Fossil Skulls Research Articles

Taxonomic Status of the Pleistocene Badger, Taxidea marylandica

holotype of Taxidea marylandica, a Pleistocene fossil badger from Cumberland Cave, Maryland, has been listed twice by Gidley and Gazin as a distinct species. This fossil has also been placed by Hall and by Hall and Kelson in the of a Recent subspecies of badger, Taxidea taxus taxus. On the basis of examination of many North American Recent badgers and of the holotype of T. marylandica, I conclude that the fossil badger is definitely referable to the Recent species of Taxidea taxus and is, in fact, referable to a well- differentiated, northern infraspecific kind. fossil possesses one unique character, a straight-sided, subquadrangular upper molar. In addition, the fossil possesses several characters rarely seen in Recent badgers. In consideration of these characters, which may be assumed to have occurred with higher frequency in T. marylandica than in Recent badgers, the fossil may be recognized as representative of a subspecies. of badger (genus Taxidea) on the basis of a well-preserved fossil skull, an articulated series of 11 vertebrae, and the proximal half of the right humerus, all of which were obtained from Pleistocene deposits of Cumberland Cave, Maryland. skull was said to resemble in ap- pearance skulls of individuals of the Recent badger, Taxidea taxus, but several characters of the skull were considered by Gidley and Gazin as distinctive and significant enough for specific recognition of the fossil skull. Therefore, the name Taxidea marylandica was applied to it. Hall (1936:78) regarded the skull as representative of the Recent species Taxidea taxus and listed the fossil skull as worthv of comparison with the Recent subspecies Taxidea taxus taxus Hall stated that the morphological characters considered diagnostic by Gid- ley and Gazin could be found in certain Recent specimens of T. taxus, with the exception of two. dorsal outline of the occiput of the fossil holotype in lateral view was not matched exactly in Recent speci- mens, but some specimens were observed with occiputs higher and lower than in the holotype, that is, showing more or less depression than that of the holotype. In Recent specimens, nasals with nearly parallel lateral margins (constricted abruptly posteriorly in dorsal view) also were found by Hall to not agree precisely with the holotype. He observed Nevadan specimens having nasals similar to those of the holo- type, differing in size but not in proportions. Hall placed the name marylandica in the synonymy of Taxidea taxus taxus (Schreber). In a later publication, Gazin (in Gidley and Gazin, 1938:47-49) again regarded the fossil as representative of a distinct species, stating The junior author does not regard this specimen as sufficiently typical of Taxidea taxus taxus to be placed in the modern species and sub- species, as does Hall (1936:79-82). Hall and Kelson (1959:928) replaced the name marylandica in the of Taxidea taxus

Fossil Skull from Olduwai

Fossil Skull from Olduwai

The African pygmies.

The African pygmies.

THE BRAINS OF THE ODONTOGNATHAE

Fossil are now known in such large numbers that they are no more merely contributions to the anatomy of a few extinct vertebrates; some of them have disclosed stages of brain evolution in several ancestral series. Such specimens are not really brains; fossilized brain matter has not been found. vanished brain, however, had moulded the walls of the cranial cavity, so that its form can be reproduced in endocranial of fossil skulls. While in the majority of lower vertebrates the endocranial cast not an exact replica of the brain because the endocranial cavity contains relatively wide circum-cerebral spaces, in most mammals and in all birds the endocranium a tightly fitting bony capsule of the brain and its cast therefore is, to all intents and purposes of macroscopic study, a brain. Most general types of modern birds had evolved by the beginning of the Cenozoic era, almost 75 million years ago. Avian fossils from the preceding Mesozoic era have been discovered only in geographically widely separate spots of the earth, in strata laid down at widely separate times of earth history. Those from the Upper Jurassic of Eichstaitt, Germany, and the Upper Cretaceous of the Smoky Hill River region of Kansas-about 130 and 80 million years old, respectivelyinclude material suitable for paleoneurological study. For 70 years we have had a definite conception of the brains of Hesperornis regalis and Ichthyornis victor. Two brain casts were described and figured by Marsh (1880, pp. 8-10 and 121-125, figs. 1 and 29) in his monograph on the toothed birds of Kansas, Odontornithes, and this tome is still a classic and was and remains one of the best paleornithological works 1 in the opinion of the eminent paleornithologist, Lambrecht (1933, p. 246). descriptions and figures were reprinted in Marsh's 1883 report (pp. 55-57 and 71, figs. 7 and 19). They introduced to the world two endocranial representing brains in an extremely interesting evolutionary stage. The brain of Hesperornis was quite small, and more in type than in any adult bird hitherto examined (p. 8). The brain of Ichthyornis was remarkably small, and in its main features, strongly reptilian (p. 121).

