SINANTHROPUS AND OTHER FOSSIL MENTheir Relations to Each Other and to Modem Types

By S. ZUCKERMAN, M.A., D.Sc., M.R.C.S.HE recent discovery of fossil man inChina, and the still more recent finds

.L. of his remains in Java, have com-bined to raise, in a light not readily apparentbefore these discoveries, the trying issue ofthe correct classification of the zoologicalfamily to which modern man belongs. Theevidence is critically reviewed in this paper,and the conclusion is drawn that the exist-ing classification is irrational. One of itsmore serious drawbacks is that it preventsa convincing evolutionary interpretation ofthe remains of fossil man already availablefor study. The tentative suggestion is madethat archaic types and modern men fall intotwo readily definable groups, the sub-familyPalaeanthropidae comprising such forms asPeking and Neanderthal man, and the sub-family Neanthropidoe consisting of typeslike modern man and men of the UpperPaleolithic.INTRODUCTIONAlthough the study of Fossil Man is an

organized and accepted branch of anthro-pology, and in spite of the fact that it hasbeen this for over half a century, there arestill writers who deny both its intrinsicscientific interest and its relevance to widerquestions of human biology. For example,at the last meeting of the British Associa-tion (I932), a well-known speaker affirmedthat Fossil Man was of no account in dis-cussions of man's zoological position.Again, in a recently published criticism ofevolutionary doctrine, a section is devotedto what are derogatively styled " supposedlinks between man and other a-nimals."'LReactionary views of this kind may con-ceivably act as a deterrent to those moreextreme writers on evolution who very

1 Douglas Dewar: Difficulties of the EvolutionTheory. Arnold. London. I93I.

plainly over-emphasize the significance ofwhat human fossils we have, and whoseenthusiasm, stimulated by an overwhelmingpopular interest, tends to distort the properposition of these studies in the wider bodyof our knowledge. An over-enthusiasm forhuman paleontology, however, is usuallyfar less biased than is the kind of opposi-tion, both lay and scientific, which this fieldof study usually receives.Of the many criticisms it has to with-

stand, two are perhaps worthy of notice:the one, that the subject has no practicalsignificance, and that its pursuit, by attract-ing money, deleteriously influences theprogress of studies of more immediatesocial importance: the other, that thegeneral principles upon which it proceedsare unscientific and not in accordance withthose principles which operate in com-parable biological fields.There is no good answer to the first argu-

ment. Paheontology is an essential part ofgeology, which, as is generally recognized,is of great economic importance; but fossilsregarded purely as zoological specimensobviously have little practical value, andthis is particularly true of the few humanones so far discovered. On the other hand,the intensive study of these human bonesis a branch of anthropology, and it is per-missible to argue that such study providesa solid basis for investigations of racialheredity-even though it could not be saidthat the knowledge so provided forms anessential foundation for these investiga-tions. In being almost devoid of more thancultural significance, the study of humanfossils does not, however, stand alone inscientific inquiry. It is not yet demandedof all scientific investigation that it neces-sarily possess some recognizable practicalvalue, either immediate or remote.

273

274 THE EUGENICS REVIEW

Far less deserving of adverse criticismare the biological principles on which thestudy of human fossils proceeds. Physicalanthropology has been somewhat adverselydescribed as pursuing its course " with aserenity unimpaired by the results ofexperimental investigation," the reason forthis being, so we are told, that geneticistshave not indicated the " devastating conse-quences " of their discoveries.' But evenif it be assumed that geneticists have notdone this, and that systematic biologistsand physical anthropologists are altogetherin ignorance of the implications of the con-clusions of genetics,3 it would in any casebe impossible in the circumstances ofpresent biological knowledge to conceiveof a kind of systematic treatment of fossilskulls different from that which they atpresent receive.Theoretically, human palaeontology pro.-

ceeds on the same principles as do otherpalaeontological studies, all of which maybe regarded as branches of systematicbiology. These principles are the best thatall biology, including such experimentalstudies as genetics, can at present offer.Nevertheless, to-day there are few studentswho would claim that the tracing of phylo-genetic relationships through any group ofanimals, existing or fossil, is in large partmore than speculation. Experimentalscience may have helped in the realizationof this fact, but it has altogether failed toprovide new methods in place of thosewhich have always been employed insystematics. The almost automatic com-parison of every new object of interest thatis discovered with already familiar thingsis responsible, as far as fossils are con-cerned, for their systematic classification.When the fossils are man-like in characterthis automatic treatment is strengthenedby an inescapable anthropocentric interest,and quite as inevitably the classificationleads to phylogenetic inferences. Students

2 L. Hogben: Genetic Principles in Medicine andSocial Science. Williams & Norgate. London. I931.

3 An assumption not generally borne out in theliterature either of systematic zoology or of anthro-pology.

will, of course, argue on these matters, andthey will make mistakes; but though boththe classification and the phylogeneticinferences of systematic biology may bearbitrary processes unsustained by anyfirm logic, classification is neverthelessboth essential and valid on its own level,while phylogenetic inference is inevitable,and up to a point of value too. The factthat the stamp' of scientific certainty cannotembellish the conclusions of these studiesis no reason why they should be discon-tinued. The same criteria of exactitudeare unfortunately missing in the conclu-sions of many other fields of biology, whichnevertheless merit exploration simply onaccount of their intrinsic interest.

