Letter | Published:

South African Fossil Hominoids

Nature volume 166, pages 158159 (22 July 1950) | Download Citation



PROF. LE GROS CLARK1 seems to have misunderstood the point of my communication2 about the South African fossil anthropoids. I have nowhere claimed that “the major dimensions and indices of individual teeth can by themselves provide adequate information on which to base statements regarding affinities of primitive hominids and anthropoid apes”. The object of my note was to show that adequate comparisons by proper statistical procedures fail to substantiate a commonly stated view that the teeth of the South African Australopithecine apes differ significantly in size and general shape from those of existing apes. Whatever its other purpose, his letter may, however, help to underline the object of my communication and of the studies on which it was based.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    , Nature, 165, 893 (1950).

  2. 2.

    , Nature, 165, 652 (1950).

  3. 3.

    , Quart. J. Geol. Soc. Lond., 105, 225 (1950).

  4. 4.

    , and , Transv. Mus. Mem., No. 2 (1946).

  5. 5.

    , , and , Transv. Mus. Mem., No. 4 (1950).

  6. 6.

    , Ann. Transv. Mus., 20, 293 (1941).

  7. 7.

    , and , Ann. Transv. Mus., 19, 339 (1939).

  8. 8.

    , and , Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., B (in the press).

Download references

Author information


  1. Department of Anatomy, Medical School, Hospitals Centre, Birmingham 15. June 24.



  1. Search for S. ZUCKERMAN in:

About this article

Publication history




Further reading


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.