Appendix: Hominidae Catalogue

Abel, W.: Kritische Untersuchungen iiber AnstralopitMcns africanns Dart. Morphoi. Jb. 66, 539-640 (193J.). Pp. 578-582, "The brain of Anstralopithecns, with fig. 16 (from Dart); its capacity and shape" Angelroth, H.: Essai sur les causes de l'evolution et de l'anthropogenese. Bull. Soc. Roy. beIge Anthrop. Prehist. 67, 5-23 (1956). The author insists that Middle Paleolithic (Mous• tier: H. neanderthalensis) man had smaller frontal lobes, larger occipital region, and a lesser number of sulci than modern men; that volume and" conformation" of brain decide intellectual stages, and progressed parallel to progress of toolmaking (p. 15). Erect posture, i.e., change in natural equilibrium of the head, caused enlargement of cranial capsule, hence of brain [a pris peu a peu son volume actual], freedom of hands and other factors were additional causes. P. 17, "The power of the faculties depends on the cerebral mass, but also ... on the number of convolution.';!" Anile, A.: II cervello dell'Uomo Oro Magnon. Atti Accad. med.-chirurg. Napoli 70, 17-26 (1916a). "How to explain such richness of brain substance associated with so little activity of thought?", namely, 1590 to 1715 cc. With the acquisition of erect posture, man lost advantageous physical attributes, enriched the potentialities of internal energies ... under the increasing pressure of incoming stimuli, the preformed brain tissues became functionally specialized Anile, A.: II cervello dell'umomo preistorico. Scientia 20, 360-368 (1916b). In French, 20, suppi. 206-215. The same as 1916a [Anonymous. Cave Man's brain found. The Masterkey 4, 83 (1930). On the two "actually petrified brains" of Hindze 1927] Anthony, J.: L'Evolution cerebrale des Primates. BioI. mad. 41, 1-17 (1952). "The brain enlarges progressively in the ascending series of the primates": a list of cranial capacities, lemur·to·man, including six fossil hominids (p. 2; fig. 2a: La Quina endocast) Anthony, J.: Le cerveau humain a la lumiere de l'anatomie comparee. Pp. 23-54 in L'evolution humaine: speciation et relation. Paris 1957. This thoughtful paper, which also discusses brain weights (p.49) and lobotomy (p.52), includes brief characterizations of Plesianthropus and Sinanthropus (p. 28-29, figs. 2 a-b, from the literature, as is fig. 3a: La Quina man) Anthony, J.: La realization du cerveau humain. Pp. 79-86 in Les processus de l'hominisation. Colloque international du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Paris 1958. Pp. 82-86 reviews capacities and unreliable surface marks on fossilhominidendocasts, doubts one can pinpoint morphologically a "rubicon" at the appearance of man. [Review by P. Overhage, Anthropos 65, 244-245, 1960] Anthony, J.: La morphologie encephalique de la region parietale. Impressions cerebrales d'Atlanthropns mauritanicns. Pp. 51-54. In: Arambourg 1963. Identifies on the endocast of the parietal bone (figs. 22-23) several convolutions and sulci and distinguishes among them possibly Homo and possibly sub-Homo characters Anthony, J.: Premieres observations sur Ie moulage endocranien des Hommes fossiles du Jebel Irhoud (Maroc.). Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. (France) 262, 55-558 (1966). Non vid. Anthony, R.: See Boule, M. and R. Anthony (1910) Anthony, R.: See Boule, M. and R. Anthony (1911) Anthony, R.: L'encephale de 1'Homme fossile de la Quina. Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris 156, 91-93 (1912). It is smaller than, but similar to, the La Chapelle brain of H. neander· thalensis, with the same proportions of the cerebral lobes and the distinct but primitive "Cap de Broca" Anthony, R. : The brain of the La Quina fossil man. Rep. Brit. Assoc. Advanc. Sci. 82, 601-602 (1913a). P. 601, the brain of La Quina man described as long and flat. Neopallial topo• graphy is similar to La Chapelle man. P.602, concludes that La Quina and La Chapelle men are nearer to brains of anthropoid apes than any known human brains

183 Anthony, R.: L'encephale de l'homme de La Quina. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris (6) 4, 117-195 (1913b). Partly reprinted in H. Martin 1923. The definitive report on all features of the La Quina endocast (figs. 1--5, 10, 11-13, 15; pI. I, fa. 1-2; II, fa. 3-4; ill, f.5) compared with those in apes, modem man, Pithecanthropus, and other neandertalian specimens such as those from the Neanderthal (figs. 7, 8,17,20) and Gibraltar (figs. 6,14; pI. ill, f.6) sites Anthony, R.: Les principales caracteristiques de I'encephale de l'Homme neanderthalien de La Quina. Rev. anthrop. 23, 68-72 (1913c). Compares features of brain of La Quina man (figs. 1-2) to those of Neanderthal and La Chapelle men Anthony, R.: Sur l'homme fossile de La Quina. Ethnographie, n.s. 1, 89-91 (1913d). Reprint of summary and conclusions of 1913 [in Bull. Soc. Anthrop. 1913] Anthony, R.: La Morphologie du cerveau chez les Singes et chez l'Homme. Appendice. Le cerveau des,Primates fossiles. Rev. Anthrop. 27, 302-305 (1917a). Brief survey; fig. 55, La Quina cast Anthony, R.: See Boule, M. and R. Anthony (1917b) Anthony, R.: Lea dimensions du canal ve~brallombaire de I'Homme de la Chapelle-aux• Saints. Rev•. Anthrop. 28, 192-193 (1918). Re-measuring canal in 4th and 5th lumbar and 1st sacral vertebrae, finds lumen considerably wider than in modem man, thus agreeing with Boule 1911 -but not with Baudouin 1915 who measured only on figures Anthony, R.: Le canal ve~brallombaire de I'Homme de la Chapelle-aux-Saints. Bull. et Mem. Soc. Anthrop. Paris (6) 9, 18 (1919). Abbreviated version of 1918 paper Anthony, R.: L'encephale. Pp. 108-114, figs. 19-20. In: Martin, H. 1923a. Reprint of 1913 conclusions Anthony, R.: Le volume et la forme d'ensemble de l'encephale chez un enfant de l'epoque quaternaire. (Etude du moulage endocranien de I'enfant de la Quina.) Bull. Acad. Med. (3) 90,330-334 (1923b). First report on endocast of an 8 year-old H. neomaerthalt:n8iB, a brain differing from those of modem children not in volume (1,100 cc.) but in the same characters as the adult neandertalian brain from those of modem adults, e.g., the anterior frontal region is lower, frontally less steep. The left hemisphere is larger than the right as in the adults from La Quina and La Chapelle but not that from the Neanderthal Anthony, R.: Le cerveau des hommes fossiles. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris (7) 4, 54-68 (1923c). Pp. 60-62, "What we can know of the brain of fossil men", namely, learn from endocasts. Pp.62-67, "The brain of fossil men", volume, form, neopallial topography. Among plate figures, one outlines insula and "Cap de Broca" in H. neanderthalt:n8iB Anthony, R.: Le volume et la forme d'ensemble de I'encephale chez un enfant de l'epoque quaternaire: Etude du moulage endocri.nien de l'enfant de La Quina. Chapter 4, pp. 101-107. In: Martin, H. Recherches sur I'evolution du Mousterien dans Ie gisement de La Quina (Charente). Vol. IV: L'enfant fossile de La Quina. 158 pp. Angouleme 1926. Non vid. Anthony, R.: See Gen. Cat. (1928) Arambourg, C.: La genese de l'humanite. Paris 1943 (Que sais-je? 106, 136 pp., 36 figs.) The description of every fossil prehominid and hominid form includes the brains, and these are discussed, pp. 119-122, in the belief that the brain volume of the neanderthal group remained below human minima (p. 120). P. 69, he regards the 1600 cc. of the La Chapelle man as exceptional, and the 1450 cc. average as relatively small in relation to the large head. The author sees "every step of progress in techniques closely tied to a step in brain im• provement. Stone age artisans were locked in a circle of intellectual possibilities which they could not transgress because the structure of their brains did not allow it (p. 121) Arambourg, C.: Les donnees de la Paleontologie humaine. pp. 10--59. In: Varagnac, A., ed., L'Homme avant l'ecriture. Destine du Monde, Paris, 1, 1959. Cranial capacities mentioned of Australopithecus, Paranthropus (pp. 24-25), Pithecanthrop'U8 (p. 29), Sinanthrop'U8 (p. 31: "850-1,220 cc., average 1,000, which is still below human minima" [!], and of Neanderthal men whose brains are described as "presenting an organization less perfect especially as concerns the development of intellectual faculties, than the brain of modem man" (p. 37); the cranial capacity of the Tabun woman, 1,260 cc., is noted among its "typically neander• thalian characters" (p.4O). In "The Cerebralization of the Primates" (pp.51--54) that trend apparent already in the Eocene, is regarded as the specialization which distinguishes that order from all the other mammals. In the human branch there is no indication of qualitative progress of the brain while culture developed Arambourg, C. : Le gisement de Ternifine. II. L'AUanthropus mauritaniC'U8. ill. Interpretations generales. Arch. Inst. Paleont. humaine, Mem. 32, 37-141,142-190(1963). Besides three

184 mandibles and isolated teeth, a right parietal bone stems from the early Mid.-Pleistocene locality. Of its internal surface (figs. 160., 17; pl. VIII, f.2), mainly the imprints of the meningeal arteries are described (pp. 44-51) and compared with those other fossil hominid endocasts, including Binanthr0pu8, Pithecanthropus, PZesianthr0pu8 (figs. 18 a-b, 21). The brain structures it reveals (see J. Anthony 1963) suggest, as do the other remains, a brain larger than in the Binanthr0pu8 phase, and similarity with Rhodesian man (p. 54). From "Endocranial capacity and brain structure" (pp. 147-149) it is concluded that Atlanthropus is an African representative of the middle Pleistocene pithecanthropine group" (p. 149) A chapter "Principal characteristics of the different stages in the evolution of the homin• ids" states that "the decisive specialization in their evolution was progressive cerebrali• sation" (p. 165, fig. 92 a-b: Pithecanthropus, H. neanderthalensis) Mon, M. and P.·P. Grasse: See Gen. Cat. (1966) Ascher, R.: See Hocklett, C. F. and R. Ascher (1964) Ashton, E. H.:The endocranial capacities of the Australopithecinae. Proc. Zool. Soc. London l!!O, 715-721 (1951). Reprinted in Yearb. Physic. Anthrop. 7, f.1951, 1953. Calculating the endocranial volumes of seven australopithecines with modern statistical methods, opposes conclusions drawn from "frail data" by the South.African scholars. "It is shown that although the endocranial volumes of most of these extinct anthropoids are greater than in the chimpanzee, none differs significantly from the male gorilla, whereas all are significantly smaller than in the hominid genus Pithecanthropus" Ashton, E. H., Spence, T. F.: Age changes in the cranial capacity and foramen magnum of hominoids. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 130, 169-181 (1958). As the age changes of endocranial voluple and foramen magnum were found to be closely correlated in 490 apes and 575 men at various stages of ontogeny, and the australopithecines were ape-like in this feature, an estimate of endocranial volume became possible from the fragment, a skull base of an immature Paranthropus; 364 cc., it is far below other authors' estimate for another, somewhat younger P. specimen Asimov, I.: The human brain: its capacities and functions. Boston, Mass. 1963. Zinjanthropus. Oro Magnon and Neanderthal man p. 156. "Neanderthal man had a brain as large as our own, but the frontal lobe of the brain of true man gained at the expense of the occipital lobe, so if the total weight is the same, the distribution of weight is not" (p. 328). "Perhaps the gulf between ourselves and the rest of living species might not seem so broad if we know more about the various prehuman hominids, who might represent stages within the gap. Unfortunately we don't. We do not actually know at what of development, or in what species of hominid, the phase change took place" (pp. 330-331). [See also Gen. Cat.] Avis, V.: See Washburn, S. L. and V. Avis (1958) Balout, L.: L'Intelligence des Hommes prehistoriques. Libyca [Alger] 1, 241-270 (1953). P. 242, Anatomy of H. neanderthalensis brains, endocranial casts of large size, will not reveal his intelligence. Techniques of tool making and art do; his "esprit createur", p. 269. Ibid: H. neanderthalensis possessed intelligence but the lack of art shows it was "rudi• mentary" [Baudouin, M.: Le canal vertebral lombaire chez les Anthropoides et chez les Hommes prehistoriques. Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris 106, 79-81 (1913). Although in modern man the neural canal in the lumbar vertebrae is not reached by the spinal cord, the lumen is very large, less in 20 neolithics, still less in La Chapelle man, and much less in apes. Hence in this case the dimensions of the canal have no relation to the nervous system, but the enlargement is enlargement of the vertebrae in relation with upright posture] Baudouin, M.: Le canal rachidien, it la region lombaire, chez I'Homme. Bull. Mem. Soc. Anthrop. Paris (6) 6, 190-208 (1915). Contradicts the assumption of Boule 1912, pp. 111-112, that the vastness of the spinal canal in the lumbar vertebrae, particularly the two lowest, shows that the spinal cord here was more voluminous in the La Chapelle man than in modern man. The cord in adult men ends in the first lumbar vertebra [can extend slightly lower in women; the lumbar intumescence includes, rather than the sacral segments, the lowest thoracic segment]. The canal lumina in the lumbar vertebrae of La Chapelle and several neolithic men are rather smaller than in modern man. Their having become larger is due to enlargement of the vertebrae in relation with increasingly upright posture BerrilI,N. J.: Man's emerging mind: Man's progress through time. New York 1955. An embryologist's view of "Man's progress through time" discusses various aspects of the brain in the australopithecines pp. 70-74, of Binanthropus pp. 99-104, and reviews p. 291: "Our brains..• have grown to a larger extent than is shown by the dimensions of a head.

185 Brains have expanded greatly in area but have puckered and folded to keep within bounds, and the cortex may now be twice as large as it was in mid-Ice-age-men, and larger than it was in a Neanderthal. We cannot tell what change, if any, there has been since the ice melted away ten thousand years ago" Bergounioux, F. M. and A. Glory Les premiers Hommes. Toulouse and Paris 1943. See index: cerveau Bertalanffy, L. v.: A biologist looks at human nature. Sci. Monthly 82, 33--41 (1955). In a chapter" Evolutionary Foundations" : "The increase of brain size in the series of mammals is probably the most important example of orthogenesis... Dubois' theory is not to be regarded as proved or generally accepted, but there is little doubt that the evolution of the brain follows rather simple mathematical laws" (p.35). Excepting Pithecanthropus, the mammals cited are all extant [not an evolutionary series], and "Evolution of the Brain" (pp. 36-37) mentions no fossil Bertalanffy, L. v.: Wachstum. Handb. Zool. 8, Part 4 (6), 1-68 (1957). "The positive allo• metry of the cerebrum versus the whole brain allows the progressive take-over by the cerebrum of higher functions, as seen in the evolution of the vertebrates. Thus the evolving neocortex provides areas which ultimately become, as Broca's area, a speech center, and therewith a decisive factor in the origin of man" (p. 58). "Although there is no necessity to assume, in evolutionary transformations, unknown autonomous evolutionary forces (e.g., drive towards perfection, etc.), there do exist rules of organization which often constitute a development-compulsion (Entwicklungszwang)" (pp. 58-59). Dubois' theory of cephalisation increase X 2 such as in Pithecanthropu

186 Bloch, A.: Discussion apropos de la communication de M. Anthony sur I'encephale du crane de La Quina. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris (6) 4, 208-209 (1913). Large occipital lobes and small frontal lobes seen as due to skull structure Bok, S. T.: Cephalization and the boundary values of the brain- and body -sizes in mammals. Proc. Kon. nederl. Ak. Wetensch. 42, 515-525 (1939). The relation between neocortical surface and body surface ("cephalization") is taken to show that "the cephalization steps are connected with the increasing body sizes", from small bat to large whale. Only modem man is one cephalization step above maximum value" in the animals diagram fig. 6; Pithecanthropus "as far as can be determined lies just within it" (pp.521-525) Bone, E. L.: Rhythroes evolutifs compares des Hominides et des Mammiferes pleistocenes. Bibl. primate 1, 71-92 (1962). "The Cranial Capacity" (pp. 83-89) first of all, and again points out the ressons why it is reslly impossible to express mathematically the tempo of cephalisation in the Hominidae during the 600.000 years since Auatralopithecua. Fossil skulls which allow valid volumetric estimates are extremely rare; averages are further suspect because there was presumably considerable variation within each fossil population; one is not agreed on how many genera to distinguish; and the phyletic lines have not been traced with any certitude. One can only arrange the calculated average cranial capacity and probable life-duration of eleven hominid types (Table V) so as to show probable phyletic ramifications (Table VI, fig. 3). This suggests "darwin-coefficients" varying from 0.23 to 11.80 between the different, presumably phylogenetic levels! The application of the new calculation method strengthens the concept that in the emergence of the hominids cerebral expansion came much later than odontological and locomotor specializations; "it is not even characteristic of the group as such, but only its most recent representatives ... an acceleration that had become necessary to re-stabilize the human body in its new phase of equilibrium" Bone, E. L.: Paleontological species and human speciation. S. Afr. J. Sci. 1i9, 273-277 (1963). "Cranial Capacity" (pp. 275-276): while its increase in the hominid phylum during the Pleistocene is one of the most important evolutionary trends, its tempo was not exceptio• nally high but comparable to the rate of brain expansion of Pleistocene Ursidae Bonin, G. v.: On the size of man's brain as indicated by skull capacity. J. Compo Neur. 1i9, 1-28 (1934). On methods to determine cranial capacity and brain size, pp. 1-14; on capa• cities of Neanderthal men.-pp. 20-23; concluding that "While the human brain is larger than that of our subhuman ancestors, no further increase has taken place since the time of Neanderthal man, and there is definite indication of a decrease at least in Europe within the last 10,000 or 20,000 years" Bonin, G. v.: On encephalometry. A preliminary study of the brain of man, chimpanzee and macaque. J. Compo Neur. 'iii, 287-314 (1941). Hopes (p.289) that encephalometry can help solve problems of phylogenetic development of primate brain. All three forms investi• gated "cling to the common pattern of the primate brain" (p. 311); frontal lobe relatively larger in man than macaque, but between man and chimpanzee the difference is insignifi• cant. "The parietal and the relative circumference of the temporal lobe incresse from macaque to man by significant steps" (p.311). Mental superiority of man cannot be entirely explained by any localized developments (internal structure of cortex is different). Electric stimulation leads to much more finely differentiated responses in man than in macaque or even chimpanzee; also other cell differences (p. 312). "One localized develop• ment may, however, to some extent explain man's mental superiority: the relative incresse of temporal and parietal lobes. As demonstrated by Wich 8inanthropu8-Homo temporal lobe bears the only large cortical field devoid of thalamic connections, the only field, that is to say, which is "purely" cortical (p.313). Encephalometry indicates "the directions in which cerebral evolution advanced" Bonin, G. v.: The evolution of the human brain. Chicago 1963. "This book trests of the evolution of the human brain from Auatralopithecua to modem man.. .it has a largely negative aspect, as it demolishes exaggerated claims about what can be learned from fossil endocasts" (p. VII). While a chapter "The endocasts" (pp.41-58) is highly instructive as to the difficulties of their interpretation and otherwise-tables 18-24; aberrant values of H. neanderthalensiB considered as sign that he was indeed an extinct side issue-, "The fossil forms" (pp.21-40) contains the concrete data. "Conclusion" (pp.76-80) mainly points out the errors in the assumption that mental abilities and evolution of speech can be deduced from those endocasts.

187 Bonnet, R.: Die Skelette. pp.11-185 in M. Verwom, R. Bonnet and G. Steinmann: Der diluviale Menschenfund von Obercassel bei Bonn. Wiesbaden 1919. "Inner surface of braincase" of late Pleistocene female, pp. 42--44, of male, p. 73; cranial capacities, approxi• mately 1370 and 1500 cc., p. 91 Boule, M.: Sur 10. capaciM crwenne des hommes fossiles du type dit de Neanderthal. Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris 148, 1352-1355 (1909). Surveys methods and results of studies of cranial capacity of the Neanderthal skull; and, finding the La Chapelle of a size extremely rare in modem man, calculates its capacity as 1600-1626 cc. Boule, M.: L'Homme fossile de La Chapelle-aux-Saints. Chapt. VI: Encephale. Ann. Paleont. 7,169-190 (1912). The most detailed report, with the specimens figured, partly or directly, in figs. 91, 92-98, and pls. XII-XVI. Headings are: "Cranial capacity" pp.169-174; "Endocrani~l cast" pp.174-206 (based on Anthony and Boule 1911) with subheadings such as: fissures, frontal lobe (etc.), cerebellum. medulla oblongata, etc. Boule, M.: L'Homme fosslle de La Chapelle-aux-Saints. Chapt. VII-VIII. Ann. Paleont. 8, 1-70 (1913). Continuation of the work reported in 1912 Boule, M.: Las Hommes fossiles. Elements de Paltiontologie humaine. Paris 1921. A second edition was published in 1923, third in 1946, see Boule and H. V. Vallois, ads., fourth edition, 1952, fifth edition in 1957. English editions ("Fossil Men"); Edinburgh, 1923, London, 1957. See Boule, M. and H. V. Vallois 1952, 1957. Boule, M.: Le cerveau de 1''' Homo rhodesiensis". L'Anthropologie 32, 185 (1922). Review of Elliot Smith (in Royal Inst. Anthropology) Boule, M.: Le Sinanthrope. Anthrop. 47,1-22 (1937). A supplement to the chapter on Pithecan• throputJ in the edition of "Las Hommes fossiles", to be included in the third edition. "The Brain" pp. 10-12, fig. 8 . Boule, M. and R. Anthony: L'encephale de L'Homme fossile de La Chapelle-aux-Saints. Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. 160, 1458-'-1461 (1910). First report on the endocast, its "simple, gross" convolutions, and interpretation of its simian and its human features. Intermediary development of frontal lobe suggests "rudimentary psychism"; state of third frontal convolution, "rudimentary language", larger left hemisphere, right handedness. "The medulla oblongata was apparently more oblique than in modem man and less oblique than in apes." [As pointed out by Straus and Cave, Quart. Rev. BioI. 32, pp. 352-356, 1957, Boule's reconstructing the straight cervical spine which gave the head a forward tilt was in error as it disregarded the severely deforming arthritis of the cervical vertebrae] Boule, M. and R. Anthony: L'encephale de I'Homme fossile de La Chapelle-aux-Saints. L'Anthrop. 22, 129-196 (1911). Exhaustive description, with the endocast shown in photos, figs. 1-6; drawings, fig. 7b, 8-13; and details in figs. 14, 15b, 18, 20c, 21, 22c, 23c. Photos of the Neanderthal endocast; figs. 24-26. "As a whole, the brain of the fossil man from La Chapelle-aux-Saints is already a human brain by the abundance of its cerebral mass. But this matter still lacks the superior organization that characterizes modem men" (p.l96) Boule, M. and R. Anthony: Neopallial morphology of fossil men as studied from endocranial casts. J. Anat. 61,95-102 (1917). Agrees with Symington that the information is far less complete than in carnivores, ungulates and lemurs, but stresses the desirability of gathering the information accessible through endocasts and denies the contention that simplicity or complexity of fiBBuration cannot be determined. In neanderthalian endocasts, "the region in which neopallial foldings are plainly demonstrated extends further forwards and back• wards than in those of modem man" (fig. 4), lack of clear details exists, only part of the upper surface, features of which no trace could be detected have not been described by the authors, although attacked, mistakenly, by Symington 1916 Boule, M. and H. V. Vallois: Las hommes fossiles. Elements de paltiontologie humaine. 4th ed. Paris 1952. [Also "Fossile Menschen. Grundlinien menschlicher Stammesgeschichte." Baden-Baden. 1954.] See index: cerveau Boule, M. and H. V. Vallois: Fossil men. A textbook of human paleontology. Translated by M. Bullock from the revised and enlarged 5th edition. London 1957. Several chapters on brain: see index. [Re speech, pp. 137, 251; see du Brul and Reed 1960] Bouman, K. H.: The brain-convolutions of the PitkecantkroputJ erect'U8 of von Koenigswald. Acta neerl. Morph. norm. pathol. 2, 1-3 (1938). This second endocast of P. is somewhat smaller than the first, the surface not complete also on the frontal lobes (figs. 1-3) which show the convolutions clear enough as strikingly similar to those of du Bois' specimen

188 Bouman, K. H.: See Kappers, C. U. A. and K. H. Bouman (1939) Brace, C. L. and M. F. A. Montagu: Man's evolution. An introduction to physical anthro• pology. New York and London 1965. See index: brain, and "The Increase in Brain Size" p. 261, and fig. 105: a chart showing "Brain, tooth and cultural relations in the Pleisto• cene" Breull, H.: La capacite cranienne de l'homme de 10. Chapelle-aux Saints. Bull. Soc. fribourg. Sci. nat. 18, 12 (1910). Boule's estimate, 1600 cc. is insofar not an especially large cranial capacity for a Recent skull of comparable size would have 1800-1900 cc. [Less face!] Broca, P.: Le crane de Neanderthal est-il pathologique ? Discussion sur Ie volume du cerveau. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. 4, 322-323 (1863). Reprinted pp. 178-179 in Memoires sur Ie cerveau de I'Homme et des Primates, Paris 1888. The Neanderthal cranium is neither that of an idiot nor of. a microcephalian. "The brain from Neanderthal can be simply that of an individual of an inferior race" Broca, P.: Sur less cranes et ossements des Eyzies. Bull.. Soc. Anthrop. Paris (2) 3, 350-392 (1868). pp. 372-373: Cranial capacity, measured in the skull of a tall old man: 1,590 cc. "at least"; estimated in skull of woman, 1,450 and; in an adult man, little less. " ...the large volume of the brain must be regarded as one of the most remarkable characters of the Les Eyzies race" Broca, P.: Sur les cranes de 10. caveme de l'Homme-Mort (Lozare). Rev. Anthrop. 2, 1-53 (18730.). P.33, with cranial capacities 1285 to 1745 ce., the average brain size of these 18 neolithic humans was above that of 9 modem types listed (including Parisians). P.47, the larger size is in the posterior half whereas the frontal region is relatively and absolutely smaller; as the latter is "the seat of the highest intellectual faculties .•. thus is an incontest• able sign of brain improvement" Broca, P.: Sur trois cranes deIepoque du renne, decouverts par M. Elie Massenat a. Langerie• Basse. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris (2) 8, 217-220 (1873b). Repeats [from 18730.] that cranial capacity of era Magnon race was larger than that of modem Parisians (the average by 170 cc.), p. 219 Broca, P.: Sur les cranes de Solutre. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris (2) 8, 819-836 (1973c). Pp. 831-833, as in the eighteen "Homme-Mort" skulls, and those from Les Eyzies (one of them about 1640 cc.), cranial capacity is large-in a complete one about 1600 cc. Brodrick, A. H.: Early Man. A survey of human origins. London, New York, etc. 1948. Cranial capacities noted in description of each fossil hominid (pp. 35, 37, 80, 86-89, 107-108, 110, 113, 154, 162, 165, 189, 193, 195, 197,203,208,210,213,215). Man's specialization: posture, thumb, and "his great pre-frontal brain-development securing for him a high degree of stereoscopic sight and the faculty of articulate speech" (p.251) Brodrick, A. H.: Man and his ancestry. (London 1960). Revised edition, New York 1964. Besides reporting brain volumes in the characterization of the various foSBiI hominids (Pithecanthropoids, p.145; Neanderthaloids, pp.178-179, etc.), discusses the "rather vague evidence" of convolutions on the endocasts and the supposed meaning of their sizes in "Australopithecine Brains" (pp. 88-86) and "Development of the Brain" (pp. 86-87). "For brainsize, as for so much else, we cannot lay down hard and fast rules" Broom, R.: Les origines de l'Homme. Paris 1934. See 126-146 for brain of AU8tralopithe0U8 Broom, R.: A new fOBBil anthropoid skull from South Africa. Nature 138, 486-488 (1936). An endocast of AU8tralopithecuB transvaalensiB Broom (fig. 1) allows capacity measurement of 600 cc, (p. 487). The brain cast of the new form is" considerably wider, especially in the frontal region" (p. 488) Broom, R.: The occurrence and general structure of the South African Ape-Men. Transvaal Mus. Mem. 2, 7-153 (1946). The chapter" Affinities of the Australopithecines" also dis• cusses their and the pithecanthropine cranial capacities pp. 137 and 142-143 Broom, R. and J. T. Robinson: Size of the brain in the Ape-Man, Plesianthropus. Nature 161, 438 (1948). Fig. 1, restored brain (endocast) of P. transvaalensi8, 1/3 natural size. Actually cast of ouly some of top and the base, the estimated capacity is 530 cc. With other speci• mens, authors believe the females varied 400-600 cc. and males from·poBBibly 600 cc. to perhaps more than 750 cc. Brothwell, D. R.: Further comments on the right parietal from Swanscombe; anomalies and endocranial features. Pp. 173-174. In: Ovey, C. D., ed., The Swanscombe Skull. London (Royal Anthropological Institute) 1964. The convolutional impreBSions are similar, with minor asymmetries, on the right parietal [found 1955] as on the left of the same skull [found 1936]

189 Brnmmelkamp, R.: "Uber den Zusammenhang zwischen Schiidelkapazitii.t und bestimmten Femurmassen, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Cephalisationsfrage von Pithecanthr0]YU8 erectus. Acta neerl. Morph. norm. path. 2, 379-400 (1939). Cephalization of Neanderthalers, p. 389-393; of Pithecanthr0]YU8, 396-397; the latter is about 1/12 times less than that of the recent men Brummelkamp, R.: On the cephalization stage of Pithecanthropus erectus and Sinanthr0]YU8 pekine1l8i8. Proc. Kon. nederl. Akad. Wetensch. 43, 741-752 (1940). "The cephalization stages of Pithecanthropus erectus and Sinanthr0]YU8 pekiM1l8is, measured by the relation existing between skull capacity and femur measurements are the same; therefore we conclude that these organisms represent a similar stage of evolution" (p.752) Brnmmelkamp, R.: Quantitatieve analyse der hersenen. Phychiatr. en neurol. Bladen no. 4, 1-36 (19410,). P. 22-26, fossil hominid cephalization coefficients computed Brnmmelkamp, R.: Caractere anthropoide du cerveau dans un cas de microcephalie. Acta neerl. Morph. norm. path. 4, 135-160 (1941 b). Sulci on 342 gram-brain of 39 year-old microcephalic woman (whose behavior had been human) resembled those of Pithecan• thr0]YU8 (pp. 142-144, fig. 29; also brain indexes compared, p. 157) Brnmmelkamp, oR., and J. Offringa: The relative growth of the frontal brain dating human onto- and phylogenesis. Acta neerl. Morph. norm. path. 3, 202-208 (1940). From measuring the size of the frontal and the entire neocortex in fetal, newborn and adult man, and in two apes, it is concluded that the relation is practically constant; this is seen as confirming Weidenreich's conclusion from fossil hominid brains, namely, equal enlargement of the neocortex during the late stages of human phylogeny Bumiiller, J.: Die Urzeit des Menschen. Augsburg, 1925. Pp. 107-110 "Contents of skull" of Neanderthal man; p. 116, increased activity of pituitary gland one possible explanation of supraorbital ridges. Pp.190-197, "The brain of the Neandertal race." Pp.198-2oo, "The proportions of brain to spinal cord." pp. 350-353 discuss opinions on the origin of Neanderthal man's extraordinary brain size Bunak, V. V.: (Endocranial cast of the Palaeolithic child's skull from the cave of Teshik-Tash, Uzbekistan.) 8bovnik Muzeja Anthrop. i Etnogr. 13,417-419 (1951). In Russian. Non vid. Buttel-Reepen, H. v.: Aus dem Werdegang der Menschheit, Der Urmensch vor und wahrend der Eiszeit in Europa. Ein Sammelreferat. Jena 1911. (1913 "Man and his forerunners", London.) Neanderthalian brain, pp.46-49, large but more like brains of apes than of H. sapie1l8; "feeble mental powers ... but a very crude and rudimentary language" Campbell, B.: Quantitative taxonomy and human evolution. Pp.50-74 in Washburn, S. L., ed., Classification and human evolution. Chicago (1963). "Evolution Rate of the Homini• dae" (pp. 64--65, table 3) takes brain size as "the most meaningful and convenient charac• ter in this connection." Haldane's formula used on seven cranial capacities, Austral• opithecus to modem man, suggests" that the development of the brain reached a maximum rate of about 375 md. [millidarwins], and after the appearance of Steinlleim man (with Swanscombe) dropped to practically zero ... " Carrington, R.: A million years of man. The story of human development as part of nature. New York and London 1964. As the author is convinced that "the brain-body ratio... is one of the factors determining intelligence" (p. 27), that the brain's "size relative to the size of the body... determines mental capacity" (p. 39), he believes that in Australopithe• cines "mental powers were probably considerable. In fact, in relation to their body size, they had a larger brain capacity than any animal that had previously appeared on the earth" (pp.78-79). Pithecanthr0]YU8, pp.88-89, fig. 11; "the nature of the Neanderthal brain", pp.99-1oo. "The prelude to the human story" is supposed to have been life in trees by Mesozoic primates [1], where their "brains responded to the need for a greater co-ordination of movement by an immense development in the cortical region" (p. 66) Caspari, E.: Selective forces in the evolution of man. Am. Naturalist 97, 5-14 (1963). As acquisition of bipedal gait preceded acquisition of brain of human size, the two trends can be regarded as independent (p. 9). The latter change was rapid from Australopithecines to the stage of Peking man; "It is proposed that in human evolution a positive feedback relation existed between cultural and genetic change" (p. 13) Clark, Ie Gros, W.: See Ie Gros Clark, W. Cohn, R.: Language and Behavior. Am. Sci. 49, 502-508 (1961). P.504, "It is worthy of special emphasis that man, who as Homo sapiens [not italicized, interesting re editing] is presumed to have had his origin approximately 50,000 years ago, or around the end of the Mousterian cultural period [5]," [This reference is to H. G. Wells, Outline of History!]

190 "required nearly 40,000 years of acculturation before a definite written mode of expression was developed.. Having invented this mode, it required only approximately 1,000 more years to generate written language forms that could basically express his acquired pro• perties; and within certainly much less than another 1000 years man utilized graphic verbal language to express highly complex descriptive material. The overwhelmingly rapid development... " [i.e., not evolution, but communication] "of written verbal language is remarkable as an expression of the need and material importance of this cultural attri• bute-and man's ingenuity" Cole, S.: See Gen. Cat. (1964) Connolly, C. J.: The Tepexpan endocranial cast. Viking Fund Publ. Anthrop. 11, 130--131 (1949). An expert with hominid endocasts in this late Pleistocene Homo points out that a dorsal bulge at the parietal apex, an abrupt elevation (seen in the side views, pI. 25, c and d) is "due mainly to the large Pacchionian bodies" 4 of which are seen in dorsal view, pI. 25e. The outside dorsal contour of the skull "does not show such a pronounced bulge" (p.30) Connolly, C. J.:. External morphology of the primate brain. Springfield, Illinois 1950. pp. 270--324, "Endocranial casts and brain fissuration" (including Auatralopitheeua). pp. 331-349, figs. 331-337: "The fissural impressions on the endocranial casts of prehistoric man" Connolly, C. J.: Brain morphology and taxonomy. Anthrop. Quart. 28, 35-65 (1953). pp. 55-63, Australopithecinae, Sinanthropus, Pithecanthropu8; Neanderthal man Cooper, D. M.: See Ie Gros Clark, W., D. M. Cooper and S. Zuckerman (1936) Cornwall, I. W.: The making of man. London 1960. P.59 has the heading "The Brain"; treats with Pithecanthr0pu8, Homo neanderthalensis, and Cro Magnon man, but with their skills and possible religious beliefs. The brain of H. neanderthalensis "was sometimes in no way inferior to ours in size, but we'have so far been unable to relate level of intelligence in living man to mere volume of the brain" Count, E. W.: Brain and body weight in man: their antecedents in growth and evolution. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 48, 993-1122 (1947). It is instructive to consider Count's thoughts on non-hominid mammals. P. 1043, citing mammals of "low cerebral organization" such as Baltuohthitherium, Uintatherium, Megaladapis, and GigantopithefYUB, concludes "Unless a phylum produces members of ever higher proportion of brain weight, its only representa• tives that survive eventually are animals of relatively small size; otherwise, the entire phylum becomes extinct." P.l052, Eohippus, Mesohippus, Diplobune, Uintatherium, AnopZotherium; p. 1056, Mesol~ippus. P. 1102, table 26, "Exponents of Cephalization" in• cludes Anoplotheria, Amblypoda. P. 1097, table 18, "Cranial Capacities of some Palaeoan• thropoi, and Calculations of Brain Weights", includes Ehringsdorf, Gibraltar, La Chapelle, La Quina, La Moustier, Neanderthal, Pithecanthr0pu8, Rhodesian, and Rome. Fig. 15, includes Pithecanthropu8 in ontogenetic curve for man and other higher primates. Fossil record appreciated, and need for more evidence from paleontology is stressed throughout the paper, as on pp. 1044, 1052, and 1056 Craig, D.: See Dart, R. A. (with D. Craig) (1959) Critchley, M.: The evolution of man's capacity for language. In Tax, S., Evolution after Darwin, II, 289-308 (1960). P.302, primitive man's cranial capacity was intermediate to man's and anthropoids', but shape and proportions of cranial cavity more important, development of frontal lobes and parietal eminences. P. 303, hand prints in cave painting show left hands (4: lover right), indicating cerebral dominance in Aurignacian, Solutrean and Magdalenian periods. P.304, quotes A. Keith as saying left hemisphere of brain was largest in Neanderthals. P. 305 quotes Tilney on Pithecanthropu8, which because of inferior frontal convolutions, may have had speech. Left frontal area was larger, which Tilney interprets as indicating right-handedness Cuenot, L., Tetry, A.: See Gen. Cat. (1951) [Cunningham, D. J.: Right-handedness and left-brainedness. J. Anthrop. Inst. Great Britain 33,273-296 (1902). One of the aims of this survey is to ascertain "the period in the evolu• tion of man at which right-handedness became a fixed and permanent human character• istic" (p. 280).-During the shaping of the cortex in ontogeny, the motor "arm area" bulges in the 6th month, the speech area just before birth. This suggests "that man attained the erect attitude, and that the arm was set free for the development of its higher functions before articulate speech was elaborated" (p.294)] Darling, L.: See Magoun, H. W., L. Darling, and J. Prost (1960)

