November, 1928 



EVOLUTION 



Page Three 



incisor of the Sandwich Is- 

 lander, Both in size and out- 

 line the variation is far less 

 than in many human teeth of 

 the same class, and no greater 

 than in the centrals in the 

 illustration beside it from 

 which it was taken. 



Most of the other special 

 features which comparative 

 anatomists have pointed out 

 as common to man and the 

 apes, and of such close re- 

 semblance as to give strong 

 grounds for belief in a com- 

 mon origin, are so hidden 

 away in the body that only 

 experts in anatomy have first 

 hand knowledge of them. 



But here, in the three types of teeth common to man 

 apes, we have a feature as open to the perception and un 

 standing of the non-expert as to the trained scientist. The 



Fig. 7. Sandwich Isl.i 

 Left central incisor of 



nder; Class III 

 S.indwich Islander 



substituted 



and 

 der- 

 lay- 



Fig. 4. Orang-utan; Class I 



rynu'y* 



\^A^* 



Fig. 5. Orang-utan; Class II 



showing remark. iblc sinrilanty 



man will not appreciate the full significance of what he sees, 



but he will understand enough to give the opponents of evolution 



an exceedingly difficult task to explain this new evidence away. 



When this photographic evidence was submitted to Professor 



Ernst Haeckel he expressed himself as 



follows: 



Jena 6, 1, 1913 

 Dr. Leon Williams, 

 London. 



Dear Sir: — Your observations on the 

 three different types of the upper central 

 incisors are very interesting, and mainly 

 the fact that the same three characteristic 

 types occur also in the orang-utan and in 

 other anthropoid apes. In my opinion this 

 fact is another new and convincing proof 

 for the near relationship between man and 

 the anthropoid apes, and for the phylo- 

 genetic theories that both have been de- 

 rived from one and the same common 

 ancestor. First, the fact that these three 

 types — in physiological relationship of little 

 value — are so distinctly developed in three 

 morphological directions seems to me an 

 important proof that the way of phyloge- 

 netic divergence of characters is the same 

 in man and in the anthropoid apes. 



Verv respectfully yours, 

 (Signed) " ERNST HAECKEL. 



With what admirable clearness and con- 

 ciseness Professor Haeckel has gone 

 straight to the mark in that letter! Three 

 forms or types of teeth have no special 

 physiological significance, as he says. But 

 the morphological meaning conveys the 

 story of man's origin. 



In the face of this additional evidence 

 of man's near relationship to the anthro- 

 poid apes, what can those say, who hold 

 that "man's ape ancestry is becoming out 

 of date"? I know of no shadow of evidence 

 that man's immediate prehuman ancestors 

 resembled wombats or kangaroos or any 

 other animal known to science, and agree 

 with the paleontologists who hold that the 

 evidence is overwhelming that man's evo- 

 lutionary ancestors were ape-like animals. 



WHAT TO DO— IF YOU GET TWO 



Since this issue is mailed to several lists 

 of "prospective subscribers" which it was 

 impossible to check against each other, it 

 is unavoidable that some may receive two, 

 and that some subscribers may get an 

 "extra." In that case please accept it as an 

 invitation to give it to a friend and secure 

 another new subscriber. 



