THE JAW OF THE PILTDOWN MAN 397 



they are not present in the Piltdown jaw. The " highly 

 developed strengthening ridge characteristic of the genus 

 Pan " which runs downwards and forwards from the 

 mandibular condyle to terminate above the dental foracen, 

 though a common, is by no means a constant, feature of the 

 chimpanzee jaw, and in some modern human jaws is almost 

 as well marked as in the Piltdown jaw. Nor is the presence 

 of the mylohyoid ridge a constant feature of the human jaw ; 

 in some, especially in low races, it may be barely perceptible. 

 Below the missing condyle Mr. Miller insists the hinder border 

 of the jaw " shows more lateral compression " than he has 

 been able to find in any specimen of Homo. This failure can 

 only be attributed to the limited number of human skulls to 

 which he has access, an inference which also accounts for his 

 apparent impression that the pterygoid fossa " immediately 

 below the articular surface of the condyle is an invariable 

 feature of the human jaw." It is not, and furthermore it is 

 present in some chimpanzee jaws. Mr. Miller finds no indi- 

 cation of this fossa in the Piltdown jaw. Surely this is not a 

 matter for surprise, having regard to the fact that the whole 

 of the area in which this fossa is lodged is missing ! Finally 

 the form of the glenoid cavity of the squamosal or " temporal " 

 bone affords but an indifferent guide to the form of the 

 mandibular condyle, as a very cursory examination of a 

 number of human crania will suffice to demonstrate. In some 

 modern skulls this cavity is as deep as in the Piltdown skull, 

 in others well nigh as shallow as in the chimpanzee, but there 

 is no corresponding modification of the condyle. 



Mr. Miller is always most emphatic where contradiction 

 is most difficult, as for example when he elects to enlarge upon 

 the character of missing elements in this jaw. Nowhere is 

 this more apparent than in his comments on the missing con- 

 dyle, but even here he is inconsistent. For on page 14 he 

 remarks that " The articular process is worn off to the level 

 where it begins to widen to form the base of the condyle." 

 Yet, on the very next page (p. 15), he would have it believed 

 that at least a portion of the condyle remains. This is the 

 only interpretation possible on his statement, " Hence in order 

 to fit its articulating surface to that of the skull it would be 

 necessary to imagine an abrupt change of plan in the few milli- 

 metres of condyle that have been lost " (italics mine). What 