THE INEVITABLE CONTROVERSIESCut off though it may be from immediate

practical ends and from the main body ofbiological inquiry, the study of man'sphylogeny pursues its course with any-thing but serenity. Its roots are deeplyembedded in the conflict which raged in thenineteenth century between establishedreligious ideas and the scientific view of ourkinship with the animal world. To-daythe conflict has mostly subsided, but evennow fossil human remains do not allowthemselves to be treated in the detachedway the palaeontologist regards the bones ofa Triassic reptile.Argument begins with every report of

their discovery and continues endlessly.The bony fragments may not be found closetogether, and it will have to be decidedwhether or not they are parts of the sameindividual, sometimes even if they are partsof the same kind of individual. Thedeposit from which they are recovered maynot be well defined geologically, and theircorrect horizon will be matter for argu-mient. This will not be all, for authoritiesare unlikely to agree about the way thefragments should be reconstructed and howthey should be described, and all thesetrying issues will only be preliminary 'tothe more important one of proper interpre-tation, which demands meticulous compari-son of the new find with previously

SINANTHROPUS AND OTHER FOSSIL MEN 275

described human fossils, with existinghuman beings, and with the great apes.Finally, stock will have to be taken ofcurrent views on human phylogeny in thelight of the newly gained knowledge. Ifone is to take Sir Arthur Keith seriouslywhen he expresses' the doubt " if the beliefof modern anthropologists in Evolution ismore than skin deep," perhaps even morefundamental issues may be raised.

SINANTHROPUS PEKINENSISThese questions have recently been given

prominence by.the discovery of the Pekinghuman fossils. The facts of this discoveryare perhaps too well known to merit morethan brief description here.5China had long been considered a pos-

sible home of primitive man. Thirty yearsago, Professor Schlosser, of Munich,described a tooth that a certain Dr. Habererhad found included in a collection of" dragon bones," bought in Peking.6 Itwas a left upper third molar, completelyfossilized, which showed on its surface areddish clay that suggested it had beenunearthed either from some tertiary orfrom some very early pleistocene deposit.Unable to reach a definite decision, Pro-fessor Schlosser suggested that it might bethe tooth of a manlike ape or an apelikeman. However vague this diagnosis was,it clearly pointed to China as a field inwhich to search for fossil man, and excava-tions at Chou Kou Tien nineteen years later(financed partly by the late Ivar Kreuger,the Swedish " Match King "), led to thefinding in an early pleistocene deposit oftwo more human teeth, an immature leftlower pre-molar and a somewhat worn adultright upper molar.The latter discovery, more than Dr.

Haberer's, marks the rebirth of " Peking4 New Discoveries Relating to the Antiquity of

Man. Williams & Norgate. London. 1931.5 See Davidson Black: Pakeontologica Sinica.

Series D, Vol. VII, Fasc. I, I927, and Ibid., Fasc.2, 1930. The latter monograph provides a fullbibliography relating to the discovery. AlsoG. Elliot Smith: The Search for Man's Ancestors.Watts. London, I93I.

6 Abh. d. kon. Bayer-Akad. Wiss. Math. Phys.Kl., Bd. XXII, 1903.

Man." The teeth were described by Dr.Zdansky,7 a Swedish pakeontologist, whowas disinclined to regard them as a basisfor far-reaching conclusions about humanorigins-a conservative point of view whichwell merits commendation in spite of itsstrange sequel.

Professor Davidson Black, the Professorof Anatomy at the Union Medical Collegein Peking, took a different view of the find,and was instrumental in interesting theRockefeller Foundation in the matter. Thisinstitution immediately undertook to subsi-dize further excavation at Chou Kou Tien,and late in I927 another human molar toothwas found, this time by Dr. Bohlin. Togive recognition to the peculiarities of thistooth, Dr. Davidson Black courageouslycreated a new genus and species of man,Sinanthropus pekinensis. His enthusiasmwas well justified, for a year later frag-ments of two jaws and two brain-cases werefound in the same early pleistocene deposit,and in I929 Mr. W. C. Pei found, again inthe same deposit, an almost complete brain-case. In I930 still anoth& brain-case wasunearthed. In addition to these remainsmany teeth have been recovered, and to-dayseveral complete sets, both milk andpermanent, are available for study. Theexcavations have also shown that the siteat Chou Kou Tien was the home of theSinanthropus people for an extremely longperiod, and that they knew the use of fireand made implements.8Enough remains have been found to

allow of exact description of the type ofskull possessed by these extinct earlypleistocene people. Both of the completecrania are in length and breadth well withinthe range of modern European skulls, butthey are very low, so much so that thecranial capacity of the specimens found waslittle more than about 950 cubic centimetres(the average modern European skull has acapacity in the region of I,400 cubic centi-metres). The eyes are surmounted bystrong eyebrow ridges, immediately behind

7 Bull. Geol. Soc. China, Vol. V, 1927.8 Davidson Black: Bull. Geol. Soc. China, Vol.

XI, I931. C. Pei, Ibid.