191 Dart, R. A.: A'UIltralopitkecus a/rican'Ull: The man-ape of South Africa. Nature 110, 195-199, 462 (1925). The endocranial CI18t (figs. 3, 5, 6) depicts a brain in harmony with the ultra• simian, humanoid other features of the immature Taungs skull Dart, R. A.: Taungs and its significance. Natural Rist. 26, 315-327 (1926). Brain size of AU8tralopitkecus, pp. 325-326 Dart, R. A.: The A'UIltralopitheo'Ull of Makapansgat. Man 48, 144 (1948a). Concludes from the endocranial contours of "the posterior third of an adult Australopithecine skull": "A'UIltral• opitkecus was therefore a big-brained contemporary of the small brained (circa 450 cc.) Plesianthropus " Dart, R. A.: The Makapansgat proto-human AU8tralopitkecus promdhe'U8. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop., n.s. 6, 259-284 (1948b). Endocranial volumes pp. 271-273; in occipital view, endocranial CI18ts of chimpanzee, A'UIltralopitkecus and Pithecanthropus (fig. 5), illustrate increase in proportion of cerebral to cerebellar matter Dart, R. A.: The significance of Makapansgat. Z. Morph. Anthrop. 46, 119-123 (1954). P. 121, The brains of the Australopithecinae vary in volume generally from circa 400--750 cc., Paranthropua et'a8Men& pOBBibly attained 800 or even 900 cc. The case of brain weight of a European with normal intelligence with a brain weight of 788 grams, of an English shepherd with 560 grams and of three Bantu with circa 500 cc, show that brains even smaller than the largest known gorilla brain (655 cc) are human, and that the proto• humans of South Africa had "a competent intellectual mechanism", adequate in the bone-club wielding, cannibalistic (etc.) phase of human evolution Dart, R. A.: Cultural status of the South African man-apes. Ann. Rep. Smithson. Inst. for 1906a, 317-338. With a brain volume of 400-1000 cc; bridging the gap between that of living apes (87-685) and of Pithecanthropus-8inanthropus (750-1250), the australopithe• cines" had developed all the intelligence necessary" to recognize as tools tusks, mandibles and horns of their prey, to utilize and even shape stones, and to preserve them for future use Dart, R. A.: The relationship of brain size and brain pattern to human status. S. Afr. J. Med. Sci. 21, 23-45 (1956b). Inter alia, rejection of Keith's and Vallois' "rubicon" concept; in the pre-sapient human types capacities range: A'UIltralopitkecus group 400-1000 cc.; Pithecanthropus-8inanthropus 750-1250 cc.; normal Homo sapien& vary from 790 to 2350 ce., and abnormal, with more human than anthropoid competence, down to 500 and even 170 cc. Dart, R. A.: Further light on australopithecine humeral and femoral weapons. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. n.s. 17, 87-93 (1959a). "Fig. 1. Two Plesianthropus endocranial casts from Sterkfontein demonstrate depreBBed fractures caused by double-ridged tools" Dart, R. A. (with D. Craig): Adventures with the missing link. New York 1959b. This story of the discoveries of, and the changing opinions about, the Australopithecines includes a side view drawing of the Taungs specimen "to show the expanded area between the lunate and parallel sulci concerned chiefly with appreciating the appearance, BOund and feel of things handled" (cf. p. 6: "the creature whose skull could give a cast of this sort must have been at least three times as intelligent as any living ape "), with the respective areas of the endocast inscribed Vision-Memory Area-Hearing-Feeling-Movement (fig. 6); photos of two Ple8ianthropus endocranial CI18ts (much reduced: fig. 31); and "a diagram displaying the overlapping ranges in brain size or cranial capacity ofliving apes... , man-apes (Australopithecines), ape-man (pithecanthropines), Neanderthal Man and Modern Man" (fig. 37) Davidenkov, S.: See Gen. Cat. (1947) De Beer, G. R.: See Gen. Cat. (1964) De Bellesme, G. Jousset: See Jousset de Bellesme, G. Dechambre, E.: Relations entre l'adaptation physiologique et la morphologie chez quelques mammiferes domestiques et sauvages. Mem. Mus. natl. d'Hist. nat., n,s. 26, 75-241 (1948). Calculations of percentage, in skull surfaces, of respiratory, digestive, and cerebral portions, include (pp.227-228) 17 fOBBil hominids, from Pithecanthropus (5.7/33.4/60.8) to old Grimaldi woman (4.0/16.5/79.7) Degerbfill, M.: Om Menneskets Oprindelse of Slaegtskabsforhold. Naturens Verden 11, 337-374 .(1927). Pithecanthropus, Rhodesia and Gibraltar man pp. 355-357, figs. 17-20 Dekeyser, P. L. D.: Essai sur les Singes fOBBiles et les Hommes-Singes d'Afrique. Bull. Inst. fran9. Afrique noire to, 185-219 (1953). A survey which abstracts literature also on the brains of Pr~ (p. 199), A'UIltralopitheo'Ull (pp. 204-206), and Paranthropus (p. 210)

192 Dekeyser, P. L. D.: L'hominisation. Notes afric. (Inst. fran\l. Afr. noire, Univ. Dakar) no. 95, 65-77 (1962). Finds that every concept of the processes during hominisation, of "how intelligence was born", is an uncertain assumption. Also concerning the ·brain in fossil hominids (pp. 68-73); its quality and its absolute and relative quantity, "paleontology is silent", "fossils remain mute" de Santa-Maria, S.: See Santa-Maria, S. de de Quatrefages, A.: See Quatrefages, A. de Dobzhansky, T.: (Reprinted 1963) See Gen. Cat. (1955) Dobzhansky, T.: Mankind evolving. The evolution of the human species. New Haven and London 1962. Section 8; "Human mental faculties and their antecedents", includes chapters "Brain size" and "Brain differentiation" (pp. 199-203.; table 18: "Cranial capacity in hominid evolution") ."Large brain size is evidently not indillPElnsable for high intelligence or achievement. But it is a fallacy t

13 Advances in Anatomy, Vol. 49 193 Dubois, E.: Pithecanthrapus erectus. Eine menschenahnliche Uebergangsform aus Java. Batavia 1894. Calculation of cranial capacity (pp.9-13), more than 1000 cc. Character• ization of "New family: Pithecanthropoidae" includes "Contents of brain cavity approxi• mately 2/3 of human average" (p. 1); frontal area gained most with higher vaulting cranium (p.34). (Lit. cit. in Dubois 1940, Proc. Ned. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam, xliii, 10, pp. 1268-1270) Dubois, E.: "Pithecanthropus erectus, eine menschenahnliche Uebergangsform aus Java" (abstract of 1894). Nature 51, 428-429 (1895a). Pithecanthropus had cranial capacity of at least 1000 cc.-regarded as "unquestionably human" (p.428) Dubois, E.: PitMcanthropus erectus, betrachtet als eine wirkliche Uebergangsform und als Stammform des Menschen. Z. Ethnoi. 27, (723)-(738) (1895b). Review: Natw. Rundsch. 11, (1896),,285-288. Pp. (731)-(732): removal of part of matrix that fills calvarium allows guesses on cerebro-cerebellar relations Dubois, E.: Remarks upon the brain-cast of PithecanthrO'pus erectus. Proc. Internati. Congr. Zooi. 4, (1898), 79-96. Abstract in J. Anat. Physioi. 33 (n.s. 13, 1899), 273-276 (1898). A cast of the interior of the skull cap shows highly developed cerebral hemispheres, p. 81. Pp. 82-84, describes the endocast. Comparison of cranial capacities of H. sapiens, fossil men, various apes and chimps made pp. 86-87. Compares body weight and brain weight in man and other mammals (horse, elephant, and primates) pp. 89-90. Pp.91-92, gives formulae for influence of body size on brain size, and index of cephalization Dubois, E.: On the significance of the large cranial capacity of HomO' neanderthalensis. Proc. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam (8) 13, 1271-1288 (1921). Further discussion of cranial capacity, brain weight in relation to body weight, mostly in modern man and primates, and other mammals Dubois, E.: On the cranial form of HO'mO' neanderthalensis and of Pithecanthropus erectus, determined by mechanical factors'. Proc. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 24, 313-332 (1922). Recites cranial capacity and thinks Neanderthal brain, although nearly as large as H. sapiens, was of inferior quality, p. 316. P.317, states that it was larger, however, than the brain of apes. Rhodesian skull cranial capacity (p. 327) about 1400 cc. Pp. 331-332, cranial form in Pithecanthropus discussed; fig. 6 shows outline of endocranial casts of PithecanthrO'pus and La Chapelle man Dubois, E.: On the principal characters of the cranium and the brain, the mandible and the teeth of Pithecanthropus erectus. Proc. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 27, 265-278 (1924a). Morphological characters of brain of Pithecanthropus from endocast, p.266. P. 268, endocranial measurements; pp.268-269, discusses morphology of brain; p.270, states that man-apes have large neurocranium in proportion to splanchnocranium and; pp.271-274 compares early men and apes as to cranial capacity, profile, eye-brain size ratio, morphology, and quantity Dubois, E.: Figures of the calvarium and endocranial cast, a fragment of the mandible and three teeth of PithecanthrO'pus erectus. Proc. Kon. Adad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 27, 459-464 (1924b). No text is provided, but illustrations include calvarium: pI. I, f.l; pI. II, fs.2, 3; pI. III, fs.4, 5; pI. IV, f. 6; endocranial cast: pI. V, f. 7; pI. VI, fs. 8, 9; pI. VII, fs. 10, 11 Dubois, E.: The shape and size of the brain in SinanthrO'pus and PithecanthrO'pus. Proc. Sect. Sci. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 36, 415-423 (1933a). Abstract: The Peking man's brain. Science, n.s. 78, no. 2023, suppI., 9-10. P.419, the brains of SinanthrO'pus and PitMcanthropus are nearly equal in size but quite unlike in shape. (See plates 1-4) Describes endocasts of both genera Dubois, E.: Ueber die Gleichheit der Cephalisationsstufe aller Menschengruppen bei verschie• denem spezifischen Gehirnvolumen. Bio Generalis, X, 1, pp. 186-193 (1933b). Mentions brains of H. neandertha.lensis, p. 189, 192-193 Dubois, E.: On the gibbon-like appearance of PithecanthrO'pus erectus. Proc. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 38, no. 6, 578-585 (1935). P. 578, discusses brain volume, coefficient of cephalization. P.579, states "laws" of brain features. P. 584, figure shows outline of endocasts of P. erectus and HylO'bates agilis and a modern European Dubois, E.: Racial identity of HomO' sO'lensis Oppenoorth (including HomO' modjO'kertensis von Koenigswald) and Sinanthropu8 pekinensis Black. Proc. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 39, 1180-1185 (1936). Compares brain volumes of SinanthrO'pus, HO'rnO' sO'1O'ensis and H. sapiens (pis. I-III; figs. 1-4)

194 Dubois, E.: On the fossil human skulls recently discovered. in Java and Pithecanthropus erectu8. Man 1937a, 1-7. Cranial capacity of H. r1wde8ien8i8, H.8oloensi8, and Pithecan• throp'U8 discussed.; endocasts of P. and Sinanthropus, figs. 4-5. "This surprising brain volume" distinguishes P. from gibbons, with whose femur the P. femurs closely agree. [But see Ie Gros Clark 1937] Dubois, E.: Early man in Java and Pithecanthropus erect'U8, pp.315-322. In: Mac Curdy, G. G., ed., Early man. Philadelphia 1937b. Judging almost entirely from the endocranial casts (figs. 49-51), declares Homo 80lenBiB and Sinanthrop'U8 as human, Pithecanthrop'U8 "a large gibbonoid species." Mainly from Ngandong cranial capacities, concludes that H. 8OloenBiB and H. modiokertenBi8 are Sinanthrop'U8 Dubois, E.: The mandible recently described and attributed to the Pithecanthrop'U8 by G. H. R. von, Koenigswald, compared with the mandible of Pithecanthrop1L8 erect'U8 described in 1924 by Eug. Dubois. Proc. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 41, 2, 1-9 (1938a). " ...the brain of all Hominids, including microcephalies, shows a parietal vertex, Pithecanthrop'U8, on the contary, does not possess such a vertex ... " (p.9) Dubois, E.: On thl' fossil human skull recently described and attributed to Pithecanthrop'U8 erectu8 by G. H. R. von Koenigswald. Proc. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 41, 4, 380-386 (1938b). " ...Sinanthrop'U8 in every case is distinguished from PithecanthrOPU8 by... significant characters of the brain, particularly a cerebral parietal vertex... in the "new Pithecanthrop'U8 skull"... pronouncedly prominent cerebrum above the cerebellum ... a human feature which is lacking in Pithecanthrop'U8." (p.6) Du Brul, E., Reed, C. A.: Skeletal evidence of speech? Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. n.s. 18, 153-156 (1960). Neither a swollen "Broca's convolution" on endocasts of fossil hominids, nor chin structure can reveal the habit of speech. (See also Gen. Cat.) Economo, C. von: See Gen. Cat. (1928) Economo, C. von: See Gen. Cat. (1929) Economo, C. v.: Cytoarchitectony and progressive cerebration. Reprinted from Psychiatric Quarterly 4: pp.84-100. In: K. v. Economo and J. v. Wagner-Jauregg 1937, Baron Constantin von Economo. Burlington, Vermont 1930. Progressive cerebration from Pithecanthropus to modern man, pp. 97-100, fig. 18 (from Tilney) Economo, C. v.: Ueber progressive Cerebration und ueber die Erforschung der anatomischen Grundlagen der Begabungen. Wiener kIin. Wochenschr. 44, 597-602 (1931 a). pp. 598-599, six Pleistocene cranial capacities, A'U8tralopithec'U8 to Cro Magnon man, arranged between those of gorilla and Homo 8apienB [1550. H. neanderthalenBiB only 1400.] as though an ancestal series; discussed. as showing not only quantitative but also qualitative gains Economo, C. v.: Problems of brain research. (A 1931 address, "Probleme der Hirnforschung".) pp.109-121 in K. v. Economo and J. v. Wagner-Jauregg 1937, Baron Constantin von Economo. Burlington, Vermont (1931 b). "The border-zone between paleontology and brain research", the endocasts of fossil hominids--suggesting, e.g., "that ambidexterous and left-handed individuals were more common than today, discussed pp. 113-115 Edinger, L.: Der Schadelausguss des Mannes von La Chapelle. Jahresber. ii.rztI. Ver. Frankfur'" a.M. for 1913, 149, 1914a. The only feature that can be ascertained as really different from endocasts of extant man is lesser development of the lower frontal and the first temporal gyrus. This possibly allows the conclusion that language, prerequisite of the highest faculties, was incompletely developed Edinger, L.: See Gen. Cat. (1914b, 1918) [Edinger, T.: Versteinerte Menschenhirne aus der Eiszeit? Nat. u. Mus. 7,311-318 (1927). Briefly reporting on preservation of brain substance and the nature of natural endocranial casts, demonstrates that the silex lumps regarded by Hindze as petrified human brains are neither, but siliceous concretions, amusing l'U8'U8 naturae] Ehgartner, W.: Fossile Menschenaffen aus Siidafrika: Australopithecinae. Die bisherigen Funde und ihre Bedeutung fiir die Stammesgeschichte der Menschheit. Mitt. anthrop. Ges. Wien 80, 157-212 (1950). Critical survey, regarding the australopithecines as, pre• sumably, survivors of the primitive form which last gave rise to the Hominidae: a form nearer to man than to apes which never developed into man. Brain Volume (pp. 165-168, table 2) of480 to 650 cc. gives no answer to the phyletic questions; its relative size is unknown Ehrlich, P. R., Holm, R. W.: See Gen. Cat. (1963) Eickstedt, E. v.: Der derzeitige Stand der Urmenschenforschung. Versuch einer handlichen Didaktik der Palaomorphologie und Palaopsychologie der Hominiden. Arch. Julius Klaus-Stiftg. 24, 525-551 (1949). Not anatomical; p.540-542 "System der Palaopsycho-

195 logie", from the results of fossil men's minds we can conclude how technique and art developed and hence language, without which there is no thought. Language in evolution must have developed ag it does in ontogeny. pp.543-546 "Die Stufen des Geistigen" describes the presumable ways of life and mentalities of Pithecanthropinae, early Pleisto• cene and the various late Pleistocene groups of man Eiseley, L. C.: See Tanner, J. M., K. P. Oakley and L. C. Eiseley (1953) Eiseley, L. C.: Was Darwin wrong about the human brain? Harper's Mag. 211 66--70 (1955). Recalling A. R. 'Vallace's observation that" savages" have brains and intellectual powers developed in advance ·of~the needs, and the fact that "man of today... has precisely the same brain... as his ancestors of 20,000 years ago," finds that selection cannot have been a factor in the rapid evolution of the human brain Engels, F.: Anteil der Arbeit an der Menschwerdung der Affen. Die nelle Zeit, J ahrg. XIV, 2, 545-554 (1896). Reprinted 1962. In: Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels: Werke, 20 (Berlin: Inst. f. Marxismus-Leninismus. Translation, 1940: pp. 279-296. In: Dialectics of Nature. New York. Once hands were freed from locomotion, "First comes labour, after it, and then side by side with it, articulate speech-these were the two most essential stimuli under the influence of which the brain of the ape gradually changed into that of man" (p. 284) "Even the most materialistic natural scientists of the Darwinian school are still unable to form any clear idea of the origin of man, because under this ideological influence they do not recognise the part that has therein been played by labour" (p. 289) Ennouchi, E.: Un Neanderthalien: I'Homme du Jebel Irhoud (Maroc.). Anthropologie 66, 279-299 (1962). "Cranial Capacity"; different methods of measuring had different results, it was approximately 1480 cc, higher than modern man's average (pp.295-296). "The Brain"; no endocast was taken, sulci can be seen inside the braincase but interpretation as to possible differences from modern man are too difficult to establish anyway (pp. 296--297) Exner, R.: Das Gehirn des Plesianthropus transvaalensis. Ann. naturh. Mus. Wien 1)8, 1-8 (1951). "Extends and supplements" Schepers'interpretation Ferrant, V., Friant, M.: La Faune pleistoctme d'Oetrange (Grand-Duche de Luxembourg). IX. L'Homme (HorIW sapiens L.) Bull. Mensuels Soc. des Naturalistes luxemb. n.s. 33, 17-52 (1939). Endocast of occipital bone of young Homo individuals (two): pI. XII, figs. o and 0'. Pp. 28-29; "cerebellar fossa" and "neopallial sulci lunatus" of these specimens. They are also figured in Friant's book. The type of humans of this locality is found to be not far from H. sapiens, yet like-'.'race de Chancelade" of Neanderthal man Fraipont, C.: L'evolution cerebrale des Primates et en particulier des Hominiens. Arch. Inst. Paleont. Hum. 8,1-87 (1931a). "L'encephale (pp. 72-82, figs. 102-110: H. neanderthalen• sis; figs. 111-112: Pithecanthropus) contends that human intelligence could develop only in a microsmatic mammal (reduction of rhinencephalon and of frontal lobe) of upright posture, with free hands;:and (p. 84) flat face and reduced dention Fraipont, C.; L'intelligence humaine et la loi de correlation des organes. Mem. Soc. Roy. Sci. Liege (3) 16, no. 19, 1-12 (1931 b). "Some philosophical ideas" on the 1931a study. Among the arguments for almost upright gait of H. neanderthalensis, tree-climbing habits inPithecan• thropus, is the feeble representation of convolutions on the vault of endocast of the former, distinct frontal convolutions in the latter (pp. 8-9) Franke, C.: Die Bedeutung der diluvialen Menschenskelette fiir die Sprachwissenschaft. Naturw. Woschr. 29, 776--779 (1914). " .. .in the same bulk, however, the brain-capsule form agreed-and a communication pressure ... " (was exerted) " ... by the ancient men on that of the near apes."; but development of lower jaw was necessary for articulated language which cannot have begtm before the 8th tenth of the Pleistocene Franke, H. W.: Die Sprache der Vergangenheit. Die Verfahren zur vorgeschichtlichen Zeit• bestimmung. Stuttgart 1962. There is no method for dating finds of fossil man by means of the bone material itself. As long as hominid phylogeny was seen as just one line, it was believed that intelligence and brain volume could reveal the phase in the rise of man. "But the two do not always rise or fall in correlation. It does not mean much that the brain space was 1500 cc. in Neanderthal man and 1325 in Swanscombe man. Besides, it has happened. that more intelligent races lived earlier and more primitive ones later. It seems the lowly Neandertaler has temporarily displaced the higher-developed races of the Cro Magnon type and intel'rnpted their development. This is proven by, for example, the find at Fonrechevade" (p.35). Fig. 8, a diagram "The brain volume in the course of human phylogeny", shows-its-extent in several phases and the overlapping

196 Friant, M.: See Ferrant, V. and M. Friant (1939) Friant, M.: Anatomie comparee du cerveau. Les hemispheres (neopallium). Developpement et interpretation de leurs sillons chez l'homme. Aires cerebrales. Paris 1947. (Ed. Prisma) 123 pp., 58 pI. Pl. 44-45; endocasts of occipital of two Pleistocene H. 8apiem children (from Ferrant et Friant 1939). S. lunatus and S. praelunatus are "primitive" characters [Friederichs, H. F.: Scb.ii.del und Unterkiefer von Piltdown (Eoanthropus dawaoni Woodward) in neuer Untersuchung. Z. Anat. Entwgesch. 98, 199-262 (1932). Finds that the skull fragments from both localities belonged to modern man. Occipital view of the very different published endocast reconstructions: fig. 8 a-d.] Foreward by F. Weidenreich Fuste, M.: Morfologfa cerebral de un ejemplar neandertalense, procedente de la cueva de la Carigiiela, en Piiiar (Granada). Trab. Inst. "Bernardino de SahagUn" de Anthrop. y Ethnol. 16,,27-39 (1956). (French, English, German summaries). [Misleading title.] Endocast described and shown in photos (pl. I, fs. a-d) and five text figures represent only the almost entire frontal lobes; study of sulci finds convolutions as in, not "rougher" than in modern man Fuste, M.: Molde intracraneal de un nuevo resto del Hombre de Neandertal en Espana.. Cursillos y Conf. Inst. "Lucas Mallada", Madrid 4, 41-43 (1957). Endocast described and illustrated (fig. 2, anterior aspect), convolutions of cerebral cortex as .in modern man Fuste, M.: Endocranialer Ausguss des Neandertaler Parietale von Cova Negra. Anthrop. Anz. 21, 268-273 (1958). Endocast of one incomplete parietal bone shows meningeal vessels and pacchionion bodies but except for trace of interhemispherical and ?Sylvian fossa no distinct neopallial relief, "due to loss of bone substance". Rich ramification of Ramus anterior of middle meningeal artery is taken as proof that neandertalian convolu• tions were not less developed than in modern man Galloway, A.: The nature and status af the Florisbad skull as revealed by its nonmetrical features. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 28, 1-16 (1937). pp. 6-9, "The endocranial cast"; brain was different from Neanderthal brains, closer to Rhodesia man, but with larger frontal lobe. Possibly precursor of Boskop type brain Garriga Pujol, J.: Ideas paleantropol6gicas de F. Weidenreich. Bol. Real Soc. espaii. Rist. nat., Secci6n geoi. 48, 167-183 (1950). pp. 181-183, "The evolution of the brain" Gates, R. R.: Human ancestry, from a genetical point of view. Cambridge, Mass. 1948. P. 145, "Man's brain appears to have continued to increase in size because of the advantages of additional intelligence which the increase conveyed" Gieseler, W.: Die Fossilgeschichte des Menschen. pp.951-1109. [11,: Heberer, G., ed., Die Evolution der Organismen, 2nd. Ed., Stuttgart (1957). Stratigraphical and osteological, but including cranial capacities of, e.g., seven H. neandenluUenaia, 1500 to 1723 cc. (pp. 966-968) Glory, A.: See Bergounioux, F. M. and A. Glory (1943) Gosse, D. G.: Paralelismo entre los cra.neos, mentalidades e industrias de los' hombres pleist• ocenos. Mem. Soc. iberica Cienc. nat. 2, 1-50 (1920). P. 20, "The capacity of some crania of the Neanderthal type is sometimes exceptionally large; but nevertheless the brain lacks the superior organization that is characteristic of the modern human brain. Indeed, when one examines the skull of Neanderthal man, one sees that it possesses an enlargement of the occipital region, and this is precisely that part of the cerebrum in which thenon-reflex actions are rooted; so that this enlargement comes to represent a deposit of accumulation of experiences acquired by the race during its long existence, that is, perfection of the instinct with development of memory" Gottschick, J.: Entwicklung und Leistungsentfaltung des Menschenhirns wahrend der Mensch• heitsgeschichte. Nervenarzt 26, 271-275 (1955). "Entwicklung" seen as one of increasing brain size by jumps, as ancestry is so arranged-e.g., from australopithecines to end of Neanderthal phase x21/a-3, involving only cortical areas close to sensory fields; to Oro Magnon phase, increase of frontal and temporal cortex areas. "Leistungsentfaltung" followed rather than accompanied those increases and its greatest progress occurred, while within Hamil aapiem brain size decreased Grasse, P.-P.: L'origine de l'homme vue par un biologiste. Rev. gen. Sci. 64,343-353 (1957). Among the theories this study refutes is Dubois' and Lapique's belief that the human brain resulted from that of an ape cell division (p.349). "The human brain is not an organ like the other organs. Considered in the general line of the evolution of living beings, it marks a stage [etape] probably as important as, more revolutionary than the passage

197 from the unicellular to the pluricellular stage" (p.351). "Evolution has created a new instrument" (p. 352) Grasse, P.-P.: See Aron, M. and P.-P. Grasse, Gen. Cat. (1966) Gregory, W. K.: See Osborn, H. F. (1944) Gregory, W. K.: Evolution emerging. New York 1951. Australopithecine and Pithecanthropus brains briefly discussed pp. 492-493,538; endocast contours fig. 23.64 Grimm, H.: Einfiihrung in die Anthropologie. Jena 1961. Chapter 11, "Anthropology as an auxiliary science to prehistory", mentions p.73 the Neandertalian Ganov(!e natural endocast, explains how also by means of artificial endocasts the brain surface is accessible to study, and figures the Magdalen-age (Dolentz, Thuringia) brain fragment (fig. 38) Grimm, H.: Ein Endokranialausguss von einem friihmagdalenienzeitlichen Schadel aus Dobritz, Kreis Poszneck, ThUringen. pp. 212-220 in Kurth, G., ed., Evolution und Hominisation. Stuttgart 1962. "Only as an addition to the material of fossil Homo endo• casts: one fragment represents frontal pole (figs. 1-2), another the occipital and parietal area (figs. 3,6-7), third an inbetween area (figs. 4-5). The left hemisphere was somewhat larger, its VeSsels more branched than on the right Griinthal, E.: Ueber Unterschiede im Gehirnbau der Anthropoiden und des Menschen und das eigentlich Menschliche am Gehirn. Fortschr. Neurol. Psychiatr. 8, 261-284 (1936). P.264, Pithecanthropus brain weight; between 900 and 1,000, if cranial capacity 1,000 co., within Homo 8apiens variation breadth [down to 788 normal person]. Neanderthalers certainly equal H. Bapiens in brain weight. Fig. 4, left side view of forebrain relief of chimpanzee, PithecanthropuB, H. nearukrtkalensiB (La Chapelle), and H. 8apiens. Fig. 3, frontal convolution lines [and also Part 2]. The small gyrus which seems to correspond to human 3rd frontal convolution in the chimpanzee was found by Brodman (1912, Verh. anat. Gas.) to belong, cytoarchitectonically, to precultural, not to frontal region. It is larger in PithecantkropUB, (and smaller than in H. Bapien&; not distinct in Neanderthal man, of. Kappers) but of course one cannot say when frontal cortex invaded this gyrus, " ...from where it was able to release the speech function." (p.271) Griinthal, E.: See Gen. Cat. (1948) Hadon, A. C.: See Keane, A. H. (1920) Hallowell, A. I.: Self, society, and culture in phylogenetic perspective. pp. 309-371. In: Tax, S., ed., Evolution after Darwin. Vol. 2, 1960. P.310, quotes Eiseley (1955) as saying Wallace said in 1864 that natural selection worked on the brain of man after it ceased to work on his body, and that man walked upright before the final changes in brain structure. P.313, " .•• earliest hominids were small-brained•.• " Strauss (1955) quotes T. Edinger and the horse brain study as perhaps indicating that brain development lagged behind body "as a general rule in mammalian evolution." P.325, discusses cranial capacities, saying it does not (in fossil men) indicate complexity of the nervous tissue. (Ie Gros Clark, 1959, quoted.) P.328; quotes Howells, p.343; brain capacity does not indicate behavioral characteristics Harman, P. J.: Paleoneurologic, neoneurologic and ontogenetic aspects of brain phylogeny. James Arthur lecture on the evolution of the human brain, 1956. New York 1957. Included in this 24 page publication of the American Museum of Natural History, "Fossil Brains" pp. 4-6: on the promise of paleontology in general and paleoneurology in particular as one of the three possible ways to study evolution of the human brain. "The Phylogenetic Record", pp. 6-8: in the ape-hominid sequence the brain progressed less rapidly except in the more rapid final step. Not yet known whether cerebellum also more expansion finally in phylogeny as cerebrum and cerebellum do in ontogeny. Much else of great evolutionary importance, neocortical brain percentages stable within orders (rodents, carnivores, primates, including man) but increase in ratio favoring frontal cortex; marmoset -+man Hartweg, R.: Le cerveau de l'Homme de Neanderthal. Perspect. MM. 1,3-4 (1954). Non vid. Hauger, 0.: Der Gehirnreichtum der Australier und anderer Hominiden, beurteilt nach ihrem Skelet. Anat. Hefte (I: Arbeiten) i9, 577--617 (1921). As psychic qualities of homin• ids can be judged if cranial capacity and volume of skeleton is known, or volume of the large bones of the extremities (pp.609--610), Neandertal man and PithecanthropUB are included in this mathematical paper (table 1, chart p. 592, pp. 609--611) Hautmann, F.: Beitriige zum Rechts-Links-Problem. Arch. JuliusKlaus-Stiftg. 24,305-311 (1949). Handedness was in phylogeny acquired with the expansion of the frontal and

198 parietal lobes during the Pleistocene, and right-handedness increased since the early Palaeolithic: late paleolithic implements are shaped 60% for ambidextrous use, 10% for left-banders, 30 % for right-handers Hayes, C.: See Hayes, K. J. and C. Hayes (1951) Hayes, K. J., Hayes, C.: The intellectual development of a home-raised chimpanzee. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 90, 105-109 (1951). (Mentioned in Yearbook Phys. Anthrop. 1951, p. 28.) " ... suggest that a deficiency in language capacity may be the chief difference between chimpanzee and hypothetical cultureless man" Hawkes, J.: Prehistory. pp. 1-356. In: History of mankind. Cultural and scientific develop• ment. I. London (Unesco) 1963. "The Evolution of Man" (pp. 34-62) notes details of one of "several general trends ...the enlargement of the brain (including an increase in the space devoted to the sense of sight, and a decrease in that for smell)" (p. 34) on pp. 39, 41,44,46,47,48 Heberer, G.: Fortschritte in der Erforschung der Phylogenie der Hominoidea. Erg. Anat. Entwicklgsgesch. 34, 2nd. ed., 499-637 (1952). Fig. 38, Ple8iantkropus, (after Schepers). pp. 630-631, . " ... cerebral magnitude is not a servicable boundary mark in animal-man transition ... " "That prohiminid... example ... " (shows) " ...that the decisive step in that hominisation was learned by bipedalism, which first can be the basis for having created a cerebrationization of evolutionary predominance... " Heberer, G.: Die subhumane Abstammungsgeschichte des Menschen. pp.1110--1142. In: Heberer, G., ed., Die Evolution der Organismen, 2nd ed. Stuttgart 1959. In English, pp. 203-241. In: Howells, W., ed., 1962, Ideas on human evolution. Cambridge, Mass. m. Be• merkungen zum Tier-Mensch-tThergangsfeld, p.1135-1140, (1962, pp.234-241) also discusses quantitative versus functional brain capacity Heberer, G.: Die Herkunft der Menschheit. Propylaen-Weltgeschichte (Berlin, Frankfurt, Wien) 1, 87-153 (1961). In the" animal-man transition field", from tool-user to tool-maker, "brain volumes fail as a criterion"; although sub-human in degree of cerebralization, the australopithecines were "human Hominidae" (pp.128-130). After the acquisition of upright gait, progressive cerebralization was a main but not an orthogenetic trend, in the several lines of hominid phylogeny (p. 140) Heberer, G.: Ueber den systematischen Ort und den physisch-psychischen Status der Austral• opithecinen. pp.310--356. In: Heberer, G., ed., Menschliche Abstammungslehre. Fort• schritte der Anthropogenie 1863-1964. Stuttgart 1965. Cranial capacities discussed pp. 316-318,337-338,341, but: "Psychic potentialities cannot be deduced from the relative smallness of the australopithecine brains." It is the traces of brain activity, artifacts associated with sub-human bones which allow to state: "The psychic status of the austral• opithecines was human-hominid" (pp. 351-353) Heilborn, A.: See Klaatsch, H. and A. Heilborn (1920) Heintz, N.: La courbure des os de la voiite du crine chez les Hominides: evolution, variabilite. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris (D) 262, 1523-1526 (1966) A new method to study "the progressive cephalization in the human line" is measuring the height, the curvature, of frontal, parietal and occipital bones. This allows including such fragments as have been found isolated, so that the four diagrams show the very different advances in a large material, from chimpanzees and australopithecines up Hemmer, H.: Ueber allometrische Beziehungen zwischen Hirnschiidelkapazitit und Him• schiidelwolbung im Genus Homo. Homo 10, (4), 341-352 (1964). Non viti. Hill, W. C. 0.: Man's ancestry. London 1954. Touches upon" the brain ofthe Eocene tarsiods" p. 76; cranial capacities of australopithecines pp. 99-102; of Rhodesian man p. 137; and mentions that increasing size of the brain is the most outstanding characteristic of man" with modern man's progress due to its improvement in quality, p. 170 [Hindze, B.: Versuch einer morphologischen Analyse des versteinerten Gehirnes eines Men• schen aus diluvialen Schichten. Mitt. anthrop. Gas. Wien 07, 130--141 (1927). Of two "pieces of silica" found where a mammoth tooth had been found, one is figured (fig. 1). The other (fig. 2, "median"; fig. 3, "dorsal" photos; fig. 4, drawing of "medio-sagittal plane") is also described, and in great detail as showing such internal features of the human brain as the quadrigeminal bodies, splenium corporis callosi and the pons in median section. See, however, Edinger 1927] [Hindze, B.: Lea cerveaux petrifies fossiles. Institut Internatl. d'Anthropologie, me Session. Amsterdam 1927, pp. 155-160,1928. Brief description of the two flint specimens]

199 [Hindze, B. et al. : Versteinertes Gehirn von Menschen der Eiszeit. 2. Heft. Staatliches Timiraseff-Inst. f. wissensch. Untersuchung. Moscow 1928. pp.1-80, papers by eight authors, in Russian with German summaries. Non vid.] Hirschler, P.: Anthropoid and human endocranial casts. Dissert. (Fac. Med.) Amsterdam 1942. (Reviewed by W. E.le Gros Clark, commenting on reliability of endocasts of fossil humans. Nature 168, p. 5, 1946.) As the purpose of this study was to find how much of the different regions of the cerebral surface is revealed by endocranial casts, extinct forms are not mentioned either in its main parts nor its summaries (English, Dutch, German, French: pp. 120-142). However, "A survey of the literature on endocranial casts" (pp.6-34) is a critical review of those of fossil hominids, 1863 to 1939, because "we are committed to endocranial casts to get an insight into the brains of fossil men" (p. 5). It is concluded that also in, the Anthropoida "Endocranial casts may give valuable contributions to our knowledge of the skull, the brain and the structures intervening between them" (p.120) Hockett, C. F., Ascher, R.: The human revolution. Current Anthrop. 6, 135-147 (1964). Reprinted Am. Scientist 62,70-92. The "revolution" from proto-hominoids to speaking hominids was achieved by the beginning of the Pleistocene. Very important was the subsequent growth of the brain. "If a species has actually developed a bigger and more convoluted brain, with a particularly sharp increase of the forebrain, there was survival value in the change" (p. 145; in reprint, p. 89, omitting the forebrain item). "Language and culture selected for bigger brains" (p. 146, 91) Hoernes, M.: See Gen. Cat. (1909) Hofer, H.: Die cranio-cerebrale Topographie bei den Affen und ihre Bedeutung fiir die menschliche Schadelform. Homo 6, 52-72 (1954). Contradiction {also with earlier of such things) of Weidenreich's theory, according to which upright posture produced Schadel• basiskyphose, and thus room for brain enlargement. Schadelbasiskyphose, as monkeys and apes show, is independent of posture and gait. Author does not believe that upright posture preceded brain development but that the latter was a self-established process (pp.70-71) Hofer, H.: Ueber die Bedeutung und die Aufgaben der Primatologie. Nachr. Giessener Hochschulges. 26, 121-140 (1957). Evolution of the human head is among the problems which functional analysis must attempt to solve as skull material is too poor in the ancestral series of man. The theory is rejected that the basal kyphosis, consequent upon upright gait, shifted and rounded out the cranium, providing space for brain enlargement; transforma• tion of the skull was due to enlargement of the temporal lobe of the brain, and of the frontal lobe which apparently in australopithecines was larger than in apes and smaller than in Recent Man Hofer, H.: Die Evolution des Gehirnes der Primaten und die Interpretation der Schiidelform des Menschen. Ann. Soc. Roy. zoo!. Belg. 94, 97-115 (1965). Treats with the "kyphosis" of skull basis and brain in the extant primates. They are not related to each other except in man, where they also are far greater. The reason is sought in man's phylogeny. While the difficulties in the interpretation of the endocast of fossil Hominidae are pointed out, increase not of the whole brain but of the frontal lobe, traced in such specimens, is seen as the decisive factor in the exceptional skull-brain relation (pp. 112-114) Holloway, R. L.: Cranial capacity of the hominine from Olduvay Bed 1. Nature 208, 205-206 (1965). With another calculation method, finds Tobias' (1964) estimate of H. habilis cranial capacity "probably correct", but reminds of variability; "It would be unlikely that on the basis of cranial capacity, at least, the 'pre-Zinj" materials are within the Australopithecine taxon of early hominids" Holloway, R. L.: Cranial capacity, neural reorganization, and hominid evolution: a search for more suitable parameters. Am. Anthrop. 68, 103-121 (1966a). "The range of variation of cranial capacity for modern Homo sapiens is about 1,000 cc., with no correlation between capacity and behavior readily demonstrable. Such a figure represents almost the total amount of increase in capacity from the Australopithecine level to that of modern man" (p. 103). The paleoneurological method of studying evolution of brain and behavior in hominids and its errors, such as overemphasis on the frontal lobe, is critically reviewed (pp. 104-106). The neural reorganization in primate evolution is not revealed by endo• casts (p. 110). "Paleoneurology is of little or no use with respect to hominid evolution" (p. 116)

200 Holloway, R. L.: Cranial capacity and neuron number: a critique and proposal. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 21), 305-314 (1966b). Includes the different interpretations of fossil hominid endocasts (table 4) in warning of such" quantitative-specific" approaches to the problems of evolution of primate brains and behavior. Advises a "quantitative-general" approach with consideration of quantitative shifts of subcortical systems that interact with the cortex, the reorganization of also the sub-surface brain with use of field and laboratory studies of the extant series of primates. Hooton, E. A.: Up from the ape. Revised edition. New York 1947. Cranial capacities and endocasts of the fossil hominids are mentioned or discussed in "Fossil Ancestors and Collaterals" (pp. 277-421; see index) but also, e.g. Pithecanthropus pp. 159-162, besides pp.291-293 Howell, F. C.: See Washburn, S. L. and F. C. Howell (1952) Howell, F. C.: European and Northwest African Middle Pleistocene Hominids. Current Anthropology I, 195-232 (1960a). Ten cranial capacities included in the text, table 6A, and pp. 217-219 Howell, F. C.: See Washburn, S. L. and F. C. Howell (1960b) Howell, F. C. and the Editors of Life. Early man. New York (1965). "Increasingly well• developed brains" mainly pp. 80-83 Howells, W.: See Gen. Cat. (1959) Howells, W., ed.: Ideas on human evolution: Selected essays, 1949-1961. Cambridge, Mass. 1962. A collection of 28 papers covering significant fossil finds like Australopithecu8, Proconsul and Oreopithecus and rapid advances in understanding of evolution and the emergence of modern man Hoyos Sainz, L.: Los neandertaloides de Gibraltar. Bol. Real. Soc. espaii. Hist. nat. 41), 185-219 (1947). Pp. 198-202: "El endocraneo y el encefalo", with fig. 8: Gibraltar woman endocast, from Keith. P.207, brain of Gibraltar boy; p.214, cranial capacities of six neandertalians (1200 to 1600); pp. 216-217, big and well convoluted, the neandertalian brains are wrongly supposed to be inferior to either those of "Homo aurignacensis" or of modern man Hrdlicka, A.: Human evolution. S. Afr. Quarterly 6, no. 3-4 (1925a). Non vid. Hrdlicka, A.: The Taungs Ape. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 8, 379-392 (1925b). Non vid. Fide Hirschler, mentions natural endocranial casts of baboons Hrdlicka, A.: The Rhodesian man. Am. J. Anthrop. 9, 173-193 (1926) Non vid. Hrdlicka, A.: The Neanderthal phase of man. Rep. Smithson, Inst. 1928, 593-621. (A reprint with minor alterations, from J. Anthrop. Inst. 1927,1)7,249-274.) P. 616, " ... a word about the brain. The size and its variation in the Neanderthal brain are comparable with those of the Aurignacian, and even the present primitive man. The idea that the Aurignacians were exceptional in this respect is, if due regard be given to the factor of stature, erroneous. The surface conformation of the brain, as shown by intracranial casts, is of a low type in the Gibraltar, Spy I, La Chapelle, and other specimens. But this does not hold true of the Weimar or the Galilee brain" Hrdlicka, A.: The skeletal remains of early man. Smithson. Misc. Collect. 83, X +379 pp. (1930). See 12, "Brain" entries in index: brains of all types discussed, some re-figured from the literature Huizinga, J.: Systematic investigations of the position of the greatest breadth of the skull in Recent and fossil man. Pp. 199-214. In: von Koenigswald, G. H. R., ed., Hundert Jahre Neanderthaler, Neanderthal centenary, Utrecht 1958. Pp.212-213, "The frontal and temporal parts of the brain are... quantitatively of more importance" in Oro Magnon man than in N eanderthalers Huxley, T. H.: Evidence as to man's place in nature. London and Edinburgh 1863. (Ann Arbor Paperback, Univ. of Michigan, 1959.) Pp.156-157 (1959, p.181): Among the reasons to regard Neandertal man as human is the estimated cranial capacity. "So large a mass of brain as this, would alone suggest that the pithecoid tendencies, indicated by this skull, did not extend deep into the organization."P. 97 (p. 116) incidentally encourages endocast study, hence paleoneurology: "Inasmuch as the brain in all mammals completely fills the cranial cavity, it is obvious that a cast of the interior of the skull will reproduce the general form of the brain, at any rate with such minute and, for the present purpose, utterly unimportant differences as may result from the absence of the enveloping membra• nes of the brain in the dry skull"

