436 Proceedings of Royal Society of Edinburgh. [sess. 
and had not of necessity any organic connection. The sharpness 
of its contours and of the pointed exostosis are characters which 
it is difficult to reconcile with the condition presented by the 
calvaria. On the supposition that it was of the same age as the 
calvaria, as to which, however, there is, I think, some doubt, it 
showed few signs of rubbing or injury as com^pared with what the 
skull itself has suffered. Consequently, I am not disposed to think 
that the characters of the femur are of any moment in our interpre- 
tation of the skull-cap, which must be weighed on its own merits. 
In the projection of the supra-orbital ridges and glabella, and in 
the shape of the occipital region, the Java calvaria bears such a re- 
semblance to the Neanderthal skull that, the latter being regarded 
as human, one sees no reason why, in these respects, the Java fossil 
should not likewise be human. In both, also, the cranial vault 
has a low arch, though M. Dubois considers that, in this respect 
and in the internal capacity, the fossil is below the skull from the 
Neander Valley. As regards the capacity, the injured state of the 
specimen only admits of an approximate estimate, but, on the basis 
that it was about 1000 c.c., sufficient evidence has been adduced 
in this communication to show that, in the dolichocephalic 
aborigines of Australia, the crania in a number of instances were 
only slightly above that figure, and in some even below it, whilst 
in other savage races, an equally low capacity is occasionally found. 
In my judgment, therefore, there is nothing in this character to 
lead one to say that the skull was not a human skull. If we 
accept the view that the Pleistocene deposit in Java, in which this 
specimen was found, is of the same geologic age as the European 
Pleistocene, there is nothing in the configuration of the skull-cap 
to place it in a different category from those remains of human 
Quaternary Man obtained in Europe, which have already been 
referred to as possessing similar characters. 
Erom the above criticism it will be seen that I am unable to accept 
M. Dubois’ opinion that we have in these remains evidence of a new 
genus and species intermediate between man and apes. The exist- 
ence of such a transitional form is still a matter of speculation, and 
has not been placed on the basis of ascertained fact. 