THE EUGENICS REVIEW

which the skull is very constricted. Thefrontal slope is not steep, and the widelower occipital part of the skull (the maxi-mum width of which is situated low down,just above the ears, as in adult large apes)is bent at an angle to the rest, and shelvessharply into the neck. The mastoid pro-cesses, though massive, do not markedlyproject. The base of the skull is preservedin only one of the specimens, and it showscertain peculiarities in the region of the ear.The lower jaw, too, shows several strangecharacters. For example, there is little, ifany, chin, and although the teeth are big,the canines are not overdeveloped.

VARIATION IN THE REMAINSThe two brain-cases differ slightly from

each other in many ways-e.g. in dimen-sions; in the thickness of the bones, afeature in which there is great variation,especially when the fragments found inI928 are remembered; in the inclination ofthe frontal slope; and in the development ofthe frontal bosses. Such differences areonly to be expected, and they may berelated to a variety of factors. Thus theymay be accounted for on the scores of sex,age, or of individual variation irrespectiveof sex and age. Actually, Professor Black,who is responsible for the official account ofthe skulls, regards the differences as beingsolely due to differences of sex and age.This is a debatable point, and it isdoubtful if any opinion on the matter couldbe regarded as conclusive. The skulls arewithout doubt of different age, the oneapparently being that of an individual whodied between puberty and maturity, theother that of a you,ng adult.

It is obviously impossible, however, totell whether the younger skull would havegrown, had its owner lived to become ayoung adult, to reach or exceed the dimen-sions of the older skull. It is equallyimpossible to be certain of the sexual differ-ence. Before the second skull was found,the first was thought to be that of a female.When the second was found and comparedwith the first, the diagnosis was changed,the second being regarded as a female, and

the first as a male. This in itself showsthe difficulty of forming a positive opinionon the matter, and the doubt it suggests isvery much strengthened by the fact thatsex identifications of many types of skull(for example Australian, Tasmanian andSouth African) on the basis of anatomicalcharacters, are regarded as being valuelesson account of their uncertainty.9 In viewof the extent of variation unrelated to eithersex or age that exists, not only in modernhuman but in the Mousterian humanremains and also in existing ape skulls, itwould be extremely unlikely that Sinan-thropus would fail to show similar varia-tion. Because of this probability it isperhaps hazardous either to under-emphasize the phenomenon of individualvariation when explaining the differenceswhich exist between the two specimensalready found, or to imply that thesedifferences are of no particular accountsince they might be ascribed to sex and age.

/THE SYSTEMATIC POSITION OF PEKING MANAs was stated above, the remains found

at Chou Kou Tien have been ascribed toa new genus of the Family Hominidcz, theother accredited genera of the Family beingPithecanthropus (the Ape-Man of Java),Eoanthropus (Piltdown Man) and Homo, tothe last of which belong such widelydifferent types as modern man, Neander-thal or Mousterian man, and Rhodesianman. Professor Black, while he states thatthe Sinanthropus skulls show certainresemblances to Neanderthal skulls, never-theless regards the two types as pro-foundly different, and although he alsoadmits that the Chinese brain-cases showcloser resemblances to the Pithecanthropusskull-cap, he still feels " that they differfrom one another in points of size, propor-tions and detail to a degree amply sufficientto proclaim their generic distinction."From the point of view of systematics, it isworth while examining this conclusion moreclosely, since the differences, especially

4 On this question see Wood Jones, Journ. Anat.,Vol. LXIII, 1929, and Hrdlicka, Prac. United StatesNat. Mus., Vol. L4XXI, 1928.

SINANTHROPUS AND OTHER FOSSIL MEN 277

those between the younger Sinanthropusand the Pithecanthropus specimens are, asBlack's data show (I930; table, p. 92), notvery great. One has to guard against over-emphasizing their significance, particularlywhen the variation in the different Sinan-thropus remains themselves is remembered.The relegation of the Chinese remains to

a new genus rather than to one of the threepreviously known, is largely dependent onthe definition of the term genus, a defini-tion which for practical purposes is unfor-tunately vague. The question of thesystematic differentiation of genera andspecies is discussed more fully below. Forpresent purposes the following points maybe noted here:

If the creation of the new genus is fullyjustified, and if the accepted classificationof the other members of the family is indis-putable, it should follow that the differenceswhich separate Sinanthropus from itsfellow genera are greater than those whichseparate the various species of the singlegenus Hom -sapiens, neanderthalensis,rhodesiensis, and heidelbergensis -fromone another.10 This will not be the case ifequal value has not been given throughoutthe classification of the Hominidac to