201 Huxley, T. H.: Further remarks upon the human remains from the Neanderthal. Nat. Hist. Rev. 4,429-446 (1864). "Neanderthal brain" pp. 443445, figs. 2-3 Iakimov, V. P.: (The early stages of the anthropogene period.) Trudy instituta etnografii N. N. Mikluho-Makaia 16, 7-88 (1951). In Russian. Table of cranial capacities p. 25 Iakimov, V. P.: (Natural cast of cranium of Neanderthal man from Czechoslovakia.) Sovets• kaia Etnografia 1962a, no. 3, 196-198. In Russian, no figure Iakimov, V. P.: Estesvennyi slepok cherepa NeandertaltBa. (A natural cast of a skull of a Neanderthal man found in Czechoslovakia.) Priroda (Akad. Nauk U.S.S.R.) 1962b, no. 10, 75-76. In Czech. In two figures, hatched area in skull outline-dorsal and left lateral views-indicates that the cast is left temporal and part of occipital lobes Jarvik, E.: See Gen. Cat. (1964) J elfnek, J.: The fossil man of Dolni Vestonice III. (Czechoslovakia.) Anthropozoikum 3, 37-91 (1954). In Czech, Russian, and (pp.77-91) English. Complete endocranial cast described pp. 84-86, figured in six views, pIs. X-XII Jerison, H. J.: Interpreting the evolution of the brain. Human Biology 36, 263-291 (1963). Estimated brain and body weights of fossil hominids are used (table 1, charts figs. 6-7) in logarythmic analysis of assumption "that the basic brain size: body size relationship is a primitive one for the mammals and that subsequent brain development was indepen• dent of body size"; with the australopithecines on a level somewhat above that of the apes, they are" considered divergent from the anthropoid line in terms of brain develop• ment" (p. 285). [See also, Gen. Cat.] Jousset de Bellesme, G.: Contribution a la Physiologie prehistorique: De l'usage de la main droite dans les temps prehistoriques et de son influence sur Ie developpement du cerveau. Compt. Rand. Congr. prehist. France 1, 162-170 (1906). Prehistoric habit of using the right hand, as shown by stone tools,. explains the abnormal development, in one hemisphere only, of "the organ of articulate speech. It was provoked by the constant use of the right hand during a very long series of centuries" (p. 169) Jousset de Bellesme, G.: Essai de Physiologie prehistorique: Des Causes de l'Evolution du Cerveau pendant les Temps Prehistoriques. Lettre a M. Ernst Haeckel. Pp. 1-41. Bruxelles 1912. Enlargement and perfection of human brain between early and late Pleistocene, from Pithecanthropus and (!) Neanderthalians on the one hand to Cro Magnon and modem man on the other ,can only be explained by the influence, on the brain, of gradual improve• ment of the sense of touch in the liberated hands. The gradual perfection of the flint tools is an exact criterion of mental evolution and of corresponding modification of brain structure Julien, R.: Les Hommes fossiles de la pierre taillee (PaIeolithique et Mesolithique). Paris 1965. The chapter "Hominisation" contains a section "The brain" (pp. 63-65; fig. 34B: La Quina), also on that of the australopithecines (p. 79); in the descriptions of the larger hominids endocranial characters are mentioned and shown in new photos (fig. 46, Pithe• canthropus; fig. 75, La Chapelle-aux-Saints) Kalin, J.: Zum Problem der menschlichen Stammesgeschichte. Experientia 2, 272-287 (1946) pp.279-280, tables 2 and 3, figs.5-6 [So pekinensis, H. neanderthalensis, H. dawsoni, H. sapiens]: phyletic increase of average brain weight, preponderance of brain part over facial part of skull Kalin, J.: Die altesten Menschenreste und ihre stammesgeschichtliche Deutung. Pp. 33-98, 525-529. In: Valjavec, F., ed., Historia mundi, I. Bern 1952. Brain volumes incidentally touched upon. Even lowest Pithecanthropus cranial capacity, 775 cc., does not allow to assume either a lack of mental faculties, or successive leaps of the brain enlargement in human phylogeny (pp. 66-67); neither the increasing brain volume nor surface configura• tion are unambiguous expressions of functional values (p. 91). The estimated 850 cc. for Paranthropus should be judged considering Haller's rule: as brain size of a giant austral• opithecine (p. 95). Fig. 16, diagrams of facial/cranial proportions, includes Pithecanthropus pekinensis and Homo neanderthalensis, after Kalin 1946 Kalin, J.: Zur Ontogenese und Phylogenese des Schadels bei den h5heren Primaten. Rev. suisse Zoo!. 72,594-603 (1965). In a study of extant higher primates finds that the method of transformation coordinates, applied to Plesianthropus-+H. sapiens, establishes a pro• gressive deviation in the skull's shape that contradicts the hypothesis of fetalization. This progressive deviation in phylogeny includes progressive acceleration of growth representing a differentiated allometry which especially affects the dorsal part and a region containing the frontal lobe" (p. 603)

202 Kappers, C. U. A.: The evolution of the nervous system in invertebrates, vertebrates and man. Haarlem 1929 a. "Prehistoric brains" pp. 221-247, with numerous view of Pithecanthropus, Neandertalians (DUsseldorf, La Chapelle-aux-Saints, La Quina, Rhodesia, Combe Capelle, and Predmost) figured (figs. 113-120; pIs. IV-VIII) Kappers, C. U. A.: The frontal fissures on the endocranial casts of some Pi'edmost men. Proc. Akad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 32, 552-561 (1929b). Non vid. Kappers, C. U. A.: Demonstration zur Morphologie des Zentralnervensystems bei prahistori• schen Rassen. Zbl. gesamt. Neurol. u. Psychiatrie 61, 495 (1931a). Brief author's abstract of report [to International Neurological Congress; also in Rev. neurol. 38] on "race characteristics" in human, anthropoid, and Pithecanthropus brain morphology Kappers, C. U. A.: The brain in prehistoric and recent races. Acta psychiatr. et neurol. 6, 505--528 (19:;11 b). Non vid. Kappers, C. U. A.: On some correlations between skull and brain. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London (B) 221, 391-429 (1932). Discussion of fissuration in various human brains deals also with endocranial casts (" Si l'on n'a pas ce qu'on aime, il faut aimer ce qu'on a", p. 417) of Pithecanthropus, Dusseldorf and Rhodesia neandertalians, and Predmost (pp. 417-422, pI. 48: lateral views); finds a posterad shift of inferior precentral sulcus, indicating exten• sion of frontal area Kappers, C. U. A.: The fissuration of the frontal lobe of Sinanthropus pekinensis Black, compared with the fissuration in Neanderthal men. Proc. Kon. Akad. Wetensch. Amster• dam 36, 802--812, and Psychiatr. en neurol. Bladen 38, 907-913 (1933). Translation: Die Fissuren des Frontallappens des Sinanthropus pekinensis Black verglichen mit den Fissuren des Neandertalmenschen. Jb. Psychiatr. Neurol. 1)1, 79-90 (1934). Abstract: J. anthrop. Soc. Tokyo 1)1, 43-44 (1934). Written to supplement .Black's (1933) description of the 15--16 years-old's endocast with details of the fissuration, "especially instructive on the right frontal lobe " (figs. 1,3,5), but the discussion and a table of endocranial measurement and indices include also Pithecanthropus, Rhodesia (figs. 2, 2a, 4), La Chapelle, La Quina, and Predmostf. Notwithstanding smaller absolute, possibly not smaller relative brain size, the indices and frontal lobe sulci" are distinctly human", while the large rostrum and the foot of the midfrontal convolution "may indicate a more primitive condition than in other Neanderthaloids" (p. 812) Kappers, C. U. A.: Development of the different layers of the cerebral cortex with reference to some pathological cases. The forebrain of prehistoric races. Trans. CoIl. Physicians and Surgeons, Philadelphia (4) 3, 20--32 (1935a). While the relations betweeen cytotectonic areas and fissures need still more investigation" ... we may not neglect the surface anatomy of the brain, be it only for the reason that [it] is the only way to acquire some knowledge about the brains of our prehistoric ancestors". On their endocasts, fissures are well indi• cated only the frontal and occipital lobes, because dorsally skull and brain are separated by a larger amount of fluid (p. 30). Fossil hominids discussed p. 32 Kappers, C. U. A.: See Dreyer, J. F. and C. U. A. Kappers (1935b) Kappers, C. U. A.: The endocranial casts of the Ehringsdorf and Homo soloensis skulls J. Anat. (Cambridge) 71, 61-76 (1936). With photographs of the Ehringsdorf H. neanderthalensis cast (bulge of left parieto-occipital lobe due to crushing ?), one of the H. soloensis (very primitive) and one of the Sinanthropus casts (figs. 1, 3, 4), compares their indices and outlines (figs. 2, 5-7) with the others, neandertaloid as well as Pithecanthropus Kappers, C. U. A.: Hersenfissuratie bij prehominiden en primitieve hominiden. Mensch en Maatsch. 18, 162-171 (1942). Non vid. Kappers, C. U. A.: Einige Bemerkungen zur Form und zum Relief der SchadelausgUsse von Pithecanthropus und von Sinanthropus. Experientia 2, 292--295 (1946). Besides photos of Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus endocasts, there are figures of the anterior portion of two Pithecanthropus and one Sinanthropus with all details and interpretation of the sulci and blood vessels. "The general morphological and the fissural character of Dubois' and Koenigswald's Pithecanthropi and Black's Sinanthropus strongly suggest that the Pithecan• thropus brain had more anthropoid features than the Sinanthropus brain" Kappers, C. U. A.: Anatomie comparee du systeme nerveux, particulierement de celui des mammiferes et de l'homme. (Avec la collaboration de E. H. Strasburger.) Haarlem and Paris 1947. Pp.541--600, with figures 272--292 showing the fossil hominid endocasts; " Aspects anthropologiques des cerveaux prehistoriques et actuels" Kappers, C. U. A. and K. H. Bouman: Comparison of the endocranial casts of the Pithecan• thropus erectus skull found by Dubois and von Koenigswald's Pithecanthropus skull. Proc.

203 Roy. Acad. Wetensch. Amsterdam 42, 30--40 (1939). Also: Proc. III Congr. Neurol. Internatl. 1939, 385-398. The new, 750 cc., possibly female endocast is shown superimposed on the contours of the 900-950 cc. specimen in figs. 1 and 2 a-b; the right and left frontal lobe sulci of both and those of Sinanthropus in fig. 3; the S. cast also in fig. 5, and together with Ngandong V, figs. 6 a-b. Pithecoid and hominid features are discerned on both P. casts; they "show a resemblance beyond expectation" Kappers, J. A.: Some topographic relations of the orbits in man and anthropoids during ontogenesis, especially bearing on the ontogenetic development of the "rostrum orbitale". Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Proc. Sect. Sci. 43, 1199-1211 (1940). The rostrum orbitale which protrudes into the brain cavity, greater in gorillas than in man, is seen to have been much pronounced on the Ngandong endocast, but "From lower palaeolithic Man onwards conditions aJ;e nearly the same as in his recent descendant" (p. 1208; fig. 7 includes endocaBts of Sinanthropu8, Ngandong V, Gibraltar, and Pfedmost III) Keane, A. H.: Man: past and present. Revised, and largely re-written, by A. H. Quiggin and A. C. Haddon, Cambridge 1920. Only the first 18 pages deal with stone age man in this 582 pp. book.. The brain is not mentioned of Metal Age and historic time peoples, but of Pithecanthropus, "The intermediate position in respect of mental endowment (insofar as brain can be estimated by cranial capacity) is shown in the accompanying diagram" [calotte outlines, from Manouvrier 1896] (p. 3), and of Neandertal man: remarkably high cranial capacity" associated with a comparatively lowly brain" (p. 9) Keith, A.: The Gibraltar skull. Nature 83, 88-89 (1910). Includes first report on the endocast: below 1100 cc., presumably brain of a right-handed woman, as Palaeolithic men had a cranial capacity above modern average, "had reached quite a modern degree of develop• ment ". Acromegalic conditions being normal in Palaeolithic skulls, it is "very probable that racial characters were determined by secretions of the more obscure glandular or• gans" Keith, A.: The antiquity of man. New and enlarged edition. London (1925). Besides Chapter XXXII, "The Brain of Fossil Man" (pp.603-636, figs. 219-230), there is much on this topic in both volumes; see index "Brain" and "Endocranial Cast" Keith, A.: Report on the Galilee skull. Pp. 53-106. In: Turville-Petre, F., ed., Researches in prehistoric Galilee, Publ. Council Brit. School Archaeol. Jerusalem. London 1927. Non vid. Keith, A.: New discoveries relating to the antiquity of man. London and New York 1931. Besides remarking upon the brains particularly of the Taungs and Galilee fossils, this book contains (pp. 468-482, figs. 164-174) a chapter "The interpretation of brain casts". This notes that areas of hominid endocasts not reflecting sulci are those of liquor pools and streams; comments on evolutionary transformation of "frontal cap", etc. Keith, A.: A resurvey of the anatomical features of the Piltdown skull, with some observations on the recently discovered Swanscombe skull. J. Anat. 73, 155-185,234-254 (1938j1939). Piltdown endocast, figs. 6,12,20 and 22; pI. I, fs. 1 and 3. Swanscombe endocast, figs. 7, 15, 18. Piltdown capacity 1358 cc. Swanscombe capacity 1350 cc. Keith, A.: See McCown, T. D. and A. Keith (1939) Keith, A.: A new theory of human evolution. New York and London 1949. Considers within the scope of this 451 page book such points as: p.2, possibility that some features of Neanderthal skulls may have been due to pituitary gland overaction; p.5, human brain growth during Pleistocene; p. 133, Sinanthropus inclusive cranial capacity 915-1225 cc.; p. 206, "Rubicon" from ape to man at about 750 cc.-classing Pithecanthropus, with its 850 cc., as human but excluding African anthropoids; p. 208, as brain size increased so did mentality; various cranial capacities, p. 226--Pithecanthropus, 775-935 cc.; child, 650 cc., p. 227-Peking man, 915-1225 cc., p. 230--Rhodesian man, 1300 cc., p. 231,since, brain size increased from 650 to 1300 cc. in 6 million years, evolution was not considered rapid. Kiaer, J.: See Gen. Cat. (1929) Kiaer, J.: Det manglende mellembledd (The missing link.). Norsk radio 8, 38-53 (1930). In Norwegian. Fig. 5: endocasts of Pithecanthropus and Rhodesia man Klaatsch, H.: Der Schadelausguss des Homo Aurignacensis Hauseri, verglichen mit dem der Neandertal-Calotte. Dermatol. Studien 21, 519-559 (1910). Aurignac man "eurencephalic" (related to dolichocephalic skull), Neandertal man "leptencephalic" (related to brachy• cephaly). Left occipital pole is prominent, more so in Aurignac [is one of many details reported]. Plate (not numbered), figs. 1-2 (dorsal and occipital photos of Neandertal), figs. 3-4 (same of Aurignac)

204 K1aatsch, H., Hellbom, A.: Der Werdegang der Menschheit und die Entstehung der Kultur. Berlin-Leipzig-Wien-Stuttgart 1920. Endocast from Neandertal figs. 249-250; of Homo aurignacen8i8 ha'U8eri figs. 270-271. Text only two sentences, p.313: Neandertal brain similar to that of gorilla" in the relatively weaker infolding of the ·forward frontal portions of the cerebrums of both", and two sentences, p. 315: Brain of H. neanderthale1U!iB was not small and great development of occipital part indicates great visual area-:-"achievements of higher intelligence are not probable" . [Kobler, R.: Der Weg des Menschen vom Linkshiinder zum Rechtshii.nder. Wien and Leipzig 1932. This 142 pp. book, with 12 figs. and a bibliography of 172 references, states that right-handedness is not as old as mankind itself; artifacts and art are used to demonstrate that prehistoric man was left-handed, and that right-handedness became gradually, secondarily preponderant through use of arms-while none of his brains are mentioned (and the differences of the brains of right- and left-handed modem men are dismissed as unimportant)] Kochetkova, V. I.: (A quantitative description of brain variability in fossil hominids as shown by cranial casts.) Voprosy Anthrop. Moscow 6,3-20 (1961). In Russian Kohlbrugge, J. G. F.: Le cerveau suivant les races. Bull• .Mem. Soc. Anthrop. Paris (8) 6, 61-84 (1935). As all variations in fissuration are found in human brains of all races if enough material is studied (p. 82), racial peculiarities of diluvial brains, hardly more than single endocasts, can not be determined (p. 79). Koenigswald, G. H. R. v.: Paleontologie en menswording. pp. 142,-165 in Evolutie; de huidige stand van het vraagstuck. Utrecht and Antwerp. 1960a. Cranial capacities are mentioned in passing, including the estimated 600 cc. of ZinianJkr0p'U8, p. 154. Their [presumed] importance is emphasized in these concluding sentences: "The brain volume increased strongly, from 775 cc. in PitkecanJhrorpus, to 915-1225 in the Peking people and 1278-1550 in the Mt. Carmel people, to 1350-1500 cc in modem man. Man in the course of his evolution became more human, and the miracle happened: out of a PitkecanJlvrop'U8 became, step by step, Homo 8apie1/.8-the man with speech" (p.l65) Koenigswald, G. H. R. v.: Die Geschichte des Menschen. Verstii.ndl. WissenBch. '14, 1-148 (1960b). In a translation, 1962: The evolution of man. Ann Arbor. Brain data are reported in the descriptions of each fossii hominid. pp.80-81 (also p. 121): the PitkecanJhropuB IT endocast with the convolutions more distinct t4an those of modem man; estimated cranial capacity 775 00. pp. 86-87: the five PitkecanJlvropus-SinanJhropUB brains. pp. 94, 99, 105: the different types of Homo neanderthalen8is; p. 109, the Palestinian types. pp. 117-121 on "constant increase of the human brain during the Pleistocene" Krantz, G. S.: Pithecanthropine brain size and its cultural consequences. Man 61, 85-87 (1961). Shortening of childhood with increase in brain size explains the "sharp contrast" between the long Lower Paleolithic with persistently simple stone implements and the later periods with "rapid..• culture growth", although "the small-brained Palaeolithic people as adults were mentally as well endowed as their modern descendants", while "From PitkecanJhropUB to Homo 8apiens there is a 65 per cent increase in endocranial capacity". According to the reconstruction of the individual growth rate of the Pitkecan• thropUB brain at a constant 61 % of the modem brain growth curve (fig. 1), with the Modjo• kerto child [one child specimen!] at 31/s years, the individual PitkecanJlvropUB passed the 750 cc. threshold for cultural experience five years later than modem man. ".This shorter period of full cultural participation would limit the total quantity and complexity of cultural content that is likely to be transmitted in each generation" Krantz, G. S.: Sphenoidal angle and brain size. Am. Anthrop. 64, 521-523 (1962). There are only four neanderthalian skulls for which both endocranial capacity (1200 to 1600 cc) and sphenoidal angle (103° to 135°) have been reported. In these, the increases are not correlated Kraus, B. S.: See Gen. Cat. (1964) Kur1:.6n, B.: Rates of evolution in fossil mammals. Cold. Spring Harbor Symposia on Quanti• tative Biology 24, 205-215 (1959). Includes (pp.205-206, fig. 1) '.'rates of evolution in brain volume in the line leading to Homo sapiens" based on means; finds rates of change higher than those found in the Tertiary mammals, very high initially and [!] from Pith• eeanJhropUB to 8inanJhropUB Kurth, G.: ZinianJhropUB boisei aus dem Unterpleistozii.n von Oldoway/Ostafrika (Ein Prahominine der Paranthropusgruppe mit Steingerii.ten). Naturwissenschaften 4'1,265-274 (1960). The ability and perseverance necessary to fabricate such tools as must, after this find, be without doubt attributed also to the australopithecines, resided in a brain which

205 was below the assumed "Rubicon" (p.273), but not necessarily small relative to the probable body size (p. 266) Lahovary, N.: Lea orgines humaines et la diminution du volume du cerveau chez l'homme depuis Ie paleolithique. Anthropos 41-44, 81-118 (1948). As, in the author's opinion, the Piltdown and other H. sapiens fossil crania are at least as old as Pithecanthropus and Binanthropus, and as cranial capacity of palaeolithic humans was considerably above that of Recent humans (p. 85 and p. 101 respectively), brain size has gradually decreased and continues to do so (p. 106). This is the same phenomenon as observed when animals become domesticated (p. 81, in summary) Lambrecht, K.: Az asember. Budapest.=1934. L'uomo fossile. Milano 1926. Non via. Lankester, E. R.: The kingdom of man. New York 1911. (London 1907). The skull cap of Pithecanthropus, compared with the skull of a Greek (frontispiece and figs. 1-2), shows lesser prominence of the prefrontal cerebral region (p. V). "It is not improbable that it was in the remote period known as the lower Miocene ... that Natural Selection began to favour that increase in the size of the brain of a large and not very powerful semi-erect ape which eventuated, after some hundreds of thosuands of years, in the breeding-out of a being with a relatively enormous brain-case ••• " (p. 15) Lapicque, L.: See Gen. Cat. (1934) Larger, R.: See Gen. Cat. (1917) Lasker, G. W.: The evolution of man. New York 1961. "The mosaic pattern of evolution led to bipedalization after the evolution of a manipulative apparatus with hand and eye coordination, but human encephalization was late and rapid" (pp.68-69). See index for "Skull capacity" Lassek, A. M.: The human brain: from primitive to modem. Springfield, TIl. 1957. pp. 48-50, "Methods used to study evolution of human brain" include stratigraphy and archeology. pp.54-62, "Structural growth of'the brain", discusses Pithecanthropus to Neandertal man enlargement (pp. 56-57, fig. 3) and suggests that since Cro Magnon man "there may have been a decrease in size of the human encephalon" Leakey, L. S. B.: Finding the world's earliest man. Natl. Geographic 118, 420-435 (1960). Zinianthropus, Middle Pleistocene tool-fashioning hominid, had "a very flat cranium, which probably housed a brain little more than half the size of ours" (p.434) Leakey, L. S. B.: Facts instead of dogmas on man's origin. In: de Yore, P. L., ed., The origin of man..• a symposium sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Inc. Chicago 1965. Non via. Leakey, L. S. B., Tobias, P. Y., Napier, J. R.: A new species of the genus /l.omo from Olduvai Gorge. Nature 202, 7-9 (1964). Based on one, a very incomplete cranium, begins charcter• ization of H. kabiZiB: "A mean cranial capacity greater than that of members of the genus Australopitkoous, but smaller than that of Homo erectus" Leche, W.: Der Mensch, sein Ursprung und seine Entstebung. (Translated from 2nd. Swedish ed.) Jena 1911. Only the last chapter concerns itself, in part, with brains-"The ape man of Java. Humanity in the future" (pp. 352-375). Whereas Pithecanthropus did not reach either absolutely the brain volume characteristic of man, in both respects he stood high above other mammals; moreover, the 3rd. frontal, the "speech convolution" was intermediate between apes and man (p. 357). Its skull is similar to that of apes, the endo• cranial volume to man (pp. 359-360). Increase in brain size, especially in frontal lobe reported, pp. 367-369 Le Gros Clark, W. E.: The asymmetry of the occipital region of the brain and skull. Man 34, 35-37 (1934). Asymetry of head, intradural venous sinuses, and occipital pole of cerebral hemisphere vary independently. Neither asymmetry of the sinuses, very pronounced in e.g. Binanthropus and also occurring in apes and (rarely) monkeys, nor asymmetry of occipital brain region (which need not reflect asymmetry of area striata) are definitely related to right- and left-handedness Le Gros Clark, W. E.: The status of Pithecanthropus. Man 37,60-62 (1937). Rejects Dubois' gibbon theory (ibid., pp. 1-7): femur, cranial capacity, and convolution pattern of endocasts indicate human status, with position in the phylogenetic scale the same as that of Binan• thropus Le Gros Clark, W. E.: The endocranial cast of the Swanscombe bones. J. Roy. anthrop. Inst. London 68, 61-67 (1938). Reprinted pp. 139-144 in Ovey, C. D., ed., The Swanscombe skull. London (Roy. anthrop. Inst.) 1964. From cautious interpretation of, especially, the convolutions, it is concluded that the cast (figs. 17-19; figs. 33-35) indicates "that in

206 Early Palaeolithic times the human brain had already acquired a status typical of Homo 8apiens" Le Gros Clark, W. E.: Observations on the anatomy of the fossil Australopithecinae. J. Anat. 81,300-333 (1947). pp. 311-315, "Endocranial casts" of Plesianthropus, AU8tralopitkecu8; 12 figures Le Gros Clark, W. E.: Observation on certain rates of somatic evolution in the primates. Roy. Soc. S. Afr., Rob. Broom Comm. vol., 171-180 (1948). Brain, pp. 176-179 Le Gros Clark, W. E.: History of the Primates. An introduction to the study of fossil man. London [Brit. Mus. (Nat. Rist.)], iii+117 pp. 1949. Lat. ed.; ninth, 1965. Hominid brain evolution: "The whole evolutionary history of the Primates has been marked by one special feature which obtrudes itself very forcibly on the attention, and that is the pro• gressive expansion and elaboration [guess 1] of the brain. A gradual increase in the size of the brain since Eocene times also occurred in other groups of mammals, but in the Primates the expansion began earlier, occurred more rapidly, and proceeded further, than in any other mammalian order. In spite of much speculation, nothing certainly is known of the fundamental cause of this expansion, though there are many reasons for thinking that it was at first favoured and perhaps accelerated by the conditions of existence associa• ted with an arboreal mode of life. The growth of the brain had an important influence on many other parts of the body, because it permitted the retention of primitive and generali• zed characters which in many other mammalian groups were lost by structural speciali• zation. This is simply the result of the fact that Primates were able to maintain themselves in the struggle for existence by the exercise of wile and cunning in situations where lowlier and less progressive types of animal were compelled to develop specialized weapons of defence and offence in order to ensure the preservation of their species. The retention by the Primates of primitive anatomical characters in many parts of their body has provided them with a structural plasticity which has been of the utmost importance to them in their evolutionary potentialities. The wile and cunning of the earlier Primates have become the intelligence of the higher Primates, and Man himself has surpassed all other members of the animal kingdom in his capacity for mental activities of the most elaborate kind." "H Man has gained his intellectual dominance over his fellow creatures by concentrating his evolutionary energies on the development of his brain, it remains to be seen whether he can now maintain his position by contriving a method of living in orderly relations with members of his own species. H he fails to do so, he may yet follow the example of many other groups of animals which have achieved a temporary ascendancy by an exaggerated development of some particular structural mechanism. He may become extinct." [Relevant to the future!] (Quotation, p. 112 in the first edition, p. 119 in the ninth) Le Gros Clark, W. E.: New paleontological evidence bearing on the evolution of the Hominoi• dea. Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London 101), 225-264 (1950). P. 235, PrOC

207 Le Gros Clark, W. E.: The os innomlhatum of the Recent Ponginae with special reference to that of the Australopithecinae. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop., n.s. 13, 19-28 (1955a). Concluding from structure of pelvis to the requirements of posture, p.26, infers "that the Austral• opithecinae had acquired the erect posture and gait distinctive of the family Hominidae" but (pp.26-27) "that these fossil hominids had not developed the erect posture to the degree of perfection found in modern man" Le Gros Clark, W. E.: Reason and fallacy in the study of fossil man. Discovery 16, 6-15 (1955b). The brain is one of the "characters of independent acquisition" which distinguish the Hominidae; and "the fossil evidence now makes it fairly clear that the expansion of the brain which is so characteristic of our own species was a comparatively late phenome• non of hominid evolution" (p. 8) Le Gros Clark, ,W. E.: The fossil evidence for human evolution. An introduction to the study of paleoanthropology. Chicago (1955c). Large cranial capacity (1,300-1,600 cc.) among distinctive characters of H. neandenhalensis (p.59), Pithecanthropus (pp.88-90) and Sinanthropus (p. 99), fig. 12b, Australopithecinae, pp. 119-125. Rapid brain enlargement, with change in posture and gait secondary development, is a hypothesis "rendered unten• able by the ·paleontological data now available" (p. 11) Le Gros Clark, W. E.: Bones of contention. J. Roy. Anthrop. Inst. Great Britain 88, (1958) preprint, pp. 1-15. Pp.6-8, "Brain and intelligence": large brain of Homo sapiens and H. neanderthaliensis distmctive human trait, but cranial capacity in individuals with normal intelligence from less than 900 cc. to about 2,300 cc. shows that mental capacity of extinct humans canp.ot be assessed. Pithecanthropus, 775-1200 cc.; australopithecines, 450-700. P. 14, brain of one apparently normal man 46 years old, 680 g., corrected cranial capacity 720 cc. reported by Wilder 1911. (See also Gen. Cat.) Le Gros Clark, 'V. E.: The cranial evidence for human evolution. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 103, 159-172 (1959a). Carefully discusses the "graded morphological sequence" Austral• opithecus-Pithecanthropus-Homo as apparently a time sequence and possibly a series of ancestral phases. Variability is stressed also of brain size, and the fact noted that the limbs in A. must have been advanced along the hominid direction of evolution beyond the level reached by the brain (450 to probably not more than 700 cc; p. 170), and in P. had attained the final stage of their evolution before the brain which, however (775 to 1200 cc.; p. 165) reached to well within Homo sapiens range (900 to 2,300 cc.) Le Gros Clark, W. E.: The crucial evidence for human evolution. Am. Scientist 47, 296-313 (1959b). "Condensation" of 1959a Le Gros Clark, W. E.: History of the primates. An introduction to the study of fossil man. 7th Edition. London 1960a (1st ed., 1949, see entry herein; 2nd., 1950; 3rd, 1953, 4th, 1955.) Brain mentioned with each form, and that of Pithecanthropus figured, fig. 27b Le Gros Clark, W. E.: See Gen. Cat. (1960b) Le Gros Clark, W. E.: The humanity of man. Advancement of Science 18, 213-221 (1961). Segregation of the hominid line from the ape line of evolution was not conditioned by a marked increase in brain volume, but this came much later (p. 214). The expension in hominid evolution especially of "the cortical brain", and particularly the frontal lobe associated area in hominid evolution are discussed (pp. 216-218) Le Gros Clark, W. E.: History of the Primates. An introduction to the study of fossil man. Chicago 1963. (Third impression of American edition of British Mus. (Nat. Rist.) Guide• book, first published in 1949; bracketed page nos. refer to 7th edition, London 1960.) The brain is mentioned with each form: Adapis, pp. 82-83 [57]-Australopithecines, pp. 104, 116 [66,74]-the Pithecanthropus group, pp. 124-127, 131-132, fig. 27b [78-83, fig. 27b]-the various PleistoceneHomo between pp. 153-173 [96-110]. Progressive expansion and elaboration of the brain in the primates began earlier, occurred more rapidly and proceeded further than in any other mammalian order (p. 180 [113-114]. See also Le Gros Clark 1960a Le Gros Clark, W. E.: The fossil evidence for human evolution. An introduction to the study of paleoanthropology. 2nd edition, revised and enlarged. Chicago 1964. Discussing problems of taxonomy, refutes the assumption that a large brain is an essential character of the Hominidae; it is one of the diagnostic characters only of H. sapiens. The order Primates is distinguished by prevailing-but not general-evolutionary trends among which are progressive development of large and complicated brains, elaboration of visual apparatus and corresponding reduction of olfactory apparatus (pp. 10-13). Cranial capacities, about 900 to almost 2,000 cc. in the genus Homo (p. 86), are mentioned with each form. Endo-

208 cranial cast value is reviewed (pp. 96-97), that of one "H. ereetus from Pekin" figured (fig. 12b), and those of the australopithecines discussed (pp. 133-136; critical of Schepers) Le Gros Clark, W. E., Leakey, L. S. B.: See Gen. Cat. (1951) Le Gros Clark, W. E., Cooper, D. M., Zuckerman, S.: The endocranial cast of the chimpanzee. J. Roy. Anthrop. InBt. London 66, 249-268 (1936). Testing the nature of the evidence that can be provided by endocranial casts of extinct hominids, finds that little information about the sulcal pattern of six chimpanzee brains can be extracted from the six endocastB. Criticizes assumed exposure of the insula in H. neanderlhalensis (p. 267), and Dart's inter• pretation of the sulci in Australopitneeus Lehrman, R. L.: See Gen. Cat. (1961) Leonardi, P.: Note paleontologiche suI Pitecanthropp. Commentationes, Pontificia Academia Scientiarum: 7, 423-522 (1943). pp.435-439, comparative discussion of cranial capacity of Pithecanthropus (pI. IV, fs. 1-2, from Dubois). All its characters assign P. to a position intermediate between higher anthropoids and hominids, human characters prevailling, "except those of the brain; the various specialists in this difficult field have arrived at results which contradict each other" Leonardi, P.: See Marcozzi, V. and P. Leonardi (194:1) Le Roy, E.: Les orgines Humaines et l'Evolution de l'Intelligence. Paris 1928. In these medi• tations on "the progress of human intelligence", published by BibliotMque de la Revue des Cours et Conferences, the only paleoneurological datum is endocranial casts of Neander• talman; "cerebral convolutions reduced, less in number and much less complicated than in modem man... frontal lobe intermediate between anthropoids and man; hence the pro• bability that cerebral matter was abundant but still of a mediocre organization••. suggesting «un psychisme gro88ien as would correspond with the miserable stage of stone tools" (p.228) Levin, G.: Racial and "inferiority" characters in the human brain. Am. J. Phys. Anthrip. 22,34:5--380 (1937). Features believed to be more frequent than in white people in lower cultures, and in f088il hominids (sulcus lunatus: pp.360-361, rostrum orbitale: p.376), are found in brains also of outstanding personalities and can not be regarded as marks of inferior development Luers, Th.: Hirnentwicklung und Menschwerdung. Umschau 62, 499-501 (1952). Mainly a review of Spatz' (1949, 1950) ideas, as applied to origin of human brain; fig. 4, Pithecan• thropus endocast Luers, Th.: Vergangenheit und Zukunft des Menschenhirns. Hirnforschung in Giessen. Orion 8, 207-210 (1953). Reporting on H. Spatz's research, contains in side view photos "A series of six endocranial casts of human races of different ages" (p. 210) Lull, R. S.: The antiquity of man. pp. 1-38. In: Baitsell, G. A., ed., The evolution of man. New Haven, Conn. 1923. Comments on brains of Pithecanthropus (p. 14) and Neanderthal man (pp. 26-27), and begins the summary: "The recorded physical changes in prehistoric man are: Increasing cranial capacity, with perfection of the brain, especially in that portion which is concerned with the higher intellectual faculties and with speech" (p. 37). (See Lull 1924, Gen. Cat.) Lull, R. S.: The antiquity of man. pp. 148-186. In: Baitsell, G. A., ed., The evolution of earth and man. New Haven, Conn 1929. Pithecanthropus, p. 161; H. neanderlhalen&i8, p. 173,175; Cro Magnon, p. 179. "The recorded physical changes in prehistoric man are: Increasing cranial capacity, with perfection of the brain, especially in that portion which is concerned with the higher intellectual capacities and with speech ..• " (p.l84) Magoun, H. W., Darling, L., Prost, J.: The evolution of man's brain. pp. 33-126. In: Brazier, M. A. B., ed., The central nervous system and behavior (Trans. Third Conference) 1960. Cranial capacities of f088il hominids pp. 35-38, 71, and in legends to figs. 32-33 (Pithecan• thropus, Sinanthropus, from Dubois), fig. 39 and 44: (Neanderthal, Pfedmost, from Kappers) Manouvrier, L.: Discussion du Pithecanthropus ereetus comme recurseur presume de l'homme. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris (4) 6, 12-46 (1895a). Discussion, pp. 47, 216-220 Manouvrier, L.: Deuxieme etude sur Ie " Pithecanthropus erectus" comme precurseur presume d l'homme. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris (4) 6,553-651 (1895b). pp. 584-586, "Absolute and relative cranial capacity. Comparison with the Neandertal-Spy race"; the estimates are 1,000 and 1,500 co. pp.644-64:5, "The quantitative progre88 from Pithecanthropus to modem man was accompanied by a progress in the general form of the brain which indicates perfection in the distribution of quantitative differences. This perfecting is noticable already in Pithecanthropus"

14 Advances In Anatomy, Vol. 49 209 Manouvrier, L.: Reponse aux objections contre Ie Pithecanthropus. Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris (4) 7, 396-460 (1896). pp.418-430, "Skull. Relative capacity. Sex." discusses relations of femur lengthfbody size/cranial capacity/intelligence, answering Houze 1896, (Revue de l'universire de Bruxelles, I, 401-438) Manouvrier, L.: On Pithecanthropus erectus. Am. J. Sci. (4) 4, 213-234 (1897). Abstracted from Rev. Scient. (4) 5, and Bull. Soc. Anthrop. (4) 7, the cranial capacity of 900-1000 cc. "is too small to be compatible with a normal human intelligence" (p. 215), "cerebral volume relatively weak" Marcozzi, V.: L'arteria meningea media negli uomini recenti, nel sinantropo, e nelle scimmie. Riv. Antrop. 34, 407-436 (1942/1943). Pp. 415-419, 434-435, figs. 8-18 (lateral views of several endocasts): Sinanthropus. The ramifications of the middle meningeal artery, although less complicated, agree with two of the seven types distinguished in modern man. Although in Some details there are similarities with orang utans and monkeys, the type of ramfication argues for the human nature of Sinanthropu8 Marcozzi, V.: II "Sinanthropus pekinensis" D. Black. Atti 1st. Ven. Sci. Lett. Art. 104, 499-629 (1945). Cranial capacities pp. 529-532; endocranial casts pp. 532--536, figs. 4--5; pI. 34, f. 1 c, Sinanthropus, f. 1 d, Pithecanthropus, f. 1 e, J avanthropus, f. if, Rhodesia, frontal views Marcozzi, V.: L'Uomo nello spazio e nel tempo. Milano 1953. Cranial capacities p. 12 and fig. 4, p.341 (Sinanthropu8), 369-370, 388 (Australopithecines). "The hormone theory", including role of hypophysis, is a possible but not proven explanation of the formation of the human types (pp. 427-428) Marcozzi, V., Leonardi, P.: Pitecantropo e Sinantropo. Atti 1st. Veneto, Sci. Lett. Art., CI. Sci. Mat. Nat. 103, 657-706 (1944). Cranial capacities, pp. 673-675; brain, pp. 675-677; figure [not numbered] and plates 24--27 Marsh, O. C.: On the Pithecanthropus erectus Dubois from Java. Am. J. Sci. (3) 49, 144--147 (1895). A review of E. Dubois' 1894 memoir that lists as the first among the characters of Pithecanthropu8 "Brain cavity absolutely larger, and, in proportion to the size of the body, much more capacious than in the Simiidae, yet less so than in the Hominidae" (p. 145) and concludes that P. was "in size, brain power, and erect posture, much nearer man than any animal hitherto discovered, living or extinct" (p. 147) Marsh, O. C.: On the Pithecanthropus erectus, from the Tertiary of Java. Am. J. Sci. (4) 1, 475-482 (1896). P. 479, Fig. 3, skull discussed and figured after Dubois Marston, A. T.: "Preliminary note on a new fossil human skull from Swanscombe, Kent." Nature 138, 200-201 (1936). A specialized type less advanced than Piltdown but of the same general type-endocast, fig. 2. P. 209: a) The visual territories on the occipital region extend over a part of the cerebral hemispheres underlying the occipital bone. On the left side, the sulcus lunatus crosses the line of lambdoid suture; b) In the parietal region orbital, fronto-parietal and temporal opercula have not approximated at the anterior end of the horizontal limb of the fissure of Sylvius, and a large fossa lateralis measuring about 2.5 cm. from above downwards, and 1.0-1.2 from before backwards is present; c) The parietal lobule, and temporal lobe stand out in high relief as masses of neopallial growth, and the central and interparietal sulci occur in primitive form; d) The Sylvian fissure runs obliquely upwards and backwards; e) Low development of parietal association area; f) The distribution of middle meningeal arteries on the endocranial cast is more primitive in form than Piltdown; g) The shallow depth from above downwards of the cerebellar fossae is more primitive in form in Swanscombe Martin, H.: L'Homme fossile de La Quina. Arch. Morphol. gen. exper. 15, 1-260 (1923). "The Brain" (pp. 108--114, figs. 19-20) is reprint of Anthony 1923. Discussion of the frontal bone includes the imprints of convolutions, narrow frontal lobes, and absence of Pacchionian bodies: indicating youth of the individual (pp. 65-66). The parietals are slightly thinned by cerebral convolutions (p. 70). The inner surface of the occipital indicates larger size different position of the cerebellum than in'modern man (pp. 79-80). "Volume of the Brain" (pp. 211-213) finds La Quina, with 1350 cc. cranial capacity, smaller than other Neanderthalers except Gibraltar Martin, R., Sailer, K.: Lehrbuch del' Anthropologie. 3rd. ed., II, Stuttgart 1959. In the chapter on "cranical capacity" (pp. 1209-1221), the data on its great variability include horses, 443-825 cc. and canids, 42-128 cc. (p. 1214); Tyroleans, 900-2020 cc. (p. 1213); and fossil Hominidae in tables pp.1215 and 1220. Fig. 637, Proconsul [after Le Gros Clark and Leakey]; fig. 638, pp. 1521-1522, Fissuration of the frontal lobe (("the organ of civili-