An Analysis of the Characters of Archæopteryx and Archseornis. Were they Reptiles or Birds ?

Summary of Skull Characters. It will perhaps have been noted that I have quoted Heilmann rather freely in the above remarks; and it may be thought that I have chosen to do so because his views on the nature of Archæopteryx and Archæornis were possibly biassed in the same direction as mine, viz. that they were reptiles, not birds. Such, however, is not at all the case, for the quotations from his book ‘The Origin of Birds’, of which I have so freely made use, are far from being biassed, inasmuch as in spite of the facts which he has brought to light from actual work on the fossil skull in Berlin, he says, on page 12 that it is “ obviously on the way to become a bird's skull ”. We can therefore take it for granted that the above quotations represent the actual facts as interpreted and set forth by an eminent biologist searching for the truth with an open mind. Such being the case I can only state that my deductions differ from Heilmann's since I can find nothing in the skull which could be definitely labelled avian as opposed to reptilian, and everything reptilian as opposed to avian. I find it difficult, therefore, to understand how, after enumerating the facts he has unearthed, Heilmann could come to the conclusion he has reached. In fact it seems to me that it only requires the discovery of a transverse bone in addition to the pre‐frontals to set the reptilian seal upon the skull beyond any question of dispute. Unfortunately, neither the base nor vertex of the skull are as yet available for our inspection, so that if a transverse bone is indeed present no one has ever seen it. Heilmann has, however, reconstructed the vertex in wax and gives us a picture of it in his book. In figure 6 of his book this conception is compared with figures of Euparkeria and a Pigeon. The post‐axial border of the frontal is shown to be further back than it is in Ewparkeria and on the contrary further forward than in the Pigeon. It shows in fact that if the conception in wax is true Archseornis had a little more brain‐power than Euparkeria; but considering that it had taken to an arboreal life and had got as far as gliding, this is not very improbable nor does it seem to suggest that it was necessarily a bird. Supra‐temporal vacuities and distinct post‐orbitals and post‐frontals arc shown. How then can Heilmann's statements about the actual morphology of the structures in the skull of Archseornis be reconciled with the deduction that “it is obviously on the way to become a bird's skull.”Before, however, leaving the subject of the skull I should like to call attention to the fact that in Heilmann's drawings of the skull (he. cit. fig. 8), if a perpendicular is dropped from the line of junction between the frontal and parietal, indicated by an actual suture, it falls just within the orbital vacuity, as it does in the case of the Triassic Aëtosaurus and Ewpar‐keria. If, on the other hand, we examine Petronievic's drawing of the same (Taf. ii. “Ueber die Berliner Archæornis”, Genf, 1925) it falls a long way behind it, and I venture to say bears no relation to the actual position of the suture just referred to. Heilmann's drawing, on the contrary, provides almost conclusive proof that as compared with a bird the brain of Archseornis was very feebly developed indeed and fell far short of being avian. In his reconstruction of the vertex of the skull I venture however to think that the extension of the frontal backwards has been slightly exaggerated, more so perhaps than his drawing of the lateral view would warrant. But in reality this does very little to detract from the conclusion that the brain of Archseornis might have been that of an “advanced dinosaur”, but fell far short of being avian.

: The Problem of Antiquity of Man in Australia . D. J. Mahony. ; The Problem of Antiquity of Man in Australia The Keilor Fossil Skull: Anatomical Description . J. Wunderly. ; The Problem of Antiquity of Man in Australia The Keilor Fossil Skull: Palate and Upper Dental Arch . William Adam. ; The Problem of Antiquity of Man in

American AnthropologistVolume 46, Issue 4 p. 549-551 Free Access PRE-HISTORY: The Problem of Antiquity of Man in Australia. D. J. Mahony; The Keilor Fossil Skull: Anatomical Description. J. Wunderly; The Keilor Fossil Skull: Palate and Upper Dental Arch. William Adam; The Keilor Skull: Geological Evidence of Antiquity. D. J. Mahony M. F. Ashley Montagu, M. F. Ashley Montagu Hahnemann Medical College and HospitalSearch for more papers by this author M. F. Ashley Montagu, M. F. Ashley Montagu Hahnemann Medical College and HospitalSearch for more papers by this author First published: October‐December 1944 https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1944.46.4.02a00200AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume46, Issue4October‐December 1944Pages 549-551 RelatedInformation