10 From the evolutionary point of view it mightbe argued that stronger emphasis could be laid inclassification on differences which exist in an earlierstage of the differentiation of a group of relatedorganisms than on equivalent or even greater differ-ences which may be found at a later stage, e.g. thedifferences between Sinanthropus and Pithecan-thropus (both of which are usually referred to thebeginning of the Pleistocene) should be givengreater weight than those between H. sapiens andother relatively recent forms of Homo which do notfall into the species sapiens. Thus it might be saidthat small differences in an early geological hori-zon demonstrate the divergence of a group intoseveral separate lines of descent, within each ofwhich occurs still greater differentiation (as indi-cated by the range of both later fossil and existingforms). Theoretically this may be true, but in prac-tice it is extremely hard to give recognition to thepoint in classification. The phylogeny of systematiczoology is a series of secondary abstractions from aprimary series constituted by correct classification.Such classification must take cognizance of everymember of the group being classified, and of thestum of all their resemblances and differences. Unlesson the strength of an a priori belief special weightwere attached to the characters of fossil forms, speci-fic differences could not possibly be greater thangeneric ones.

characters which serve to differentiatecertain types from others. Thus a differ-ence which in one case served as part of thebasis for generic differentiation, shouldhave been given equal consideration inanother. Moreover, any common physicalcharacters which bind the species of Homointo a single genus should not occur in anyother genus of Hominidce; also any char-acter or characters on which the validity ofthe other genera depend should be peculiarto these genera. These theoretical criteriaof differentiation should be satisfied unlessthe generic term Sinanthropus is to beaccepted as one of convenience designed todefine an outstanding palaeontological find.In coining the term, however, this was notwhat Professor Black wished, a point heclearly indicates by devoting a considerablepart of his I930 monograph to an exposi-tion of the differences which separate theskull of Sinanthropus from those of otherfossil men."1A classification could not, however, be

thoroughly tested in the light of thesecriteria of differentiation unless data wereavailable giving the full range of variationof the forms being classified. Since thereare only few data relating to the variabilityof Sinanthropus, and none at all in the caseof such archaic members of the Hominidczas Pithecanthropus and Eoanthropus, thesatisfaction of these criteria cannot beinsisted upon too heavily in testing thegeneric status of any one of these types,while the extent to which variation in theseforms is denied or admitted becomes largelya matter of opinion rather than one of scien-tific analysis. There are certain facts, how-ever, given in Black's 1930 monograph,which do bear on the general question ofthe generic and specific differences of fossilmen. Thus a table is provided (p. 74) show-ing the values of certain measurements inthe two Sinanthropus skull-caps and in

11 As was noted above, the genus Sinanthropuswas created to give recognition to certain peculiarcharacters of the tooth found in 1927. As yet nostudy has been published to show how far this toothis typical of the scores of others since found in thesame site, and how far the characters of all theseteeth overlap with those of other anthropoid teeth.

2'78 THE EUGENICS REVIEW

twelve other fossil human skulls, of whichten, in accepted classification, are referredto the species H. neanderthalensis. Theseten skulls were biometrically studiedby Morant"2 who writes of them that " thetype was remarkably homogeneous." Dis-regarding the juvenile La Quina specimenof Neanderthal man, it is clear (see Tableon opposite page) that in all but two ofBlack's thirteen selected dimensions, aboutwhich it is possible to make a statement, asmaller gap separates the Sinanthropusskull-caps and those Neanderthal speci-mens which in these dimensions approxi-mate to them most closely, than that whichseparates these Neanderthal skulls fromother skulls classified in their own species.The two exceptional measurements are theheight of the skull above the ear holes andthe measurement of the least frontalbreadth.

In all but five of the thirteen measure-ments the Sinanthropus remains are con-sistently smaller than the Neanderthal. Inthree of these five dimensions both Sinan-th-ropus skulls are bigger than, or as bigas, the smallest Neanderthal skull. Ex-cluding these three measurements, ten ofthe thirteen comparative dimensions areleft, and in five of these the Gibraltar, infour the adult La Quina, and in one theKrapina, approximate most closely toSinanthropus. The La Chapelle specimenis the skull furthest removed from thePeking brain-case in almost all these tendimensions."3 When superimposed contoursare examined (Black provides several suchfigures) it again becomes plain that oneNeanderthal contour may differ from an-other of the same kind as much as the con-tours of Sinanthropus differ from them all.Yet, as Morant has shown, the Neanderthalspecimens, although widely separated fromone another in space and time, form a group" not more variable than a sample drawn

12 G. M. Morant: Annals of Eugenics, Vol. II,Parts 3 and 4, 1927.

13 Since the Mousterian type is a homogeneousone, it is possible to imagine that one of its repre-sentatives (still to be found) will approximate in allBlack's selected dimensions as closely to the Pekingskulls as La Chapelle is removed from them all.

