Dr. T. Tóth szerk.: Studia historico-anthropologica (Anthropologia Hungarica 20. Budapest, 1988)

whole skull was compressed into a flat piece in the vertical or top-base direction during the process of fossilization, but with almost all parts intact". TOP VIEW OF THE SKULL AND THE TEMPORAL LINES The calvaria of the Rudapithecus skull practically belongs to the frontal bone. The sutures had been ossified to such a great degree that it is impossible to follow their track by the traditional methods. Consequently at present we are unable to make any anatomical distinctions among the other bones of the brain-case. The distinction of sutures in the Lufeng find is not easy either. This skull is considerably compressed. Still, its right side can be studied well, thus giving an authentic picture of the find. With the aid of a sagittal mirror image of the right side, and with a slight correction a highly probable reconstruction of the top view of the calvaria results (Fig. 2). Projecting on each other in the same scale the main top view contour lines of the two reconstructed calvarias of the two skulls, we may prove that (1) the basic forms of the two calvaries are completely identically (2) the temporal lines cover each other completely in the supraorbital part of the frontal bone (frontotemporale) and near the lambda, (3) in the bregma region the distance between the temporal lines is narrower in the Rudabánya find than in the Lufeng one, (4) in the P.A. 677 find the opisthocranion is broken and missing, being therefore unsuitable for comparison, (5) there are no traces of sagittal crest on either skull, (6) the interorbital distance is wide on both specimens; (7) in frontal view the width of the orbits measured between the maxillofrontale and the sutura frontozygomatica is the same on the right side of both specimens but on the left it is narrower in the Rudabánya find, (8) the width of the skull (euryon distance) and its length (nasion-opisthocranion) are slightly (approximately by 8-10% larger in the Lufeng find than in the one from Rudabánya. Considering all these, it is highly probable that-in this comparison - this minimum dimensional and morphological difference between the two skulls is due to the damage of the Lufeng skull. That find had suffered compression from upwards and became flattened. The RUD-77 and P.A. 677 remains are completely identical as regards the basic morphology and dimensions of their calvariae. THE QUESTION OF THE GLABELLA AND THE SUPRAORBITAL TORI The glabella of the RUD-77 find is smooth, without any traces of supraorbital tori. This is of phylogenetic significance in the later phase of the evolution of primates, as well as in the process of hominization (KORDOS 1987a, b). A clear recognition of these important marks is rather difficult on the Lufeng find P.A. 677. According to the formulation given by WU RUKANG & al. (1986): "The supraorbital ridges are slightly developed and uncontinuous with wide and concave glabella region". On the basis of the published photos, I found a difference between Rudapithecus and Sivapithecus lufengensis (KORDOS 1987b); namely, the supraorbital tori are more marked in the case of the Chinese skull than in the Rudabánya skull. After the investigations made on the original Lufeng find P.A. 677 in China, I realized that the compression resulted in the collapse of the glabella region, therefore it is very difficult to reconstruct its straight or concave direction. Henceforward, it is hard to form an opinion on a possible presence or absence of supraorbital tori in the Chinese skull. It is certain that behind the more compact, thicker bony matter of the supraorbital bone, the thin frontal bone had been considerably pressed in and broken. That is why on the photos (WU RUKANG uc al. 1981, 1986) the presence of supraorbital tori seems to be unquestionable. However, it is more probable that, although compared with the RUD-77 find the supraorbital tori are definitely observable in the Lufeng skull, they had developed only to a slight degree. This is corroborated by the fact that the bony matter of the torus can be well-distinguished from the contact line of the frontal bone. Before a complete reconstruction of the skull, it is impossible to decide whether there was a depression between the two bones in the external surface. It is clear that reconstructions which attempt to demonstrate the presence of strong supraorbital tori in female Sivapithecus lufengensis are mistaken because they start from the present compressed condition of the find.