The Keilor fossil skull: Anatomical description. By J. Wunderly. Mem. Nat. Mus. Melbourne, no. 13, 1943, pp. 57–70, 1 fig., 9 pls., 2 tables, 12 refs

The Keilor fossil skull: Anatomical description. By J. Wunderly. Mem. Nat. Mus. Melbourne, no. 13, 1943, pp. 57–70, 1 fig., 9 pls., 2 tables, 12 refs

The Keilor fossil skull: Geological evidence of antiquity. By D. J. Mahony. Mem. Nat. Mus. Melbourne no. 13, 1943, pp. 79–81, 5 refs

The Keilor fossil skull: Geological evidence of antiquity. By D. J. Mahony. Mem. Nat. Mus. Melbourne no. 13, 1943, pp. 79–81, 5 refs

The Keilor fossil skull: palate and upper dental arch

The Keilor fossil skull: palate and upper dental arch

The Keilor fossil skull: geological evidence of antiquity

The Keilor fossil skull: geological evidence of antiquity

Fossil Skull in Museum Is of "Awful Alligator"

Fossil Skull in Museum Is of "Awful Alligator"

XXI.—A fossil skull of Hemibos from Palestine

XXI.—A <i>fossil skull of</i> Hemibos <i>from Palestine</i>

Human Genera and Species

PROF. OSMAN HILL'S suggestion1 that the classification of the Hominidae is in urgent need of revision is likely to meet with general agreement. It is doubtful, however, if the particular proposals which he puts forward will do more than deliver the question from its present confusion—a confusion which at least has the merit of attributing a glamorous if unreal diversity to human ancestry—into another confusion at least as great. This is certain to occur if the principles of zoological classification are as he defines them. The differences which he suggests indicate generic distinctions (“differences in external or internal structure”) cannot be regarded as essentially different from those which he believes to indicate specific distinctions (“differences in bodily proportions differences in bodily form”, etc.). For, quite apart from the verbal and logistic difficulty of deciding what is a difference in “structure” and what is a difference in “form”, there is strong reason for supposing that pronounced differences in the one or the other or both aspects of the body or its organs are often simply due to differences in growth-rates. For example, some monkeys have a vermiform appendix, others lack this structure. Osman Hill's criteria suggest that differences of this kind are necessarily a sign of generic distinction. The difference, however, is entirely dependent on a different pattern and rate of growth in the caecal region of the large intestine, that is, on a process which in this case leads to an extreme difference in bodily proportions. These, however, Osman Hill regards as indicative of specific and not generic distinction. It would therefore seem that no real difference separates his criteria for denning genera and species. In any event it is difficult to see how they could be applied to fragments of fossil human skulls.

A Fossil Skull of an Ancestral Bushman from the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan

It is now recognized that during the Pleistocene, or even duringa later prehistoric period, there were in northern Africa human races related to the existing Bushmen and the Hottentots of the south. The shape of the skull in some of the early Egyptians, indeed, suggests relationship to the Bushmen. The discovery in the Anglo- Egyptian Sudan of a new type of fossil human skull with several resemblances to that of a Bushman, is therefore of great interest. The specimen was found in February 1924 by Mr W. R. G. Bond, who was then Governor of the Fung Province of the Anglo-Egyptia Sudan. It was embedded in a limestone concretion, which lay a few feet above low-stage river level on the foreshore of the Blue Nile at Singa about 200 miles south of Khartoum. I have to thank Mr G. W. Grabham, then Government Geologist, for the opportunity of studying the fossil.

The Piltdown Bone Implement

MR. REID MOIR1 mentions the theory that the bone implement from the Piltdown gravel was made by a rodent mammal, not by man. One of the finest examples of bone gnawed by rodents (presumably porcupines) is a fossil skull of the extinct panda, Aelureidopus baconi, which is exhibited in the British Museum (Natural History) not far from the implement. It is therefore easy to compare the work of rodents with that ascribed to man.