210 sation ", the "personality area ") is particularly primitive in Homo neanderlhalensiB, increases from PithecanthropU8/SinanthropU8 phase to H. 8apienB, including Predmost man Matiegka, J.: Sulci venosi diluvialnich lebek z Predmosti. Resume: Las gouttieres veineuses des crAnes diluviens de Predmosti (Moravie). Anthropologie (Praha) 1, 31-38 (1923). Includes (pI. 1) posterior views of seven Pfedmost endocasts Matiegka, J.: The skull of the fossil man Bmo ill, and the cast of its interior. Anthropologie (Praha) 7, 90--107 (1929). Three photographs comprise a plate, preceding p. 97, and pp. 105-106 covers "The Cast of the Interior of the Skull Bmo ill" Matiegka, J.: L'homme fossile de Predmosti en Moravie (Tchecoslovaquie). I. Las crAnes. Anthropologica (Acad. tcheque Sci. Arts, Prague) 1934, 1-145. Practically complete endocasts of four individuals: Czech, pp.89-101; French, pp.137-139; figures, not numbered, include fragmentary casts of three other individuals. Either right or left hemisphere is the larger one in brains entirely on H. BapienBlevel Mayr, E.: Rates in human evolution. p.467. In: Evolution and Man's Progress, Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci. 90, 409-610 (1961). P.57. In: reprint as book, Hoagland, H. and R. W. Burhoe, eds., New York and London (1962). "We know that in the late Villafranchian era, when Australopithecus lived, hominid brain size was still around 650 cc., while some three or four hundred thousand years later, brain size had increased to 1500 cc. This was an extraordinarily rapid rate of evolution. But then the curve suddenly flattened out, and in the last 50,000 to 100,000 years there has been no increase in brain size at all" Mayr, E.: Animal species and evolution. Cambridge, MaBB. 1963. The chapter "Man as a biological species" includes a section "Brain size and speech" (pp.634--636), and in the section "Biological factors in the evolution of man" (pp. 650-653) finds that "The most outstanding phenomenon of human evolution is the rapid increase in brain size during the Pleistocene" and its coming to "a sudden halt" at the time of Neanderthal man Mayr, E.: Problems in the origin of man. Bull. Am. Acad. Arts Sci. 18, (2),4-6 (1964). "The development of the brain is the most fascinating aspect of man's evolution."; its "acceler• ated growth" is viewed in the frame of other changes in hominid life during the Pleistocene McCown, T. D., Keith, A.: The brain, as reflected in the endocranial cast. pp.345-357. In: The stone age of Mount Carmel, vol. 2: The fOBBil human remains from the Levalloiso• MouBterian. Oxford 1939. The endocasts of the child Skhiil I (pp. 345-352, figs. 240-244, pI. XXIV, fs. a-b; pI. XXV, fs. a-b) and of the tall man Skhiil V (pp.352-357, figs. 245-247, pI. XXIV, fs. c-d; pI. XXV, fs. c-d) resemble modem human brains in volumes (1,150 and 1,145 cc.) and configuration, but there is "simplicityofthe convolutional pattern" Meiring, A. J. D.: The frontal convolutions of the endocranial cast of the skull M. R. I. from the deepest levels of the Matjes River cave, C. P. S. Afr. J. Sci. 33, 960-970 (1937). The gyri of the frontal area (fig. 1), while primitive in some respects, approximate those in modem Bushmen rather than in Florisbad man (fig. 3) Meilersh, H. E. L.: The story of early man. Human evolution to the end of the Stone Age. New York 1960. P.22, " •.. the small insignificant proto-mammal (must) have taken its opportunity when, nearly a hundred million years ago, the long Paleozoic [sic] Era began to break up and the dragons, the brainless and fantastic saurians, began to die." P.44, in the evolutionary story of the primates, "The development of the brain overshadows everything else" (pp.44-49, with figure that includes Neanderthal and Pitheeanthropus casts in profile) Mettler, F. A.: Culture and the structural evolution of the neural system. James Arthur Lecture 1955. New York (Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.), 57 pp. 1956. A wealth of medical, sociologi• cal, and paleoanthropological data are brought together to show that a correlation between human intellectual capacity and either number of cortical cells or brain size can not be demonstrated, and that there is no evidence of structural or size trends of the brain paralleling the cultural advance from Neanderthal to modem man. "The hypothesis is advanced that, with the advent of culture, man achieved a degree of independence from his environment and was therefore no longer under the necessity of developing structural modifications to survive" (p. 52) Mislin, H.: Zum Problem des Uebermenschen in der gegenwartigen Biologie. Pp. 301-316. In: Benz, E., ed., Dar Uebermensch. Eine DiskuBBion. Ziirich and Stuttgart 1961. "It can well be assumed that the constant increase of the human brain volume throughout the entire Pleistocene period is one of the characteristic criteria of specifically human evolution, and that with this Homo 8apienB became distinguished and perfected" (p. 311). An example of newly acquired, progressive areas are the speach centers (p. 315)

211 Mollison, T.: Zur Beurteilung des Gehirnreichtums der Primaten nach dem Skelett. Arch. f. Anthrop. 13,388-396 (1914). Includes a graph of relations of cranial capacity:volume of long bones of Pithecanthropus and Neanderthal man Montagu, M. F. A.: See Dobzhansky, T. and M. F. A. Montagu (1947) Montagu, M. F. A.: Man: his first million years. New York 1958. Throughout the " ... Ancestry of Man" pp. 38-56 and "The rise of modern Man" pp. 57-71, cranial capacities are noted and commented upon••. e.g., apropos the large brain of Neanderthal man: "From the evidence of some other early types of men, we have reason to believe that the human brain has actually decreased in gross size and stabilized itself about 50,000 years ago at its present size" (p.50). Fig. 20 includes Pithecanthropus and La Chapelle endocasts, dorsal views; fig. 21, the outlines of Pithecanthropus to Pfedmost endocasts Montagu, M. F. A.: (Discussion of Kurten 1959) Cold Spring Harbor Symposilm. Quant. BioI. 24,214 (1959). Not man, not the postcranial skeleton, but the brain showed rapid change over the greater part of the Pleistocene Montagu, M. F. A.: The "cerebral rubicon": brain size and the achievement of hominid status (Abstract) Anat. Ree.136, 247 (19600.). Below Keith's "rubicon", the 600 cc. brain in the apelike Skull of tool-making Zinjanthropus suggests that functional rather than morphological criteria decide hominid status Montagu, M. F. A.: Introduction to physical anthropology. 3rd. ed. Springfield, Illinois 1960b. Figs. 126, 127, 131; table XLIII: cranial capacities; "Neoteny and the evolution of the human mind" pp. 312-315, and much more on other pages. [See, in 1st. ed., 1945 and 2nd. ed., 1951, index "Brain"] Montagu, M. F. A.: See Brace, C. L. and M. F. A. Montagu (1965) Moody, P. A.: See Gen. Cat. (1962) Moore, R.: See Gen. Cat. (1953), (1961) Moore, R. E. and The Editors of "Life": Evolution. New York (1962). Chapters 6: "The search for mankind's ancestors" to 8: "The emergence of Hrmw 8apiens" report on brain sizes in fossil hominids between p. 132 and p. 169. (See also Gen. Cat.) Moret, L.: Du Pithecanthrope... Bull. Soc. dauphinoise Ethnol. Anthrop. nos. 1954, 230, 231, 232. Non ?lid. Miihr, A.: Das Wunder Menschenhirn. Die abenteuerliche Geschichte der Gehirnforschung. Olten and Freiburg 1957. pp.128-129 of this 464 page work, Cranial capacities of the Neandertalian, and 12th and 19th century Parisians (Broca), show that increase of human brain volume parallel to advance of culture and civilization occured. P. 360, progressive cerebration (Economo) in human ancestry accompanied continuously rising successes of civilization [!] Murray, R. W.: Man's unknown ancestors. Milwaukee 1948. See index: Brain, evolution of Napier, J. R.: The evolution of bipedal walking in the hominids. Arch. BioI. Liege 79, 673-708 (19640.). Non vid. Napier, J. R.: See Leakey, L. S. B., P. V. Tobias and J. R. Napier (1964b) Narr, K. J.: Der Urmensch als Natur- und Geistwesen. Zum Stand biologisch-geschichtlicher Grenzfragen. Saeculum 7, 243-288 (1956). pp.281-282 warns that brain size can not decide whether australopithecines were "Nicht-Euhomininen"; recalls the erroneous conclusion, from brain size, that Binanthropus was incapable of tool-making Nehring, A.: Die Capazitiit des Schadels von Pithecanthropus erectus. Natw. Wochenschr. 11, 344-345 (1896). [Cited from another bibliography, but not found in that volume.] Non ?lid. Oakley, K. P.: SwanscombeMan. Proc. Gaol. Assoc. 63, 271-300 (1952). (Reprinted: Yearbook Phys. Anthrop. 1992,40-70.) Figure 12, two views of endocast, after Le Gros Clark. P. 295, Rich convolution of occipital cortex possibly related to acute vision required by hunters, but: "Much more can be learnt about the quality of the brains of fossil men from their culture than from their endocranial casts" Oakley, K.: Culture and the australopithecines. pp.28-29. In: Tax, S., et al., ads. 19530.. Agrees with Straus who had said that there has been "quite a ridiculous haggle about brain size •.. If there has been evolution in the way of increasing brain size, it must have started with a small brain... The brains may be as small as you like, and still the group will be classified as hominid... " Oakley, K. P.: See Tanner, J. M., K. P. Oakley and L. C. Eiseley, 1953b Oakley, K. P.: The earliest tool-makers. pp.157-169 in Kurth, G., ed., Evolution und Hominisation. Stuttgart 1962. "Another controversial consideration is brain size. I find no justification for assuming that tool-making could not originate before the average

212 adult brain size had reached in course of evolution a certain volume. The earlest Hominidae were after all unprecedented creatures, and it is therefore illogical to take the mental• performanceJbrain-size correlation in the development of human children as a valid basis for inferring the minimum brain size required for flashes of conceptual thought in their ancestors of more than a million years ago. What is called the "Rubicon" theory of the brain died with Piltdown" (p. 168) Oakley, K. P.: Frameworks for dating fossil man. London 1964. "Dating the australopithe• cines" (at 3rd Pan-African Congress of Prehistory, 1955) Oakley:-correlation still not on firm basis, apparently range second half of early Pleistocene to beginning of middle Pleistocene; Ewer:-"Mean age can hardly be less than early Pleistocene" Offringa, J.: See Brummelkamp, R. and J. Offringa (1940) Olson, E. C.: See, Gen. Cat. (1965) Oppenoorth, W. F. F.: De vondst van palaeolithische menschelijke schedels op Java. Mijn• ingenieur 13, 106-115 (1932). (English summary, pp. 113-115.) Cranial capacity of Ngan• dong V about 1,300 cc.; of Ngandong I, presumably female, indirect measuring by three methods gave three different results: 1,140, 1,215 and 1,300 cc. (pp. 109-111, 114) Oppenoorth, W. F. F.: The place of Homo soloenl3is among fossil men. Pp. 349--360. In: Mac Curdy, G. G., ed., Early Man. Philadelphia 1937. The cranial capacities are less than those of Neandertal men, and the three endocranial casts indicate a more primitive brain shape (pp.352-355) Osborn, H. F.: Recent discoveries relating to the origin and antiquity of man. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 66, 373-389 (1927). "Large Tertiary Brain Capacity" (pp.380-384), listing and commenting on Pithecanthropus and neanderthalian (also p. 387) brain sizes, points out that they must have been psychologically totally different from apes, as is the horse from ass and zebra, and the black from the white rhinoceros Osborn, H. F.: Men of the Old Stone' Age. 2nd. ed. New York 1916. Brain: see index, p.536 Osborn, H. F.: Man rises to Parnassus, Critical epochs in the prehistory of man. Princeton and London 1927. P.59, as "Brain test in cubic centimeters of living and fossil races of man" (H. L. Shapiro 1927, [not published by Shapiro himself, cannot be traced]. Fig. 27, Pithecanthropus brain with" Probable areas of higher and lower psychic powers" plotted by Tilney: text p. 72, "Tilney has been studying the psychology of the Trinil man through the evidence revealed in a cast of the brain... " [cf. contrariwise, Dobzhansky and Montagu] Osborn, H. F.: The discovery of Tertiary Man. Science 'it, 1-7 (1930). [Also: Nature 126, 53-57]. "Brain Surprises of Quaternary Discovery" (pp. 3-5, fig. 2) is mainly about the [supposed] "Piltdown Dawn Man", but includes list and discussion of "Brain cube in cc" of fossil hominids Osborn, H. F.: The age of man. 8th ed., revised by W. K. Gregory and G. Pinkley, Am. Mus. Nat. Rist., Sci. Guide 62, 1-48 (1944). Endocasts of Pithecanthropus (figs. 4, 19, 20, 22), La Chapelle (figs. 19, 20), Rhodesia (fig. 22); brains discussed pp. 11, 13, 23, 39 Overhage, P.: Um die ursachliche Erklarung der Hominisation. Biologische Hypothesen iiber den Ursprung des Menschen. Acta Biotheoretica, Supp. I (Biblioth. Biotheor. VIII 1969, 1-126. "Evolution of the brain" (data pp. 61-71, supposed causes of enlargement 71-83) one chapter in detailed presentation of the immensity of the unsolved problem of homini• sation Overhage, P.: Um das Erscheinungsbild des ersten Menschen. Quaestiones disputatae 7, 31-107 (1959). Lists twenty-seven cranial capacities, Pithecanthropus to Chancelade, explaining that they have no meaning in the judgment of spiritual capacities of prehistoric men (pp.63-64), and criticizes the interpretations of the endocasts of the "theromorph gepragten" representatives of mankind (pp. 90--93) Overhage, P.: Das Problem der Hominisation. Quaestiones disputae 12-13, 91-374 (1961). The problem is closely and thoughtfully examined from many viewpoints; the use of various data illustrated by a 20 pp. list of references. Brain evolution is discussed parti• cularly in the chapters" Brain", "Rubiconcerebral cerebralisation" (pp. 249--272; fig. 21 : Equidae. after Edinger 1948). "Brain enlargement" (pp. 331-337), and in the last section which has the book's title but the subheadings "Neue Erkenntnisse" (pp.360--367) and "Offene Fragen" (pp.367--374). Open questions remain in every spot in this difficult and vast field of research; at present the hypotheses about hominization do not explain the causes but rather, by their being so numerous, show up how much still has to be done in exact investigation and analysis (p. 372)

213 Overhage, P.: Zur Frage einer Evolution der Menschheit wiihrend des Eiszeitalters. II. Endo• craniale AusgUsse und die Evolution des menschlichen Gehirna. Acta Biotheor. 16, 27-56 (1962). "Was the human brain, in size and capacities, present already in the oldest hominids whose remains are known as fossils, proven to have been human by associated cultural remains, or did it reach its level of organization at the end of the Ice Age, with modern man?" (p.27). "Judgment up to now"-of endocast morphology, of psychic capacity (pp. 29-38)-shows that prejudice led to the "discovery" of apish traits. "The modern judgment" (with the same sub-headings, pp. 38-52) with devastating clearness points out the errors; "endocranial casts can not prove an evolution of the human brain during the Ice Age" (p.52) Palmer, L. S.: Man's journey through time. A first step in physical and cultural anthropo• chronology. :J:.ondon 1957. Brain discussed particularly in chapter II: "Anatomical evidence" (table II includes cranial capacities from Proconsul to all fossil Homo) and chapter V: "Changes with time"; see index, "Brain" Patte, E.: Les Neanderthaliens. Anatomie, physiologie, comparisons. Paris 1955. In this 559 page work, "Brain and spinal cord" pp. 461-500; figs. 18-20 Patte, E.: L'enfant neanderthalien du Pech de L'Aze. Paris 1957. "Brain" (pp.146-152): characters deduced from endocranial surface compared, mainly, with those of neander• talian endocasts Perrier, E.: L'Homme des cavernes. Rev. arcMol. (4) 16, 154-158 (191Oa). Reprinted, in July-August number of this Revue, from Le Temps of June 9th, this is probably the first of the wave of papers that followed the preparation of the La Chapelle endocast (announced by Boule and Anthony in the Academie on May 30. This is not cited here.).-Although as large as brains of modern man, sigus of inferiority in low vault as in apes, frontal cortex 1/4 instead of 1/3 of surface(!); because foot of Broca's convolution on the cast "less devel• oped". than in Gambetta's brain, only the simplest kind of language possible ... etc. [Perrier, E.: Le cerveau de l'homme mousterien de la Chapelle-aux-Saints. Rev. prehist. 6, 177-178 (1910b). Abstract of Boule and Anthony 1910 and of a "Causerie scientifique" in the daily newpaper, Le Temps, (June 9) by Prof. Perrier, in whose opinion the foot of Broca's convolution does not have as much importance as a speech center as assumed] Pilbeam, D. R., Simons, E. L.: Some problems of hominid classification. Am. Scientist 63, 237-259 (1965). Although noting the insufficiency of the cranial fragments from Olduvai beds I and II, draws conclusions from the suggested "little alteration in cranial capacity. (This seemingly unchanging brain size may correlate with the presence throughout the section of similar crude pebble tools, or the two faunas may be closer in time than K/A• dated horizons appear to indicate.)" (p.249). In the earliest Pleistocene tool-makers, "Cranial capacity... remained constant" (p. 253). "Rapid expansion of the brain" occurred late in the history of Australopithecus (perhaps Homo) africanus (p. 257) Pinkley, G.: See Osborn, H. F. (1944) [Pittard, E., Donici, A.: Les grandeurs principales du crane comparees a la stature chez les hommes fossiles. Verh. Schweiz. natf. Ges. 111, 342-344 (1930). Although erroneously cited (by Stadtmiiller 1936, Handb. vergl. Anat. Wirbelt. 4, p. 951) as an " ... investigation on the proportion of cranial capacity to body size in fossil man", listed here to warn speculators on relative brain size in the human past. The authors, having found in living humans a relation between stature and three skull diameters multiplied with each other, tried their method on eight fossil Homo (neanderthalensis and sapiens) with, regarding stature thus calculated, "chaotic results"] Piveteau, J.: La paleontologie humaine et ses probemes. Rev. philos. France Etranger 142, 493-505 (1952). Brain, pp. 498, 502-504. Some of its transformations in the evolution of man can be traced, but it recalls phrenology to try to trace, with endocasts, the material, the development of the human mind (which is shown by the remains of its inventions, the field of prehistoric archeology) Piveteau, J.: See Gen. Cat. (1957 a) Piveteau, J.: Le caractere rationel de la speciation humaine. Pp. 7-21 in L'evolution humaine: speciation et relation. Paris 1957b. P. 18, "It was neither the upright stance, nor the hand, nor the skull which led to man, but all these at once, not additively, nor correlatively, but relationally, the relation was a continuous creation, a synthesis which was made without halt, a constant adjustment" Piveteau, J.: See Gen. Cat. (1959)

214 Piveteau, J.: A propos de l'homme de Neanderthal. Rev. Quest. scientif. (5) 21, 153-170 (1960). pp. 161-163, "Main et cerveau" refutes as obsolete the concept that because the prefrontal brain area was small, the neandertaler's hand was incapable of delicate work Piveteau, J.: L'origine de I'Homme et la paleontologie. Annee bioI. (4) 1, 421-436 (1962a). Australopithecines demonstrate that brain enlargement was preceded by almost upright gait and a hand becoming "disinterested", so·to-say, in neurological specialization of a foot to become closely associated with the system of expression" (p. 426). The emergence of reflective thinking, perfection of the brain, was correlated with and influenced by improvement of hands and tools (pp.429-431) Piveteau, J.: L'origine de I'Homme. Paris 1962b. Non via., pp. 205 Polyak, S.: The ,vertebrate visual system. Chicago 1957. Includes discussion of fossil, especially hominid brains. pp. 472-473, "Cortical centers of vision in prehistoric human races" with fig. 287: Pithecanthropus and 8inanthrop'U8. pp. 1026-1033, "Analysis of factors respon• sible for the origin of man from an infrahuman primate". pp. 1033-1046: "Man's earliest ancestors preceding and during the assumption of erect posture and bipedal gait", namely, the australopithecines Portmann, A.: Einfiihrung in die vergleichende Morphologie der Wirbeltiere. 3rd. ed. Basel and Stuttgart 1965. Fig. 95, "Convergent forehead formation with relative or absolute increase of brain size (after Weidenreich)" includes brain capsule shaded in skull of Pithecanthropus l.>radel, L.: Comportement physique et intellectuel de I'Homme pendant Ie- Quaternaire. Bull. Soc. prehist. franc. 47, 250-258 (1950). Somatically, Pleistocene man became gradually more like H. sapU1I8 which includes increase in cranial capacity. Industrial and art techni• que were first developed, but non-material, moral qualities later: indicated by funeral rites indicating not all is material life Prost, J.: See Magoun, H. W., L. Darling and J. Prost (1960) Pycraft, W. P.: See Gen. Cat. (1925) Quatrefages, A. de: L'espece humaine. Paris 1877. P. 231, it would be quite wrong to connect intellectual and moral inferiority with the Neandertal type of skull. P. 233, cranial capacity of Oro Magnon man, 1590 cc. fide Broca, was well above average of modem man Quiggin, A. H.: See Keane, A. H. (1920) Ranke, J.: Der Mensch. 2nd ed. II. Leipzig and Wien 1894. Estimates the Neandertal skull's capacity 1532 cc. (p. 478) and reminds that in South Sea islanders there is variation from 870 to 2010 which refutes the assumption of smallest brains in "lower races" (p.254) Ramstrom, M.: Der Java-Trinil-Fund "Pithecanthropos" oder: Konnen die "Eoanthropos" und "Pithecanthropos"-Funde una zuverliissige Aufschlfisse fiber die Anthropogenesis geben? Upsala Lakareforenings forhandiingar, n.s. 26, no. 29, 1-37 (1921). Regarding P. cranium as that of a large chimpanzee, reviews pp. 19-24 with bitting scepticism the cranial capacity estimates and the interpretation ("power of speech") of sulcus traces Reed, C. A.: See Du Brul, E. and C. A. Reed; also Gen Cat. (1960) Remane, A.: See Gen. Cat. (1956) Rensch, B.: Homo sapie1l8. Vom Tier zum Halbgott. Kleine Vandenhoeck-Reihe (Gottingen) 70-72, 1-189 (1959). Figure 4, Plesiantkropus cerebrum shown between those of a chimpan• zee and a negro (changed from Schepers) shows possible incipient speech area (p.37). P. 115 lists among body characters of Homo sapie1l8 enlarged brain case, with complication and great development of cerebrum most decisive. P. 117, although all those special charac• ters, including the complicated forebrain, were present from the australopithecines on, they led for at least the first 8/4 of the Pleistocene, even in neandertalers, but little beyond an animal way of life Rensch, B.: Die Stammesgeschichtliche Sonderstellung des Menschen. Arbeitsgemeinschaft des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen 64,7-51 (1957). Expansion of frontal lobe basal neocortex from Pithecanthropus (fig. 1 b) to modem man meant an addition of functions and progress of organization; this can be assumed also of Broca's area, weakly developed in austral• opithecines (pp. 10-13, 25-26, 30). Increase in cranial capacity, "extraordinarily rapid", was consequent upon freeing hands for tool making (pp. 20-23) Rensch, B.: See Gen. Cat. (1967) Riese, W., Goldstein, K.: The brain of Ludwig Edinger. An inquiry into the cerebral morpho· logy of mental ability and left-handedness. J. Compo Neurol. 92, 133-168 (1950) Non via. Robinson, J. T.: See Broom, R. and J. T. Robinson (1948)

215 Robinson, J. T.: The evolutionary significance of the Australopithecines. Yearbook Phys. Anthrop. 6,38-41 (1951). The auBtralopithecines, although their geological age is uncertain, [possibly Pliocene-Pleistocene junction! (p.39)] "belong in the hominid stream" ...and are not pongids. Their foramen magnum is "situated well forward and in the same relative positions in the infant". P.39, Paranthr0pu8 crassiden8 (flat face) endocranial volume (no. 5, Sterkfontein) 480 cc. [not clear whether he doesn't refer to PleBianthr0pu8]. Swart• krans skulls, estimate 800 cc. One can fairly say P. crasBiden8 had a general brain size equal to that of BOme members of the Pithecanthr0pu8 group and larger than any recorded for fOBBil or living pongids Robinson, J. T.: The australopithecines and their bearing on the origin of man and of stone tool-making. S. Afr. J. Sci. 1)7, 3-13 (1961). Endocranial volume, only about 500 co., differs insigpificantly in Paranthr0pu8 and AU8tralopithecus, which is otherwise markedly dissimilar (p. 4). "But there is no sharp discontinuity between AU8tralopithecus and Homo, except in the known specimens, in brain size" (p. 12), and in this phyletic line the other changes "certainly have resulted in appreciable selection pressure in favour of increased intelligence'~ (p.13) Robinson, J. T.: Australopithecines and the origin of man. Ann. Rep. Smithson. Inst. for 1961,479-500 (1962a). Expanded form of Robinson 1961. In the large and robust, vege• tarian Paranthropus with "a curiously spheroidal braincase... The relation of large temporal muscles to relatively small braincase was such that even females apparently normally had a sagittal crest" (pp.483-484). The available australopithecine material, with brains within the pongid size, "makes it clear that erect bipedal posture developed before the brain enlarged beyond the size found in larger pongids" (p. 492) Robinson, J. T.: The origin and adaptive radiation of the australopithecines. pp.120-140 in Kurth, G., ed., Evolution und Hominisation. Stuttgart 1962b. "Since there appears to be BOme relationship between intelligence and brain volume", tool-using and its improve• ment probably have been accompanied by increase in brain volume. Manufacture of tools apparently appeared when brain volume reached the order of 750-1,000 cc. (pp. 135-137). The definitions of the only three genera of Hominidae (p. 138) include the endocranial volumes: Paranthr0pu8 450-550, AU8tralopithecus 450-550, Homo "in excess of 750 ems and with considerable variability" Robinson, J. T.: Australopithecines, culture and phylogeny. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 21, 595-605 (1963). With endocranial capacities apparently of the same size order, the body was smaller in AU8tralopithecus than in Paranthr0pu8. "However, owing to quite different adaptive evolutionary trends as compared to those of Paranthropus, the brain of AU8tral• opithecus had already started the process of expansion leading to the relatively larger hominine brain: (p.597) Robinson, J. T.: Homo "habilis" and the australopithecines. Nature 201), 121-124 (1965). "The endocranial capacity of H. habilis appears, on the scanty and indirect evidence available, to have differed little from that of the australopithecines with a range over• lapping that of the latter substantially" Robinson, J. T.: The distinctiveness of Homo habilis. Nature 209, 957-960 (1966). Takes issue with Tobias' estimate of 680 co. endocranial volume and conclusions therefrom. The estimates for AU8tralopithecus being probably too low, 680 could be expected from an australopithecine Robinson, J. T.: Variation and the early taxonomy of the hominids. Evolutionary Biology 1, 69-110 (1967). Refuting the various "inappropriate treatment of variation" treats with endocranial volumes pp. 85-86; that six AU8tralopithecus indicate a population range of 270 to 580 co. need not mean that a possible 680 cc. (Tobias 1964) belonged to a taxonomi• cally distinct form at Olduvai Rode, P.: La capacite endocranienne: etude comparative chez I'Homme actuel, les Singes anthropoides et les Hommes fossiles. Rev. mM. 14,9-20 (1946). Non vid. Roginskii, J. J.: TeoriI monocentzrizma i politzentrizma v probleme proiskhosdenij sovrem• ennogo cheloveka i ego ras. Musei anthropologii 1949, 1-156. In Russian Rouviere, H.: De l'animal a l'homme. Paris 1949. The mind rather than the brain of fossil hominids is discussed (pp.188-197) in this 210 page book, which aims to show "that psychism advanced paired with the advances of the animal organisation towards the intended aim, the human mind which establishes a far more radical distinction between man and the animal world" (p. 5). Enrichment of the human mind occurred through

216 multiplication of knowledge (p. 193) and was not, during the Pleistocene, evolution, i.e., not result of a mutation that involves all individuals of a species Riischkamp, F.: Der Mensch als Glied der SchOpfung. Stimmen der Zeit 130, 367-385 (1939). pp.380-382: brain enlargement since ParanthrCYp'U8; fig. 10: midsagittal sections of endocasts, after Weidenreich Saller, K.: See Martin, R. and K. Saller (1959) Saller, K.: Leitfaden der Anthropologie. 2nd. ed. Stuttgart 1964. [See index for fossil primates and hominids-and brains] Santa-.Maria, S. de: Le cerveau de l'homme fossil de la Chapelle-aux-Saints. Rev. scientif. 49, II, 373-374 (1911). Detailed review of Boule and Anthony 1911 [Sarasin, P.: Rechts- und Linkshii.ndigkeit in der Prii.historie und die Rechtshii.ndigkeit in der historischen ~it. Verh. natf. Ges. Basel 29, 122-196 (1918). Discussing all except the cerebral aspects of handedness, concludes mainly from tools that from early Paleolithic to late Neolithic man did not favor either hand (p.141) but righthandedness had become prevalent in the Bronze Age (p. 152)] Schaaffhausen, :&.: tlber das Alter des Menschengeschlechts. S.-B. niederrhein. Ges. Natur• u. Heilk. 20, 130-133 (1863). "GypsausguB der Hirnschale" of Neandertal specimen (28 lines on pp. 132-133) is first report on brain of fossil man; a brief report on diameters and comparison with an Australian and European human brains Schaaffhausen, H.: Der Neanderthaler Fund. Bonn 1888. Non vid. 49 pp. The endocast figured in dorsal and occipital views and briefly described Schaefer, U.: Gehirnschiidelkapazitat und Korpergro6e bei Vormenschenfunden in allo• metrischer Darstellung. Zool. Anz. 168, 149-164 (1962). Author himself warns that even the cranial capacities of 20 presumably female and of 11 presumably male australopithec• ines-to-Homo Bapien8 fossils and body size as calculated from "long bones" (Table 1) are not a reliable basis for general conclusions as to dependency between brain and body size, or for the mechanism of human phylogeny Schaefer, U.: Die GroBe der Hirnschadelkapazitat und ihre Bestimmung bei rezenten und vorgeschichtlichen Menschen. Z. Morph. Anthrop. i3, 165-170 (1963). On the various types of volumetric methods, with a "so-called phylogenetic series" of seven average cranial capacities, Pithecanthropu8 to Homo BapienB diluvialis Scheele, W. E.: Prehistoric man and the primates. New York and Cleveland 1957. "Brains become larger and jaws reduced": a diagram p. 72 includes "Early Man". "Comparative brain sizes": dorsal and lateral view diagrams p. 116, with PithecanthrCYp'U8 and H. neander• thalensiB Schepers, G. W. H.: The endocranial casts of the South-African Ape-Men. Transvaal Mus. Mem. 2, 155-272 (1946). A quarto monograph dealing with one almost complete and two partial endocasts of Ple&ianthropu8, the endocast of a ParanthrCYp'U8 temporal bone, the natural endocast of the Australopithec'U8 type and, in occasional comparisons, with Pithec• anthrCYp'U8, 8inanthrCYp'U8, and H. neanderthalensis endocasts. Illustrated with figs. 1-32 and pIs. I-V, an "Introduction" commenting upon the nature of the material is followed by "The general morphological features of the endocranial casts" (pp. 179-204), "Endo• cranial contour studies" (pp.205-220), "Comparative endocranial vascular patterns" (pp.221-236), "Metrical features of the endocranial casts" (pp.237-246), "The neuro• logical significance of the features of the endocranial casts" (pp. 247-253), and "Theory and speculation" (pp.255-271). The thoroughness of this study goes beyond that of com• parable monographs in that it not only identifies on the casts many sulci known from human brains, but outlines and numbers, as homologous with those of man, the cortical areas of two Ple&ianthrCYp'U8 (fig. 16) and of Australopithecus (fig. 17; pp. 196-204,252-253). [See Du Brul and Reed 1960] Schepers, G. W. H.: Problems in brain evolution. Roy. Soc. S. Afr., Rob. Broom Comm. vol. 1948, 191-202. Includes chapters on sulcal homologies in the primates, on transforma• tion especially of the parietal and frontal lobes, and "Phylogenesis of Heschl's convolu• tion". Illustrated with cytoarchitectonic maps also of Plesianthropu8, Australopithec'U8, and PithecanthrCYp'U8, concludes that the new cortices that were added in successive waves during man's evolution "are dominantly 'associative' and 'psycho-motor' in character" (p.202) Schepers, G. W. H.: The fossil brain. S. Afr. Aruhaeol. Bull. 4, no. 15, 71-82 (1949a). Fig. 1: Ple&ianthrCYp'U8 and gorilla, contours. Fig. 2: neopallial centers, Ple8ianthrCYp'U8 and Homo Bapien8. pp.71-76 are general remarks: on "fossil brains" (would shrink if fossilized.

217 80% water; cast=equivalent of a fresh brain wrapped in meninges); on skull being moulded by neurovascular dynamics; on reconstructing fossil brains; on (insignificance of) brain size, even forebrain index (tarsier higher than man); the rest is on mainly Ple&i• anthropus and A'U8tralopithecus (sulci hominid), including "Functional Interpretations" (p.82) of convolution pattern and cytoplasmic folds •.. "infer that the creature was a bipedal talker capable of many mammal skills" Schepers, G. W. H.: The cerebral sylvian angle in the Australopithecidae. S. Afr. J. Sci. 4G, no. 4, 118-123 (1949b). With "Fig. 1: cerebral sylvian angles. Demonstrating encephalic flexural trends" including outlines of Ple&ianthropus and AU8tralopithecU8, and fig. 2 showing cortex maps of chimpanzee and Ple&ianthropus; and table 1 arranging fossil hominids and extant primates according to their sylvian angle; table 2 listing their ence• phalic flexural indices; agrees with Weidenreich, finding that the size of the cerebral sylvian angIe is an infallible index of the humanity of a particular brain. "The forward and downward movement of the frontal cerebral pole in Ple&ianthropus ... and the foward growth of the temporal pole ...are the morphological concomitants of the changes at the sylvian angle ... at the same time clues to the neuronic proliferation and integration" which dist• inguish the human from simian brains (p. 123) Schepers, G. W. H.: The brain casts of the recently discovered Ple&ianthropU8 skulls. Transvaal Mus. Mem. 4, 85--117 (1950). Two more Ple&ianthropus, thus 5 brains (figs. 1-7), allow larger scale comparisons with ParanthropU8, AU8tralopithecus, Sinanthropus, Pithecan• thropus and H. neanderthaknsis with regard to cranial capacities, encephalic dimensions, indices and proportions, cerebral morphology and contours. "These Australopithecidae possessed brains significantly larger than those of the Anthropoid Apes, and definitely fashioned on Human lines" (p. 104), some of their indices "indicating a general tendency of the Australopithecid brains to achieve ultra specialization" (p. 98) Schmidt, R. R.: Der Geist der Vorzeit. 'Berlin 1934. (Translations: L'aurore de l'esprit humain, Paris; The dawn of the human mind, London, 1936.) Pithecanthropus pp.47-48, fig. 9. Homo neanderthalensis pp.54, 56 (e.g. "The primitive character of the third frontal convolution makes it difficult to think of any higher development of language" [I]), pI. VII; Briinn-Rasse p.69 ("increased right handedness of the cultured human") pI. XII; progress of soul and thinking, Pithecanthropus to Ofnet-race, shown in tables pp. 225--227 SchOn, M. A.: See Straus, W. L., Jr. and M. A. SchOn (1960) Schultz, A. H.: The relative size of the cranial capacity in primates. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 28,273-287 (1941). pp. 283-285 and curves fig. 3: "Neanderthal man... must have possessed a relative cranial capacity extremely close to that of modern man and far exceeding that of the great apes of corresponding body weight ... " "In all likelihood Sinanthropus had a relative cranial capacity lying very much nearer to the corresponding values of recent man than to those of any great ape of similar body weight" Schultz, A. H.: The specialization of man and his place among the catarrhine primates. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 10, 37-53 (1950). pp. 45--46 and fig. 4 [curves of relation between body weight and brain size in catarrhine primates of all ages: Man, apes, monkeys]" Brain Size" • During late prenatal and postnatal growth brain increases at a lesser rate than body. Early human foetus brain not larger than in equally large foetus of other primates, but in man growth continues longer and at more intense rate and thus surpasses others. P. 46, "Absolute size of the brain, or of cranial capacity in fossil primates remains meaningless until we have gained more adequately supported knowledge of the general body size and the age and growth rates in these extinct forms" Schultz, A. H.: The physical distinction of Man. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 94, no. 5, reprinted: Yearb. Phys. Anthrop. G, (1950), 89-110. P. 109, "Adult man possesses the pro• portionately largest brain among primates of similar body size at the completion of their growth, but this distinction does not yet exist at early stages of development. The growth curve for relative brain size has become shifted in the apes in the same direction, but not as far, as in man away from the corresponding curve for lower catarrhines. Adult man is unique by having the head resting on the spine nearly in a state of equilibrium through the extreme forward position of the occipital condyles. This position of the condyles is typical for early fetal life in all primates, but becomes rapidly changed in monkeys and apes in which the condyles move with growth from near the center of gravity towards the back of the head. This ontogenetic process has become lost in man whose occipital condyles remain throughout life in the characteristically fetal position." P. 106, face so

218 decreased in man that, with enlargement of brain, head is smaller in modern man than in many apes and monkeys Schultz, A. H.: Man's place among the primates. Man 1)3,7-9 (1953). Non vid. Schultz, A. H.: Die stammesgeschichtliche Entwicklung des Menschen. Ur- und Friihgeschichte der Schweiz (Schweiz. Ges. Urgeschichte, Basel) 6, 21-24 (1961). Non vid. Schultz, A. H.: Die Schadelkapazitat mannlicher Gorillas und ihr Hochstwert. Anthrop. Anz.21), 197-203 (1962). Conclusions as to pongid or hominid status based on estimated cranial capacities of fossil higher primates... such as the Paranthropus maximum of 750 cc• are put in doubt; cranial capacities of four hundred adult male gorillas vary from 420 to 752 cc., the maximum being that of an individual that was neither the oldest nor the largest Schultz, B. K.: Abstammungskundliche Untersuchungen am Schadelinnenraume. Forsch. u. Fortschr. 7,56--58 (1931a). The frontal lobe and, more so, the parietal lobe have enlarged during a "Schneckenartige Einrollungstendenz"; apes-,>-Pithecanthropus-,>-H. neander• thalensi8 (fig. 2, La Chapelle)-'>-Rhodesian (fig. 3)-'>-H. 8apiens. The temporal lobe is peculiarly narrow in the Rhodesian man's brain, p. 58 Schultz, B. K.: Der Innenraum des Schadels in stammesgeschichtlicher Betrachtung mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung des Rhodesiafundes. Verh. Ges. Phys. Anthrop. I), (Sonder• heft, Anthrop. Anz. 7), 30-39 (1931 b). The Rhodesian endocast is compared with those of extant anthropoids and man, of Pithecanthropus and three H. neanderthalensis, by means of their outlines in the midsaggital plane (figs. 1,3,4,7-9) and in three transverse planes (figs. 5, 6, 10). Its temporal lobe is conspicuously, "primitively" small. "The inner space of the skull and thus the outer form of the brain is in all its investigated parts species• specific and allows a view into the phylogeny of the brain. Absolute brain size increases in the ascending phyletic line, but the parts do not enlarge at the same rate; some reach only a certain level and are far surpassed by others. A considerable new aquisition of H. 8apiens is, apparently, the enlargement of the parietal brain" (p. 38) Schultz, B. K.: Stammesgeschichtliche und rassische Unterschiede am Schadelinnenraum. Verh. Ges. Phys. Anthrop. 8, 33-40 (1937). "Phylogenetic development of the brain parts" measured by comparing the extent of the endocranium in five frontal planes also of Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus, several H. neanderthalensis, and Homo from Rhodesia, Combe Capelle and Predmost Schwalbe, G.: tiber die Vorgeschichte des Menschen. Verh. Ges. deutsch. Naturf. 71), I, 163-183 (1904a). Same as pp. 1-32 in 1904b Schwalbe, G.: Die Vorgeschichte des Menschen. Braunschweig 1904b. Neolithic men "were equipped with the same highly developed brain... as the best-developed man of today" (p. 5). For Neandertal man's large size of body and skull" cranial capacity is small; it is only 1230 cc., while in modern skulls of comparably large dimensions it is 1,500 and more cc." (p. 13). Reporting on Dubois' endocast of Pithecanthropu8, concludes that the brain not only by its 850 cc. size but" also in details of its form exhibits conditions inter• mediary between ape and man" (p. 18-19) Schwalbe, G.: tiber das Gehirn-Relief der Schliifengegend des menschlichen Schadels. z. Morphol. Anthrop. 10, 1-93 (1906). "Windungs-Protuberanzen", palpable elevations on the external skull surface that correspond to brain convolutions, are ascertained also on neandertalian skulls (p. 71) Scott, J.: Factors determining skull form in Primates. Zool. Soc. London Symposia to, 127-134 (1963). Non vid. Scribner, G. H.: Brain development as related to evolution. Pop. Sci. Monthly 46, 525-538 (1895). [One of the ?philosophizing deductions possible through disregard of facts and brain volumes known even then-although better now.] Only that " .. .large class of persons who have made no exhaustive examination of the subject" (p.527) can believe that neandertalian and other prehistoric men's cranial capacity was nearly equal to that of modern savages, and that this nearly equals that of civilized men. A [one!] bushwoman has an absolutely and relatively lighter brain with convolutions "simple" instead of "tortuous" as in the civilized, p.531. "The brain may grow with increased exercise and larger and more frequent demands upon it like any other organ" (p. 530), but head growth and cranial capacity are" checked at the point of undue and disadvantageous proportion to the body", hence in savages their "immature brains are overtaxed" (p.537) while brain evolution from the lowest savages up resulted in "the full brain development of the civilized, but with less use for, or need of it than has the hunting savage of the neolithic period" (p. 538)

