The mandibles present further remarkable characters. By these again, two types have been rendered capable of distinction. In their massiveness they are unsurpassed save by the mandible from Mauer. In absolute width one specimen actually surpasses the Mauer jaw, but yet fails to rival that bone in respect of the great width found to characterise the ascending ramus in that example. In the Krapina jaws, the chin is absent or at best feebly developed. In one specimen the body of the jaw is bent at an angle between the canine and first premolar tooth, and is thus reminiscent of the simian jaw. Behind the incisor teeth the conformation is peculiar, again suggestive of the arrangement seen in the Mauer jaw, and differing from that found in more recent human specimens. The distinction of two types of lower jaw was made in the following manner. The bone was placed on a flat surface. The vertical height of the tooth-bearing part was measured in two regions, (_a_) near the front, (_b_) further back, and close to the second molar tooth (cf. Fig. 2_f_, _g_). In some of the bones these measurements are nearly equal, but the hinder one is always the less. In the instances in which the two measurements approximate to one another, the proportion is as 100:92. In other instances the corresponding proportion differed, the ratio being about 100:86 or less. The former type is considered by Professor Kramberger to indicate a special variety (krapinensis) of the Neanderthal or _Homo primigenius_ type. The second type is that of the Spy mandible No. 1. Professor Schwalbe[25] (1906) objects to the distinction, urging that the indices (92 and 86) are not sufficiently contrasted. However this may be, it is noteworthy that other bones shew differences. Thus the curvature of the forehead is a variable feature, some skulls having had foreheads much flatter and more retreating than others. The limb bones are also called upon to provide evidence. Some of the arm-bones and thigh-bones are longer and more slender than others. How far these differences really penetrated and whether the thesis of two types can be fully sustained, does not appear to admit of a final answer. The view here adopted is that, on the whole, the distinction will be confirmed. But nevertheless I am far from supporting in all respects the view of Professor Klaatsch to whose imagination we owe the suggestion of realistic tableaux depicting the murderous conflict of the two tribes at Krapina, the butchery of one act culminating suitably in a scene of cannibalism. Nor am I persuaded that either variety or type found at Krapina can be reasonably identified with that of the Galley Hill skeleton. But of these matters further discussion is reserved for the sequel. * * * * *