A New Fossil Skull from Eyassi, East Africa: DISCOVERY BY A GERMAN EXPEDITION

A New Fossil Skull from Eyassi, East Africa: DISCOVERY BY A GERMAN EXPEDITION

Points from Foregoing Letters

DR. BROOM has now prepared a description, with diagrams, of teeth belonging to the fossil skull,, described by him in NATURE of September 19, p. 486. It will be recalled that the skull was found at Sterkfontein, Transvaal, and is of presumably Upper Pleistocene age. The teeth differ from those of the chimpanzee and resemble those of man in many respects.

X. A comparative study of the endocranial cast of Sinanthropus

We have made this attempt to describe and interpret the endocranial cast of Sinanthropus in deference to the wishes of Professor Davidson Black.* When he submitted to the Royal Society his preliminary report (Black, 1933, a ), he explained to us that he did not regard it as a disadvantage that his paper was incomplete, because it opened the way for those who had opportunities for comparing the cast with those of other human fossils and actual brains of primitive men and apes, to undertake the necessary work of comparison and interpretation, and we willingly undertake this duty. Each of us has independently studied the actual fossil skull in the Union Medical College at Peiping and examined the beautiful cast made by Professor Davidson Black from the actual fossils, and we should like to express our gratitude to him for these opportunities and many other kindnesses which he showed us. In studying the endocranial cast obtained from the Piltdown skull one of us (G.E.S.), years ago, was impressed by the extraordinary resemblance presented by the form of the brain in this extinct member of the human family to that of the primitive brain of a modern human being, a Sudanese negress (Elliot Smith, 1927, figs. 40 and 41). The other (J.L.S.) was impressed by the remarkable likeness to the endocranial cast of Sinanthropus of the brain of the Bushwoman, described in 1865 by Professor John Marshall. The recognition of these facts adds particular importance to the consideration that both the authors of this communication have served an apprenticeship to the task by examining large series of primitive brains, aboriginal Australians (J.L.S.) and Sudanese negroes (G.E.S.), and have devoted some attention to the comparison of the brains of the anthropoid apes and primitive men. In attempting to interpret the significance of the endocranial cast of Sinanthropus special attention must obviously be paid to comparison with the casts of Pithecanthropus and Eoanthropus . The comparison with the brains of the larger apes is also important, throwing light as it does upon the characters one ought to expect to find in extremely primitive human brains. In attempting to convey some real conception of the nature of the form of the brain we have resorted to the use of series of contours, figs. 10-14, so that the reader at a glance can obtain a graphic expression of the distinctive peculiarities of form. * The misfortune of his premature death deprives us of the pleasure of presenting this memoir to him.

Die fossilen Gehirne

THE best results in science have been obtained mostly by combining two hitherto separate branches or methods. The author of the work before us is a daughter of the late Prof. Ludwig Edinger, who is well known as one of the founders of the comparative anatomy of the brain. She grew up, therefore, in a very centre of comparative neurology, and having also studied palæontology from the geological point of view, she joined these two branches in a remarkable manner in palæoneurology, which is not an entirely new combination, but has never been practised so thoroughly and methodically. The chance to make errors in this field is greater than anywhere else. For, as the author acknowledges in the very beginning of her book, a fossil thigh-bone is a thigh-bone anyhow, but a ‘fossil brain’ is not a brain at all: it is—with a few exceptions—only a natural (petrified) or artificial endocranial cast of a fossil skull. this fact we know more of the central nervous system of many fossil animals than, for example, of their intestines, but to interpret the data with accuracy we must begin by studying in recent animals the relations between the brain and the form of the endocranial cavity, which is in many cases much more spacious than would be necessary to contain the brain only. These and other methodical and technical matters are discussed in detail and elucidated with many illustrations in the general part (pp. 9–100) of the book. Die fossilen Gehirne. Tilly Edinger. Pp. 249. (Berlin: Julius Springer, 1929.) 36 gold marks.

XIX.—Observations on the Fragment of a Horse Skull from an Interglacial Deposit near Pulawy, Poland

Summary1. By the application of the method of differential analysis it was possible to identify the fragment of a horse skull found in interglacial deposits as belonging to a horse closely allied to the Tarpan (E. ferus Ant.) or the “plateau type” (Ewart).2. This method was found to be of the greatest help in craniological studies because it permitted a more exact classification of other fossil and non-fossil skulls used for comparison.3. It must, however, be noted that the method has certain difficulties in calculations and especially in the arrangement of squares of the chessboard table in cases where the data are numerous.