219 Senet, A.: Man in search of his ancestors. The romance of paleontology. New York 1956. See Gen. Cat., Senet, A. 1954 [Seppilli, T.: Su alcuni rapporti dimensionali in crani di microcefali. Riv. Antrop. 42, 241-272 (1955). Studies relation between volume of facial skull and cranial capacity (~90 cc.) in six cases of microcephaly, mentions p. 246, Sergi's volumetric studies of that proportion in fossil hominids, but warns, p. 248, that microcephaly is a pathologic deviation "and all comparison with fossil hominids or with anthropoids that is not limited to simple com• parison of volumetric proportions will result in errors, as fossil hominids and anthropoids must be regarded as perfectly organized beings, adapted to their surrounding"] Sergi, S.: II cervello nelle razze umane e negli antropomorfi. Enciclopedia italiana 9, 845-858 (1931 a). pp. 856-858, "The brain of fossil men" Sergi, S.: Le cri.ne neanderthalien de Saccopast()re (Rome). Anthropologie 41, 241-247 (1931 b). With cranial capacity about 1200 cc., is smallest known of neandertalers Sergi, S.: Der Neanderthaler des Monte Circeo. Rassenk. 10, 113-119 (1939). This skull, with a 1550 cc. capacity, is grouped with those of similarly large capacity (La Chapelle, La Ferassie, Spy, Neandertal)-all from Wiirm-glacial-as " ..end branches of the tribes which became extinct in the last glacial period." "This one glaciation regulated Neander• thal man's branch, in being especially rapid. Evolution of their brains was extinguished." Saccopastore (and other interglacial skulls, e.g. Krapina) are predecessors of the glacial hominids Sergi, S.: Sulla morfologia cerebrale del secondo paleantropo di Saccopastore. Atti R. Accad. d'ltalia, Rend. Cl. Sci. fis., mat., nat. (7) 3, 670-681 (1942). Non vid. Sergi, S.: Sulla morfologia cerebrale del secondo paleantrope di Saccopastore. Riv. Antrop. 34,531-540 (1943). The skull fragment (pIs. I-II) shows some features of the cerebellum, and the basal gyri of the frontal and temporal lobes of the cerebrum with characteristics that also occur in modem man. Although only a small area of the cerebral surface could be studied, it indicates the psychic condition which is usually disavowed in ancient man, contrary to what is proven by the documents of his material and spiritual life Sergi, S.: II secondo paleantropo di Saccopastore. Paleontogr. ital. 42, 25-164 (1948a). As hardly more than half the face and the base are well preserved in this skull, "Encephalic imprints" (pp. 66-71, pI. IX) treats only with basal and anterior features of the brain (anterior view of endocast sketched, fig. 25). "Volume and form of the neurocranium" (pp. 133-135) estimates cranial capacity at 1280-1300 cc Sergi, S.: II secondo paleantropo di Saccopastore. Riv. Antrop. 36, 3-95 (1948b). A "summary of the principal results" of 1948a. pp. 17-19, "Volume of facial skull and its proportion to the volume of the braincase" concludes that in the evolution of Saccopastore man to Circeo man, if this took place, the face was not reduced while cranial capacity increased. pp. 58-65, "The brain", with the anterior but also a ventral view of the endocast (figs. 27-28) Sergi, S.: The Palaeanthropi in Italy: the fossil men of Saccopastore and Circeo. Man 48, 61-64, 76-79 (1948c). (Reprinted, Yearb. Phys. Anthrop. 4, 1948.) A paper read to the Royal Anthropological Institute, 17 April 1946. Cranial capacities of Saccopastore I "less than 1200 cc", of II "not JIlore than 1300 cc", of Circeo "about 1550 cc" (pp.61--62). " A fundamentally distinctive character of the Hominidae is the specific cerebral evolution which is revealed morphologically by the size and structure of the encephalon.•• the process of encephalization has manifested itself diversely in the various types of man•.. " discussed pp.77-78 Sergi, S.: II paleantropo neandertaliano di Ganovce in Slovacchia. Riv. Antrop. 42,450-452 (1955). Review of Vlcek 1953, with 4 figs. of the human endocast Shelshear, J. L.: The primitive features of the cerebrum, with special reference to the brain of the Bushwoman described by Marshall. Trans. Roy. Soc. London (B) 223, 1-26 (1934). Regards Bushwoman's brain as "evidence available for the interpretation of such archaic forms of the brain as are revealed in the endocranial cats of Pithecanthropu8... " in figs. 2, 4 and 5 superimposes outlines also of H. rhodesienBiB. "The contours practically coincide" with Pithecanthr0pu8, but the similarly narrow frontal lobes are slightly fuller (pp. ~, 24) Shellshear, J. L., Smith, G. E.: A comparative study of the endocranial cast of Binanthr0pu8. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London (B) 223, 469-487 (1934). A supplement to Black 1933a, interprets sulci (figs. 2-5, 8), and illustrates the form not only in the usual views (figs. 9, 16-18), but also with horizontal contours, taken 1 cm apart, drawn into the outlines of the Binanthr0pu8 (fig. 10, 13) and Pithecanthr0pu8 (figs. 11, 14) casts. In several regions

220 human rank had been attained, but the "degree of symmetry between the two cerebral hemispheres is quite exceptional in the human brain" Stillman, L. R.: The genesis of man. Internatl. J. Psycho-Anal. 34, 11,1-7 (1953). (Reprinted, Evolution 9, 94-99, 1955. Psycho-analytical view of the forces which transformed "an impulsive 'eat, drink and be merry' Palaeolithic hunter into a quasi-compulsive Neolithic husbandman or bourgeois who saved part of what he poBSesSed for future planting and breeding" Simons, E. L.: See Pilbeam, D. R. and E. L. Simons (1965) Simons, E. L.: In search of the missing link. Discovery (Yale Univ.) 1, no. 2,24-30 (1966). "Perhaps the most primitive feature was the small brain size. .Although larger than almost any ape brain, the brains of members of the A'U8tralopithecU8 group evidently had less than half the volume of those of modem men..• although the brain was sn:iall and the face somewhat apelike, the body build was much more similar to that of living men" (pp. 29-30) Simpson, G. G.: The major features of evolution. New York: Clumbia bioI. ser. 17, 1953. "A more complex example of correlated change in which genetic, ontogenetic, and func• tional correlations are all involved is provided by simultaneous changes in gross size, brain size, skull form, mandibular musculature, and other features in the evolution of man and the apes (e.g., Weidenreich 1941). It seems reasonable to say that the primary change was that in effective brain size, that this is rather intricately influenced and associated with a separate trend toward larger gross size, and that the other changes noted are secondary to the change in relative brain size. This is essentially Weidenreich's view (although his equation of three sorts of changes with distinct taxonomic levels seems to me funda• mentally incorrect). The actual way in which these characters are tied together is by the growth pattern and it might be said that what actually changed is just this one thing, the growth pattern. But the growth pattern changes because of changes in the adaptive zones, and so on. It is largely an artifact to isolate features and factors in this complex" (p. 276) Simpson, G. G.: Rates of human evolution. pp.468-470. In Evolution and Man's Progress. Proc. Am. Acad. Arts Sci. 90, 409-610 (1961). [Reprinted as a book, pp. 58-60. In: Hoag• land, H. and R. W. Burhoe, eds., New York and London, 1962]. "I suspect that if brain expansion stopped, as it seems to have done quite a long time ago, thirty thousand years or possibly more, it was not because there was no longer any genetic potentiality for further increase but because brain size had reached an optimum under the given conditions" (p. 468; p. 58 in reprint) Simpson, G. G.: The biological nature of man. Science 162, 472--478 (1966). The chapter "Evidence from Fossils" ends as follows: "Only after the evolution of human posture and dentition was essentially complete did man's brain begin to enlarge beyond that of the apes. Intelligence depends not only on the size of the brain but also on its internal anatomy, and we do not know the internal anatomy of our fossil ancestors' brains. However, it is fairly certain that a species with average brain size as in apes could not be as intelligent as Homo 8apiens" (p. 474) Skerlj, B.: (Discussion of Kurten 1959) Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. BioI. 24,214-215 (1959). "We simply do not possess a statistically adequate material", nor know enough about the variability-800 to 2000 cc. in modem man-, for conclusions as to the rates of evolution of average brain size" Skerli, B.: Human evolution and Neanderthal man. Antiquity 34, 90-99 (1960). Distinguishes Australopithecinae with brain volume below 750 cc. and Homininae with brain volume above 750 cc. Among the latter brain size sets apart only the Pithecanthropi s. str. Esti• mates from 10 specimens that the Neanderthal brain averaged about 1340 gm., slightly larger than modern man's 1280 gm. Concludes "a large brain mass per se is not and... never was under the protection of natural selection" (pp. 95-97) Smith, G. E.: See Gen. Cat. (1902) Smith, G. E.: The evolution of man. Nature 90, 118-126 (1912). P.125, (as most important in evolution of man) "The prefrontal region, where the activities of the cortex as a whole are, as it were, focussed and regulated, began to grow until eventually it became the most distinctive characteristic of the human brain, gradually filling out the front of the cranium and producing the distinctively human forehead. In the diminutive prefrontal area of Pithecantkr0pU8 and to a less marked degree, Neanderthal man, we see illustrations of lower human types... However large the brain may be in Homo primigeniU8, his small prefrontal region... is sufficient evidence of his lowly state of intelligence and reason for his failure in the competition with the rest of mankind"

221 Smith, G. E.: Preliminary report on the cranial cast (of Piltdown skull). Quart. J. Geol. Soc. 89,145-147 (1913a). "The most primitive and most simian human brain so far recorded" (fig. 11) is compared with the Neandertalian specimens Smith, G. E.: President's Address, Section Anthropology. Rep. Brit. Assoc. Adv. Sci. 82, 575-598 (1913b). pp. 594-595, prefrontal region, most distinctive characteristic of human brain, gradually filled out front of cranium, "producing the distinctively human forehead. In the diminutive prefrontal area of Pithecanthropus, and, to a less marked degree, Neander• thal man, we see illustrations of lower human types... However large the brain may be in Homo primigenius, his small prefrontal region ... is sufficient evidence of his lowly stage of intelligence and reason for his failure in the competition with the rest of mankind." P. 598, "The evolution of the Primates and the emergence of the distinctively human type of intelligence are to be explained primarily by a steady growth and specialization of certain parts of the brain" Smith, G. E.: The significance of the discovery at Piltdown. Bedrock 3, 1-17 (1914a). In controversy with Keith mentions that "All the brain-casts of Palaeolithic men hitherto described are remarkable for the obtrusive asymmetry of their occipital poles" Smith, G. E.: The brain of primitive man, with special reference to the cranial cast and skull of EoantMop1.t8 ("the Piltdown man"). Nature 92, 729 (1914b). P.729 of this abstract, of paper read in Roy. Soc. February 19, expresses the opinion that, " ... increased size of the brain (as a whole) ... is ultimately related to the acquisition of the power of articulate speech... " and that earliest hominids had speech and also had asymmetrical brains Smith, G. E.: (Discussion of Symington 1915a.) Proc. Anat. Soc. Great Britain 19li, 8. While human endocranial casts do give incomplete information about the brain, such "negative evidence is surely no reason for refusing to recognize positive information of the most definite character when it occurs" Smith, G. E.: The endocranial cast of the Boskop skull. Mem. Manchester lit. phil. Soc. 81, Proc. XV-XVI (1917a). The large cranial capacity, "well above 1800 cc." in this "early cave-dweller" was due to "the great lateral expansion of the parietal area "while the prefrontal area was smaller than in Oro-Magnon and modem man Smith, G. E.: Note on the endocranial cast obtained from the ancient calvaria found at Boskop, Transvaal. Trans. Roy. Soc. South Afr. 8, 15-17 (1917b). PI. XI, views of mold of skull cap. "Its features present a curious blend of those which are regarded as distinctive of Mousterian and Aurignacian types respectively; but whereas the general form presents certain resemblances to the former, in all essential respects the cast conforms to the type represented by the Oro-Magnon man of Western Europe" Smith, G. E.: On the form of the frontal pole of an endocranial cast of Eoanthropus DawBOni. Quart. J. geol. Soc. (for 1917) '13, 7-8 (1918). An endocast of a fragment of one frontal bone (fig. 2) from Piltdown gravel seen as presenting "features which are more distinctly primitive and ape-like" than found in either Homo neanderthalensis or H. 8apiens Smith, G. E.: The Rhodesian skull. Brit. med. J. 1922a, 1,197-198. Side views of Rhodesian and Neanderthal endocasts Smith, G. E.: Evolution of the human intellect. Brit. med. J. 1922b, 1,778-779. Acquisition of articulate speech suggested by expanded cortical areas of auditory symbolism in Pithec· anthropus (and Piltdown skull) Smith, G. E.: The brain of Rhodesian man. Nature 109, 355-356 (1922c). Abstract of paper read to Royal Anthropological Institute Smith, G. E.: The human brain. Nature 113, 390-393 (1924). See Smith 1927 Smith, G. E.: The London skull. Brit. med. J. 1925a, II, 853-854. Endocast (fig. 3) of skull fragment of "an exceptionally primitive member of the species 8apiens rather than a belated Neanderthaloid" shows part of temporal region and the parietal area "poorly developed" on the left, larger on the right side-indicating but not proving left-handedness Smith, G. E.: The London skull. Nature 118, 678-680 (1925b). The late Pleistocene or sub• fossil partial endocast (fig. 5) compared with those of Pithecanthrop1.t8 and H. neander• thalensi8 (fig. 3, profiles) Smith, G. E.: Right- and left-handedness in primitive men. Brit. med. J. 2, 1107-1108 (1925c). Asymmetry of the occipital brain is characteristic also of H. neanderthalensi8, excluding Rhodesian man. In the London skull endocast (fig. 2) and Pithecanthropus (fig. 3), it is reversed; the right hemisphere is larger Smith, G. E.: Australopithecus, the man-like ape from Bechuanaland. Ill. Lond. News 1921)d, 1,237-241. P.240, "The brain" (of A. and Pithecanthropus, both endocasts figured)

222 Smith, G. E.: The evolution of intelligence and the thraldom of catch-phrases. pp.1-11 in Problems of personality. Studies presented to Dr. Morton Prince. London and New York 1925e. Expanded state of acoustic cortex area in Pithecanthr0pu8 suggests enhanced significance of hearing, hence speech, in earliest humans. Progressive expansion of parietal, prefrontal, and temporal territories thereafter increased the powers of manual dexterity, mental concentration, and acoustic discrimination Smith, G. E.: Casts obtained from braincases of prehistoric men. Natural Rist. 26,294-299 (1926). Dorsal and left side views of Pithecanthr0pu8, Eoanthr0pu8, Homo neanderlhalen8i8 of La Chapelle Smith, G. E.: The evolution of man. 2nd. ed. Oxford (University Press) 1927. With relevant data also elsewhere in this book, "The Human Brain" (pp. 142-189; text reprinted from Nature, 1924, pp. 390-393) discusses Rhodesian (figs. 33, 42, 44: also La Chapelle), AU8tral• opithecwJ (fig. 43b), and Pithecanthr0pu8 (fig. 33, 43c, 50) and the interpretation of cranial signs as to handedness Smith, G. E.: The endocranial cast. pp.86-91. [11,: Garrod, D. A. E. etal., Excavation of a ~lousterian rock-shelter at Devil's Tower, Gibraltar. J. Roy. Anthrop. Inst. i8, 33--114 (1928a). The cast was taken from the "cranium" (actually left frontal and parietal and right temporal bones: p.59 in preceding paper) of a neanderthalian five-year-old. It is different from all other H. neanderthalen8i8 brains, including that of the La Quina child, by "exceptionally high development of the prefrontal region of the brain and a temporal area that was rather below average size" (p. 91; pl. VI, fs. 1-2, VII, 1-2) Smith, G. E.: Endocranial cast obtained from the Rhodesian skull. pp.52-58. [11,: Pycraft, W. P., et al., Rhodesian man and associated remains. London [Brit. Mus. (Nat. Rist.)] 1928b. "The most perfect endocranial cast hitherto obtained from an extinct member of the human family"-it includes the ventral surface-, shown in four views and diagrams figs. 12-16, closely resembles the neandertal-type brains; the slight differences are seen in figs. 17-18, in which its midsagittal and temporal transverse contours are shown with those of Pithecanthr0pu8, the La Chapelle and La Quina endocasts Smith, G. E.: Human history. New York 1929. FOBBil hominid brain referred to only in brief, p. 31; "obtrusive development" of" area precisely corresponding in position to the part of modem man's brain which is concerned with the appreciation of spoken language" in Pithecanthr0pu8 (fig. 8) means that "speech is as old as Man himself" Smith, G. E.: Evolutionary tendencies in the jaws. Second international orthodontic Congr. (London 1931), 10-18, 1933. P. 10, "The changes which affect the jaws and teeth in the evolution of man are in large measure due to the growth of the brain and the enhanced significance of the face which the higher powers of visual discrimination and understanding confer upon it... the growth of the brain was chiefly responsible for disturbing the orderly process of uniform growth of the jaws from which the dental troubles arose" Smith, G. E.: See Shellshear, J. L. and G. E. Smith (1934) Smith, G. E.: A note on the endocranial cast of Kanjera Man. P. 140 in Leakey, L. S. B., The stone age races of Kenya. London 1935. Although representing only parts of the brain, the cast (pIs. XIV, XV A-B) reveals extremely primitive features (symmetry of occipital poles) in association with traits distinctive of H. 8apiens (fullness of anterior poles) Smith-Agreda, V.: Die Verteilung der Impressiones gyrorum am Endokranium des Menschen. Verh. anat. Gas. i2, 268-274 (1954). More distinct relief on frontal convexity of Pithecan• throp1L8 than on endocasts of modem man mentioned (p. 273) in report on endocranial moulding in human development; the convolutions most distinctly imprinted into the endocranium are developed late in ontogeny, in the basal neocortex of the frontal and temporal lobes Sollas, W. J.: The anniversary address of the president. Quart. J. geol. Soc. London 66, 48-87 (1910). Discusses cranial capacities of Chancelade, Cro Magnon, Neandertal men pp. 60-65, of Pithecanthrop1L8 p. 69, listing H. 8apiens cranial capacities "to show that n<> discoverable relation exists between the magnitude of the brain-or even its gross anatomy -and intellectual power" (p. 63); "even the Palaeolithic Epoch may have nurtured its Watt, its Newton, or its Raphael (p. 88) Sollas, W. J.: The evolution of man. Scientia 9,118-138. L'evolution de l'homme, ibid. Suppl. 1911, 109-131. Abstracts the essence of Sollas 1910 Sollas, W. J.: Ancient hunters and their modem representatives. 3rd. ed. New York 1924. Discussion of cranial capacities and endocasts, particularly of Neanderthalers (pp. 235-242)

223 includes the warning that dissection of the brain of a man who mastered 40 or 50 languages revealed nothing reflecting this exceptional capacity (p. 241) Sollas, W. J.: The Chancelade skull. J. Roy. Anthrop. Inst. li7, 89-122 (1927). "The brain" (p.93) and, in "Fracture of the right temporal region" (pp.93-95) the cranial capacity (which is 1710 cc., p. 117), discuss and enlarge the findings of Testut Sondermann, R.: Gehirnentwicklung und Menschwerdung. Z. Morph. Anthrop. 41, 160-170 (1944). Greater intelligence secondary to a mutation particularly of the hypophysis that enlarged the skull and therewith the brain. [Shorter papers, Medic. KIinik 1941 and 1942] Spatz, ;II.: Menschwerdung und Gehirnentwicklung. Nachr. Giessener Hochschul-Ges. 20, 32-55 (1951). P. 48: Pitheeanthr0'jYU8 and Sinanthr0pu8, the "Basale Rinde" (basal contex) is relatively small, also its impressions poor because, the author believes, its evolution has only begun.' P. 50-51: Through creation of Homo " ..• the supernatural world of the mind walks beside nature... " (so yes, even Simpson) Spatz, H.: Gehirn und Endocranium. Homo Ii, 49-52 (1954). [Also preliminary to larger publication of a paper read at Anthropologentag in Miinster.] Fig. 2b, Homo rhode8iensis. P. 51: "The -greater impressionability of the frontal convexity tissue noted with fossil hominoids can be interpreted thus, that they at this point were still in a state of develop• ment" Spatz, H.: Die Evolution des Menschenhlrns und ihre Bedeutung fUr die Sonderstellung des Menschen. Nachr. Giessener Hochschulges. 24, 52-74 (1955). Rhodesian (Fig.7b) and other fossil men (p. 71), in which basal neocortex is narrower and the sulci shown on greater areas of cerebral convexity of endocasts than in Recent man, are cited in support of a "morphokinetic" evolutionary theory; "early" parts of neocortex, which serve primitive fnnctions, are "suppressed" away from surface and lose power to imprint endocranium, while it is later and still evolving parts (in man, particularly the basal neocortex) whose surface details are well reproduced on endocranial casts Spatz, H.: Gedanken iiber die Zukunft des Menschenhlrns. pp.317-383. In: Benz, E., ed., Der Ubermensch. Eine Diskussion. ZUrich and Stuttgart 1961. "The presumable future of the human brain cannot be discussed before something is said about the significance of this organ for man, and about its past," is the introductory sentence. "An approximate picture of the evolution of the size and external forms of the human brain can be gained from endocranial casts" although few exist (p.339). In surveying them (pp.338-340, 362-363), special attention is given to Homo rhode8iensis (Fig. 4c, basal), Sinanthropus, and Pithecanthropus II: the unpublished (see p. 383) endoca.st of Koenigswald's 1937 find. Less prominent gyri than in H. 8apiens in the basal neocortex area, and a greater area of gyrification represented on the fossil endocasts in the less developed frontal area, are seen as supporting the author's theory of high-grade impressions of newly evolved cortex which is lost in the older areas, undergoing "suppression" away from the surface Spatz, H.: Uber die Zukunft des Menschen. Zeitschr. Religions- u. Geistesgeschichte. Beiheft VIII, 16-22 (1962a). Asserts again that those brain parts that are youngest in evolution "prominate" on the surface, hence those in progressive evolution can be recognized on endocranial casts and that the prominent "basale Neurinde" particularly of the frontal lobe, less developed in fossil hominids, shows that this seat of ethic qualities is in Homo 8apiens evolving progressively. [The closeness to the skull base of the basal neocortex is, however, known to be due to the lesser amount of cerebro-spinal fluid there than dorsally• of., e.g., Kappers 1935, p. 30-a non-neurological condition seen developing in, e.g., horse evolution (Edinger 1948, pp. 6-8)] Spatz, H.: Uber Anatomie, Entwicklung und Pathologie des "Basalen Neocortex". Pp. 766-779. In: Livre Jubilaire du Dr. Ludo van Bogaert, Acta med. belg., Bruxelles 1962b. With the convolutions of the temporal and the orbital (a seat of personality) basal neo• cortex less distinct than on endocasts of modern man, those of Pithecanthropus, and of Homo rhodesiensis (Fig. 2c), support the argument that these areas have recently evolved (pp.769-770,777) Spatz, H.: Vergangenheit nnd Zukunft des Menschenhirns. Jb. 1964, Ak. Wiss. Litt., Mainz 1961ia, 228-242. While on the frontal lobe of modern man the convolutions of the convexity do not usually imprint the endocranium, they did so in several fossil hominids. Their "retraction" is seen as an example of this property in phylogenetically older brain struc• tures. The frontal and temporal basal neocortex, prominently imprinting, was not fully developed in the fossil Hominidae (pp. 236-237; Horrw rMdesiensis Figs. 4c, 5d)

224 Spatz, H.: Der Basale Neocortex und seine Bedeutung £iir den Menschen. (Vorgetragen am 28. Juni 1962) Ber. physik.-med. Ges. Wfuzburg, N. F. 71, 7-17 (1965b). Read in 1962, mainly on phylogenetically early convolutions having lost the potentiality to imprint the skull, namely, on dorsal convexity of H. sapiens brain, while more recent developments do imprint, namely on the base of frontal and temporal lobes. These were less developed in Pithecanthropus, Neandertalers, and H. rhodesiensis (p. 13, Fig. 3b) Spatz, H.: See Gen. Cat. (1966) Spence, T. F.: See Ashton, E. H. and T. F. Spence (1958) Starck, D.: Die Neencephalisation (Die Evolution zum Menschenhirn). Pp.l03-144. In: Heberer, G., ed., Menschliche Abstammungslehre. Fortschritte der "Anthropogenie" 1863-1964. Stuttgart 1965. See also Gen. Cat. Hominoidea pp.132-141; Fig. lOa, Sinan• thropus II; F~g. lOb, Rhodesia Stebbins, G. L.: See Gen. Cat. (1966) Steslicka, W.: Morphological studies on the brain casts of the highest primates. Przeglad anthropol. (Poznan) 19: Polish 261-272, English 273-275, Russian 275-278 (1953). By several mathematical methods, using numerous measurements also of the australopithe• cines, Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus, and fossil Homo, demonstrates "the great evolutio• nary trend that we observe in the development of the brain in the phylogeny of Hominidae" (p.275) Strasburger, E. H.: See Kappers, C. U. A. (with collaboration of E. H. Strasburger) (1947) Straus, W. L.: Neural factors in the evolution of man. [See Tax etal., pp.262-264 (1953)]. Neither absolute nor relative brain size (some lemurs, a small monkey, have brains far larger relative to body weight) made man the animal possessing a socially inheritable culture, but the development of cortical association areas, particularly those concerned with speech. An adequate hand was prerequisite Straus, W. L., Jr.: The classification ofOreopithecus. Pp. 146-177. In: Washburn, S. L., ed., Classification and human evolution, Chicago 1963. "Cranial Capacity" discusses the various estimates (p.169), and the list of characters that assign O. to the Hominoidea includes: "Size of brain (cranial capacity), both absolute and relative" (p. 171) Straus, W. L., Jr., SchOn, M.A.: Cranial capacity of Oreopithecu8 bambolii. Science 132, 670-672 (1960). From the volume of the braincase in a plaster reconstruction of the [only? crushed] O. skull and the ratios between braincase volume and cranial capacity in monkeys, apes, and fossil Recent hominids, it is concluded that in O. the cranial capacity was between 276 and 529 cc. Above monkey and within great ape range, this identifies O. as a hominoid. This is probably true also of relative brain size [as body weight was approximately 40 kg.: A. H. Schultz, Z. Morphol. Anthropol. 1)0 (1960), p. 139] Symington, J.: President's address, Sect. Anthropology. Rep. Brit. Assoc. Adv. Sci., 73, 792-801 (1904). [Same: Science n.s. 18, 545-556, 1903.] Discusses the possibilities and limitations in ascertaining size and form of the brain from study of skulls. P. 799: the preserved parts of the Neanderthal skull " ... are specially related to the portion of the brain which subserves all the higher mental processes." P. 800: "The length and breadth of the Neanderthal calvaria are distinctly greater than in many living races, and com• pensate for its defect in height, so that it was capable of lodging a brain fully equal in volume to that of many existing savage races and at least double that of any anthropoid ape" Symington, J.: Exhibition of endocranial, endodural, arachnoid, and brain casts of recent man. Proc. anat. Soc. Great Britain 191Oa, 7-8. Abstract of 1915b, protesting against paleontologists' "practice of calling endocranial casts brain casts"; sulci of, particularly, the superior aspect can not be followed on casts, mainly owing to the accumulation of the cerebro-spinal fluid on the vault. [See G. E. Smith 1915] Symington, J.: On the relations of the inner surface of the cranium to the cranial aspect of the brain. Edinb. med. J., n.s. 14, 85-100 (1915b). Pp.99-100 warn that the degree of cerebral development in extinct hominids can be judged only from size and form of cranial cavity, as its endocast gives no exact information on sulci Symington, J.: Endocranial casts and brain form: a criticism of some recent speculations. J. Anat. Physiol. 1)0, 111-130 (1916). Deductions made from convolutions on endocasts of extinct hominids such as Pithecanthropus, La Chapelle (Figs. 5, 7) and Piltdown man (Fig. 8) and stressing primitive or simian features, " ... are highly speculative and falla• cious". The digital impressions of the La Chapelle skull fall well within the normal range of variation of modem man

15 Advances in Anatomy. Vol. 49 225 Tanner, J. M., Oakley, K. P., Eiseley, L. C.: Difficulties in interpreting morphological change in the brain. pp. 259-260, See Tax et al. (1953). Tanner: We have no evidence as to whether or not micro-evolutionary change in the brain during the "cultural evolution" occurred. Oakley: As endocasts are no source for deciding prehumanfhuman, is toolmaking? Eiseley: Peculiarly human qualities may have been in the brain before human level was reached Tax, S. etal. (ads.): An appraisal of anthropology today. An International Symposium. Chicago 1953. See Oakley, Straus, Tanner et al., and Washburn Tax, S. (Ed.): Evolution after Darwin. II. The evolution of man. Chicago 1960. See Critchley, Hallowell, and Washburn and Howell Tax, S. and C. Callender (Eds.): Evolution after Darwin. m. Issues in evolution. Chicago 1960. While issues of importance to paleoneurology appear in other contexts in this volume, only" Panel Three: Man as an organism" (pp. 145-174) includes a discussion of endocranial casts and cranial capacities of fossil hominids, particularly of Zinianthr0pu8, by Leakey (pp. 157-159), Rensch (166-168), and Hallowell (p. 168). [See also Gen. Cat.] Teilhard, de Chardin, P.: On the zoological position and the evolutionary significance of Australopithecines. Trans. N. Y. Acad. Sci. (2) 14,208-210 (1952). [Reprinted: Yearbook of Phys. Anthrop. 8, for 1952, 37-39.] [At last a clearcut opinion! A Staumbann ("Hypo• thetical structure of the human phylum") which excludes everything known, including Neanderthal, from the H. sapiens line!] Australopithecines are as old as (fauna associated with) first human industries but never found on same site. Teilhard looks upon Austral• opithecines as a widely spread group of largely, especially progressive apes, which was in possession of S. Africa just before Man appeared to displace and replace them. The human group exhibited, originally, the same ramfied structure which paleontology is gradually detecting in every large animal phylum Teilhard de Chardin, P.: Le groupe zoologique humain. Structure et directions evolutives. Paris ("Lea Savants et Ie Monde") 1956. Progressive cephalization, seen as chief criterion, the main axis of evolution, continued in the Mammalia within groups (example: fossil Equidae) and puts Primates in the center, with their record of cerebral enlargement longer (Tetonius, Necrolemur) than in other orders and their extraordinarily sudden production of the world-changing human brain Tenku, J.: The sixth skull cap of Pithecanthr0pu8 erectu8. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 25,243-259 (1966). Calculated cranial capacity 975 cc. The range in six individuals is 775 (female) to 1075 cc. (Table 2) Termier, G.: See Termier, H. and G. Termier (1960) Termier, H., Termier, G.: Paleontologie stratigraphique. Paris 1960. "Origin of Man" (pp. 459-469) figures the endocasts from Swanscombe (Figs. 3381-3382), Skiihl I (Fig. 3389), and La Chapelle-aux-Saints (Figs. 3394-3395) Testut, L.: Recherches anthropologiques sur Ie squelette quaternaire de Chancelade (Dor• dogne). Lyon 1889. [Reprint of Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Lyon 8, 131-246, 1889.] pp. 18-23: "Endocranial surface and conclusions possible regarding the morphology of the brain." Pp.30-32: "Cranial capacity"; with 1710 cc. (p. 111), this surpasses modern man by 100 cc., " ... and denotes with fine certainty a beautiful cerebral organization" (p. 114) Tilney, F.: The brain of prehistoric man; a study of the psychologic foundations of human progress. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat. 17,723-769 (1927). A sort of preview of 1928, stressing the cerebral advances Pithecanthr0pu8 (Figs. 2-6, the last: "Functional localization.") -+H. neanderthalensis (Figs. 10-12)-+H. rhodesienBis (Figs. 13-15, "Functional locali• zation")-+Pfedmost H. 8apiens (Figs. 16-18, "Functional localization"). In Fig. 22, these endocasts plus "Piltdown" and modern man, "placed side by side... demonstrate more effectually than words the extent of this progress", enlargement most decisively of the frontal lobe Tilney, F.: The brain from ape to man. Vol. II. New York 1928. In this magnificent quarto volume, evolution of the human brain is treated especially, but not only in chapter XXVII, "The brain of prehistoric man" (pp.861-923). Its figures, 366-414, are photographs of the endocasts from Pithecanthr0pu8 to Pfedmost man and include "Functionallocaliza• tion", i.e. auditory area, etc., outlined in Pithecanthr0pu8 (Fig. 375) and the Homo of La Chapelle (Fig. 400), Rhodesia (Fig. 407), and Pfedmost (Fig. 414) Tilney, F.: The master of destiny. A biography of the brain. New York 1930. [See also Gen. Cat.] "Human at last: The brain of prehistoric man" (pp. 239-266) discusses and figures each specimen, Pithecanthr0pu8 to Cro Magnon race. Progress was general, but especially in frontal lobe expansion. "Through more than a million years the brain has slowly improv-

226 ed. There has been a steady increase in the size and richness of its convolutions" (pp. 332-333) Tilney, F.: The brain from fish to man. A series of culminating phases in evolution. II. Sci. Monthly, 45, 415-426 (1937). pp. 420--426: "Cerebral evidence derived from extinct races of man"; Fig. 22, five of their endocasts, lateral view photos Tobias, P. V.: Cranial capacity of Zinjanthr0pu8 and other Australopithecines. Nature 197, 743-746 (1963). All available data used for estimates, including seven anstralopithecines ranging from 435 cc to 600 cc., in table 2; "the most generous estimate yields a maximum value of 848 cc. at the australopithecine grade of hominid organization Tobias, P. V.: Dart and Taung forty years after. S. Afr. J. Sci. 60, 325-329 (1964a). With a new photograph of the Taung Australopithecus, "the endocranial cast conveying an accurate picture of the size and shape of the brain-case" (Fig. 3) Tobias, P. V.: The Olduvai Bed I hominine with special reference to its cranial capacity. Nature 202, 3-4 (1964b). With the two fragmentary parietals of the "pre-Zinjanthr0pu8 hominine" [H. habilis] reconstructs a "Partial endocranial cast which suggests a total cranial capacity of 675-680 cc." (Fig. 2) Tobias, P. V.: See Leakey, L. S. B., P. V. Tobias and J. R. Napier (1964c) Tobias, P. V.: Early man in East Africa. Recent excavations in Olduvai Gorge have laid bare a new chapter inhuman evolution. Science, 149, 3679, pp.22-23 (1965a). Zinjanthr0pu8' " ... cranial capacity as 530 cc." (p.23), "brain size" listed as one of "three parameters which have shown most marked change during the process of hominization." (p.25). Gives cranial capacities for several Australopithecine skulls and Homo erectus skulls (p.25). " ... capacity of the braincase, both absolutely and in relation to body size ... " relates If. habilis to more advanced Homininae (p. 28) Tobias, P. V.: (Comment on Holloway 1965) Nature 208, 206 (1965b). Includes result of new computation of adult cranial capacity of Taung Australopithecus-562 instead of pre• viously calculated 600 cc. Torgensen, J.: The occiput, the posterior cranial fossa and the cerebellum. Pp. 396-418. In: Ansen, J., A. Brodal et al., Aspects of cerebellar anatomy. Oslo 1954. P.414: Occipital bones of Sinanthropus and of Australopithecus prometheus suggest that mutations trans• forming the occiput "have initiated human evolution": increasing length and curvature of the occiput are an adaptation to the new axis of equilibrium of head and body, reflecting the enlarging cerebellum Turner, W.: On M. Dubois' description of remains recently found in Java, named by him Pithecanthropus e'rectus. J. Anat. Physiol. 29,424-445 (1895). Criticizes both Dubois' estimate of the cranial capacity from the matrix-filled calvarium, and his conclusion as about 2/3 of modern human average; points to less than tOOO cc. capacity in some ~;\ustralians (p. 437 and 441) Vallois, H. V.: Nouvelles recherches sur Ie squelette de Chancelade. L'Anthrop. 50, 165-202 (1946). Discussing the findings of other authors re cranial capacity, finds that Testut's 1710 cc. was not excessive (table 1, pp. 172-173), has it as 1.760 in table 3 Vallois, H. V.: La paleontologie et l'origine de I'Homme. pp. 53-83. In: Arambourg, C., etal., Paleontologie et transformisme. Paris (ColI. Sciences d'aujourd'hui) 1950. Lists cranial capacities Pithecanthr0pu8 to If. sapiens-in progressive hominisation, "most typical is the enlargement of the brain cavity" (p.56). Discusses the brain quantity of austral• opithecines, adds that " ... one has wanted to judge the quality on the basis of what one has believed to see of their convolutions on the endocranial casts. But the arguments advanced in this respect are not sufficiently convincing" (p.74) Vallois, H. V.: Un Homme de Neanderthal en Tchecoslovaquie? L'Anthropologie 55,167-169 (1951). A review of VlCek 1950, agreeing that the natural endocast has all the characters of If. neanderthalensis brains Vallois, H. V.: See Boule, 1\-1. and H. V. Vallois (1952) Vallois, H. V.: La capacite cranienne chez les Primates superieurs et Ie "Rubicon cerebral". Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris 238, 1349-1351 (1954). Review by S. Sergi, Riv. Antrop. 42,458-459, 1955. Having studied all the australopithecine material, Vallois excludes the majority of cranial capacity estimates as based on material as insufficient as, e.g., an upper jaw and accepts as valid 1 AU.'Jtralopithecus, 2 Plesianthropus, and 2 Paranthropus. These range 450 to 750 cc. and their average (576) is far closer to that of the apes as to that even of Pithecanthr0pu8, the "cerebral Rubicon" (Keith) being 800. The australopithecines were below it. Table of cranial capacities, gibbon-to-If. sapiens, shows again that since

