but he was also permitted to bring the extensive collections of other vertebrate fossils which he had secured from the same horizon and in the same locality where the Pithecanthropus was discovered. All these were shown at the International Congress of Zoologists, held at Leyden, in September last, and on the 21st of that month, Dr. Dubois read an elaborate paper on his original discovery and on his later explorations in the same region. This communication was in many respects the most important one of the session, and its presentation with the specimens themselves was a rare treat to the large audience present, especially to those fitted to appreciate the evidence laid before them.[1]
Professor Virchow of Berlin was president of the meeting on that day, and had brought many specimens to illustrate the remarks he was to make in the discussion. The famous Leyden museum was also drawn upon for an extensive series of specimens of man and the higher apes, so that, if possible, the true position of Pithecanthropus might then be determined once for all. Dr. Dubois, moreover, kindly invited Professor Virchow, Sir William Flower, and myself, to come an hour before the meeting, and personally examine the remains he was to discuss, and this invitation was most gladly accepted.
The first sight of the fossils was a surprise, as they were evidently much older than appeared from the descriptions. All were dark in color, thoroughly petrified, and the matrix was solid rock, difficult to remove. The skull-cap of Pithecanthropus was filled with the hard matrix, firmly cemented to it. The roughness of the superior surface, especially in the frontal region, was apparently due to corrosion after entombment, and not to disease, as had been suggested by some anatomists. The femur was free from matrix, but very heavy in consequence of the infiltration of mineral matter. The exostosis on its upper portion is a conspicuous feature, but of course is pathological. This feature is of little consequence, as very similar outgrowths occur on fossil bones of even Eocene age. The two teeth showed no characters that indicated their interment under circumstances different from that of the skull or femur. All the physical characters impressed me strongly with the idea that these various remains were of Pliocene age, and not Post-Tertiary, as had been supposed. The description of the locality and the account of the series of strata there exposed, as given by Dr. Dubois in his communication, confirmed this opinion, and a later examination of accompanying vertebrate fossils placed the Pliocene age of all beyond reasonable doubt.
- ↑ Compte-Rendu des Séances du Troisième Congrès International de Zoologie, Leyden, September, 1895, pp. 251–271, 1896. See also Transactions Royal Dublin Society, vol. vi, pp. 1–18, February, 1896; and Anatomischer Anzeiger, Bd. xii, pp. 1–22, 1896.