from a single homogeneous and contempo-raneous population might well be." Thusarises the anomalous fact that intra-specificdifferences of linear dimensions of the skullare often greater than generic ones in theFamily Hominidce, as at present classified.Not only is this so, but the facts also fail

to fit the other criterion of classificationmentioned above-namely that equal valuebe given in classification to characters whichserve to differentiate certain types fromothers. Thus a main distinguishing featureof Neanderthal skulls is shown by Morantto be their peculiarly small and flattenedsagittal arcs,"' the flattening and abbrevia-tion being demonstrated not only by theentire arc, but also by its constituent seg-ments. This phenomenon to some extentindicates an unexpanded vault, and it istherefore not surprising to find that inrespect of the measurements defining theflattening, the Sinanthropus brain-casescorrespond, not only to Neanderthal skulls,but also to the Rhodesian type15 as well asto Pithecanthropus. In this there againoccurs an anomaly in the classification ofthe Family Hominida3. The flattening ofthe sagittal arc is sufficiently pronouncednot only to bring these archaic skullstogether, but also to differentiate them bothfrom skulls of the upper Palaeolithic" andfrom those of recent people. As a taxonomiccharacter, however, it cuts across acceptedclassification, since the Neanderthal andRhodesian types are regarded only asseparate species of the genus Homo (otherspecies of which do not exhibit the charac-ter), whereas in Sinanthropus it is madepart of the complex of features determininggeneric status.

Peculiarities of the zoological classifica-tion of man do not cease here. As one ofthe few significant differences betweenSinanthropus and Pit hecanthropus, onwhich he argues their generic distinction,Black points to the fact that the vertical

14 The sagittal arc of a brain-case is the contourof its median longitudinal section.

15 See Morant: Annals of Eugenics, Vol. III, Parts3 and 4, 1928.

16 See Morant: Annals of Eugenics, Vol. IV,Parts i and 2, 1930.

SINANTHROPUS AND OTHER FOSSIL MEN

§ z;aAt I. 9

u,t oJ;2t-

4)

Cd

-4

Cl

Q)

10

Cd

V4

'o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

d t w |: | | | ^ | t | + |N|l|Oll l (d dCo t ox C XC e~~~~~~~~~~~" I o1m11m1s1t11mII"0III

ce N X X N b N

Cd.-4 - - Cd Cd

4 00 0 CO0 0 A C ' O O00 '0

m U-~~i) C'N N t>.. H kt- 00 00 H C' q"d ON

U7t Q H H H H H H o H H H H

LI) - ) C ,t 4 III>z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

o -

_ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _

4-) ~~ ~ ~ C" 1 -N

,x;r -X X I H H: I

--44. en N. 0 N (ONIN C) N '.Z C' it H i) CY,) C) N '0 -

0 CN CN it) C N C) H '.0 C") H04D N H H H H H t)H H H H

Cd U-~i) en) co) co) 00 C" C7%

ZN C) 0 00 00 00 N N N '00'% 00 00 CY) CN C H C N 0 0 0

U) IN '~~~~~~~~~1 '~~~~~t '.0 ~~~~~~0 tINCc' 0 '1N co) 00 0 N C1% N 0 H 0

r, tN% IC 0 e0 en00

00 IN- N% C") 00 0 H ON 0 H 0 ON ONHHHHHH it~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U)HH

0

4)0.S

4)

9

4-)

,0

4

b0

0

04

*Cd

=t"0

zro

*;4

Z

Cd4)

4-

Cd

4)

Cd-4I

4

Cd4L)

Cd

0

0

1-4

4-I

-4

-

'IOCd4

I-

41;C,v)904)

cd4)

I-4(L

.4

Cd4)*_t

0

4.)4-I

-4-I

4)

1-1Cd

0u

4)

IQ04.)

0

1,.4

Cd

r.41

0

0.

.Z

Cd

*U?0q

Z

17-:

0Co

Y

1I4

0

I iCd

Z

04

CdIra

Cd

1.4

6IzI

I S

0

Cd

Cd

1-4

279

co4)

-

C.)

4

4 -

0

41

)d

U)=

4-)

04)

'(D0 4

(4

g 0

o,e=

.In)

C)) 0

(4

*(4p

o

4) o

p4,D v

*4bo~-5~3 41(4 0

Id I

28o THE EUGENICS REVIEW

planes in which certain breadth measure-ments of the brain-cases fall, are differentin the two types. Quite as important adifference in one of these breadth measure-ments differentiates all Neanderthal skullsfrom modern types. In their case, however,it is not regarded as indicating more thanspecific differentiation.

DISCREPANCIES IN THE ACCEPTEDCLASSIFICATION OF THE HOMINID/EFrom what has been said above, it is

fairly plain that discrepancies, or apparentdiscrepancies, exist in the commonlyaccepted classification of the Hominidc,for on the basis of single cranial dimensionsthere can be little doubt that Neanderthalman is differentiated from modern man quiteas definitely as Sinanthropus is from Pithe-canthropus. While the two Eastern forms,however, are regarded as being genericallvdistinct from each other, modern man andMousterian man are placed in the samegenus--apparently an almost wholly arbi-trary measure.The species, Homo neanderthalensis was

created by King,"7 who disagreed withT. H. Huxley's opinion" that the Neander-thal skull was simply an extreme variantof the modern skull. King himself seems tohave believed that the characters of theNeanderthal brain-cases were so peculiarthat they almost justified generic recogni-tion, but in view of the strong bias againstadmitting human evolution that existed inthe period when he wrote (1864), it is notsurprising that he chose to regard the Nean-derthal remains as those of a new species ofHomo rather than as those of an altogethernew kind of man. Even this moderate viewwas strongly opposed, and until quiterecently writers on the subject have had todefend Neanderthal man's specific statusrather than push the separation stillfurther. The few who, like Sergi, theItalian anthropologist, were inclined toemphasize the generic distinction of thetype, have had their views pushed aside,