16 Advances in Anatomy. Vol. 49 227 H. neandertkaZensi8, i.e. for 6~0,OOO years, it did not increase; the passage from Mouste- rian culture to modem civilization corresponds not to "new accomplishment" but " ... un- . iquely a new utilization of more and more perfect possibilities of cerebral identities... " Vallois, H.: Ordre des Primates. Traite Zool. 17, II, 1854-2206 (1955). Australopithecines, p. 2075. Pithecanthropus, p. 2152 (artifacts and fire prove hominid mind), Fig. 2076 (after Kappers); Homo neaMertkaZenais, La Chapelle endocast, Fig. 2088, (after Boule and Anthony); all under the chapter "FOBBil Men" (pp.2148-2175). "Hominisation and the modeling of the human form" (pp. 2176-2183) includes a section on "Man's fundamental character, the development of the brain" (pp.2178-2180) Vallois, H. V.: See Boule, M. and H. V. Vallois (1957) Vallois, H. V.: La grotte de Fontechevade. II: Anthropologie. Arch. Inst. Paleont. hum., memo 2D, 5-164 (1958). The endocranial surfaces also are minutely described of the fluorine• tested human bones of Riss-Wiirm interglacial age, older but more modem than neander• thalian remains, and establishing the existance of presapiens Homo, but consisting of not more than F1 (sD1allfragment of frontal bone; pp.20-21, endocast pl. XVI, f. 1) and F2 (incomplete skull-cap; p.66). In Fl the single sulcus is probably part of that between superior and middle frontal gyrus. F2 has one jugum distinct enough to identify (a low sylvian crest) and allows calculations of the cranial capacity (pp.83-85) as "1470" [?? sic ?], so that the diagnosis of pre-sapiens includes: "cranial capacity probably voluminous" (p. 124) Vallois, H. V.: Language articuIe et squelette. Homo IS, 114-121 (1962). Neither any character of the mandible nor of the endocranial casts of fossil hominids (these are discussed pp. 119-120: a thorough criticism of all attempts to solve an unsolvable question) are definite "anatomic stigmata" that could show the existence of articulate speech Vallois, H. V.: L'Homme de Fontechevade. Bull. Assoc. fro et. Quaternaire 2, no. 4-5, 217 (1965). Non vid. Vallois, H. V., Billy, G.: Nouvelles recherches sur les Hommes fOBBiles de l'abri de Cro Magnon. Anthropologie 6D, 47-74, 249-272 (1965). The Cro Magnon skulls "have practically not been examined since 1882, the other bones not since their discovery in 1868!" (p. 49). Re-measured, the cranial capacity of skull I was found 1,640 cC. (p. 67) and is listed in table 1 as ±1600. "Endocranial Cast" describes mainly the sulci of the previously not . studied cast from the incomplete skull III (pp. 72-74, Fig. 10) Versluys, J.: HirngroJ3e und hormonales Geschehen bei der Menschwerdung. Ein Vortrag iiber die Untersuchungen von E. Dubois und L. Bolk und die Bedeutung derselben. Wien 1936. Accepts Dubois' thesis of doubling and quadrupling of cerebral size in phylogeny (Fig. 2a: .Procamel'U8), but not the theory that twice the amount of neurons means performance twice as good. Nea,ndertal and Cro Magnon men" can hardly have needed as many neurons as we do..• The history of human culture shows that it took long periods of time until man learned to make full use of his large brain, and the majority of humans apparently is still not doing this now,.because it does not need complete utilization" (pp. 14-15). The double duplication has "put at man's disposal an enormous surplus of neurons". But it was changes in hormone production which brought the gigantic mass of neurons into the physiological condition prerequisite for the human maximum performance" (p. 27) Verworn, M.: Die Entwicklung des menschlichen Geistes. 1+52 pp. Jena 1910. This non• anatomical paper, seeing "the phylogeny of the human spirit in prehistoric time" (p.5), the artificial splitting of flint as "a discovery of immeasurable scope" (p. 36), shows particularly well that evolution of the human mind is outside the realm of paleoneuro• logy Virchow, R.: Untersuchung des Neanderthal-Schii.dels. Z. Ethnol. 4, 157-165 (1872). The endocast is regarded as one more proof that the Neanderthal bones are those of a modem man, and not from an inferior race. The frontal lobe projects more on the right side, the occipital lobe on the left (p. 165) Virchow, R.: (Discussion of Pithecanthropus.) Z. Ethnol. 27, 81-87 (1895a). "To determine the cranial capaqity... of the skull roof is a foolhardy undertaking"; it was possibly more than 1,OOOcc. (pp. 83-84) Virchow, R.: Pithecanthropus erect'U8 Dub. Z. Ethnol. 27, 648-656 (1895b). Having studied the skull, which is still filled with stone matrix, regards the 1,000 cc. estimate as far too high Vlcek, E.: Travertinory vylftek lebky neandertaloidniho typu z Ganovcu u Popradu. Archeo• logicke rozhledy 1, .156-161 (1949). In Czech, with Figs. 71-73 of natural endocast

228 Vlcek, E.: The travertine endocast of a neanderthaloid skull of Ganovce in Slovakia. Zpravy Anthropologicicke Spolecnosti, Roc. III, CIs. 4, 48-58 (1950). In Czech; Russian and English summaries 58-60. See Vallois 1951. Vlcek, E.: Find of Neandertal man in Slovakia. Slovenska Archeologia 1, 102-132 (1953). Pages 5-49 in Czech, 50-73 plates, 74-101 in Russian. The Ganovce travertine endocranial cast (pp. 110-123), Figs. 3-5, 26-27, outlines in Figs. 15--25 with those of other hominid endocasts; pIs. XI-XXIV), parly covered by bone fragments and presenting, due to corrosion of its surface, a satisfactory mould only ventrally, is determined as that of a primitive form of the Riss·Wiirm transition Neandertalians on the basis of extensive metric comparisons with the later Predmosti and Brno and earlier endocasts (Fig. 7, Sinanthropus; Fig. 8, Ngandong V; Fig. 9, Broken Hill; Fig. 10, Gibraltar I; Fig. 11, Tesik·TaS; Fig. 12, Skhul V; Fig. 13, La Chapelle; Fig. 14, La Quina) Vogt, C.: Lectures on Man. London 1864. (Also in French, from German edition, 1863.) Neanderthal endocast pp. 305--307, Figs. 99-100. Wagner, K.: Endocranial diameters and indices. A new instrument for measuring internal diameters of the skull. Biometrika 27, 88-132 (1935). pp. 107-109, "Shape of the Brain in Prehistoric Man": The general shape is not nearly as different from that in recent men as supposed; that mesocephalic brain had a breadth-length index much like that of Recent races, while the height-length index was considerably lower Washburn, S. L.: The analysis of primate evolution with particular reference to the origin of man. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology iii, 67-78 (1950). Reprinted in Howells, W., ed., 1962, Ideas on human evolution, pp. 154-171. Pp.74-76 on brains, and p. 68: "Men were bipeds first, and later large-brained, small-faced bipeds" Washburn, S. L.: Natural selection and the hominid brain. pp. 267-268, see Tax etal. (1953). In the Pleistocene only, brain size rapidly increased; only "as soon as tool-using starts, there will be selection for large brains, which was not present before" Washburn, S. L.: Speculations on the interrelations of the history of tools and biological evolution. Pp. 21-:31. In: Spuhler, J. N., ed., The evolution of man's capacity for cultur!l. Detroit 1959. Warns that "to relate the evolution of culture to biological evolution a first requirement would be fairly complete records, which do not exist." (p. 21). He thinks one might guess that there occurred" a real increase in brain size of approximately three times, at comparable body weight... Pebble tools go with the australopithecine-size brain; tradi• tions with the Java-Peking primitive-man size brain; and figures of early sapiens do not differ from those for Neanderthal" (p. 27). The particular cortex areas that are in man far larger than in apes suggest that "the increase in the size of the brain occurred after the use of tools" (p. 27). "Tools changed the whole pattern of life" (p.31) Washburn, S. L.: Tools and human evolution. Sci. Am. 203, 63-75 (1960). P. 71: "The brain seems to have evolved rapidly, doubling in size between man-ape [So African and Tangan• yika fossils] and man. It then appears to have increased much more slowly; there is no substantial change in gross size during the last 100,000 years." Comparison of monkey and human cortex shows that the particularly enlarged areas are those concerned "with the mental faculties that make human social life possible" (p. 73). With tool use presumably the initial step, "each behavioral stage was both cause and effect of biological change in bones and brain: (p. 75) Washburn, S. L.: Behavior and human evolution. Pp.190-20B. In: Washburn, S. L., ed., Classification and human evolution. Chicago 1963. "Large brains and small faces followed long after the Hominidae were distinct from the apes." In Australopithecus not yet the brain, but pelvis etc. and tools suggest the first stage in human behavior (pp. 195--196). "Now it appears that the distinctive size of the human brain evolved at the end of the Lower or beginning of the Middle Pleistocene" (p.20B) Washburn, S. L., Avis, V.: Evolution of human behavior. Pp. 421-436. In: Roe, A. and G. G. Simpson, eds., Behavior and evolution. New Haven, Conn. 1958. "If the extreme slowness of human development in the first year is related to the enormous postnatal increase in brain size, it is probable that the difference in rate of maturation of man and ape developed entirely after the use of tools" (p. 424). "The brain of the australopithecines was small by human standards, the cranial capacities of the best preserved skulls giving a range of only about 450 to 600 cc ... If these forms were tool users, it appears that tool use requires far less brain and intelligence than tool making according to defined traditions" (pp. 430, 4B2). After that stage, "all subsequent human change is increasingly' dominated by the

229 use of too18. Increase in brain 8ize resulted from the new selection pressures 8temming from tool use .•• " (pp. 434-435) Washburn, S. L., Howell, F. C.: On the identification of the hypophysial fossa in Solo man Am. J. Phys. Anthrop., n.8. 10, 13-22 (1952). Weidenreich (1951: Solo Man) could not actually see the depression he described as a very large hypophysial fossa, a8 the skulls, not opened, are not completely cleaned of matrix. It is more probable that the sella region is broken away and the area is part of the sphenoid sinus thus laid open Washburn, S. L., Howell, F. C.: Human. evolution and culture; In: Tax, S., ed., The evolution of man. Chicago 1960. pp. 33-56 include discUBBion of "cranial capacity" (p. 38), postula• ting that although the australopithecines had small brains (450-600 cc) the factors of erect walking and tool use led to a selection pressure for enlarged brains. The larger brained hominids appeared in Europe in the last interglacial times (p. 43, Ehringsdorf, Sacco• pastore). Weidenreich 1948 is quoted (p.46) as saying that australopithecines were apes because of their small brains. pp. 49-52, The expanding braincase is viewed as the most important result of recent fossil hominid for increase in brain enlargement, presumably of particular areas, occurred subsequent to use and manufacture of tools Watson, D. M.S.: (Discussion of Sollas on A'U8tralopitheC'U8.) Quart. J. Goo!. Soc. London 82, 10 (1926). '''the brain-cast had impressed all neurologists by its very human appearance" Watson, D. M. S.: Palaeontology and the evolution of man. Oxford (The Romanes Lecture) 1928. pp. 1-27: small size of Pithecanthropus brain mentioned (p. 17); very large size in Neanderthal man (p. 19), but discussion of man's most important character, human menta• lity, leads to "The most fascinating problems of man's evolution thus lie outside the province of the paleontologist. He is concerned only with such gross morphological facts as the shapes of bones and of the exterior of the brain, whilst those struotures whose qualities can alone explain the meaning of man's evolution lie beyond his sight" (p. 27) Weidenreich, F.: Der Schadel von Weimar-Ehringsdorf. Verh. Ges. phys. Anthrop. 2, [Sonder• heft, Anthrop. Auz. 4], 34-41 (1927). Table of main measurements of this and fourteen other fossil Homo skulls includes its cranial capacity, 1450 cc. (p.38) [Weidenreich, F.: Vorwort. pp. 200-204. In: Friederichs 1932] Weidenreich, F.: Vber das phylogenetische Wachstum des Hominidengehirns. KaibOgaku Zasshi (Anat. Gas. Japan) 9, no. 5, 1-14 (1936a). N(YI~ vid. . Weidenreich, F.: 8inanthropus pekinensi8-a distinct primitive hominid. Proc. anthrop. Soc. Tokyo, and Jap. Soc. Ethnol., Joint Session 1, 13-37 (1936b). Fig. 11: 8inanthropus III, Gibraltar and recent Weidenreich, F.: Observations on the form and proportion of the endocranial casts of 8inan• tkropus pekinensi8, other hominids and the great apes: a comparative study of brain size. Palaeont. Sinica (D) 7, no. 4, 1-50 (1936c). Pp. 7-13: DescriptionS given to show variation among the endocasts of 8inanthropus. Table 1 compares 8inanthropus with Pithecanthropus, Homo neanderthalensiB, and recent men and anthropoids. Increase in brain size also applies to posterior part (p. 33). The comparative study is well documented with graphs, tables and figures; endocasts and their outlines are 8hown in Figs. 1,2,3,4,7,8,10,12,14, and 17. Weidenreich assumed prefrontal enlargement of the frontal lobe in the course of human evolution "is••• a legend". He felt the brain expanded in all directions except that the parietal lobe expanded more in height. Brummelkamp 1938 (Proc. Kon. neder!. Ak. wetensch. Sect. Sci. 41, 1127-1133.) stated that the assumption that in phylogeny the 'frontal lobe enlarged " ...electively stems from comparison between different orders of mammals. It did not in primates (lemurs not included), as proportion of frontal cortex surface (including sulci) to whole cortex is H(YIno 1 :3.79; Pan 1 :3.61; Nemestrinne 1 :3.79; Oebne 1:3.58. Further Hebb 1941 (J. Gen. Psych. 21), 257-265.) reported in "Human intelligence after removal of cerebral tissue from the right frontal lobe" (done by Penfield) that in two cases of employing such a surgical procedure for epilepsy, the symptoms ceased, no personality changes were observed, and language was not disturbed. Such results are opposed to localization of intelligence in the frontal association area. Vallois 1950 (in Arambourg, etal., "Paleontologie et transformisme") adds "Progressive complexity, or more exactly, 'hominization' is progressive in these three stages ... (Prehominids = 8inanthropus and Pithecanthropus-+- H. neandertkalensiB-+ H. sapienB) ... which manifest a great number of characters. The mQat typical is the grO'Wth 0/ the cerebral cavity; inferior in mean proportion of 1000 cc. among the prehominids, it attained 1400 cc. among the Neanderthalers and exceeded that figure in H. sapiens, as the observed figures show•.. ". Additional insight comes from N. Geschwind, speaking on "The development of the brain

230 and the evolution of language" (pp.155-169 in Stuart, C. I. J. M., ed., Report of the 15th Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics, Washington 1964) found that the greatest size difference between the human brain and that of subhuman primates is in the inferior parietal region, which is also one of the last regions to myelinate i.e., mature in human ontogeny, or the last (at 3 or 4 years or even later in childhood) Weidenreich, F.: The relation of Binanthr0pu8 peldnensi8 to Pithecanthr0pu8, Javanthr0pu8 and Rhodesian Man. J. Roy. Anthrop. lust. 87, 51-66 (1937a). That Pithecanthr0pu8 and the more primitive Binanthr0pu8 belong to the same group of hominids, and that Rhodesian man ranges within the Neandertal group, is demonstrated also by brain features (pp. 55-59, 62-64, Fig. 2 c-g, Fig. 3 b-c, and PI. VIII, f. crf) Weidenreich, F.: The new discoveries of BinanthroptuJ pekinensiB and their bearing on the Binanthr0pu8 and Pithecanthr0pu8 problems. Bull. Geol. Soc. China 18, 439-470 (1937b). P.442, endocast of partial frontal bone (Fig. 3); p. 443, few convolutions shown on endo· cast of partial temporal bone (Fig. 5); p. 445, endocast of partia.l parietal bone (Fig. 7); p.446, Sylvian fissure shows on endocast of temporal bone; p.453, estimates cranial capacity at about 850 cc Weidenreich, F.: TatBa.chen und Probleme der Menschheit8entwicklung. Bio-Morphosis 1, 5-29 (1938). "Besides the dentition, the cranial capacity is a criterion for judging the grades of primitivity. But we must realize that a low volume proves nothing, lIB cranial capacities under 1000 00. occur in quite normal humans today... " BinanthroptuJ and Pithecanthr0pu8, with 850 and 1220 00., are primitive by their extraordinarily low neuro• cranial weight••• (pp. 7-8) Weidenreich, F.: The phylogenetic development of the hominid brain and its connection with the transformation of the skull. Bull Geol. Soc. China 19, 28-48 (1939a). The frontal lobe, while not a portion in which the human brain is most spectacularly larger than the ape bra.in, is one with very definite gain. Increase of the (human) brain involves the posterior parts much more than its anterior ones (p. 35). The frontal lobe of apes becomes narrower gradually, a condition considered primitive (p.36). In recent man the entire anterior surface of the lobe is broad and flattened. (pp.43-44) The frontal lobe does not at all constitute that portion of the brain which undergoes a specially favored development Weidenreich, F.: Six lectures on Binanthr0pu8 peldnensi8 and related problems. Bull. Geol. Soc. China 19, 1-110 (1939b). "III. The phylogenetic development of the hominid brain and its connection with the transformation of the skull" (pp. 28-48) discusses, from all possible viewpoints, the BinanthroptuJ endocasts, three of which are figured, in outlines or details: Pis. IV-V, fs. 19-21, 22c, 23b, 25a, 27a, 30-31; Pithecanthr0pu8 and Homo brains from Solo, Neandertal-type and Pfedmost also figure on these plates. All these brains playa role, further, in "I. BinanthroptuJ pekinensi8 and his significance for the problem of human evolution" on pp. 4-6 and 16, and the variations of the brain in B. peldnensi8 on pp. 81-83 in the last lecture, on human evolution Weidenreich, F.: The drifts of human phylogenetic evolution. Peking Natl. Rist. Bull. 13, 227-230 (1939c). Non via. Weidenreich, F:: Some problems dealing with ancient man. Am. Anthrop. 42, 375-383 (194Oa). Non via. Weidenreich, F.: The evolution of man. Science n.s. 91, no. 2349, suppl., p. 13 (194Ob). Nonvia. Weidenreich, F.: The brain and its role in the phylogenetic transformation of the human skull. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc., n.s. 31, 321-442 (1941). Treats mainly of skulls, on a broad basis, such as sizes of cranial cavity versus face in large and dwarf types of dogs; one of the parallels with human evolution is that in the latter, closure of the cranial sutures is late, as it was apparently in prehistoric hominids. These are discussed in "The phylo• genetic transformation of the human skull" (pp. 367-378; Figs. 27B, 28B. 35). In "Con• clusions" (pp.431-435), brains are seen as the organs which determine form and pro• portions of skulls; hence in the phylogenetic evolution of man, at least in its late phases, absolute increase in brain size WIIB the fundamental "character of the first order" Weidenreich, F.: The skull of Pithecanthr0pu8 pekinensi8; a comparative study on a primitive hominid skull. Palaeont. Sinica n.s. 10, I-XXI, 1-485 (1943). See index: "Cranial capa• city", "Foramen", " Juga cerebralia " Weidenreich, F.: The brachycephalization of modem mankind. Southwestern J. Anthrop. 1, 1-54 (1945). Non via. Weidenreich, F.: Apes, giants and man. Chicago. VII-122 pp. 1946a. V (pp. 92-111): Form and qualities of the human brain and skull in the light of evolution

231 Weidenreich, F.: Size, special form and pattern of the human brain in the light of evolution. Anat. Record 94, 59 (1946b). (Cleveland 1) Non vid. Weidenreich, F.: Facts and speculations concerning the origin of Homo sapiens. Am. Anthro• pologist n.s. 49, 187-203 (1947). Disagrees with Schepers 1946 saying that neural functions cannot be read from size of brain or impressions of "convolutions" (p. 199). Austral• opithecine cranial capacity did not exceed average gorilla (p. 199) Weidenreich, F.: Some particulars of skull and brain of early hominids and their bearing on the problem of the relationship between man and anthropoids. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. n.s. ii, 387-428 (1947b). Non vid. Weidenreich, F.: About the morphological character of the Australopithecinae skull. Roy. Soc. S. Afr., Robert Broom Comm. Vol. 153-158 (1948a). In Fig. 1 lateral view outlines of AUBtralopithe0u8 endocast are shown with same of adult gorilla and chimpanzee and Pithecanthroims eredu8 II; critique of Schepers' interpretation stresses the simian character of AUBtralopithe0u8 endocast Weidenreich, F.: The human brain in the light of its phylogenetic development. Sci. Monthly 67, 103-109 (1948b). Reprinted without figures, pp.216-224. In: Korn, N. and H. R. Smith, eds., 'Human evolution. New York, 1959. The flatness of PithecanthropuB and neandertalian brains (Fig. 1) became a high vertex by changed body and skull conditions in later hominids. Whatever degree of general or mental qualities were "deduced from shallower and narrower or deeper and broader impressions on the inside of the brain case have no scientific basis even if the interpretation of the imprints could be accepted as correct" (p. 107). See also Gen. Cat. Weidenreich, F.: Morphology of Solo man. Anthrop. Papers, Am. Mus. Nat. Rist., 43, 203-290 (1951). Cranial capacities of several Solo skulls range from 1175 to 1300 cc. (p.224). "Endocast relief of frontal and parietal bones" mainly on blood vessel development (p. 254). "The cerebral surface of the base of the skull"-the base is flatter than modern man (p. 283) Weil, A.: Comparative studies of the surface of endocranial casts of man and prehistoric men. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat. (Chicago) 19, 361-364 (1928). Paper read to the New York Neuro• logical Society as an advance report on the 1929 publication, with discussion. This includes warning by H. A. Riley, accepted by the author, that one is not allowed to draw conclusions from the position of the meningeal arteries on the cast as to the position of the gyri and sulci of the brain Weil, A.: Measurements of cerebral and cerebellar surface. Comparative studies of the surfaces of endocranial casts of man, prehistoric men, and anthropoid apes. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 13, 69-90 (1929). A new method for very exact measuring of the total cerebral and cere• bellar surface of endocranial casts (pp. 69-79) is applied to endocasts of living races, apes, PithecanthropuB, Rhodesian, La Chapelle, and Pfedmost man (Figs. 2, 4, 6-8). Attention is paid to the difficulties of separating, for example, even cerebrum from cerebellum on casts, and to the percentage of surface reconstructed (39 in PithecanthropuB, 14% in Rhodesian man). There are 6 pp. of tables: measurements, indices, deviations. No marked difference was found between right and left hemispheres. Compared with the total surface of European man (toO), the surface is in Pithecanthropu8 91.8, La Chapelle 93.4, Rhodesian . man 94.6, Pfedmost 95.0 Weinert, H.: PithecanthropuB erect'U8. Z. Anat. Entwicklgsgesch. 87,429-547 (1928). Pertinent information pp. 481-483, 487, 496-498; figs. 18-19 Weinert, H.: (Discussion of B. K. Schultz.) Verh. Ges. phys. Anthrop. ii, 39 (1931). Some of the reported differences between the Rhodesian and the Neanderthalians may be due to arbitrary orientation of the "section" outlines. "One can not draw phyletic conclusions from one curve if the same objects appear different in another orientation" Weinert, H.: Ursprung der Menschheit. 2. Aufl. Stuttgart 1944. Fig. 64 includes reconstruction of PithecanthropuB brain, in side view. Evolution of man is seen as chimpanzee-Pithecan• thropu8-Homo neandertluilensiB-H. sapiens; "The scope that got lost to the brain in the area of perception was gained by the extension (enlargement) of the forehead and the (gained) intelligence in connection with the enlargement.", pp. 252-253 re H. neandertluilensiB-+H. sapiens. [Schultz 1936, Quarterly Review, and 1941 says of first edition, "misleading data and conclusions relating to the proportionate cranial capacity in primates"] Weinert, H.: Der geistige Aufstieg der Menschheit vom Ursprung bis zur Gegenwart. 2nd ed. (1st ed., 1940). Pp. 303. Stuttgart 1951 a. While index refers to 10 pages on which brain mentioned, only the endocranial volume is, incidentally, reported of the fossil forms

232 Weinert, H.: Dber die Vielgestaltigkeit der Summoprimaten vor der Menschwerdung. 1. Fort• setzung. Z. Morphol. Anthrop. 43, 73-103 (1951 b). "The endocranial casts", pp.91-94, discusses those of the australopithecines, mainly after Schepers 1946, especially Plesian• thropus; Figs. 12 a-b are diagrammatic drawings of three specimens combining the features shown in the several original figures. "The configuration is very human" but not the absolute sizes. "These demonstrate plainly that the old Dubois-Versluys theory of sudden duplication of the brain cells was not justified" Wells, L. H.: The status of the Bushman as revealed by a study of endocranial casts. S. Afr. J. Sci. 34, 365-398 (1937). Eleven endocasts of Bushmen are compared (pp. 375-397) with those from Boskop and Rhodesia, whose outlines are included in Figs.l-6. The Bushman brain is found intermediate in its development between those of Rhodesian and modern European man, that of Boskop man intermediate between Bush and Rhodesia brains Werth, E.: Der fossile Mensch. Berlin (1922-1928) 1922. Pithecanthropus cranial capacity its most important character (p. 115-116); literature on neanderthalian brains (Fig.l00b) reviewed (pp. 173-175) Westenhofer, M.! Der Eigenweg des Menschen. Berlin 1942. In this enlarged 3rd edition both chapter IV, "The Brain" (pp. 75-107), and XV, "Cephalisation, i.e. cerebral enlargement" (pp. 346-355) are relevant to hominid brain evolution, but actual fossil data mentioned are only: large pituitary in giant dinosaurs (in connection with a gorilla's hypophysis far heavier than man's) (p. 79), and cranial capacities of Pleistocene hominids (pp.80-81). [WestenhOfer's 1935 "Das Problem der Menschwerdung. Dargestellt auf Grund morpho• genetischer Betrachtungen iiber Gehirn und Schadel unter Bezugnahme auf zahlreiche andere Korpergegenden." 2., Berlin, contains references to living but not fossil brains] Westoll, T. S.: See Gen. Cat. (1963) Weygandt, W.: Dber Beziehungen zwischen Hirn- und Schadel-Entwicklung. ZbI. ges. Neurol. Psychiatrie 61, 495- 496 (1931). Stressing, with human examples (nanism, deformed crania: neither a detriment to intelligence), that relations between brain (or cortex) and mental functions remain enigmatic, cites Paleolithic 1230 cc. capacity " ... while the Neanderthal race still lacked articulate language whose area has a great extent in extant humans... " [?] Weygandt, W.: Dber Beziehungen zwischen Hirn- und Schiidelentwicklung. Z. gesamte Neurol. Psychiat. 142, 678-698 (1932). Discussing the different proportions between brain volume and cranial capacity, in some extinct and some extant mammals, particularly in humans, and noting that there is no psychic inferiority related to small or deformed human brains. Pp. 684-686 points to uncertainties in the interpretation of endocranial casts of fossil Hominidae, all of which are incomplete Wilder, H. H.: The pedigree of the human race. New York 1926. Regarding investigation of cranial capacity and brain weight as a "direct method for obtaining the relative degree of mental development in the higher Primates" (p. 208), lists Pithecanthropus as 850 cc., and Homo neanderthalensis as 1230, 1616 cc. (p. 212) Wilser, L.: Him, Hand, Mund. Verh. Ges. deutsch. Naturf. u. Arzte 84, II, 1, 274-278 (1912). Only after erect posture and freeing of the hands for grasping was there "necessity" (p. 276) for enlargement" in first series of the frontal convolutions". (Quotes Anthony on La. Quina, frontal convolutions being 35% of brain volume, in H. sapiens, 43% (Australian, 41 %, intellectual high-point, European, 45%) Witherspoon, Y. T.: Brain weight and behavior. Human BioI. 32, 366-369 (1960). Establishing behavior from brain capacity, the author believes it possible to "predict" behavior pattern of fossil primates and that the percentage of brain weight at different ages can be calculated Woo, J.-K.: The unbalanced development of the physical features of Sinanthropus pekinensis and its interpretation. Vertebrata palasiatica 4, no. 1,17-26 (1960). Just as Archaeopteryx had a "simple brain" and "the earliest mammals did not have brains in advance of reptiles" [wrongly attributed to me.], locomoter adaptations preceded the enlargement of the bram in the hominids; Sinanthropus, tool-making with extremities similar to those of modern man but "the cranial capacity being much smaller" (p. 24; p.22 gives 900- 1200 cc.) shows that "the big brain of modern man is achieved in the long process of using and making tools" and proves the theory of Friedrich Engels 1876: "Labour created man" Woo, J.-K.: Preliminary report on a skull of Sinanthropus lantaniensis of Lantian, Shensi. Scienta sin. 14, 1032-1036 (1965). The cranial capacity, calculated by two methods from this skull cap of an early Middle Pleistocene "one of the earliest forms of the pithecan• thropines," is estimated at 780 cc.

233 Zimmermann, W.: Evolution. Die Geschichte ihrer Probleme und Erkenntnisse. Orbis academicus il/3, Freiburg und MUnich 1953. In the chapter" Some single phylogenetic questions and knowledge" during the post.Darwin period of evolutionary opinions: "Differences of opinion really exist 'only' with regard to the development of the mental characteristics of man. An increa.se of mental capabilities can be concluded only indirectly from increasing techniques (use of fire, implements etc.) and from the increasing cranial capacity." (P. 511) Zuckerman, S.: Age.changes in the chimpanzee, with special reference to growth of brain, eruption of teeth and estimation of age; with a note on the Taungs ape. Proc. zool. Soc. 1928, I, 1-42. Pp.36-37, critical review of previous estimates of endocranial volume of Australopithecus child and of its expansion to adult. "The hypothetical adult Taungs ape would fit easily into" range of Gorilla "for its capacity in the region of 550 cc. leaves a margin of over 100 cc. on either side" (37)-it is far below PithecanthrO'fYUB Zuckerman, S.: See Le Gros Clark, W. E., D. M. Cooper, and S. Zuckerman (1936) Zuckerman, S.: Correlation of change in the evolution of higher primates. Pp.300-352. In: J. Huxley et al., Evolution as a process. London 1954. Pp. 304--306 "The Brain": criti· cizes the conclusions drawn from endocasts of the australopithecines; no reason to assume they had human brains

234 Systematic Index by loan Echols

An index to genera listed in "Paleoneurology 1804 to 1966: an Annotated Bibliography", exclusive of the Hominidae Catalogue

Explanatory Note The Systematic Index is very largely the work of Dr. Joan Echols, who began work on it under Dr. Edinger's direction at Harvard in 1963. She continued the Index while a faculty member at East Texas State University (1964-1966) and at the University of Oklahoma (1966-1968), terminating it in the winter of 1968. While Dr. Edinger was alive the work was a collaboration, but the manuscript produced by Dr. Echols is more in the nature of a tribute. The following classifications have, in the main, been utilized: Mammals: Simpson, G. G., 1945, The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals, Bull., Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 86, New York (primates, creodonts, and condylarths from Romer); other vertebrates: Romer, A. S., 1966, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd ed., Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Conventions regarding synonymy are as follows: an entry such as Brachysuchus (=Angi• storhinus): Case, 1929 indicates that Brachysuchus, the genus under which Case described his material, is currently regarded as a synonym of the genus Angistorhinus; an entry such as "Galecynus" (=Hesperocyon): Bruce 1883; Cope, 1883d indicates that Bruce and Cope described as Galecynus material currently regarded as pertaining not to that genus but to Hesperocyon. As stated, this is an index to the names occurring in the General Catalogue only; it is not an exhaustive list. Various works (for example-and especially-Edinger, 1929b) contain descriptions of or references to forms not mentioned in the annotations. [B. gail Browne]

Class Agnatha Subclass Monorhina Order Cyclostomata Lampetra: Damas, 1943 Mordacia: Gladstone and Wakeley, 1940 Petromyzon: Gaskell, 1890 Order Osteostraci Aceraspis: Heintz, 1939 Ateleaspis: Heintz, 1939 Boreaspis: Wangsii, 1952; Stensiii, 1927 Cephalaspis: Allis, 1931 b; Bohlin, 1956; Cope, 1888; Damas, 1943, 1955; Devillers, 1965; Duke-Elder, 1958; Fenton and Fenton, 1958; Gregory, 1950, 1951; Heintz, 1938; Lindstrom, 1949; Nikolskii, 1961; Patten 1912; Senet, 1954; Smith, 1959; Stensiii, 1927, 1932; Wangsii, 1952; Watson, 1954; Woodward, 1891; Zittel,1932; Zych,1937 Didymaapis: Stenisii, 1932 Hoelaspis: Stenisii, 1927

235 HemieyelaapiB: Stensio, 1932 Hemitelea8piB (=Hemieycla8piB): Westoll, 1945 Kiaera8piB: de Beaumont, 1964b; Ehrenberg, 1960; Heintz, 1963; Kiaer, 1929; Kuhn, 1951; Miiller, 1966; Parker and Haswell, 1962; Piveteau, 1951b; Romer, 1966; Simpson, 1961; Stensio, 1927, 1958, 1963a; Termier and Termier, 1960; Wii.ngsa, 1952; Woodford, 1965; Young, 1962; Zittel, 1932 Micraapis (=Hirella): Heintz, 1939 Mimeta8piB (=Cephala8piB): Jarvik, 1964; Stensio, 1958, 1963a; Termier and Termier, 1960 Nectaspi8: Stensio, 1958, 1963a; Wii.ngsO, 1952 Oeaela8piB: Denison, 1951 Procephala8piB: Stensio, 1958, 1963a SclerodU8: Stensio, 1932 Securiaapis: Stensio, 1932 ThyeBte8: Rohon, 1895; Stensio, 1927, 1932 Tremata8piB: Denison, 1951; Jaekel, 1921, 1929; Kiaer, 1924; Patten, 1912; Robert· son,-1938; Stensio, 1927, 1958, 1963a; Wiman, 1918; Zych, 1931 ZenaapiB (=Cephala8piB): Stensio, 1958 Order Anaspida PharyngolepiB: Kiaer, 1924; Smith, 1957 PterolepiB (= PterygolepiB): Kiaer, 1924 Rhyncholepi8: Kiaer, 1924 Subclass Diplorhina Order Heterostraci Angla8piB: Denison, 1964; Heintz, 1962; Kiaer, 1932; Wills, 1935 ArchegonaapiB: Denison, 1964; Flower and Wayland. Smith, 1952 Ariaapis: Denison, 1964 CorvaapiB: Tarlo, 1965 CtenaspiB: Denison, 1964; Zych, 1931 CyathaapiB: Alth, 1874; Jaekel, 1926; Patten, 1912 DrepanaapiB: Gross, 1963a; Tarlo, 1965 GueriChoateU8: Tarlo, 1965 HomolaBpiB: Kiaer and Heintz, 1935 HomatJpi8: Heintz, 1963 LiBtra8piB: Denison, 1964 Palaeaapis (=America8piB): Denison, 1964; Patten, 1912; Zych, 1931 Pora&piB: Kiaer, 1932; Kiaer and Heintz, 1935; Stensio, 1958, 1963a; Zych, 1931 PaammolepiB: Tarlo, 1965 PaammoBteU8: Tarlo, 1965 P8ewioptera&piB: Stensio, 1958 Ptera8piB: Alth, 1874; Duke·Elder, 1958; Fahlbusch, 1966; Gregory, 1950; Heintz, 1962; Prince, 1956; Zych, 1931 Simoptera&piB: Heintz, 1962; Jarvik, 1964; Smith, 1957; Stensio, 1958 VernonaapiB: Denison, 1964; Flower and Wayland. Smith, 1952

Class Placodermi Order Arthrodira ActinolepiB: Gross, 1940 BeloBteUB: Stensio, 1963b BrachydirUB (=BrachydeirUB): Stensio, 1963b Brachy08teU8: Jaekel, 1927; Stensio, 1963b BUChanosteU8: Stensio, 1963b COCCOBteU8: Heintz, 1931; Hills, 1936; Hussakof, 1912; Stensio, 1925b Dinichthys: Dean, 1891, 1895; Eastman, 1908; Heintz, 1932; Hussakof, 1912; Liu, 1955; Madison, 1925; Stensio, 1925b; Woodward, 1922 DunkleosteU8: Stensio, 1963b

236 Homostius: Heintz, 1934 Jaekelaspis: Heintz, 1929 Kiangyousteus: Liu, 1955 Kosoraspis: Gross, 1959 Kuidanowiaspis: Stensii:i, 1945, 1950, 1963a, 1963b Leiosteus: Stensii:i, 1934 Leptosteus: Stensii:i, 1963b Malerosteus: Kulczycki, 1957 Oxyosteus: Stensii:i, 1963b PhlyctaenaBpis: Heintz, 1933; Stensii:i, 1925b; Westoll and Miles, 1963; Woodward, 1892 Pholidpsteus: Stensii:i, 1934, 1963b P'I'otitanichthys: Eastman, 1908; Miles, 1966a Rhachiosteus: Miles, 1966b Rhinosteus: Stensii:i, 1934, 1963b Stenognathus (=Heinzichthys): Piveteau, 1956a, b Stuerlzaspis: Westoll and Miles, 1963 Svalba'l'daspis: Heintz, 1929 Synauchenia: Stensii:i, 1963b Tapinosteus: Stensii:i, 1963b Titanichthys: Dean, 1895; Eastman, 1898, 1908; Liu, 1955; Woodward, 1922; Zittel, 1932 Tomaiosteus: Kulczycki, 1957 T'I'ematoBteus: Stensii:i, 1963b Order Petalichthyida AcanthaspiB (=Mac'l'opetalichthys): Stensio, 1934 Epipetalichthys: Stensii:i, 1925b Mac'l'opetaliehthY8: Eastman, 1908; Jaekel, 1926, 1929; Stensii:i, 1925b, 1934, 1963a Pa'l'aplesiobati8: Gross, 1962 PseudopetalichthY8: Gross, 1962 Radotina: Gross, 1958,1959 Stensioella: Gross, 1962 Order Antiarchi A8te'l'olepiB: Stensii:i, 1948 Both'l'iolepi8: Cope, 1888; Patten, 1912, 1915; Stensii:i, 1948 Remigolepi8: Stensii:i, 1948 Order Rhenanida Gemuendina: Gross, 1963b Jago'l'ina: Jaekel, 1921, 1927; Stensii:i, 1950, 1963a Order Ptyctodontida Chelyophorus: Rohon, 1899 Incertae sedis Palaeospondylu8: Stensii:i, 1927

Class Chondrichthyes Subclass Elasmobranchii Order Cladoselachii Cladodus: Stensii:i, 1937b Tamiobatis: Romer, 1964

Class Osteichthyes ?Subclass Acanthodii Order Acanthodiformes Acanthodes: Broili, 1909; Gregory, 1950; Jaekel, 1903, 1927; Miles, 1965; Rohon, 1889; Watson, 1937; Woodward, 1891

237 Order Climatiformes Olimatius: Watson, 1937 Subclass Actinopterygii Infraclass Chondrostei Order Palaeonisciformes Aldingeria (=Moythomasia?): Gross, 1942 Amphicentrum: Dyne, 1939 Australo8omus: Nielsen, 1949 Birgeria: Allis, 1931a; Holmgren, 1922; Nielsen, 1949; Stensio, 1921 BoreoBomus: Beltan, 1957a; Lehman, 1952, 1966a; Nielsen, 1942 ElonichthY8: Miller and Swineford, 1957 Glaucolcpi8: (=PteroniBculu8): Nielsen, 1942 Gwyneddichti8: Bock, 1959 Gyrolepidotu8: Berg, 1939 Kentuckia: Rayner, 1951 MoythomaBia: Gross, 1942, 1953 Perleidus: Lehman, 1952 Pteroni8culus Lehman, 1952, 1958, 1966a; Stensio, 1963a ? Pygopteru8: Jaekel, 1903, 1927 RhadinichthY8: Case, 1937; Eastman, 1908, 1913; Moodie, 1915b, 1920, 1931; Parker, 1908 Order Polypteriformes Polypterus: Nieuwenhuys, 1962; Stensio and Jarvik, 1939 Order Acipenseriformes SaurichthY8: Allis, 1931a; Ste:.;tsio, 1925a, 1963a Saurorhynchus (=SaurichthY8): Gardiner, 1960 Infraclass Holostei Order Semionotiformes Dapedium: Gardiner, 1960 Dapediu8 (=Dapedium): Frost, 1913 Lepidote8: Beltan, 1957b Lepidotus (=Lepidotes) Gardiner, 1960 Order Amiiformes Oaturus: Aldinger, 1932; Rayner, 1948 Heterolepidotus: Gardiner, 1960 08teorhachi8: Gardiner, 1960 Parasemionotus: Lehman, 1952 WatBonulus: Lehman, 1952 Infraclass Teleostei Order Elopiformes Elops: Olsson, 1958 Notelops: Dunkle, 1940 Order Siluriformes Olarias: Neumayer, 1913 Fajumia: Bachniayer, 1964; Neumayer, 1913 Subclass Sarcopterygii Order Crossopterygii Suborder Rhipidistia Dictyonosteus: Stensio, 1922 Diplopterus (=Gyroptychius): Jaekel, 1903 EctosteorhachiB: Lehman, 1966b; Millot and Anthony, 1958a, 1965; Stensio, 1963a; Thomson, 1964a, 1964b, 1965, 1966 Eusthenopteron: Bertmar, 1963; Holmgren and Stensio, 1936; Jarvik, 1942, 1954, 1960, 1964, 1965, 1966; Kulczycki, 1960; Millot and Antony, 1958a, 1965; Port• mann, 1965; Stensio, 1963a; Thomson, 1965; Vorobjeva, 1959 GlyptolepiB: Jarvik, 1965, 1966; Stensio, 1963a Gyroptychius: Thomson, 1964a

