Abstract
THE article by Dr. G. H. R. von Koenigswald and Prof. F. Weidenreich on the relationship between Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus in NATURE of December 2 is eminently satisfactory to those anatomists who have not been able to understand why these two hominids should ever have been separated generically. Probably my colleague, Dr. S. Zuckerman, was the first to express doubt on the justification for this distinction, in an essay on Sinanthropus1, and I have on more than one occasion urged that the Peking hominid is but a Chinese variant of Pithecanthropus2.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Eugenics Rev., 24 (1931).
Man, 60 (April 1937); Modem Quarterly, 115 (April 1939); Presidential Address, Section H, British Association, 1939.
J. Anat., 73, 31 (193839).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
CLARK, W. "The Relationship between Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus". Nature 145, 70–71 (1940). https://doi.org/10.1038/145070a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/145070a0
This article is cited by
-
Anthropological Nomenclature
Nature (1940)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.