National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
Digital Archive of Toyo Bunko Rare Books

femur, male, right 27°, left 22°; on modern Europeans I measured 36° and 45°.
I would, therefore, look upon this steep position of the linea obliqua as another
primitive mark which our Anau individual seems to share with recent lower races
and also with Homo primigenius.

The strongly-drawn-out trochanter minor extends considerably beyond the
inner edge of the femur in the manner described and represented by Martin (1905,
p. 614); for the rest this condition seems to occur also among modern Europeans
of strong muscular development. With this movement of the trochanter minor
towards the medial side, there is related the more transverse course of the strongly
developed crista intertrochanterica (plate 95, fig. 1). The upper end of the linea
aspera rises to a strong trochanter tertius.

The lower epiphysis is, as stated above, attached rather abruptly to the
slender shaft of the diaphysis. It is specially characterized by the far backward
extension of the condyles. This shows itself also in the relation of the radii of
the ligamenta (see Bumüller), that is, of the vertical and horizontal distances
(in projection) of the places, where the ligamenta collateralia are attached, from
the joint-surface. It we take the points of attachment of the ligamenta on the
epicondyli tuberosities, the horizontal radius is in all cases considerably greater
than the vertical. If, however, we assume also that the ligamenta had their
origin in the slight grooves which lie behind every epicondyle, then the horizontal
radius would be reached by the vertical only on the lateral side (plate 95, fig. 4).
All this would represent a condition which Bumüller considers so typical of the
apes that on this account he declared the pithecanthropus femur to be that of
an ape.

The planum popliteum is in all directions concave, and the concavity increases
vertically from above downward. There is also a distinct transverse concavity in
the middle (curvature value, right 6, left 4).

Notwithstanding the decided prominence of the condyles towards the rear,
the length of the projection of the lateral condyle is somewhat slight, from which
there results a very low condyle index, right 73.9 and left 74.7, which is still
below the value of 75, given by Bumüller as the minimum of Europeans.

In comparison with the length of the bone the lower epiphysis can not be
thought especially broad. This is at once evident if, using Klaatsch's method
(1900, p. 652), we calculate an index from the two measurements, taking for length,
as Klaatsch does, the trochanter length, in order to have comparable figures.
Unfortunately Klaatsch has, probably through mistake, calculated the reverse
ratio and moved the point one place to the left, and other authors have followed
his procedure. Therefore we, too, are forced to express the trochanter length
in percentage of the width of the epiphysis; but in doing this we have put the
point in its proper place, and have added the values found by Martin for Senoi.

It would have been more useful to have calculated the index as was originally
intended, that is, to express the condyle width in percentage of the length. We
should then, in using Klaatsch's trochanter length, have values of 19.7 right
and 19.2 left. Comparing the width of the lower epiphysis with the diaphysis