KECENT LITERATURE 
119 - 
not denote near relationship.” The unhapp}’’ results obtained by Knottnerus- 
Meyer in his attempts to classify ungulates by the characters of the lacrymal 
bones alone, might have been mentioned in this connection as an example of the 
dangers to be encountered in the complete reliance on any one part of the struc- 
ture of an animal as a sure guide to its affinity. 
— iY. Hollister. 
Matschie, Paul. Netje Ergebnisse der Schimpansenforschung. Zeitschr. 
f. Ethnol.,- vol. 51, pp. 62-82. 1919. 
This paper is based upon the author’s recent studies on 322 skulls and 159 
skins of the chimpanzee. In the critique of the features that have been claimed 
in the literature to distinguish the chimpanzee from other apes many interesting 
statements are found: the length of the arm varies to a great extent in the differ- 
ent species of chimpanzee; there are forms in which the arm is as long as in many 
orang-utans. The outer ear of the chimpanzee is said to be larger than that of 
the gorilla. This rule, however, has many exceptions; there are chimpanzees 
whose ears are only 40 mm. long, and in Kamerun there is a gorilla with ears at 
least 42 mm. in length even in the young animal. The drista sagittalis on the 
skull, often held to be typical for Gorilla, is missing in a great many females of 
• this ape and is found among the chimpanzees in the Tschego and some species 
of the Congo and Ogowe regions. The nasal bones, which according to Keith, 
reach farther down in the gorilla than in the chimpanzee, are at times of greater 
relative length in the latter than in the former. The author finds that the gor- 
illa is distinguished from the chimpanzee by the fact that the nasalia are more 
than twice as broad at their lower as at their upper ends, and also by the second 
last upper molar, which is at least 13 mm. in breadth and 12 mm. in length, while 
in the chimpanzee it is at most 12 mm, in breadth and 10 mm. in length. 
A good deal of space is devoted to the description of many different species 
and races of chimpanzee, among which the author proposes some new ones, e.g., 
Anthropopithecus sch7ieideri and A. papio. 
— A. H. Schultz. 
Eggeling, H. Inwieweit ist der Wurmfortsatz am menschlichen Blind- 
DARM EiN RUDiMENTARES Gebilde? Anatom. Anz., vol. 53, pp. 401-428. 1920. 
The largest part of this paper is devoted to a description of the caecum and, 
where it is to be found, of the appendix in primates. The latter is present in 
apes and in Stenops and Chiromys of the Prosimiae; it is missing in catarrhine 
as well as platyrrhine monkeys. The paper contains interesting extensive tables 
on the length of the different regions of the intestinal tract of primates. 
— A. H. Schultz. 
Duller, A. H. Reginald. The red squirrel of North America as a mycophagist. 
Trans. British Mycological Soc., vol. 6, part 4, pp. 355-362, September 22, 
1920. (The red squirrel of North America is an habitual mycophagist. In 
the late autumn it often collects fleshy fungi in large numbers for its winter 
supply of food; and it stores these fungi sometimes en masse in holes in tree 
trunks, old birds’ nests, etc., and sometimes separately on the branches of 
certain trees.) . 