17 Quart. Journ. Sci., Vol. I, I864.18 Man's Place in Nature, I863. Everyman Edn.,

Dent. London. 192I.

simply as a matter of opinion, by studentsbetter versed in controversial discussion.This treatment of Neanderthal -man does

not lead one to expect a logical explanationfor the fact that the differences between thistype and modern man have received smallerrecognition than the differences betweenPithecanthropus and Sinanthropus. Since,however, it may conceivably be incorrect inthe systematic classification of skulls to lay,on a priori grounds, equal emphasis on allmeasurable cranial characters,"9 it mightbe argued that it is wrong to state that themorphological gap in cranial form betweenmodern man and Mousterian man is no lessthan that between the two fossil men of theEast. It may be that those characters inwhich modern man and Neanderthal mandiffer are less significant than those whichseparate the two Eastern types. Actually,there is little strength in such an argument,and it is very difficult to point to anymeasurable criteria which justifiably couldbe considered to merit greater value thanothers for purposes of the classification ofthe four types under consideration. Themost likely one would perhaps be the heightof the skull, which is an important measureof cranial expansion. Thus a few pagesback, when considering the table of com-parative measurements provided by Black,it was pointed out that the measurement ofthe height of the brain-box above the earholes was one of the two dimensions in whichthe extent of the gap between Sinanthropusand Neanderthal man was greater than therange of the distribution of this dimensionin fossils of the latter type. In all otherdimensions except that of least frontaldiameter, the variation within the speciesH. neanderthalensis exceeded the gap

19 As a general rule, of course, more attention ispaid in the classification of the Hominide to charac-ters which most clearly distinguish the modern typeof human skull from all non-human varieties. Onan a priori basis, however, the many characterswhich come under this heading (e.g. chin, medianaxis of the foramen magnum, prognathism, etc.)cannot be differentiated amongst themselves asbeing more or less valuable as characters of classi-fication. They could be, only when the ratios oftheir inter-and intra-racial variabilities have beenfound and graded for a much larger series of typesthan have as yet been studied.

SINANTHROPUS AND OTHER FOSSIL MEN

which separated the Peking skulls from theMousterian. The height of the skull maytherefore be a more signficant criterion ofdifferentiation than are other cranial mea-surements.Although both of the two chief height

dimensions of the brain-case (basi-breg-matic and auricular) of Neanderthal skullsare, relatively to their cranial lengths, lessthan in modern types, they both in absolutemeasure fall within the range of variationof these mensions in the skulls of existingmenSIIere, it is then possible to argue, is areason why this archaic type should beregarded not as a different genus, but as aseparate species of Homo. Sinanthropus isdifferent. Its skull-cap is remarkably low,although not so low as that of Pithecan-thropus. With the naked eye it can be seenthat its frontal and parietal regions are moreexpanded than in the Javanese Ape-Man.In this, as Professor Elliot Smith haspointed out,20 Sinanthropus shows certainsimilarities to Piltdown man, Eoanthropusdawsoni. As a basis for generic distinc-tion, however, this difference betweenSinanthropus and Pithecanthropus shouldnot be too heavily stressed, since almost asgreat a difference both in size and form (adifference which cannot with any certaintybe ascribed to sex and age) separates thetwo Sinanthropus specimens. Moreover, ifthe height of the brain-case were to be madea special criterion of classification, it wouldbe necessary arbitrarily to divide the dimen-sion into classes. Even if this were done,the results would not be in accordance withaccepted classification, since variation incranial height in the Neanderthal species,so far as is possible to judge, is greater thanthe difference in this dimension betweenSinanthropus and Pithecanthropus (heightsbeing judged from the n-y plane).2" On thebasis of this criterion, therefore, and assum-ing the judgment of Morant and othersregarding the homogeneity of the Neander-thal race to be correct, Sinanthropus doesnot merit generic distinction from Pithe-canthropus.

