For example, Cunningham is now of the opinion that the fossil skull belonged to an individual with strongly marked simian characters.[1] He might on this account be properly placed under the first category.
In a praiseworthy manner Manouvrier,[2] in a recently published figure, has undertaken to restore the skull of Pithecanthropus according to the cast. Before this I had tried the same thing, especially for my own satisfaction, in order that I might be clear as to the result of such an unprejudiced restoration. After the emptying of the skullcap I have now tried it again. The fact that I have arrived at different results than those of the worthy Parisian anthropologist in some not unimportant points arises chiefly from this, that I had resort to the emptied fossil skullcap itself for the restoration, which caused me to consider the temporal and occipital regions somewhat differently from what Mannouvrier did. It is this that induces me to now publish my restoration also.
,_0541.png)
Fig. 3 Attempt at a restoration of the skull of the Pithecanthropus erectus half the natural size C, coronal suture; O, foramen magnum.
The following corrections should be made in this figure: The point O (posterior border of the foramen magnum) is about 3 mm. (in the half-sized figure; in nature, therefore, 6 mm.) too high. Also the posterior part of the Linea temporalis is about 3 mm. (in natural size about 6 mm.) too low.
Especially of the temporal region I will again say that it has the very greatest similarity to that of the adult gibbon, and indeed the entire skullcap, with the exception of the strongly inclined planum nuchale of
