THE JAW OF THE PILTDOWN MAN 401 



As to the statements in regard to the axes of the molars, 

 in relation to the condyle, they are not only inexact in regard 

 to the chimpanzee, but they are equally inapplicable to the 

 human jaw ; since in megadont jaws the axis of mi passes 

 directly backwards, and is coincident with the axes of m2 and 

 m3, as in the cases where this applies to the chimpanzee. Further, 

 the common axis of the molars of the chimpanzee does not 

 invariably, if produced backwards, pass further to the inner 

 side of the condyle than in the Hominidae. On the contrary, 

 in some chimpanzee jaws this axis takes the same course 

 as in the human jaw, that is to say, it touches the condyle. 

 Mr. Miller's statements in regard to these relationships thus 

 show either a very superficial acquaintance with the morphology 

 of the human jaw, or a habit of basing far-reaching conclusions 

 on ill-digested data. 



Not the least characteristic feature of the teeth of the 

 Piltdown jaw is their state of wear, the cusps having been 

 worn down so as to reduce the crown to a perfectly level 

 surface. Mr. Miller tells us that he has found teeth in the 

 jaw of a chimpanzee worn in a precisely similar manner, and 

 he gives a photograph purporting to bear out this statement. 

 Yet no impartial critic will agree that this photograph in the 

 least supports his statement. Of all the teeth which I have 

 examined, and these represent at least twice as many as 

 Mr. Miller has examined, I have failed to find one which can 

 in any way be compared to these teeth of the Piltdown jaw 

 in this matter of wear. But be this as it may, the determina- 

 tion of the generic identity of this jaw does not turn upon 

 the state of wear of the crowns of the teeth, but upon a number 

 of characters of far greater importance. Nor does their size 

 affect the question, though according to Mr. Miller this is 

 the only character by which they can be distinguished from 

 the teeth of the chimpanzee, which, he asserts, are never so 

 large as in the Piltdown jaw. This is not so. I have recently 

 found teeth in the jaw of a chimpanzee from the Belgian 

 Congo which are quite as large as those of the Piltdown jaw. 



The molars of the Piltdown man, materially reduced as 

 they are by wear, are still much more hypsodont than any chim- 

 panzee teeth which I have yet seen, and this is true even if 

 these worn teeth are compared with unworn chimpanzee teeth, 

 which, by the way, are not, as Mr. Miller seems to suppose, of 



