"MISSING LINKS" MILLER 419 



dence revealed in a cast of the brain, which demonstrates beyond a doubt 

 that the scientific name Pithecantliropus applied by Dubois is a misnomer, 

 that the so-called Pithecanthropus was nut an " ape man," as the Greek word 

 implies, but a true " pro-man " or " dawn man." . . . 



I am glad to be the first to befriend the dawn man from the long pre-Stone 

 Age and to remove from his reputation the bar sinister of ape descent. . . . 

 The myth of ape ancestry lingers on the stage, in the movies, in certain 

 antinaturalistic literature, in caricature of our pedigree, even in certain 

 scientific parlance, but the ape-ancestry hypothesis is entirely out of date and 

 its place is taken by the recent demonstration that we are descended from 

 " dawn men," not from " ape-men." The crucial point in this demonstration 

 is the application of modern intelligence tests to the Trinil man of Java 

 through the expert observations of my Columbia colleagues. Prof. J. Howard 

 McGregor, anatomist, and Prof. Frederick Tilney, psychiatrist. 



The Trinil man is a dawn man and not an ape man. He walked erect, 

 he thought as man, he probably spoke as a man, although his vocabulary was 

 limited. . . . But in the dawn man was the potency of modern civiliza- 

 tion. A welcome gift from anthropology to humanity is this banishment of 

 the myth and bogie of our ape ancestry. 



Other convinced evolutionists take a different stand. They fully 

 believe, for a variety of reasons, that man owes his present structure 

 to a long and gradual process of development away from nonhuman 

 ancestors, but they contend that we have not yet discovered fossils 

 which furnish direct evidence of this process. Prof. Martin Ram- 

 strom, in a paper published 10 years ago in the bulletin of the Geo- 

 logical Institution of the University of Upsala (vol. 16, pp. 261-304, 

 November 22, 1919), clearly expounded this view. His conclusions 

 I translate as follows : 



Theories and working hypotheses are clearly necessary iu scientific work. 

 But it seems to me not entirely right to " reconstruct " unknown links in the 

 chain of evolution according to these hypotheses and then to lay such a " I'estor- 

 ation " before the public in the literature and in museums. Without more 

 certain premises and foundations palseoutology and anthropology become a 

 veritable land of Babel — everything becomes unsteady ! After a few years 

 perhaps another investigator follows this same method of " reconstruction." 

 He perhaps substitutes a contradictory opinion and discovers in his turn a 

 "proof" to support his way of thinking. And which of the two is right? 



Let me give just two examples : Pithecanthropus and Eoanthropus. Eugene 

 Dubois' find, made in a river bed and put together out of a mixture of fossil 

 bones, consisted of — 



An apelike skullcap; 

 Several apelike teeth; 

 A manlike thigh bone. 



Out of this was put together the transition form Pithecanthropus (Haecket). 

 And it was accepted by many as a proof of the theory that in the process of 

 human development the upright gait was the primary factor and the high 

 specialization of the brain was a secondary phenomenon. Literally the reason- 

 ing was as follows : " The fact tliat the femur appears relatively more manlike 

 than the skull merely confirms the idea (auffassung), supported from several 

 directions, that in the morphogenetic transition from apes to men the adop- 



