310 THE CASE AGAINST EVOLUTION 



'pithecus and the enthronement of the jaw of Dryopithecus. 

 This sudden accession of Dryopithecus to the post of common 

 ancestor of apes and men was due to the discovery by Dr. 

 Barnum Brown of three fossil jaws of Dryopithecus in the 

 Miocene deposits of the Siwalik beds in northern India. By 

 some rapturous coincidence, the three jaws in question happen 

 to come from three successive "horizons," and to be represen- 

 tative of just three different stages in the evolution of Dryo- 

 pithecus. Doctor Gregory finds, moreover, that the patterns of 

 the minute cracks and furrows on the surviving molar teeth 

 correspond to those on the surface of the enamels of modern 

 ape and human teeth. Hence, with that ephemeral infallibility, 

 v/hich is characteristic of authorities like Doctor Gregory, 

 and which is proof against all discouragement by reason of 

 past blunders, the one who told us but a year ago that the 

 cusps of all the teeth of Propliopithecus "are exactly such as 

 would be expected in the common starting point for the di- 

 vergent lines leading to the gibbons, to the higher apes, and 

 to man" {loc. cit), now tells us that both we and the apes 

 have inherited our teeth from Dryopithecus, who had hereto- 

 fore remained neglected on the side-lines. In 1923, appar- 

 ently. Dr. Gregory was unimpressed with the crown patterns 

 of Dryopithecus, whose jaw he then excluded from the direct 

 human line. (Cf, Museum-leaflet, p. 5.) Now, however, that 

 the new discoveries have brought Dryopithecus into the lime- 

 light, and, particularly because these jaws were found in 

 Miocene deposits, Gregory has shifted his favor from Proplio- 

 pithecus to Dryopithecus. (Of. Science, April 25, 1924, suppl. 

 XIII.) 



When palaeontologists are obliged to do a volte face of this 

 sort, one ought not to scoff. One ought to be an optimist, and 

 eschew above all the spirit of the English statesman, who, on 

 hearing a learned lecture by Pearson on the question of 

 whether Man was descended from hylobatic, or troglodytic 

 stock, was guilty of the following piece of impatience: "I 

 am not particularly interested in the descent of man . . . 



