OLDUVAI GORGE 203
alveoli, I roots appear to have been large, as are roots
of other teeth.
OH 16 Morph (includes OH 24)
OH 16. Fragmentary, heavily reconstructed calotte,
upper and lower dentitions (reconstructed), isolated L
posterior root of zygomatic arch, fragments of petrosal,
part of basiocciput, part of palate, and numerous
uninformative fragments. The two reconstructed
dentitions (isolated teeth set into plasticine) look far
too large for cranium. Upper dentition (whose
association cannot be guaranteed) includes all teeth
except for LI and LC; what have been placed in
positions of RC and LM1 are badly broken. All lower
teeth represented except for LI1 and LC; fragments of
teeth in positions of LP1, LM1, and LI2.
Culotte. Small, domed, lightly built, thin boned. In
profile, frontal rises quite sharply from close behind
superior orbital margins. In front of bregma, curve of
profile becomes more gentle, and continues smoothly
around and down to superior nuchal line. Seen from
behind, parietals smoothly rounded from side to side;
maximum breadth would probably have been on
temporals. As reconstructed, internal surface of nuchal
plane intrudes farther into intracranial space than
parietals (suggesting that lambdoid suture may not have
been as high up on back of skull as portrayed); thus
lambda may have been lower than its current position.
Superior orbital margins rather thin s/i, with crisp
margin where they meet fairly deeply concave orbital
roofs. In side view, very little anterior projection of
brows; posttoral plane very short a/p. From above,
brows probably retreated somewhat from glabella,
which apparently had a slight midline depression.
From front, there is mild bilateral curvature above each
orbit; interorbital region was broad. On both sides is a
large, medially placed supraorbital notch. Internally,
frontal sinus on the R probably did not extend as far as
notch; on the L, it extended above it. Frontal lobes did
not extend fully over orbital cones, but did reach quite
far forward. As preserved, the thick, raised temporal
lines rise steeply from behind lateral orbital margins; as
reconstructed, their course more posteriorly is unclear.
Vault roof is patchwork of pieces that need new recon-
struction. Only at far rear can one say that the angle
between occipital and nuchal planes was not very
acute; the planes are delineated only by a modestly
developed superior nuchal line.
Isolated L temporal fragment is also misleading as
reconstructed. Articular fossa was broad m/l; it flowed
straight anteriorly, with no eminence. Posterior root of
zygomatic arch was fairly lightly built; it flared out-
ward before arcing forward. Preserved basiocciput is
broad from side to side; it tapers dramatically in
section in front of the foramen magnum. A L occipi-
tal condyle fragment is strongly arced a/p, and was
apparently long and narrow.
Region of palate preserved, lacking side walls. L
half as reconstructed is situated too far anteriorly rela-
tive to R part (producing false impression of a groove
emanating anteriorly from incisive foramen). In real-
ity, there would have been a moderately large incisive
foramen and a moderately anteriorly inclined incisive
canal. On R side, impressions of two alveoli suggest
that anterior tooth roots may have been slightly
procumbent.Upper Dentition. RI1 (and reconstructed LI1)
correctly identified; although very worn, former is still
high crowned and quite spatulate, with gently concave
lingual surface. R12 somewhat worn, high crowned,
although much narrower m/d than 11; apparently it
flared roundedly on distal side. Lingual surface of R12
moderately concave, and grooved at base. Fragment in
position of RC is a canine (but debatable whether it
belongs there). Pls bear more distinctly projecting
parastylar regions, and are also wider b/l than P2s. On
both Pls and P~s, protocones lie slightly mesial to
centrally placed paracones; paracones are bounded
internally by short anterior and posterior foveae.
Apices of both buccal and lingual cusps somewhat
peripherally placed; apparently were quite bulbous.
FM1 and lingual fragment of LMl both strongly
worn, swollen distally by hypocone and short, thick
postcingulum. Apex of protocone appears to have
been centrally placed; along with the not very diver-
gent protocristae, it constricts trigon basin. There
seems to have been a precingulum. Buccal cusps
peripheral, with developed lingual slope. Teeth in
positions of M2s both extremely worn; they lack distal
interproximal facets, and thus could be M3s. Both R
and L are unusual; they have distinct lingual cingulae
around broad protocone bases and more cingu-
lum around paracone, especially on the R. On both, a
thick preprotocrista arcs anteriorly to mesial side of
paracone. A thick, beaded postcingulum runs from
the very reduced, distally situated metacone; it
thickens distally as it rum lingually to terminate