DRYOPITHECUS, Lart.—In the larger miocene ape (Dryopithecus Fontani, Lart.) the canine is relatively larger than in the Hylobates, and the incisors, to judge by their alveoli, are relatively narrower than in the chimpanzee and human subject. The first premolar has the outer cusp pointed, and raised to double the height of that of the second premolar, and its inner lobe is more rudimental than in the chimpanzee,* and departs proportionally from the human type. The poste rior lobe or talon of the second premolar is more developed, and the fore-and-aft extent of the tooth greater, than in the chimpanzee, thereby more resembling the second premolar of the siamang, and less resembling that of the human subject. The last (third) molar is undeveloped in the fossil jaw of the Dryopithecus, and its amount of departure from the human type, and approach to that of Innus, cannot be determined. The canine is more vertical in position than in Troglodytes or Pithecus, but this character is offered by some of the small South American apes, and cannot be cited as a mark of real affinity. From the portion of humerus associated with the
jaw of Dryopithecus, the arm would seem to have been pro portionally longer and more slender than in the chimpanzee and gorilla, with a cylindrical shaft, more like that in the long-armed apes (Hylobates), and less like the arm of the human subject.
The characters of the nasal bones, orbits, mastoid processes, relative length of upper limb to trunk, relative length of arm to fore arm, relative length and size of thumb, relative length of lower limb ; and, above all, the size of the hallux and shape of the astragalus and calcaneum, must be known before any opinion can be trusted as to the proximity of Dryopithecus to the human subject.