238 Latvi'U8: Jessen, 1966 MegaZickthy8: Jarvik, 1966; Watson, 1926 "MegaZiehtkys" (= Ectosteorkaekis): Gregory, 1951; Kesteven, 1950; Romer and Edinger, 1942; Romer, 1937, 1941, 1956; Schmalhausen, 1960; Stensio and Jarvik,1939 Onyckoil'U8: Jessen, 1966 O&teolepis: Gregory, 1951; Hennig, 1950; Holmgren and Stensio, 1936; Jaekel,1927; Kesteven, 1950; Thomson, 1964a, 1965; Watson, 1925a, 1925b, 1926 Platycepludiehtkys: Vorobjeva, 1959 Porolepis: Edinger, 1964a; Jarvik, 1964, 1966; Kulczycki, 1960; Vorobjeva, 1959 Rkizodopsis: Jarvik, 1966; Save-SOderbergh, 1936 8truniu8: Jessen, 1966 TkurBi'U8: Jaekel, 1903; Jessen, 1966 Suborder Coelacanthini Dictyono.steus: Stensio, 1922 Diplocercides: Allis, 1931a EuporOBte'U8: Jaekel, 1927 Latimeria: Lehman, 1959; l\fillot and Anthony, 1958a, 1965; Schaeffer and Gregory, 1961 Macropoma: Watson, 1926 Mawsonia: Schaeffer and Gregory, 1961 Moenkopia: Schaeffer and Gregory, 1961 NesiileB: Jarvik, 1954, 1964; Millot and Anthony, 1965; Stensio, 1922, 1937a, 1963a Rkabdoderma: Stensio and Jarvik, 1939 Wimania: Holmgren, 1922 Order Dipnoi Okirodipter'U8: Lehman, 1966b; Save-SOderbergh, 1952; Stensio, 1963a Dipter'U8: White, 1965 Dipnorkynck'U8: Hills, 1933, 1941; Lehmann, 1956; Westoll, 1949; White, 1965 Ganorkynck'U8: Gross, 1965 . Rkynckoilipterus: Save-SOderbergh, 1937 8oederbergkia: Lehman, 1959

Class Amphibia Subclass Labyrinthodontia Order Temnospondyli Suborder Rhachitomi Actinodon: Gaudry, 1896 Apkaneramma: Sii.ve-SOderbergh, 1936; Stensio, 1963a; Woodward, 1904 Arekegosaurus: Pfannenstiel, 1932b Branckiosaurus (= Onckiodon): Credner, 1886; Watson, 1963 O~s:Huene, 1912 Dendrerpeton: Sawin, 1941 Dvinosaurus: Sawin, 1941 Edops: l\filler, 1966; Orlov, 1964; Romer and Edinger, 1942; Termier and Termier, 1960; Thomson, 1965 Eryops: Broom, 1913a; Dempster, 1935; Gregory, 1951; Huene, 1912, 1913; Romer and Edinger, 1942; Sawin, 1941; Sushkin, 1927; Watson, 1916, 1926 RkytidoBte'U8: Watson, 1919 Trematosaurus: Leydig, 1872; Pfannenstiel, 1932b; Wagner, 1935; Watson, 1919 Trimerorkaekis: Broom, 1913a; Sawin, 1941 Suborder Stereospondyli Batrackosuck'U8: Watson, 1919 Bentkosuek'U8: Bystrow and Efremov, 1940; Stensio, 1963a Botkriceps: Watson, 1919 Buettneria (=Metoposaurus): Wilson, 1941

239 Capitosaurus: Roepke, 1923; Schroeder, 1913; Sushkin.1927; Wagner, 1935; Watson, 1919; Woodward, 1904 Cyclotosaurus: Kuhn, 1942; Pfannenstiel, 1932b; Watson, 1919 Lahyrinthodon (=Mastodonsaurus): Wiedersheim, 1878a, 1878b Laccocephalus: Watson, 1919 Lyrocephalus: Kuhn, 1942; Miller, 1966; Save-Siiderbergh, 1936; Stensio, 1963a Lyrocephaliscus (=Lyrocephalus): Miller, 1966 MastodonsauTUs: Pfannenstiel, 1932b; Wagner, 1935; Walls, 1942; Wepfer, 1923 Metoposaurus: Huene, 1922 Paracyclotosaurus: Watson, 1958 Parotosaurus: Wells and Cosgrif, 1965 Suborder Embolomeri Anthracosaurus: Credner, 1886 Eogyrinus (=Pteroplax): Watson, 1926 Palaeogyrinus: Gregory, 1951; Lehman, 1959; Panchen, 1964; Thomson, 1966; Watson, 1926 Suborder Seymouriamorpha Diadectes: Case, 1921; Cope, 1866a, 1887a, 1888; Edinger, 1955b; Gregory, 1946, 1951; Huene, 1913; Lebzelter, 1922; Olson, 1947, 1965b, 1966; Spencer, 1886; Watson, 1916 Kotlassia: Bystrow, 1944 Seymouria: Olson, 1965b, 1966; Sawin, 1941; White, 1939 Subclass Lepospondyli Order Microsauria: Carroll, 1966; Oksche and Harnack, 1963 Adelogyrinus: Carroll, 1967; Watson, 1923 Adelospondylus: Carroll, 1967 Lysorophus: Sollas, 1920 Subclass Lissamphibia Order Anura Bufo: Estes and Wassersug, 1963 Xenopus: Ahl, 1926 Order Urodela Ambystoma: Herrick, 1948

Class Reptilia Subclass Anapsida Order Cotylosauria Anthodon: Boonstra, 1934 Captorhinus: Edinger, 1955b; Price, 1935; Watson, 1916 Elginia: Reich, 1927 Embrithosaurus: Nopcsa, 1923 Pareiasaurus: Boonstra, 1934; Hartmann-Weinberg, 1933; Watson, 1914, 1916 SclerosauTUs: Huene, 1902 ScutosauTUs: Hartmann-Weinberg, 1933 Order Chelonia Archelon: Fischel, 1956 Chelone (=Chelonia): Portis, 1880 Corsochelys: Zangerl, 1960 Protosphargis: Edinger, 1934 Testudo: MaM, 1965a Thalassochelys (=Caretta): Zavattari, 1921 Trionyx: Schmut, 1924 Subclass Lepidosauria Order Rhynchocephalia Oephalonia (=Scaphonyx): Huene, 1933-1942 Homoeosaurus: Cocude-Michel, 1963 Kallimodon: Cocude-Michel, 1963

240 Me&o8'UCII,'U8: Haughton, 1924 Sphenodon: Sii.ve-SOderbergh, 1946 Order Squamata Suborder Lacertilia Clidaate8: Camp, 1942; Fischel, 1956 EUPosaUruB: Cocude-Michel, 1963 Hyporhirw,: Taylor, 1951 KOlpo8aUruB (=PlOtoBaUruB): Camp, 1942 Lacerta: Fioroni 1961 ; Sii.ve-SOderbergh, 1946 Megalania: Fejervary, 1918 M08a&aUruB: DoUo, 1905 Plateca~: Camp, 1942 Plioplatecarpu8: Abel, 1912; Devillers, 1943; DoUo, 1905 Varan'U8: Sii.ve-SOderbergh, 1946 Suborder Ophidia Boa (=Constrictor): Cope, 18850. Subclass Archosauria Order Thecodontia. "B&odon" (=Rutiodon): Case, 1921; Cope, 18870., 1888; Mehl, 1928 B'I'achyBUCh'U8 (=Angi8tO'l'hin'U8): Case, 1929 Clia8matOBauruB: Brink, 1955 DesmatoB'UCh'U8: Case, 1921, 1922; Mehl, 1928 DibotMo.mch'U8: Simmons, 1965 E'I'yth'f()8fJ,Ch,'U8: Huene, 1911 Eupa'l'keria: Ewer, 1965 LeptOBuch'U8 (=Rutiodon): Case, 1928, 1929 Machae'l'opt'OBOpu8 (=Rutiodon): Camp, 1930, 1942; Goldbyand Gamble, 1957; Gregory, 1951 MUO'I'kinua (=MuO'I'hi1U>8'UCh'U8): Jaekel, 1910 Psetulopalat'U8 (=Rutiodon): Camp, 1930; Mehl, 1928 Stagonolepi8: Walker, 1961 V;'U8hkovia (=E'I'yth'f()8fJ,Ch,'U8): Brink, 1955b Order Crocodilia Alligator: Cope, 1887 a Caiman: Jakob, 1945 C'I'oooiJyl'U8: Colbert, 1946; Koken, 18860. Goniopholi8: Edinger, 1938b Macrorhynih'U8 (=PholidOBau'l'U8): Koken, 1886b, 1887; Meyer, 1846 PelagosauruB: Koken, 1887 PholidosauruB: Edinger, 1938b; Jaffe, 1912; Koken, 1893b Sebecua: Colbert, 1946 SteneosaUruB: Koken, 1887; Lacoste, 1929; Morel de Glasville, 1876, 1880; Owen, 1842,1849-1884 TeleosaUruB: Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1864; Koken, 1887; Lacoste, 1929; Morel de Glasville, 1876; Seeley, 18800., 1880b Tomi8toma: Lemoine, 1883; Yeh, 1958 "Dinosauria": Bertalanffy, 1951; Cope, 18850.; Efremov, 1953; Furbringer, 1888; Hanstrom, 1944; Huene, 19060.; Lapparent and Lavocat, 1955; Raymond, 1939; Schuchert, 1924; Swinfon, 1961; Williston, 1898 Order Saurischia Suborder Theropoda AllosauruB: Berry, 1929; Matthew, 19510.; Osborn, 1912 Ant'l'OOem'U8 (=AllOBauruB): Gilmore, 1920; Simonetta, 1963 Ca'l'cha'l'oilontOBauruB: Lapparent, 1960; Stromer, 1931, 1936 Ce'l'ato8aU'l'U8: Gadow, 1909; Gilmore, 1920; Huene, 1907-1908, 1932; Koken, 1893b; Larger, 1917; Marsh, 1884b, 1896; Nopcsa, 1917b, 1929; Simak, 1966; Smith, B. W., 1926; Sterne, 1901; Stromer, 1931; Swinton, 1958b Dasygrw,th'U8 (=Ornithosuch'U8): Walker, 1961 DryptoBauruB: Lambe, 1904

241 EU8kelOSUIUf"U8: Fischer, 1870 Indosauf"U8 (=OrlhogonWsauf"U8): Huene and Matley, 1933 Al~akMaUf"U8:lIay, 1909; Huene, 1906b, 1907-1908, 1932;lCoken, 1893b PlateosaUf"U8: Huene, 1907-1908, 1932; Jaekel, 1914; Janensch, 1936, 1939; Nopcsa, 1917a 8~nosuchU8:Huene, 1932 Tarbosauf"U8: Maleev, 1965 T~uf"U8:Huene, 1914a ThecospondylU8: Seeley, 1882 Tyralll,'nosu,uf"U8: Brown, 1941; Case, 1921; Colbert, 1961; Exner, 1955; Gilmore, 1920; Grasse, 1965; Gregory, 1951; Huene, 1932; Knight, 1946; Moodie, 1915b; Nopcsa, 1929; Osborn, 1912, 1917, 1925; Simak, 1966; Smith,1959; Swinton, 1959b; Tilney, 1930 Suborder Sauropodomorpha AmpkicoeliaB: Osborn and Mook, 1921 Antarctosauf"U8: Huene and Matley, 1933 ApatosaUf"U8: Fenton and Fenton, 1958; Janensch, 1939; Marsh, 1883a, 1896 Atlantosauf"U8 (?=Brontosauf"U8): Smith, B. W., 1926; Zittel, 1932 Barosauf"U8: Colbert, 1961; Janensch, 1935-1936, 1936, 1939; Lull, 1919 BraikWsauf"U8: Janensch, 1935-1936, 1936, 1938; Moore, 1962; Miiller, 1962; Watson, J. W., 1960 Brontosauf"U8: Augusta, 1955; Barnett, 1950; Boule, 1902; Brown, 1888; Brown and Brown, 1958; Chamberlin and Salisbury, 1907; Dunbar, 1960; Epstein and Williams,1956; Exner, 1955; Fenton and Fenton, 1958; Knight, 1946; Koken, 1893b; Lucas, 1902; Marsh, 1883a; Matthew, 1905, 1915a; Moodie, 1915b, 1930; Moody, 1962; Osborn, 1905-1906a; Ransom, 1964; Ratcliff, 1964; Schuchert, 1924; Wallace, '1911; Watts, 1925; Zangerl, 1958; Zittel, 1932 Oamarasauf"U8: Edinger, 1942a; Fenton and Fenton, 1958; Huene, 1914b; Nopcsa, 1917110; Osborn and Mook, 1921; Ostrom and McIntosh, 1966; Swinton, 1958b; White, 1958 Oetiosauf"U8: Huene, 1906b Dicraeosauf"U8: Janensch, 1935-1936, 1939 DiplodocU8: Boule,l002; Ca.se,1921; Cobb, 1965; Dana, 1894; Dubois, 1924; Dunbar, 1960; Epstein and Williams, 1956; Fenton and Fenton, 1955; Gilmore, 1919; Gregory, 1951; Haldane and Huxley, 1929; Holland, 1906; Huene, 1907-1908, 1914b; Joubert, 1908; Marsh,1884a, 1896; Moodie, 1915b; Nopcsa, 1917a, 1917b, 1923, 1926; Osborn, 1912; Simak, 1966; Swinton, 1962a AlorOBa'Uf"U8 (=Oamarasauf"U8): Gaudry, 1896; Gilmore, 1907; Huene, 1914b; Janensch, 1939; Lucas, 1902; Marsh, 1879a, 1880a, 1883a, 1889 a, 1896; Osborn, 1905,1906a Order Ornithischia Suborder Ornithopoda Anatosauf"U8: Colbert, 1961; Grasse, 1965; Gregory, 1951; Lull and Wright, 1942; Ostrom, 1961; Swinton, 1958; Young, 1958 Anoplosauf"U8: Seeley, 1879 OamptfmotUB (=Oamptosauf"U8): Marsh, 1881 a OamptosaUf"U8: Boule, 1902; Gilmore, 1907, 1909; Huene, 1914b; Marsh, 1894b, 1896; Nopcsa, 1917b; Schuchert and LeVene, 1940 . Olaosauf"U8: Andrews, 1897; Boule, 1902; Dana, 1894; Huene, 1907-1908; Lucas, 1901; Lull and Wright, 1942; Marsh, 1893a, 1896; Schuchert and LeVene, 1940 Oorytkosauf"U8: Ostrom, 1961; Parks, 1923 Dysalotosauf"U8: Janensch, 1939 Edmontosauf"U8: Lambe, 1920; Ostrom, 1961, 1962 Iguanodon: Andrews, 1897; Casier, 1960; Dollo, 1887a; Hay, 1909; Holland, 1906; Hulke, 1871; Larger, 1917; Nopcsa, 1929; Seeley, 1880b; Smith, 1902a; Swinton, 1954a, 1958a, 1958b, 1962a KritosaUf"U8: Lull and Wright, 1942; Ostrom, 1961 Lambeosauf"U8: Gilmore, 1924a; Ostrom, 1962 Limnosauf"U8 (=Orlhomef"U8): Nopcsa, 1899

242 Lophorlwtlwn: Langston, 1960 Pachycephalo8aurus: Brown and Brown, 1958; Brown and Schlaikjer, 1943; Colbert, 1945, 1961; Fenton and Fenton, 1958; Moore, 1958; Swinton, 1954b; Watson, J. W., 1960 Proeheneo8aurus: Ostrom, 1962 Stegoeeras: Lambe, 1902, 1918 Stephano8aurus (=Lamheo8aurus): Gilmore, 1924a Traelwdon: Brown, 1914; Lucas, 1929; Lull and Wright, 1962; Nopcsa, 1929; Schuchert, 1924 TroOdon (=Stegocera8): Brown and Schlaikjer, 1943; Gilmore,1924b; Grasse, 1965 T8intao8aurus: Young, 1958 Suborder Stegosauria Oratero8aurus: Seeley, 1874 Kentro8aurus: Hennig, 1915, 1916, 1925 Kentruro8aurus (=Kentrosaurus): Janensch, 1925, 1936, 1939; Parkinson, 1930 Stego8aurus: Andrews, 1953; Asimov, 1963; Augusta, 1955; Berry, 1929; Bigot, 1897a, 1897b; Bolsche, 1931; Boule, 1902; Boule and Piveteau, 1935; Branca, 1916; Brown and Brown, 1958; Carrington, 1961; Casier, 1960; Chamberlin and Salisbury, 1907; Clark and Stearn, 1960; Cobb, 1965; Colbert, 1945, 1961; Dana, 1894; DOderlein, 1890; Dubois, 1924; Dunbar, 1960; Edinger, 1962a; Fenton, 1941; Fenton and Fenton, 1958; Focke, 1881; Gadow, 1909; Gaudry, 1896; Gegenbaur, 1898; Gilmore, 1914, 1924b; Grasse, 1965; Gregory, 1951; Guyer, 1941; Hoernes, 1884; Hotton, 1963; Huene, 1907-1908, 1914b; Hutchinson, 1893; Janensch, 1939; Jepsen, 1963, 1964; Knight, 1935, 1946; Knipe, 1912; Koken, 1893b; Lucas, 1901; Lull, 1910, 1912, 1915, 1917, 1921, 1925, 1947; Lull and Wright, 1942; Markman, 1961; Marsh, 1880a, 1880b, 1881&,1896, 1897a; Mellersh, 1958; Moodie, 1930; Moody, 1962; Moore, 1958; Moret, 1953; Miiller, 1962; Nopcsa, 1917a, 1917b; Oakley and Muir-Wood, 1962, 1964; Ostrom, 1966; Ostrom and McIntosh, 1966; Parker and Haswell, 1962; Parkinson, 1930; Petersen, 1961; Piveteau, 1951 b; Ransom, 1964; Raymond, 1963; Rhodes, 1964; Romer, 1961; Scheele, 1954; Schlaikjer, 1941; Schuchert, 1924; Schuchert and LeVene, 1940; Senet, 1954; Shimer, 1933; Sterne, 1897, 1901; Stirton, 1959; Stokes, 1960; Swinton, 1934b, 1954b, 1958b, 1962b; Termier and Termier, 1952b, 1960; Theo• bald and de Gama, 1958; Tornier, 1933; Turel, 1947; Wiedersheim, 1909; Wood• ford, 1965; Zittel, 1887-1890, 1932 Suborder Ankylosauria Aeanthopholis: Seeley, 1881 Ankylo8aurus: Colbert, 1961 Nodo8aUr'lUJ: Lull, 1921 Silvi8aUr'lUJ: Eaton, 1960 Stru,thio8auru8: Nopcsa, 1929; Seeley, 1881 Suborder Ceratopsia Anehieeratops: Brown, 1914; Brown and Schlaikjer, 1940; Colbert, 1961; Lull, 1933; Nopcsa, 1929; Tait and Brown, 1928 Monoeloni'lUJ: Swinton, 1958b Protoceratop8: Brown and Schlaikjer, 1940 Sterrlwlophu8 (= Triceratop8): Marsh, 1896 Triceratop8: Boule, 1891, 1902; Boule and Piveteau, 1935; Burckhardt, 1892; Case, 1921; Chamberlin and Salisbury, 1907; Dubois, 1924; Fenton and Fenton, 1958; Gadow, 1909; Gaudry, 1896; Gilmore, 1919, 1922; Hay, 1909; Huene, 1907-1908, 1914b; Jacob, 1945; Janensch, 1939; Kiaer, 1929; Larger, 1917; Lucas, 1901, 1929; Lull, 1933; Lydekker, 1892, 1896; Marsh, 1889b, 1890, 1891 b, 1896; Moodie, 1930; Moret, 1953; Nopcsa, 1917b; Orlov, 1964; Orlov, et al., 1964; Pompeckj, 1920, 1921; Samelevici, 1926; Schlaikjer, 1935; Schuchert and LeVene, 1940; Smith, B. W., 1926; Stebbing, 1953; Sterne, 1901; Stromer, 1912; Swinton, 1934a, 1934b; Swinnerton, 1949; Tait and Brown, 1928; Watts, 1925; Wieders• heim, 1909; Wilfarth, 1949; Zittel, 1887-1890, 1932 Order Pterosauria: Edinger, 1949, 1960; Fiirbringer, 1888; Kuhn, 1958, 1960, 1966; Seeley, 1870, 1871; Smith, J. M., 1952; Theobald and de Gama, 1958

17 Advances in Anatomy, Vol. 49 243 CtenochMma: Broili, 1924 Ornithocheirus: Newton, 1888b; Seeley, 1876 Parapaicephalus: Zittel, 1932 Pteranodon: Edinger, 1927; Fischel, 1956 Ptenodactylus (=Ornithocheirus): Seeley, 1869 Pterodactylus: Augusta, 1961; Broili, 1925; Dawson, 1874; Dechaseaux, 1962a; Edinger, 1941b, 1951, 1961; Klinghardt, 1935; Kuhn, 1967; Oken, 1819; Saint• Seine, 1955; Seeley, 1869 Rhamphorynchus: Edinger, 1927; Klinghardt, 1935, 1937 Scaphognathu.s: Boule and Piveteau, 1935; BOlsche, 1896; Edinger, 1927; Gadow, 1909; Heilmann, 1914, 1927; Lapparent and Augier, 1947; Moodie, 1915b; Ne"Wtion, 1888a, 1888b; Seeley, 1901; Smith, 1902a; Termier and Termier, 1952a; Zittel, 1887-1890, 1932 Subclass Icthyopterygia Order Ichthyosauria: Broili, 1909; Maggi, 1898 Ichthyosaurus: Broili, 1909; Cuvier, 1824; Fraas, 1913; Maggi, 1898; Rabl-Riickhard, 1884; Seeley, 1880b; Sollas and Sollas, 1918; Spencer, 1886 Subclass Euryapsida Order Araeoscelidia Tanystropheus: Edinger, 1923, 1924 Order Sauropterygia Suborder Nothosauria: Gorce, 1960 M icronothosaurus: Haas, 1963 Notlwsaurus: Edinger, 1921; Koken, 1890, 1893a, 1893b Suborder Plesiosauria Brancasaurus: Edinger, 1930; Wegner, 1914 Hydrotherosaurus: Welles, 1943 Plesiosaurus: Edinger, 1928, 1930; Rabl-Riickhard, 1884; Spencer, 1886 Polyptychodon: Edinger, 1934; Fritsch, 1905a, 1905b Suborder Placodontia: Gorce, 1960 Cyamodus: Jaekel, 1907 Placochelys: Jaekel, 1907 Placodus: Edinger, 1925a; Huene, 1933 Subclass Synapsida Order Pelycosauria: Case, 1907; Olson, 1947; Romer, 1941, 1958 Casea: Reich, 1927 Cotylorhynchus: Olson, 1962 Dimetrodon: Case, 1897, 1899, 1907; Moodie, 1923; Romer and Price, 1940; Watson, 1916,1921 Diopeus (=Ophiacodon): Watson, 1916 Edaphosaurus: Romer and Price, 1940 Theropleura (=Ophiacodon): Watson, 1916 Order Therapsidia: Aron and Grasse, 1966; Crompton, 1955; Edinger, 1949; Haughton, 1918; Hofer and Thenius, 1960a; Olson, 1944, 1959. 1962; Romer, 1958; Westoll, 1963 Suborder Phthinosuchia Eotitanosuchus: Olson, 1962 Phthinosuchus: Efremov, 1954; Olson, 1962 Suborder Theriodontia Alopecognathus: Haughton, 1918 Anna: Orlov, 1962 Bienotherium: Hopson, 1964 Cynarioides: Broom, 1930 Cynariops: Olson, 1938a Cynognathus: Seeley, 1895 CyonosauTUs: Olson, 1937 Diademodon: Brink, 1955a; Broom, 1911; Goldbyand Gamble, 1957; Gregory, 1951; Kermack, 1963; Kiaer, 1929; Lehman, 1959, 1961a; Simpson, 1933c; Starck, 1965; Van Valen, 1960; Watson, 1911, 1913b, 1921 Exaeretodon: Bonaparte, 1962

244 Galeo8aurus (=GaZe8aurus): Seeley, 1889 Gale8aurus: Rigney, 1938 Gomphognathus (=Diademodon): Simpson, 1933c Gorgonognathus: Haughton, 1918 Linkhoelia: Ginsburg, 1962; Hopson, 1964 Lycaenodon: Broom, 1930 Moachowhait8ia: Tatarinov, 1964a NytlwBaurus: Anthony, 1961; Hofer, 1962; Lapparent and Augier, 1947; Lesser• tisseur and Sigogneau, 1965; Moret, 1953; Owen, 1876; Piveteau, 1935a; Seeley, 1889; Simpson, 1927, 1933c; Starck, 1965; Van Valen, 1960; Watson, 1913b OZigokyphus: Crompton, 1964; Hopson, 1964; Kiihne, 1949, 1956; Van Valen, 1960 Bcym'TIIJ{J'TWthus: Haughton, 1918; Watson, 1921 Thrinaxodon: Hopson, 1964; Van Valen, 1960 Tritylodon: Osborn, 1887 Suborder Anomodontia Anteoaaurus: Efremov, 1954 Brachypr08OpU8 (= BrachyuraniBcus): Camp, 1956 DeuteroBaurus: Efremov, 1954; Olson, 1962; Seeley, 1894 Dicynodon: Agnew, 1959; Broom, 1912, 1913b, 1930, 1932; Camp, 1956; Cox, 1962; Olson, 1962; Schepers, 1937; Seeley, 1889; Sollas and Sollas, 1913; Watson, 1913b Diictodon: Broom, 1913b DoliOBaurus (=DoliOBaUNCUS): Orlov, 1958 Emyi1opB: Broom, 1913b Emydorhynchus: Broom, 1913b Eocyclop8: Broom, 1913b EBtemennoauchus: Olson, 1962 Gordonia: Newton, 1893 Kannemeyeria: Camp, 1956; Cruickshank, 1965; Efremov, 1954 Keratocephalus: Huene, 1931 Kingoria: Cox, 1959 LY8troaaurus: Edinger, 1955b; Efremov, 1954; Fischer, 1870; Huene 1931; Lehman, 1961 b; Tripath and Satsangi, 1963; Watson, 1913a Moach0p8: Tatarinov, 1965 Otsheria: Olson, 1962 Placeria8: Camp, 1956; Camp and Welles, 1956 Ptychognathus (=LyBtroBaurus): Fischer, 1870; Owen, 1876 Rhopalodon: Seeley, 1894 Stahkckeria: Camp, 1956; Hennig, 1950; Huene, 1933-1942 Syodon: Orlov, 1958 Tapinocephalus: Haughton, 1918; Nopcsa, 1926 Theromus: Watson, 1911 Titanophoneus: Olson, 1962; Orlov, 1958 Ulemoaaurus: Efremov, 1940a; Tatarinov, 1965

Class Aves Subclass Archaeornithes: Smith, J. M., 1952 Order Archaeopterygiformes Archaeopteryx: Augusta and Burian, 1961; Beccari, 1943; Beddard, 1898; Berndt and Meise, 1960; Cobb, 1963; de Beer, 1954a, 1954b, 1956, 1962, 1964; Edinger, 1926b; Evans, 1865, 1881, 1943; Fenton and Fenton, 1958; Grasse, 1965; Groebbels, 1950; Haller, 1934; Heilmann, 1927; Hurst, 1895; Kuhn-Schnyder, 1964; Lamb• recht, 1933; Lyell, 1863; Mackie, 1863; Marsh, 1881c, 1882a, 1883b; Matthes, 1964; Owen, 1863; Parker and Haswell, 1962; Piveteau, 1950c, 1955a; Portmann and Stingelin, 1961; Rensch, 1954a, 1959b, 1967; Scheele, 1954; Simonetta, 1963; Sterne, 1901; Stirton, 1959; Swinton, 1934a, 1955, 1958c, 1960; Thenius, 1963; Theobald and Gama, 1958; Villee, Walker and Smith, 1958; Wallace, 1911; Welty, 1962; Wiedersheim, 1909; Woodward, 1923; Woodward, H., 1896; Young, 1962 ArchaeorniB (=Archaeopteryx): Kleinschmidt, 1951

245 Subclass Neornithes Superorder Odontognathae: Ffubringer, 1888 Order Hesperornithiformes He8perorniB: Augusta, 1961; Augusta and Burian, 1961; Beccari, 1943; Beddard, 1898; Berndt and Meise, 1960; Berry, 1929; Boule, 1891; Boule and Piveteau, 1935; Brown, 1888, d'Erasmo, 1937; Edinger, 1951; Grinnell, 1881; Groebbels, 1950; Haller, 1934; Heilmann, 1913, 1927; Hoernes, 1884; Humbert, 1881; Lambrecht, 1933; Lapparent and Augier, 1947; Lebzelter, 1922; Marsh, 1875c, 1876h,1880c, 1881c, 1882a, 1883b; Miiller, 1886; Newton, 1888b; Nopcsa, 1917b; Piveteau, 1950c, 1955a; Priem, 1891; Scott, 1932; Stresemann, 1933; Termier and Termier, 1952a; Thompson, 1890b; Welty, 1962; Wetmore, 1955, 1961&, 1961~; Wiedersheim, 1884, 1885, 1909; Woodward, 1898; Zittel, 1887-1890 Order Ichthyornithiformes IchthyorniB: Augusta, 1961; Augusta and Burian, 1961; Beddard, 1898; Berndt and Meise, 1960; Berry, 1929; Boule and Piveteau, 1935; Carrington, 1961; d'Erasmo, 1937; -Dubois, 1922; Edinger, 1951; Grasse, 1965; Grinnell, 1881; Groebbels, 1950; Heilmann, 1913, 1927; Hoernes, 1884; Humbert, 1881; Klaauw, 1948; Lambrecht, 1933; Marsh, 1880c, 1883b; Miiller, 1886; Piveteau, 1950c, 1955a; Scott, 1932; Shimer, 1933; Termier and Termier, 1952a; Welty, 1962; Wetmore, 1955, 1961 b; Wiedersheim, 1884, 1885, 1909; Zittel, 1887-1890. Superorder Palaeognathae Order Casuariiformes Dromaeus (=Dromaius): Cobb and Edinger, 1962 DromorniB: Owen, 1877a Order Dinornithiformes Anomalopteryx: Lambrecht, 1933 DinorniB: Berndt and Meise, 1960; Burne, 1902; Edinger, 1942b; Haller, 1934; KrOsche, 1963; Lambrecht, 1933; Larger, 1917; Owen, 1866, 1871c, 1877a, 1879; Piveteau, 1955a; Starck, 1955 Emeus: Parker, 1895 Euryapteryx: Starck, 1955 MeionorniB (=Emeus): Edinger, 1928 Palapteryx (=DinorniB): Owen, 1879 Order Aepyornithiformes AepyorniB: Edinger, 1942a, 1942b; HaM, 1965b; Overhage, 1963; Piveteau, 1955a; Wiman, 1942 MullerorniB: Edinger, 1942a, 1942b; HaM, 1965b; Wiman, 1942 Order Apterygiformes Apteryx: Owen, 1871c, 1879 Superorder Neognathae Order Pelecaniformes MoriB (=Morus): Compton, 1936 Order Falconiformes Aquila: Dehaut, 1920 Breagyps: Stager, 1964 Oatkarle8: Stager, 1964 Ooragyps: Stager, 1964 Gymnogyps: Stager, 1964 TeratorniB: Stager, 1964 Order Charadriiformes Nume:nius: Edinger, 1951; Gervais, 1848-1852 Order Columbiformes nidus: Melville, 1848; Owen, 1866, 1867 Pezopkaps: Burne, 1902; Newton and Clark, 1879 Order Piciformes OryptorniB: Edinger, 1951 Order Passeriformes Oorvus: Owen, 1863 Laurillardia: Flot, 1891

246 Incertae sedis Laopteryx: Humbert, 1881; Lambrecht, 1933; Marsh, 1881 b, 1881 c, 1882a; Simpson, 1933e; Wiedersheim, 1909

Class Mammalia Subclass Allotheria Order Multituberculata Ectypodus: Edinger, 1963a; Simpson, 1937 Ptilodus: Edinger, 1963a, 1964b; Grasse, 1965; Piveteau, 1955b, 1961a; Simpson, 1937; Termier and Termier, 1960; Van Valen, 1960 Subclass Uncerlain Order Triconodonta Sirwconodon: Edinger, 1963b; Patterson and Olson, 1961 Triconodon: Edinger, 1963b; Goldby and Gamble, 1957; Grasse, 1955a; Gregory, 1951; Hofer, 1962; Kermack, 1963; Lapparent and Augier, 1947; Lessertisseur and Sigogneau, 1965; Moret, 1953; Patterson and Olson, 1961; Piveteau, 1935a, 1955b, 1961 b; Scott, 1937; Simpson, 1927, 1928, 1933d; Starck, 1962, 1965; Termier and Termier, 1952a; Thenius, 1960a; Van Valen, 1960; Wood, 1934 Trioracodon: Kermack, 1963 Order Docodonta ? Morganucodon: Hopson, 1964; Kermack and Musset, 1958. Subclass Theria Infraclass Pantotheria Order Pantotheria: Marsh, 1880d, 1887; Osborn, 1888 Amblotherium: Edinger, 1963b, 1964b; Simpson, 1927, 1928; Starck, 1965 Stylodon (=Amblotherium): Owen, 1871 b Infraclass Metatheria Order Marsupialia Caenolestes: Scott, 1937 DasyuTUs: Owen, 1871a Nanodelphi8: Rensch, 1967 Oxygomphius (=Peratherium): Schlosser, 1887 Peratherium: Piveteau, 1961 c Chrorwzoon (=Phascolonus): de Vis, 1884 Thylacinus: Matthew, 1901-1937; Owen, 1871a Thylacoleo: Gervais, 1869b; Gill, 1954; Lydekker, 1887; Owen, 1871 a, 1877b; Piveteau, 1961c; Smith, 1902b, 1903a; Woods, 1956 Thylacosmilus: Scott, 1937 Wynyardia: Spencer, 1960 "Sparassodonta" (=Borhyaenoidea): Ameghino, 1893 Infraclass Eutheria Order Insectivora Centete8 (= Tenrec): Beddard, 1901; Le Gros Clark, 1960 ChrY80tricha (=Chrysochloris): de Graaf, 1958 Echino8orex: Dechaseaux, 1964 Galerix: Butler, 1956; Dechaseaux, 19580 Gymnura (=Echinosorex): Dechaseaux, 1964 Gymnurechinus: Butler, 1956a Ictop8: Butler, 1956b; Dechaseaux, 19580; Douglass, 1905; Edinger, 1956d; Moodie, 1922; Scott and Jepsen, 1936; Tilney, 1931 Leptictis: Bruce, 1883 Mesodectes (=ICWp8): Cope, 1883d ll!lyosorex: Meester, 1954 Neurogymnurus: Butler, 1956a; Dechaseaux, 19580, 1964 Parasorex (=Galerix): Edinger, 1928; Schlosser, 1887 Prochrysochloris: Butler and Hopwood, 1957 Talpa: Stein, 1950

247 Order Chiroptera: Dechaseaux, 1938; Edinger, 1960; Langenhan, 1904 Myoti8: Dechaseaux, 1956c; Edinger, 1926a Palaeophyllophora: Dechaseaux, 1956c, 1958p, 1962a; Edinger, 1926a P8eudorhirwlophWl: Dechaseaux, 1956c, 1958p, 1962a; Edinger, 1926a; Viret, 1940 VeaperliliaVU8: Dechaseaux, 1956c, 1958p, 1962c, 1962d Microchiroptera: Edinger, 1961, 1963b; Langenhan, 1904 Microchiroptera incertae sadis: Edinger, 1961, 1963a, 1963b, 1964b Order Primates: Hofer,1962; Howells, 1959; Le Gros Clark, 1934, 1960. Remane, 1965; Simons, 1959, 1962, 1963; Westoll, 1962. [Dr. Edinger had decided not to index the Hom. Cat. Please refer to it for material not mentioned here. B.g.B.] Suborder Plesiadapoidea PleaiadapiB: Russell, 1964; Saban, 1963; Simons, 1964 Suborder Lemuroidea AdapiB: Filhol, 1885; Gazin, 1965b; Genet-Varcin, 1963; Grandidier, 1905; Gregory, 1920b, 1951; Hill, 1953; Hofer, 1962; Hofer and Thenius, 1960b; La Gros Clark, 1945a, 1945b, 1959, 1960; Major, 1894; Neumayer, 1906; Pearson, 1964; Piveteau, 1950b, 1951 b, 1958, 1959, 1962a; Russell, 1964; Starck, 1962, 1965; Stehlin, 1912 Archaeolemur: Boule and Piveteau, 1935; Genet-Varcin, 1963; Hill, 1953; Hofer and Thenius, 1960b; Lamberton, 1952; La Gros Clark, 1945 a, 1945b; Piveteau, 1948, 1950b, 1956a, 1959, 1962a; Remane, 1956; Saban, 1963 Daubentonia: Hofer, 1958 Globilemur (=Archaeolemur): Burckhardt, 1901; La Gros Clark, 1945a; Major, 1897; Smith, 1902b, 1903a, 1903b, 1908 HadropithecWl: Boule and Piveteau, 1935; Genet-Varcin, 1963; Piveteau, 1956a; Saban, 1963 Lemur: Hill, 1953; Smith, 1903a, 1908 Limrwtherium (=NotharctWl): Marsh, 1877c, 1895 MegaladapiB: Boule and Piveteau, 1935; Burckhardt, 1901; Edinger, 1964a; Genet• Varcin, 1963; Grandidier, 1905; Hill, 1953; Hofer, 1953a, 1953b, 1958; Hofer and Thenius, 1960b; Lamberton, 1941, 1952; La Gros Clark, 1945a, 1945b; Lorenz von Libernau, 1905; Major, 1894, 1897; Saban, 1963; Smith, 1902b, 1903a, 1908; Vallois, 1955 MeaopropithecU8: Hill, 1953; Hofer and Thenius, 1960b; La Gros Clark, 1945 a, 1945b; Remane, 1956; Scott, 1908; Starck, 1965 MicrocebWl: Stark, 1962, 1965 NeopropithecWl: Lamberton, 1952 NeaopithecWl (=Archaeolemur): Smith, 1908 NotharctWl: Gazin, 1965; Genet-Varcin, 1963; Gregory, 1920b; Hill, 1953; Pearson, 1964 PalaeopropithecWl: Genet-Varcin, 1963; Hill, 1953; Hofer and Thenius, 1960b; Lamberton, 1952; Le Gros Clark, 1945a, 1945b; Piveteau, 1950b, 1956a; Saban, 1963; Sera, 1935; Smith, 1908 Palaeolemur (=AdapiB): Gervais, 1876 Progalago: Hofer, 1962; La Gros Clark, 1959; La Gros Clark and Thomas, 1952 PronycticebU8: Russell, 1964 PtilocercWl: Simpson, 1931 Smilodectea: Gazin, 1965; Jerison, 1961; Simons, 1963, 1964 Tupaia: Stark, 1962, 1965 Suborder Tarsioidei AnaptomorphWl: Cope, 1882a, 1882b, 1883d, 1885a Nanrwpithex: Simons, 1963 Necrolemur: Filhol, 1877; Genet-Varcin, 1963; Grandidier, 1905; Hofer, 1962; Hofer and Thenius, 1960b; Hiirzeler, 1948; La Gros Clark, 1959, 1960; Piveteau, 1951b, 1957; Remane, 1956; Simons, 1964; Termier and Termier, 1960 Rooneyia: Wilson, 1966 TarBiWl: Cope, 1882a, 1885b; Harlow, 1958; Smith, 1920 TetoniWl: Bonin and Bailey, 1961; Boule and Piveteau, 1935; Cope, 1885d; Edinger, 1956d, 1962a, 1964b; Gregory, 1920a; Harlow, 1958; Hofer, 1962; La Gros Clark, 1934,1959; Rensch, 1967; Simons, 1963; Smith, 1920; Vallois, 1955

