lieooids of the Oeologiciil Surrey of hulia. [voL. xii. ■, 
Oeans. 
Resemblances. —Straight line of teeth ; large canine and diastema. 
Shortness of preinolars; small size of last molar; difference in wear of canine; 
small incisor. 
It thus seems to he apparent that the fossil jaw has most points of resem¬ 
blance -with the chimpanzee, and that when it differs from that species it has an 
ultra-human character. It now remains to consider to what fossil form the jaw 
presents any points of affinity, and we will first direct our attention to the Siwalik 
Primates. 
As regards size alone, the only one of the jaws of Siwalik Primates repre¬ 
sented in Plate XXIV of the first volume of the “ Paleeontological Memoirs” 
which could possibly have any affinity to our specimen, is that of Semnopithecus 
subhimalayanus (figs. 1 and 2) ; the teeth of that jaw, however, and of all the 
specimens on the same plate, are of the semnopithecine type, and have therefore 
no affinity to our fossil. The same remark of course applies to the teeth of 
Macacus represented in figs. 3 and 4 of the plate accompanying this paper. 
One other tooth of a quadrumanous animal from the Siwaliks is, however, 
described and figured by Falconer on page 304 of the first volume of the “ Palse- 
ontological Memoirsthis specimen consists of the crown of the upper canine of 
a large ape allied to the orang; the specimen evidently belonged to a male 
individual, and is somewhat larger than the canine of the male orang. Our 
fossil jaw, which, as we have ah'eady seen, belonged to a female, has teeth some¬ 
what larger than those of the female orang; there is therefore every probability 
that Falconer’s canine and our new jaw belonged to the same species. 
Turning, now, to the fossil quadrumanous animals of Europe, the only three 
genera with which I am acquainted which are likely to have any affinity to our 
specimens are Mesopithecus, Pliopitliecus, and Pryopitheaus. 
MesopitJiecus, from the Pikermi beds,^ is of small size, and is regarded as being 
intermediate between Hylohates and Semnopithecus; the teeth are, however, dis¬ 
tinctly of the semnopithecine type, and consequently quite different from those of 
our fossil. 
Pliopithecns,^ from the Miocene of Prance and Switzerland, is also of small 
size, and resembles Hylohates so closely, that it is referred by Professor Rutimeyer 
to that genus. 
Pryopithecus,^ from the Miocene of France, is an ape of larger size, which is, 
I believe, only known from the lower jaw and some limb-bones, and which from 
the small size of the canine and diastema is regarded as having an affinity to 
1 “ Animaux fossiles et Geologie do I’Attique,” Gaudry, PI. I. 
2 Lartet: “ Comptos Kendus,” Vol. 3, p. 222, and plate. Heer : “ Primieval World of Switzer¬ 
land,” Vol. II, p. 82, PI. XI. 
® Lartet: sup cit. Owen, ” Paleontology,” p. 383. 
