"MISSING LINKS" MILLER 435 



Second phase (1915^-16) : The characters of both the jaw and the teeth were 

 regarded as not merely in a general way simian, but as definitely those of a 

 chimpanzee. Certain features of the j^iw were seen to be out of harmony with 

 the skull, according to the associations of structures obsen-ed in all hitherto 

 known primates. In the absence of conclusive evidence to prove that these 

 previously unknown associations of structures had existed in one animal, each 

 set of fragments was referred to the genus which its characters demanded. 

 The name Eoanthropus was restricted to the human remains; the chimpanzee 

 represented by the jaw was described as Pan vetus. (Miller, 1915; Matthew, 

 1916; Gregory, June, 1916, and July, 1916; Osborn, 1916.) 



Third phase (1917) : The jaw has obvious peculiarities which make it human 

 in spite of the fact that it presents many points of likeness to that of a chim- 

 panzee. All supposed disharmony between the jaw and the skull is imaginary. 

 The molar teeth are human ; radiographs and other evidence show that they 

 differ conspicuously from the corresponding teeth of all great apes. (Pycraft, 

 1917, with approval of Woodward, Smith, Keith, Underwood, and Broom.) 



The subsequent phases of the controversy have been so varied that 

 they can not be grouped under any single caption. 



Miller (1918) has shown that the characteristics relied on by 

 Py craft to prove that the jaw is human are merely features which 

 men and apes possess in common, and that their presence can not 

 be regarded as proof that the jaw and skull could have pertained 

 to one individual. 



English writers have on the whole remained true to Smith "Wood- 

 ward's idea that all parts of the Piltdown find pertain to a single 

 individual which, though human, retains so many ape-like features 

 in the jaw and teeth that it can truly be regarded as a link connecting 

 the human line with the anthropoid stock. One of them. Hunter, 

 has, however, attempted to lessen the difficulties by pointing out that 

 in his opinion "an examination of the cranial fragments in detail 

 shows a greater harmony between the anatomical features of the jaw 

 and cranium than has usually been believed to exist." (See addenda, 

 p. 465.) 



In America the original Woodwardian view has been reverted to 

 by Osborn and Gregory and has received additional support from 

 McGregor. On the contrary, Hrdlicka regards the association of 

 the jaw with the skull as exceedingly difficult of acceptance. Ac- 

 cording to him it is not unlikely that each represents a peculiar 

 human type. It is particularly instructive to compare the opinions 

 of Professor Osborn and Doctor Hrdlicka, because both men have 

 had the privilege of examining the original specimens in the British 

 Museum. Professor Osborn says (Natural History, vol. 21 (1921), 

 pp. 581-582, 590, February, 1922) : 



Seeing is believing, and the writer eagerly looked forward to a return to 

 the British Museum after so many years of absence and to the opportunity of 

 examining these precious documents, an opportunity which was most cordially 

 extended to him by Doctor Woodward. After attending on Sunday morning, 



