THE HISTORY OF THE PRIMATES 



Neanderthals of the last glacial period being simply a well-marked sub- 

 species. The suggestion is inherent that each of these species is the pro- 

 genitor of the succeeding one in temporal sequence. Finally, the possi- 

 bility should be mentioned that Oreopithecus may be an intermediate 

 between one of the many known Miocene apes and a man of the australo- 

 pithecine type. 



At the turn of the century and before, it was commonly charged that 

 only vacuous theories could be presented with respect to human ancestry, 

 because fossil evidence was entirely inadequate. This viewpoint was justi- 

 fied at that time, for only Neanderthal man was then well established as 

 a fossil man. The same viewpoint can no longer be maintained without 

 ignoring known facts, for available human fossils number in the hundreds. 

 Yet such great discrepancies of opinion among qualified authorities as 

 those cited above could hardly exist if really adequate data were at hand. 

 Thus the greatest need for progress in anthropology is still for the accu- 

 mulation and careful study of additional fossils. 



In considering the problems of human phylogeny it is also well to bear 

 in mind the warning of Zuckerman: "No one who has paid attention to 

 the history of the study of fossil primates and its bearing on human evo- 

 lution will doubt the need for the most critical of attitudes in dealing 

 with these far-reaching conclusions. The difficulty is not only that stories 

 of human phylogeny can never be more than a series of probabilities 

 largely based on guesswork. We also have to consider the fact that specu- 

 lation clouds almost every single stage in the treatment of the physical 

 evidence itself. It begins with decisions as to which fragments found in 

 a deposit are to be individually associated with each other. It continues 

 into the stage where their anatomical characters, and the influence of 

 slight variations in the manner of reconstruction, are considered. It ends 

 with a variety of individual views about the theoretical framework of 

 evolutionary change to which the facts can be fitted. When to all of this 

 we add the uncertainties associated with the geological dating of fossil 

 remains, and the fact that only rarely have those who have written on the 

 subject had any understanding of the discipline of quantitative biology, 

 we have all the ingredients necessary to produce endless speculation and 

 controversy. It is true that several generally accepted conclusions about 

 our fossil ancestry, based upon just such speculative grounds, have stood 

 the test of time and argument— if these can be regarded as adequate scien- 

 tific tests. But just as many have had to be considerably modified, while 

 at least one, like the believed primate genus Hesperopithecus, the single 

 fossil tooth of which is now known to be that of a peccary, has in the end 

 been abandoned in spite of the fact that at one point in their histories 

 they were supported by the selfsame leading authorities who to-day press 

 the hominid claims of the new South African fossils. . . ." Zuckerman is 

 not an unconditional opponent of anthropological studies: he is a dis- 

 tinguished anatomist who has himself made valuable contributions to 

 anthropology. His strictures may be rather extreme, but they are not ill- 

 considered. 



197 



