After a long period of stalemate the discussion regarding the exact status of Pithecanthropus is being revived in relationship to Sinanthropus. Thus Franz Weidenreich ( '35) in a recent memoir on the Sinanthropus population of Choukoutien states:
Concerning Pithecanthropus, I regret not to agree either with E. Dubois, who is inclined to separate completely Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus, nor with Dr. Davidson Black, who considered Pithecanthropus as a quite specialised type of the same category of hominids. I think that the Pithecanthropus skull cap has the same morphological and phylogenetical character as Sinanthropus, as shown by Skull I1 and the other skull fragments and their endocasts. The difference between the two skulls can be due a t most to racial variation. F o r the time being, the teeth and the femur of Pithecanthropus cannot be taken into account in discussing this question. We do not know anything about the femur of Sinanthropus and I doubt whether the teeth (P1 and M2 or 313) believed to be those of Pithecanthropus really belong to the skull cap. Dr. Davidson Black has already raised this question. P1 is much smaller than any of the Sinanthropus P1 and its pattern is less primitive. I n both these characteristics it could easily be t,hat of a recent man which never could be the case in Sinanthropus P1. Both the so-called molars of Pithecanthropus are, in my opinion, not at, all the teeth of a homiiiid, but perhaps those of a great fossil Siniiid, perhaps those of a giant orang, the existence of which in South-eastern Asia has been recelltiy verified by Pei ( ' 3 5 ) . This eliminates some essential arguments claimed for the special position of' Pitliecanthropus. 205 A U R I < I ( ' . X S . l ~l l ' l : N . ~l ~ O F I'HY.*IC.\L A S T H I < O I W l l ) ( i Y . \ O l d . S S I . SO. 2 ,$XI, S l ' I ~I ~l , l Z S I K H T h !'I( II.--.l I. N R. 19:;lC