248 Suborder Catarrhini Superfamily Cercopithecoidea Cercopithec0ide8: Dart, 1949 LibypitkecU8: Genet-Varcin, 1963; Hofer and Thenius, 1960b; Termier and Termier, 1960 Lybipitkecus (=LibypitkecU8): Edinger, 1938a Macacu& (=Macaca): Dehaut, 1920 MesopitkecU8: Crusafont, 1957; Hofer and Thenius, 1960b; Lartet, 1868a; Lehman, 1966; Piveteau, 1958, 1959, 1962a; Remane, 1956; Wagner, 1857 Parapapio: Dart, 1949 8imopitkecU8: Leakey, 1963 Superfamily Hominoidea AU8tralopitkecU8: Dart, 1949, 1961; Economo, 1928; Howells, 1959; Kiaer, 1929; Moore, R., 1961 Homo: Cuenot and Tetry, 1951; Darwin, 1871; Dobzhansky, 1955; Edinger, 1914; Ehrlich and Holm, 1963; Hoemes, 1909; Howells, 1959; Lapparant and Augier, 1947; Larger, 1917; Le Gros Clark, 1958; Moret, 1953; Olsen, 1965a; Rensch, 1959d, 1967; Smith, 1902b; Spatz, 1966; Westoll, 1963 OreopitkecU8: Ankel, 1965 Pitkecantkr0pU8 (=Homo): Aron and Gra~, 1966; Beddard, 1923; Berry, 1929; Bertalanffy, 1951; Cuenot and Tetry, 1951; Davidenkov, 1947; Dubois, 1922, 1924, 1930, 1934; Grasse, 1965; Hoemes, 1909; Howells, 1959; Kiser, 1929; Lapparent and Augier, 1947; Le Gros Clark, 1960; Pearson, 1964; Portman, 1959; Stokes, 1960 PlesiantkropU8 (=AU8tralopitlf,ecU8): Dart, 1949; Rensch, 1959a PZiopitkecU8: Ankel, 1965 Proconsul (=DryopitkecU8): Genet-Varcin, 1963; Hofer and Thenius, 1960b; Le Gras Clark, 1959; Le Gros Clark and Leakey, 1951; Piveteau, 1962a; Straus, 1953; Vallois, 1955 8inantkropU8 (=Homo): Moore, 1961; Moret, 1953 ZinjantM0pU8 (=ParantkropU8): Pearson, 1964 Order Tillodontia TiZlodon: Dechaseaux, 1958j; Gazin, 1953; Marsh, 1876c, 1876d TiZlotkerium (=Trogo8U8): Beddard, 1901; Bolsche, 1896; Dana, 1894; Krumbiegel, 1954; Lydekker, 1889; Marsh, 1876c; Schmidt, 1886; Wiedersheim, 1909; Wood• ward,1898 Order Edentata Suborder Palaeanodonta MetackeiromY8: Simpson, 1931 Palaeanodon: Dechaseaux, 1958k; Simpson, 1931 Xenoeranium: Colbert, 1942 Suborder Xenarthra Cklamydopk0rU8 (=Cklamypk0rU8): Jakob, 1943 Cklamypk0rU8: Edinger, 1964b; Gervais, 1867-1869 Da8ypU8: Scott, 1937; Simpson, 1931 Eremotkerium: Edinger, 1964a; Owen, 1856 EutatU8: Gervais, 18690.; Smith, 1899 G1088otkerium: Dechaseaux, 19581, 1962d; Guth, 1961, 1962 G1088otkerium (Oreomylodon): Hoffstetter, 1952 Glyptodon: Dechaseaux, 19581; Gervais, 1867-1869, 1869a; Huxley, 1865; Jakob, 1911, 1912; Pouchet, 1868-1869, 1879; Pouchet and Beauregard, 1889; Serres, 1865; Smith, 1899, 1902b; Zittel, 1891-1893 Grypotkerium (=Mylodon): Jakob, 1911, 1912; Smith, 1902b Grypotkerium (Neomylodon) (=Mylodon): Woodward, 1900, 1902 Hapalop8: Dechaseaux, 19581; Stock, 1925 Lestodon: Dechaseaux, 1962 b, 1962d; Jakob, 1911, 1912 Megalonyx: Pouchet, 1868-1869, 1879 Megatkerium: Augusta, 1955; Dechaseaux, 19581; Edinger, 1964a; Gervais, 1869a; Guth, 1961; Jakob, 1911, 1912; Larger, 1917; Owen, 1856, 1860; Pouchet, 1868- 1869, 1879; Smith, 1899, 1902b; Weygandt, 1928a

249 Mylodon: Guth, 1961 "MyZodon" (=Glossotherium): Gervais, 1869a; Lull, 1915; Pouchet, 1868-1869, 1879; Smith, 1899; Stock, 1925 NeomyZodon (=Mylodon): Jakob, 1943 Nothrotherium: Stock, 1925 Panochthus: Gervais, 1869a Scelidotherium: Dechaseaux, 1962d; Gervais, 1869; Jakob, 1912; Smith, 1899 Schistopleurum (=Glyptodon): Gervais, 1867-1869, 1869a Tolypeutes: Jakob, 1943 Order Lagomorpha Myolagus (=Prolagus): Edinger, 1928; Schlosser, 1884 Palaeolagus: Cope, 1883d; Jerison, 1961; Moodie, 1922; Troxell, 1921; Wood, 1940 Prolagus: Dechaseaux, 1958m Order Rodentia: Cope, 1883a; Heller, 1939 Adelomys: Dechaseaux, 1958n, 1962a, 1963b; Piveteau, 1951b; Termier and Termier, 1960 Anchitheriomys: Schreuder, 1951 Arvicola: Vanura, 1943 Castor: Heller, 1939; Pilleri, 1963 Castoroides: Edinger, 1964a; Pilleri, 1961, 1963 Eutypomys:Wood,1937 Heliscomys: Galbreath, 1961 Ischyromys: Cope, 1883d; Jerison, 1961; Tilney, 1931; Wood, 1937 IschyrotormUJ: Wood, 1962 Leptotomus: Wood, 1962 Oltinomys (= Theridomys): Dechaseaux, 1963 b Plesiarctomys: Cope, 1883a, 1883d; Scott, 1890a Pseudotomus: Wood, 1962 Trechomys: Dechaseaux, 1958n, 1963b Trogontherium: Dechaseaux, 1958n; Schreuder, 1949, 1951 Order Cetacea: Reysenbach de Haan, 1957; Thenius and Hofer, 1960b Suborder Archaeoceti Basilosaurus: Bourdelle and Grasse, 1955; Gervais, 1874; Lucas, 1900; Thompson, 1890a Dorudon: Dechaseaux, 1961 b; Edinger, 1955a, 1964b; Kellogg, 1936; Pilleri,1962b; Slijper, 1962; Smith, 1903c; Stromer, 1903, 1908a, 1908b, 1912; Young, 1962 Lophocephalus: Benham, 1937 a ProzeugZodon: Andrews, 1906; Dart, 1923; Kellogg, 1928, 1936; Lavocat, 1955a; Mchedlidze, 1964; Smith,1903c Zeuglodon (=Basilosaurus): Abel, 1928a; Dart, 1923; Gervais, 1874; Marples, 1949; Pilleri, 1962a; Stromer, 1910; Thompson, 1890a Zygorhizu: Kellogg, 1936 Suborder Odontoceti Araeodelphis: Kellogg, 1957 Cyrtodelphis (=Schizodelphis): Bonnet, 1910; Dal Piaz, 1905; Mchedlidze, 1964; Parona, 1923; Wiedersheim, 1909 Glyphidelphis (=Steno): Gervais, 1874 Palaeophocaena: Mchedlidze, 1964 Phocogeneus: Kellogg, 1957 Prosqualodon: Benham, 1937 b; Bourdelle and Grasse, 1955; Dart, 1923; Dechaseaux, 1961b; Flynn, 1948; Marples, 1949 Schizodelphis: Beneden and Gervais, 1880; Edinger, 1955a; Parona, 1923 Squalodon: Kellogg, 1957 Zarhachis: Kellogg, 1957 Suborder Mysticeti Balaenoptera: Breathnach, 1955; Pilleri, 1966a Balaenula: Trevisan, 1942 Cetotherium: Brandt, 1873; Mchedlidze, 1964; OrIov, 1962; Strobel, 1881

250 lmerocetUl/: Mchedlidze, 1964 Megaptera: Breatbnach, 1955; Pilleri, 19660.

Order Creodonts. Oynokyaenodon: Boule and Piveteau, 1935; Filhol, 1877, 1888b; Gaudry, 1878; Gervais, 1876; Hoernes, 1884; Matthew, 1901; Meunier, 1895; Pivetea.u, 1951 b, 1961d, 1962b; Smith, 19030.; Stromer, 1912; Zittel, 1891-1893, 1925 Hyaenodon: Bose, 1880; Gervais, 1870; Guth, 1964; Klinghardt, 1934; Koken, 1902b; Leidy, 1869; Scott, 1887; Scott and Jepsen, 1936 Limnocyon: Matthew, 1909 Oxyaena: Cope, 1875, 1877b, 1877 d Packya,ena: Sanielevici, 1926 PatriofeZiB: Denison, 1938; Matthew, 1909; Wortman, 1894 Pf'O'IJiverra: Bose, 1880; Dubois, 1928, 1930; Gaudry, 1878, 1891, 1896; Hoemes, 1884; Zittel, 1891-1893 Pterodorl-: Guth, 1964; Moret, 1953; Pivetea.u, 19350., 1961d; Starck, 1965 Sinopa: Abel, 1933; Matthew, 1901, 1906; Wortman, 1901 StypolopkUl/ (=Sinopa): Cope, 1875, 1882b, 1883d Tkereutkerium: Piveteau, 1935 Tkinocyon: Denison, 1938; Edinger, 19500., 1956d; Matthew, 1909; Piveteau, 1935, 1961d; Rensch, 19540., 1958, 19590., 1959c; ROhrs, 19590., 1961 Order Carnivora. Suborder Fissipeda Aenocyon: Moodie, 1922; Scott, 1937 "Ampkictis" (=PleBicti8): Riggs, 1898 Ampkicyon: de Beaumont, 1962, 19640.; Filhol, 1883; Gaudry, 1896; Gervais, 18720.; Haller, 1934; Piveteau, 1961d Brackycyon: Ginsburg, 1966 Oanis: Cope, 1883d; Gervais, 1870; Klatt, 1928; Klinghardt, 1931 Oanis (Alopex): Vanura., 1943 Oephalogale: de Beaumont, 1965; Filhol, 1883; Gervais, 18720. Oyndos (=Ampkicyon): Gervais, 18720. Oynode8mUl/: Klatt, 1928; Scott, 1895; Stromer, 1912 OynoilictiB: Guth, 1964; Pivetea.u, 1951a., 1961d "Oynoilicti8" (=He8perooyon):HaIler, 1934; Klatt, 1928; Scott, 1898b; Tilney, 1931 DapkoenUl/: de Beaumont, 1962; Edinger, 1956d; Haller, 1934; Klatt, 1928; Moodie. 1916,1922; Scott, 1898b, 1937; Scott and Jepsen, 1936; Wortman and Matthew, 1899 Didymictis: Abel, 1933 Dinicti8: Klinghardt, 1933, 1934; Moodie, 1922 EUllmilUl/: Ginsburg, 1961; Pivetea.u, 1932, 1961d Felis: Filhol and Filhol, 1870; Klinghardt, 1930b, 1931 1944; Merriam and Stock, 1932; Portmann, 1959; Scott, 1937 "GalecynUl/" (=He8perocyon): Bruce, 1883, Cope, 1883d Genetta 1: Geinitz, 1869; Meyer, 1865; Wilckens, 1927 Herpe8te8: Pivetea.u, 1951a., 1961d; Savage, 1957 Hoplop1umeUl/: Bruce, 1883; Cope, 1883d; Ginsburg, 1961; Jerison, 1961; 1963; Moodie, 1922 Hyaena: Gervais, 1870; Klinghardt, 19300., 1930b, 1931, 1933, 1937, 1944 Hyaenardo8 (=Agriotkerium): Gervais, 1870 Ictitkerium: Dietrich, 1927 IBCkyricti8: Petter, 1963 Marle8: Petter, 1963 Miacis: Swinnerton, 1960 Notkocyon: Marsden-Ley, 1965; Wortman and Matthew, 1899 Packycynodon: Edinger, 1956d; Guth, 1964; Piveteau, 1951a., 1951b, 1961d, 1962b Pannonictis: Edinger, 1931a. ParadoxuTU8: Dubois, 1928 Perunium: Orlov, 1948, 1962; Pivetea.u, 1961d

251 Plesictis: Filhol, 18900.; Guth, 1964; Piveteau, 19500., 19510., 1961d; Savage, 1957; Teilhard de Chardin, 1915 Potamotherium: Edinger, 1931 a; Filhol, 1889; Friant, 1942, 1954 c; Klinghardt, 1944; Petter, 1963; Piveteau, 19500., 19510., 1961d; Savage, 1957 Protictis: Jepsen, 1966 Pseudaelurus: Gervais, 1870; Richard, 1936 Pseudocynodictis (=Hesperocyon): de Beaumont, 1964b; Jerison, 1961; Klatt, 1928; Piveteau, 1961d; Scott, 1937; Scott and Jepsen, 1936 Sansanosmilus: Ginsburg, 1961 Smilodon: Fenton and Fenton, 1958; Merriam and Stock, 1932; Moodie, 1922; Scott, 1937 Stenoplesictis: Smith, 19030. Ursus.' Benecke and Cohen, 1881 Berckhemer, 1951; Bombita, 1954; Conti,1954; Dexler, 1931; Edinger, 1925b, 1928, 19290.; Fraas, 1862; Freudenberg, 1914; Klinghardt, 1944 Viverra: Filhol, 18900.; Lartet, 18680. Viverravus: Piveteau, 1961d, 1962b Viverravus (=Didymictis): Matthew, 1901 Felidae: Anthony, 1950 Suborder Pinnipedia Alachtherium: Beneden, 1877 Allodesmus: Beneden, 1877; Mitchell, 1966 Desmatophoca: Condon, 1906; Mitchell, 1966 Pliophoca: Tavani, 1942 Carnivora 1, inc, sed. Megencephalon: Bruce, 1883; Kellogg, 1936; Osborn, Scott, and Speir, 1878 Order Condylarthra Arctocyon: Abel, 1933; Bose, 1880; Brown, 1888; Cope, 18770., 1885b; Dubois, 1922, 1924, 1930; Dunbar, 1960; Edinger, 19500., 1964b; Gaudry, 1891, 1896, 1898; Gervais, 1870; Gromova, 1962; Haldane and Huxley, 1929; Jerison, 1961; Lappa• rent and Augier, 1947; Laurillard, (1); Lebzelter, 1922; Lemoine, 1882a, 1882b, 1889; Matthew, 1901; Meunier, 1895; Osborn, 1890b, 1910, 1929; Piveteau, 1961d; Portmann, 1959, 1965; Priem, 1891; Rohrs, 1959a, 1961; Russell, 1960, 1964; Russell and Sigogneau, 1965; Schlosser, 1887; Schuchert, 1924; Schuchert and LeVene, 1927; Termier and Termier, 19520.; Weidenreich, 1948; Yonng, 1962; Zittel, 1891-1893 Arctocyonides: Russell, 1960, 1964; Russell and Sigogneau, 1965; Weigelt, 1960 Deltatherium: Matthew, 1937 Dromocycm (=Synoplotherium): Marsh, 1876i; Scott, 1937; Wortman, 1901 Eoconodcm: Matthew, 1937 Hyracops (=Meniscotherium): Marsh, 1892 Lemuravus (=Hyopsodus): Marsh, 1875a, 1877c, 1895 Loxolophus: Matthew, 1937 Meniscotherium: Cope, 1883d; Edinger, 1956d; Gazin, 19650. Mentoclaenodon: Weigelt, 1960 Mescmyx: Marsh, 1876i; Matthew, 1901; Scott, 1887, 1937 Neoclaenodcm: Russell, 1964 Periptychus: Cope, 1882c, 1883b, 1883d, 1884b, 1887b; Dechaseaux, 19580., 19620.; Devillers, 1965; Edinger, 1956d; Gaudry, 1891, 1896; Matthew, 1901, 1937; Portmann, 1959, 1965; Tilney, 1931 Phenacodus: Beddard, 1923; Boule, 1889b, 1891; Boule and Piveteau, 1935; Cope, 1882c, 1883b, 1883d, 1884b, 1885e, 1887b; Dechaseaux, 1958a; Dubois, 1897, 1922, 1928, 1930; Earle, 1892; Edinger, 1956d; Exner and Routil, 1958; Fenton and Fenton, 1958; Franz, 1935; Gaudry, 1891, 1896; Gazin, 1965a; Haller, 1934; Jerison, 1961; Klaauw, 1948; Knipe, 1912; Lavocat, 1955b; Lydekker, 1889; Markman, 1961; Matthew, 1937; Meunier, 1895; Osborn, 1910; Patterson, 1937b; Portmann, 1959, 1965; Rensch, 1958; Rohrs, 1959a; Russell and Sigogneau, 1965; Schuchert and LeVene, 1927; Scott, 1937; Simpson, 1933a; Termier and Termier, 1960; Tilney, 1931; Wood, 1934; Zittel, 1891-1893

252 Pleuraapidotherium: Dechaseaux, 1958a; Edinger, 1956d, 1964b; Gaudry, 1891, 1896; Lemoine, 1882a, 1882b, 1885, 1889, 1896b; Osborn, 1890b; Russell, 1964; Russell and Sigogneau, 1965; Wood, 1934 Synoplotherium: Marsh, 1876i TriiBodon: Abel, 1933; Matthew, 1901 Order Litopterna Adiantoides: Simpson and Minoprio, 1949 Proterotherium: Dechaseaux, 1958b; Grasse, 1955a; Jakob, 1911, 1912; Lavocat, 1955b; Patterson, 1937b; Simpson, 1933b; Termier and Termier, 1960 Order Notoungulata Suborder Notioprogonia NotoBtylopa: Dechaseaux, 1958c; Lavocat, 1955b; Patterson, 1934, 1937b; Scott, 1937; Simpson, 1932, 1933a, 1936 Suborder Toxodonta Adinotkerium: Patterson, 1937b Braekyatephanua: Simpson, Minoprio and Patterson, 1962 Homalodotherium: Patterson, 1937a, 1937b Nesodon: Dechaseaux, 1962d; Patterson, 1937a, 1937b Notohippidae indet: Loomis, 1914 (Eutrackytherua); Patterson, 1934, 1937b Olilfieldtkoma8ia: Patterson, 1937b; Simpson, 1932, 1936 Rkynckippua: Dechaseaux, 1958c; Patterson, 1937a, 1937b; Termier and Termier, 1960 Rkypkodon: Dechaseaux, 1958c; Patterson, 1937b; Simpson, 1933a Toxodon: Dechaseaux, 1958c, 1962d; Gervais, 1869a, 1872b; Jakob, 1911, 1912, 1941; Patterson, 1937b; Roth, 1898; Simpson, 1933b; Weygandt, 1928a Suborder Typotheria Eutrackytheru8 (=Trackytherua): Patterson, 1934, 1937b Mesotherium: Dechaseaux, 1958c, 1962d Miocockiliua: Dechaseaux, 1957; Stirton, 1953 Protypotherium: Dechaseaux, 1956a, 1957, 1958c, 1962a; Patterson, 1937b; Simpson, 1933b Trackytherua: Patterson, 1934, 1937b Typotherium (=Mesotherium): Gervais, 1867-1869, 1869a, 1872b; Jakob, 1911, 1912; Simpson, 1933b; Smith, 1902b TypotheriopBiB: Patterson, 1937b Suborder Hegetotheria Hegetotherium: Dechaseaux, 1956a, 1957, 1958c; Patterson, 1934, 1937b; Simpson, 1933b,1936 Packyruco8 (=Packyrukko8): Dechaseaux, 1962d; Jakob, 1911, 1912 Order Pantodonta: Simons, 1960 Gorypkodon: Abel, 1933; Beddard, 1901, 1923; Berry, 1929; BOlsche, 1896; Brummel• kamp, 1939, 1940; Chamberlin and Salisbury, 1907; Cope, 1877&;, 1877b, 1877d, 1878, 1883d, 1883e, 1884-1885, 1885e; Dana, 1876; 1894; Dawson, 1880; Dech• aseaux, 1958d; DOderlein, 1890; Dubois, 1922, 1928, 1930; Edinger, 1933, 1950a; Fenton and Fenton, 1958; Gaudry, 1891, 1896; Hoernes, 1884, 1909; Jerison, 1961, 1963; Ro, 1878; Klaauw, 1948; Knipe, 1912; Krumbiegel, 1954; Lebzelter, 1922; Lucas, 1902; Lull, 1947; Lydekker, 1889; Marsh, 1876q, 1877 a, 1877b, 1878b, 1885a, 1893b, 1895; Matthew, 1937; Osborn, 1898, 1910, 1929; Rensch, 1947; Rohrs, 1959a; Sanielevici, 1926; Schmidt, 1886; Sedgwick, 1905; Sterne, 1897, 1901; Tilney, 1931; Wallace, 1911; Weber, 1928; Wiedersheim, 1909; Woodward, 1898, 1923; Zittel, 1891-1893, 1925 "Haplolambda" (=Leptolambda): Dechaseaux, 1958d; Edinger, 1950a, 1956d Leptolambda: Edinger, 1956a, 1963a, 1964a; Overhage, 1965 Loxolopkodon (=Gorypkodon): Osborn, 1881 Pantolamhda: Cope, 1883d, 1883e, 1884-1885; Dechaseaux, 1958d; Edinger, 1956d; Matthew, 1937; Osborn, 1898; Priem, 1891; Sedgwick, 1905 Coryphodontoidea: Simons, 1960 Pantolambdoidea: Simons, 1960 Order Dinocerata Dinooeraa (=Uintatkerium): Bush, 1885; Beddard, 1923; Boule, 1889a, 1902; Dana, 1876, 1894; Dechaseaux, 1962a; Dollo, 1890; Dubois, 1897; Fenton, 1941;

253 Herrick, 1926 {1963}; HutchinBon, 1893; Lankester, 1905; Lull, 1925; Marsh, 1874, 1876a, 1876b, 1876c, 1885a; Rensch, 1947; Sanielevici, 1926; Smith, 1902b, 1910; Tilney, 1913; Weber, 1904; Weber and de Burlet, 1927; Wiedersheim, 1909; Woodward,1898 Tinoceras (=Uintatkerium): Bush, 1885; Dollo, 1890; Marsh, 1885a U intatkerium: Abel, 1928 d, 1933; Augusta, 1955; Basse de Menorvale, 1959; Beddard 1923; Boule, 1891; Boule and Piveteau, 1935; Brown, 1888; Brummelkamp, 1939, 1940; Chamberlin and Salisbury, 1907; Cope, 1877a, 1884-1885, 1887b; Dawson, 1880; Dechaseaux, 1958e; Dollo, 1890; Dubois, 1928, 1930; Economo, 1929; Edinger, 1962a, 1963a, 1964a; Fenton and Fenton, 1958; Gaudry, 1885, 1891, 1896; Hoernes, 1884; Jerison, 1961; K., 1878; Klaauw, 1948; Knight, 1935, 1942; Knipe, 1912; Koken, 1893b; Lankester, 1911; Lucas, 1902; Lull, 1924, 1947; Lydekker, 1889; Major, 1897; Marsh, 1874, 1877a, 1885a; Matthew, 1937; Osborn, 1881,1910; Pouchet and Beauregard, 1889; Priem, 1891; Pycraft, 1925; Rensch, 1947; Schuchert, 1924; Schuchert and LeVene, 1927; Sedgwick, 1905; Shimer, 1933; Simak, 1966; Stebbing, 1953; Stromer, 1912; Termier and Termier, 1960; Tilney, 1931; Wallace, 1911; Watts, 1925; Weber, 1904, 1928; Woodward, 1923; Young, 1962; Zittel, 1891-1893 Order Proboscidea: Griinthal, 1948 Elepkas: Dechaseaux, 1958f, 1958q; Dubois, 1928; Gervais, 1872b; Gleboff, 1846; Larger, 1917; Maccagno, 1962; Osborn, 1931; Simionescu and Morosan, 1937 Loxodonta: Dechaseaux, 1958q; Friant, 1954b; Osborn, 1942 Mammonteus (=Mammutkus): Gleboff, 1846 Mammut: Kubacska, 1944; Salensky, 1905 Mastodon (=Mammut): Andrews, 1906; B., L. P., 1885; Boule and Thevenin, 1920; Dana, 1876; Dechaseaux, 1958f; Edinger, 1933, 1962; Gervais, 1872b; Maccagno, 1962; Marsh, 1874, 1885a; Osborn, 1910; Simionescu and Morosan, 1937; Warren, 1852 Mastodon (Ckoerolopkodon) (=Gompkotkerium): Schlessinger, 1922 Moeritkerium: Andrews, 1906; Brummelkamp, 1939, 1940; Dechaseaux, 1958f; Dubois, 1924, 1928, 1930; Edinger, 1933; Exner, and Routil1958; Friant, 1951, 1954b; Lankester, 1911; Larger, 1917; Matsumoto, 1923; SimionescuandMorosan, 1937 Palaeoloxodon (Hesperoloxodon) (=Elepkas): Osborn, 1931, 1942 Order Embrithopoda Arsinoitkerium: Abel, 1928b; Andrews, 1906; Dechaseaux, 1958q; Dubois, 1930; Edinger, 1933; Lavocat, 1955c; Sedgwick, 1905 Order Hyracoidea Prol'.'(wia: Wells, 1939 Order Sirenia: Brandt, 1846; Dechaseaux, 1958h; Edinger, 1960; Griinthal, 1948 Anomotkerium: Siegfried, 1965 Desmostylu8: Edinger, 1933, 1956b, 1963a Eosiren (=Eotkeroides): Andrews, 1906; Edinger, 1933; Woodward, 1923 Eotkerium (=Eotkeroides): Abel, 1913, 1928c; Andrews, 1906; Edinger, 1950a; Owen, 1875; Sickenberg, 1934a; Studer, 18870; Woodward, 1923 Halianassa: Studer, 1887a, 1887b, 1887c Halicore (=Dugong): Brandt, 1869; Dexler, 1912; Woodward, H., 1885 Halitkerium: Edinger, 1933; Flot, 1886; Larger, 1917; Patte, 1963; TouIa, 1899 Hydrodarna.lis: Brandt, 1867; Edinger, 1942a; Exner and RoutH, 1958; Friant, 1954a; Steller, 1751 (1753); Weygandt, 1928a Manatus {=Trickecku8}: Brandt, 1869; Dilg, 1909; Friant, 1954a; Woodward, H., 1885 Metaxitkerium (=Halianassa): DUg, 1909 Metaxytkerium (=Halianassa): Toula, 1899 M iosiren: Sickenberg, 1934 b Protosiren: Edinger, 1933, 1939; Sickenberg, 1934a Rkytina (=Hydrodamalis): Brandt, 1861, 1864, 1867, 1869; Davidenkov, 1947; Edinger, 1933; Smith, 1902b; Woodward, H., 1885 Tkalattosiren: Sickenberg, 1928

254 Order Perissodactyla Suborder Hippomorpha AnchilophU8: Simionescu, 1935; Weinberg, 1903 Anchiiherium: Economo, 1928, 1929; Edinger, 1928; Gabunija, 1959; Kubacska, 1932; Simionescu, 1935; Wehrli, 1938 Brontop8: Barnett, 1955; Fenton and Fenton, 1958; Padoa, 1959 Brontotherium: Abel, 1933; Augusta, 1955; Dana, 1876, 1894; Dechaseaux, 19620.; Gegenbaur, 1898; Knight, 1946; Marsh, 1874, 1876e, 1876f, 18850.; Pouchet and Beauregard, 1889; Schmidt, 1886; Shimer, 1933; Weber, 1928; Wiedersheim, 1909; Woodford, 1965 Dolic1wrhinU8: Edinger, 1956d; Osborn, 1929 EohipPus (=Byracotherium): Lavocat, 1955d; Marples, 1949; Marsh, 1877c; Rensch, 1959b EquU8: Barbu and Alexandrescu, 1959; BOlsche, 1896; Dana, 1894; Dechaseaux, 19620.; Dubois, 1928; Edinger, 1948, 19500.; Gegenbaur, 1898; Herre, 1956; Klinghardt, 1941; Kraus, 1964; Krumbiegel, 1954; Lavocat, 1955d; Le Gros Clark, 1958; L6czy, 1910; Marsh, 1877c; Matthew, 1927; Moodie, 1922; Portmann, 1959; Pycraft, 1925; Rensch, 1958, 1959b, 1967; Simionescu, 1935; Simpson, 1951, 1953b, Stephen, 1965; Stirton, 1959; Thenius, 1960b; Woodford, 1965 Bipparion: Barbu, 1959; Barbu and Alexandrescu, 1959; Economo, 1928, 1929; Edinger, 1948; Gabunija, 1954, 1959; Lartet, 18680.; Macarovici and Paghida, 1964; Marsh, 1877c; Simionescu, 1935 Byracotherium: Bonner, 1962; Cole, 1964; Crusafont, 1957; Davitaschvili, 1951, 1962; Dechaseaux, 19620.; Devillers, 1965; Edinger, 1948, 19500., 1956d, 1963b, 1964b; Ehrenberg, 1960; Gabunija, 1954, 1959; Gazin, 1965; Huxley, 1880; Kerkut, 1960; Knight, 1935; Kraus, 1964; Lavocat, 1955d; Le Gros Clark, 1958; Moody, 1962; Moore, 1953b; Overhage, 1963; Patterson, 1949; Portmann, 1959, 1965; Rensch, 19540., 1958, 1959b, 1959c; Rhodes etal., 1964; Rohrs, 19590., 1961; Scott, 1937; Simpson, 1944, 1949, 1951, 1952, 1958; Starck, 1962, 1965; Stirton, 1959; Swinnerton, 1960; Termier and Termier, 1960; Thenius, 1960b, 1963, 1964; Theobald and Gama, 1958; Weidenreich, 1948; Woodford, 1965; Woodward, 1931 Limnohyops: Earle, 1892 Limnohyus (=Palaeosyops): Bush, 1885; Marsh, 18850.; Nopcsa, 1917b Maerotherium: Holland and Peterson, 1914 MenodU8: Dechaseaux, 1962c; Edinger, 1956d; Jerison, 1961; Osborn, 1929 Merychippus: Bonner, 1962; Cope and Matthew, 1915; Dechaseaux, 19620.; Edinger, 1948; Go.bunija, 1954, 1959; Kraus, 1964; Lavocat, 1955d; Simpson, 1951; Thenius, 1960b MesatirhinU8: Dechaseaux, 19620.; Edinger, 1956d; Jerison, 1961; Osborn, 1929; Tilney, 1931 Mesohippus: Bonner, 1962; Brummelkamp, 1939, 1940; Dechaseaux, 19620.; Dobzhansky, 1955; Dubois, 1928, 1930; Edinger, 1928, 1948, 19500.; Exner and RoutH, 1958; Fenton and Fenton, 1958; Gabunija, 1954, 1959; Haller, 1934; Jerison, 1961; Kubacska, 1932; Lavocat, 1955d; Marsh, 1877c; Matthew, 1927; Moodie, 1922; Moody, 1962; Osborn, 18900.; Portmann, 1959, 1965; Scott, 1891 b, 1937,1941; Simpson, 1944, 1951; Termier and Termier, 1960; Thenius, 1960b; Tilney, 1931; Wood, 1934 Miohippu8: Dechaseaux, 19620.; Edinger, 1948; Gabunija, 1959 Moropus: Barbour, 1908; Holland and Peterson, 1914 Neohipparion: Edinger, 1948; Gabunija, 1959; Thenius, 1960b Orohippus: Dechaseaux, 19620.; Edinger, 1948; Gabunija, 1954, 1959 PaehynolophU8: Filhol, 18880. Palaeosyops: Beddard, 1923; Brummelkamp, 1939, 1940; DOderlein, 1890; Dubois, 1928,1930; Earle, 1892; Edinger, 1956d; Gegenbaur, 1898; Jerison, 1961; Osborn, 1929; Tilney, 1931; Weber, 1928; Wood, 1934 Palaeotherium: Cuvier, 1804, 1812; Dechaseaux, 19620.; Dietrich, 1936; Economo, 1928,1929; Edinger, 1956d; Kubacska, 1932; Simionescu, 1935 Parahippus: Dechaseaux, 19620.; Edinger, 1948; Gabunija, 1954,1959; Stirton, 1959

255 Pliohippus: Bonner, 1962; de Beaumont, 1964b; Edinger, 1948; Gabunija, 1954, 1959; Lavocat, 1955d; Simpson, 1951; Thenius, 1960b, Tilney, 1931 Titanotherium (=Menodus): Beddard, 1923; Earle, 1892; Lankester, 1899, 1905, 1911, 1915; Lydekker, 1889; Scott, 1932; Smith, 1902b; Smith, B. W., 1926; Tilney, 1931; Zittel, 1891-1893 Equidae: Carter, 1951; Crusafont, 1957; Devillers, 1962; Edinger, 1948, 1949, 1950b; Kuhn, 1965; Le Gallic, 1953; Matthes, 1964; Moore, 1953a; Noback, 1959; Overhage, 1965; Rohrs, 1959b; Simpson, 1953b; Spatz, 1959 Suborder Ceratomorpha Aceratherium: Beliaeva, 1954; Scott and Osborn, 1883; Wang, 1928 Amynodon: Bush, 1885; Marsh, 1885a; Wood, 1934 Aphelops: Osborn, 1890a Baluchitherium: Edinger, 1942a, 1963a; Granger and Gregory, 1936 Ceratorhinus (=Dicerorhinus): de la Harpe, 1873 Chilotherium: Edinger, 1937a Coelodonta: Edinger, 1937a, 1942a; Gervais, 1872b; Giebel, 1878; Klinghardt, 1937; Milne;Edwards, H., 1868 Colonoceras: Dechaseaux, 1962a; Marsh, 1897b; Wood, 1934 Diceratherium: Marsh, 1897c; Wood, 1934 Elasmotherium: Brandt, 1864; Gaudry and Boule, 1888; Milne-Edwards, H., 1868; Orlov, 1962; Wood, 1934 Heptodon: Dechaseaux, 1958i; Edinger, 1956d; Radinsky, 1965 Hyrachyus: Doderlein, 1890; Earle, 1892; Friant, 1950; Jerison, 1961; Scott and Osborn, 1883; Tilney, 1931; Wood, 1934 Lophiodon: Filhol, 1888a; Gaudry, 1891 Orlhocynodon: Scott and Osbom, 1883 Rhinoceros: Edinger, 1942a, 1950a; Giebel, 1878; Vlcek, 1953 Suhhyracodon: Jerison, 1961 Tapirus: Radinsky, 1965 Teleoceras: Dechaseaux, 1962c; Osborn, 1910; Scott and Osborn, 1883; Wood, 1934 Order Artiodactyla Suborder Palaeodonta Achaenodon: Cope, 1885b Nanochoerus: MacDonald, 1955 Stibarus: MacDonald, 1955; Scott, 1940 Thylacomorphus (=Dichobune): Filhol, 1877; Gaudry, 1878; Gervais, 1876 Suborder Suiformes Ancodu.s: Filhol, 1882 Anoplotherium: BIainville, 1849; Brummelkamp, 1939, 1940; Cuvier, 1804, 1822- 1824; Dechaseaux, 1961c; Delmont, 1941; Dubois, 1930; Edinger, 1928; Gaudry, 1891, 1896; Lartet, 1868a; Palmer, 1913; Starck, 1965 Archaeotherium: Edinger, 1963a, 1964a; Marsh, 1893c, 1897a; Pearson, 1864; Peterson, 1909; Scott, 1940 Brachyodon Caenotherium: (=Cainotherium): Lartet, 1868a Anthony and Friant, 1938; Friant, 1939,1940,1946,1948; Friant and L'Hoest, 1945; Haller, 1934; Hiirzeler, 1935, 1936a, 1936b; Milne-Edwards, 1864 Cainotherium: Carette, 1950; Dechaseaux, 1962a; Gaudry, 1896; Gervais, 1872b; Gratiolet, 1858; Lartet, 1868a; Piveteau, 1961e; Sigogneau, 1959 Caenomeryx: Berger, 1959 Choeropsis: Milne-Edwards, A., 1868 Cyclopidius: Cope, 1884a; Thorpe, 1937 Dacrytheri1tm: Dechaseaux, 1961 c; Delmont, 1941; Piveteau, 1931, 1951 b Dinohyus: Fenton and Fenton, 1958; Scott, 1937 Diplobune: Brummelkamp, 1939, 1940; Dechaseaux, 1961c; Delmont, 1941; Dubois, 1930; Edinger, 1928; Haller, 1934; Piveteau, 1951 b Elotherium (=Entelodon): Bush, 1885; Chamberlin and Salisbury, 1907; Gegen• baur, 1898; Marsh, 1885a, 1893c, 1894a, 1897a; Scott, 1898a Entelodon: Boule and Piveteau, 1935; Marsh, 1897a; Peterson, 1909 Eporeodon: Chamberlin and Salisbury, 1907; Osborn, 1929; Thorpe, 1931, 1937

256 Eucrotapkua (?=Eporeodon): Loomis, 1914 Hippopotamua (Hexaprotodon): Anthony, 1948 Hippopotamua (Tetraprotodon): Anthony, 1948; Dechaseaux, 1961c; Friant, 1940; Friant and L'Hoest, 1945 HO'macodon: Scott, 1937; Sinclair, 1914 Kubanockoerua: Gabunija, 1960 Leptockoerua: Marsh, 1894c; Scott, 1940 Megackoerua: Scott, 1940 MerycocJwerua: Moodie, 1916, 1922; Scott, 1890a, 1895; Thorpe, 1937 Merycoidodon: Black, 1920b; Dechaseaux, 1961c; Dubois, 1928, 1930; Friant, 1939, 1944; Friant and L'Hoest, 1945; Haller, 1934; Jerison, 1961; Moodie, 1915b, 1922; Scott, 1890b; Thorpe, 1931, 1937; Whitmore, 1953 Meryekyua: Scott, 1890b Mesoreodon: Scott, 1895; Thorpe, 1937 Mixtotkerium: Stehlin, 1908 Oreodon (=Merycoidodon): Black, 1920a, 1920b; Bruce, 1883; Friant, 1948; Gervais, 1872b; Gratiolet, 1859; Leidy, 1869; Scott, 1890; Tilney, 1931 Oxacron: Piveteau, 1961e Paroxacron: Piveteau, 1961 e Platygonua: Bush, 1885; Chamberlin and Salisbury, 1907; Marsh, 1885a PromerycocJwerua: Thorpe, 1931, 1937 Protoreodon: Scott, 1890a, 1890b, 1899; Thorpe, 1937 Spkenomeryx: Peterson, 1919 Suborder Tylopoda OameZua: Friant and L'Hoest, 1945; Simon, 1965 Dickodon: Dechaseaux, 1965 Lama: Scott, 1891a PZiauckenia: Herre, 1964 Poehrotkerium: Bruce, 1883; Cope, 1886b; Dechaseaux, 1961c, 1963a; Leidy, 1854; Scott, 1891&, 1940; TiIney, 1931; Whitmore, 1953 ProcameZua: Black, 1915b; Cope, 1877c, 1877d, 1885e, 1886b, 1887b; Dechaseaux, 1961c; Dubois, 1928,1930,1934; Edinger, 1965b, 1966; Exner and Routil, 1958; Le Gras Clark, 1939; Rensch, 1947; Rohrs, 1959b, 1961; Scott, 1891&; Simon, 1965; Versluys, 1939 Protylopua: Edinger, 1964a, 1965b, 1966 Xipkodon: Dechaseaux, 1963, 1965 Suborder Ruminantia AZetomeryx: Dechaseaux, 1961c; Friant, 1939; Lull, 1920 Antilope: Andrews, 1915; Filhol, 1890b, 1891 Antilope (Nemorkaedua) (=Naemorkaedua): Dechaseaux, 1961& Bison: Edinger, 1931 b; Freudenberg, 1914; Kinkelin, 1895, 1896, 1897; Krysiak, 1952; Merla, 1949 BZa8tomeryx: Lull, 1920 B08: Krysiak, 1952; Leithner, 1927; Merla, 1949; Ognev, 1926 Oalop8 (=Protocera8): Marsh, 1894c, 1897b Oervua: Beccari, 1922; Filhol, 1890b, 1891; Merla, 1949; Smith, 1902b; Yanovskaya, 1954 Dama: Azzaroli, 1948; Friant, 1955; Psarianos and Thenius, 1954; Thenius, 1954a, 1963 Dierocera8: Friant, 1939; Sigogneau, 1961; Toula, 1899 Dremotkerium: Sigogneau, 1959, 1961 Eotragua (Antilope): Dechaseaux, 1961 a Euetenocer08 (=Oervua): Beccari, 1922 Gazella: Alexejew, 1925; Dechaseaux, 1961a; Dehaut, 1954; Gaudry, 1873, 1896; Orlov, 1962; Simionescu, 1935; Simionescu and Dobrescu, 1941 Girafla: Black, 1915a, 1915b Leptob08: Merla, 1949 Leptomeryx: Scott, 1891 b; Whitmore, 1953 Megalocero8: Edinger, 1931b; Kirchner, 1936; Sigogneau, 1961 Megacer08 (=Megalocero8): Edinger, 1929a, 1942a, 1964a; Sigogneau, 1961

257 Megalovis: Dechaseaux, 1961a, 1961c Moschus: Goldfuss, 1847 Myotragus: Andrews, 1915; Dechaseaux, 1961a, 1961c, 1962a, 1962c Nemorhaedus (=Naemorhaedus): Dehaut, 1954 Ocapia (=Okapia): Black, 1915a, 1915b; Le Gros Clark, 1939 Plesiaddax: Edinger, 1940a Protocera,

258