20 Nature, MaY 3oth, 1931.21 See Biometrika, Vol. XVI, pp. 73-101, 1924.

B

If special linear dimensions fail to providean explanation for the accepted classificationof Mousterian man, Sinanthropus andPithecanthropus, it is still possible thatits justification could be found in theexistence, in each of these archaic types,of peculiar morphological characters merit-ing differential treatment. Special empha-sis, for example, could be laid, as has beendone by many writers, on the peculiarfeatures of the temporal bone of Sinanthro-pus, particularly of its tympanic element,in support of its generic distinction.Unfortunately, the corresponding part ofthe skull is not known in Pithecanthropus,and so it is impossible to argue that thesetwo types are distinguished from eachother in this character. Moreover, equallystriking anatomical peculiarities can befound not only in the corresponding region,but also in other parts of the skull ofMousterian man (H. nealnderthalensis),which differentiates this type from modernman (H. sapiens). Thus on the grounds ofspecial morphological characters it wouldseem that Neanderthal man as much meritsgeneric distinction from Homo as Sinan-thropus does from Pithecanthropus.Apart from the fact that such considera-

tion of separate morphological charactersexposes inconsistencies in the presentarrangement of the Hominidce, there areserious theoretical objections to the apriori differential evaluation of morpho-logical characters in classification. Whentwo different types are associated as differ-ent species of the same genus, it followsthat they are united by more resemblancesthan would be the case were they classifiedin different genera. The resemblanceswhich are taken into account are altogetherarbitrary. As Crow has remarked on thissubject,22 " each character, as it is observedin nature, must be accorded equal weight;there can be no evaluation of characters onthe nature of the characters themselves."Emphasis can be laid on special charac-

ters only when it is impartially discoveredthat some have a wider distribution amongdifferent types than have others, and it is

22 Journ. Genetics, Vol. XVII, 1927.

282 THE EUGENICS REVIEW

as they are widely or otherwise distributedthat these characters serve to differentiatethe different groups (Orders, Families,Genera, Species) recognized in systematicbiology. Living forms are thus classifiedby the sum of their physical resemblances.To suggest on a priori grounds that anyone character is more important than othersin classification implies a far greater know-ledge of the development of new charactersthan actually exists. At the present time,the correct basis for systematic compari-son is the quantitative evaluation of allcharacters, and the denial of this point ofview leads only to confusion. An examplewill perhaps make this point clearer.

ANATOMICAL AND BIOMETRICALCRANIOLOGYMorant has shown,23 by exact and exten-

sive biometric study, that the Chanceladeskull (found in i888 in a definite Mag-dalenian stratum near the village of Ray-monden in the Commune of Chancelade)cannot be differentiated in any measurablecharacter from the mean Eskimo type, andin doing so he has demonstrated how readilythe eye emphasizes a cranial divergence"which tested numerically is found to beno mark of racial differentiation at all.)"In this he is simply confirming a diagnosismade by many anatomists, including theoriginal describer of the skull, Dr. Testut.It is on grounds to which he refers as" anatomical " that Sir Arthur Keith,however, comes to an opposite conclusion.2"He states that he is guided by characterswhose value for purposes of race identifica-tion can be assessed bv the unaided eye. Instating this he is ignoring both Dr.Morant's demonstration of the fallacies towhich the unaided eye may lead, and thefact that wherever thev can, anatomists,like biometricians, employ quantitative andstatistical methods. Measurement can onlyincrease the powers of observation. If itwere otherwise, one might be permitted to

23 Annals. of Eugenics, Vol. I, Parts 3 and 4,1926.

24 New Discoveries Relating to the Antiquity ofMan. Williams & Norgate. London. I931.

wonder why anatomists, including SirArthur Keith, constantly use it. Yet, onthe strength of a photograph showing theposition of the nasal bones in the Chance-lade skull, before they were broken off, SirArthur denies the evidence, presented bythe rest of the skull, of its Eskimo affini-ties.The argument does not seem to be very

strong. If it is true that nasal bonesspringing forward at such an angle as thisphotograph shows, could not be found ina large series of Eskimo skulls, there is yetno evidence that the condition depicted bythis photograph is not one of posthumousdeformation. Moreover, if the type ofargument expounded by Sir Arthur ispursued, it demands the very far-reachingassumption that all the many characters inwhich the Chancelade and Eskimo typeagree have been separately evolved in eachtype.

Sir Arthur himself believes that they aresimply the results and evidence of similarhabits, resemblances of a " functionalnature " as he calls them. Thus he writes" the conditions under which the Eskimohave lived have called forth their great andpeculiar development of jaws, and seeingthat the European Magdalenians livedunder similar climatic and cultural condi-tions we may presume that their jawsbecame modified in a manner similar to thatfound in modern Eskimo." Experimentalscience, however, provides little, if any,evidence in favour of such a view, and inthe circumstances it is far less strain on theimagination to regard the conditions of thenasals as of no particular account, than toconsider all the similarities between theEskimo and Chancelade man as due to akind of convergent evolution.

EVIDENCE OTHER THAN THE SKULLS,RELATING TO THE SYSTEMATIC POSITIONOF SINANTHROPUSThe facts clearly suggest that neither

measurable cranial criteria, nor cranialpeculiarities which are not so readilymeasured, can provide justification for theseemingly unequal and inconsistent treat-

SINANTHROPUS AND OTHER FOSSIL MEN 283

ment in classification of Sinanthropus,Pithecanthropus, and Neanderthal man.Up to the present, however, only skullshave been considered, and possibly thecharacters of its jaws and teeth might pro-vide the explanation why Sinanthropus isgenerically separated from Pithecanthropuswhen Neanderthal man is only specificallyseparated from Homo sapiens. Unfortu-nately, however, these remains do nothelp, since corresponding Pithecanthropusmaterial with which a comparison could beeffected does not exist.

