Journ. 

 Anat. & Physiol, vol. xlvi (1911) p. 12. 



2 A. Nehring, Zeitscbr. fur Ethnologie, 1895, p. 338. 



