"MISSING LINKS" MILLER 427 



skull. These attempts, coming from medical men, and being based principally 

 on human anatomy, are far too hypothethical, since we possess no data for the 

 I'ecoustruction of the base of the skull, the whole face, and all the apparatus 

 of the lower jaw. It is astonishing to find a great palaeontologist like Osborn 

 also publishing attempts of this kind. Dubois ventured still further in the 

 realm of imagination when he exhibited at the International Exhibition of 1900, 

 in the Dutch Indies pavilion, a painted model of Pithecanthrojms as he appeared 

 in life! 



Various interpretations have been given of the facts which I have just sum- 

 marized as briefly but as accurately as possible. According to many scientists, 

 Dubois' opinion that we have here a transition form between the anthropoid 

 apes and man is justified. Of such, I may mention in France, Manouvrier and 

 Verneau ; in America, Marsh and Osborn ; in England, Duckworth, Sollas, and 

 Keith ; in Australia, Berry and Robertson ; in Germany, Nehring, Schwalbe, 

 Haeckel, and others. Other German authors, Virchow, Krause, Waldeyer and 

 Ranke, the Italian Sergi, and the Swiss R. Martin, believe that Pitlieco/nthropus 

 was simian in nature. Topinard in France, Houze in Belgium, Lydekker, 

 Turner, and Cunningham in England, are inclined to regard it as a man. 



To consider only the most Important relic, the skullcap; unquestionably this 

 falls into place exactly, I might almost say ideally, between that of the large 

 ai)es, like the chimpanzee, and of a man of archaic characters, such as the 

 Neanderthal man. 



But it must be distinctly stated, and in this case repeated, that resemblance 

 does not always imply descent. Even if, in the sum of his known characters 

 (poor at the best). Pithecanthropus actually forms a structural link between 

 the large apes and man, it does not necessarily follow that he must be re- 

 garded as a genealogical link, and this distinction is not, as has been asserted, 

 merely a question of words. 



In order to come to a decisive conclusion regarding his true genealogical 

 relationships, we should require to possess at least the complete skull and lower 

 jawbone of Pithecanthropus; for all the reconstructions, with their more or 

 less marked anthropomorphism, which have been advanced by different authors, 

 will never help to solve the problem. In the present state of our knowledge, 

 I do not think that we are yet in a position to believe that there was any direct 

 descent between Pithecanthropus and man, such as the genealogical tree 

 prepared by Dubois would indicate. [Figure 1, diagram 2.] 



It is certainly more satisfactory to admit that the evolutionary branch to 

 which the famous Javan fossil belongs was diffei'ent from the human branch. 

 Naturalists have no longer any doubt that we are related to the apes ; but it is 

 of some interest to ti:y to define this relationship, especially 'when we meet 

 with a creature apparently more akin to us than any other. Dubois rightly 

 pointed out that if Pithecanthropus is, so to speak, only our granduncle instead 

 of our grandfather, he is none the less an ape man representing a stage in 

 human descent. The majority of scientists to-day adhere to this view. They 

 consider Pithecanthropus to be an extinct lateral twig of the human branch. 

 As such he is regarded by Keith, Gregory, and Osborn. [Figure 1, diagram 3.] 



It is possible, however, to interpret these genealogical relationships in yet 

 another way. Following Dubois, several naturalists have laid stress on the 

 resemblance between the Pithecanthropus remains and the cori-esponding portions 

 of a gibbon's skeleton. In that case, why not assume that Pithecanthropus rep- 

 resents a large form, a giant ape, related to the gibbon group? 