It will be remembered that the Pithecan-thropus discovery consisted of a brain-case,a femur, and three teeth, all found fairlyclose together (over a radius of some fifteenmetres) between the years I89I and i898.25The relegation of these remains to the sameindividual has always been a matter forwarm dispute. The recent discovery of anew, and apparently more developed, typeof fossil man in a site in the Solo Valleyonly a few miles away from the one inwhich the Pithecanthropus skull-cap wasfound, has thrown even more doubt on thegrouping together of the several Pithecan-thropus remains than their own discordantanatomical characters had already stimu-lated.This doubt is strengthened by the fact

that the new skulls, for which Oppenoorthhas created a new species, Homo soloensis,were found in a mid-Pleistocene stratum 26to which horizon certain well-knownauthorities27 are now referring the Pithe-canthropus remains. The circumstances ofthis find plainly suggest the improbabilityof ever deciding whether the Pithecan-thropus fossils did all belong to the samekind of individual. Both the femora and

25 A gap of six years separated the finding of thelast tooth from the recovery of the previous remains.It may also be noted that a fragment of a mandiblehad been unearthed some time before the skull capwas found (I89I). Just recently two more femora,also found in the same period, have been described,and referred to the same species as the otherremains.

26 Oppenoorth, W. F. F.: (a) De Mijningenieur,Bandoeng, No. 6, 1932; (b) Natur und Museum,Frankfurt, 62, I932.

27 See Osborn, H. F.: Science, Vol. LXIX, I929.

the teeth might have been part of membersof the species H. soloensis,28 and it wouldtherefore be perhaps unwise to institutecomparisons between these teeth and thoseof Sinanthropus in order to discover a basisfor the latter's generic differentiation fromPithecanthropus.

THE NEED FOR RE-CLASSIFICATIONOn all sides difficulties have been encoun-

tered in the explanation of the unequalsignificance attached in classification to thepeculiarities of Neanderthal man, Sinan-thropus, and Pithecanthropus. These diffi-culties point to one of two conclusions-either Sinanthropus should be included inthe genus Pithecanthropus, or alternativelythe accepted classification of all extinctHominidce should be revised. As theinclusion of Sinanthropus in the genusPithecanthropus would in no way straightenout difficulties in connection with Neander-thal man, a complete revision of the classi-fication is plainly required.The inconsistencies arising in the present

classification are due largely to the inclu-sion of Neanderthal man in the genusHomo, a classification the arbitrariness ofwhich is amply demonstrated by its history.Fortunately, the technique for exactlyexpressing the differences between skeletalremains has developed sufficiently far inrecent years to reveal the futility of excathedra judgments regarding the correctsystematic allocation and phylogeneticinterpretation of new finds of human fossils.Moreover, the time has come for a thoroughrecognition in physical anthropology of thefact that the species concept as used insystematic biology is artificial, and that inconsequence it is necessary to define theamount and kind of differentiation which,in the Family Hominidae, should determineeither specific or generic status. Data(such, for example, as those of Morant andBlack) are already available to allow of thisbeing done, and it is not until it is done

28 The skulls referred to this species have thusfar only been superficially described. They showmany resemblances to those of Neanderthal andRhodesian men.

284 THE EUGENICS REVIEW

that due recognition will be given, both inclassification and phylogeny, to the factthat such archaic types as Sinanthropus,Pithecanthropus, Eoanthropus, Neander-thal man, and Rhodesian man, correspondto one another in a greater number of char-acters of significance in their classificationthan they do either to modern man, or tomen of the Upper Palholithic.Not the least unlikely result of a rational

classification would be the subdivision ofthe Family Hominidae into two sub-families, the Palwanthropidce and the Nean-thropidcw (to use terms coined by ProfessorElliot Smith to emphasize the cultural con-

trast in their industries), the first-namedcontaining archaic types like Sinanthropusand Neanderthal man, the second modernman and men of the Upper Palaeolithic.But whether or not a rational classificationresults in such a sub-division of theHominidae, it will at any rate allow of boththe immediate recognition of the essentialsimilarities between different types, and ofmore convincing speculation as to phylo-genetic relationships than is possible atpresent, when opinions in these matters arelargely determined by an unquestioned faithin a classification whose history examina-tion shows to be largely unscientific.

THE GALTON DINNERwill be held at

THE REMBRANDT HOTELSOUTH KENSINGTON

On Thursday, February 16th, at 7.15 p.m. for 7.30

The Galton Lecture"MY OUTLOOK ON EUGENICS"

will be given by

THE HONBLE. Mr. JUSTICE McCARDIE

Sir Thomas Horder, Bt., K.C.V.O., M.D., F.R.C.P., will be in the Chair

Fellows and Members are requested to get their tickets (10/6)from the General Secretary as early as possible

Eugenics Review, Vol. XXIV, No. 4.