"MISSING LINKS" MILLER 439 



By the two later sets of discoveries there were added to the origi- 

 nal fragments a pair of nasal bones with an accompanying tur- 

 binate, two pieces of brain case, and two teeth. About them the 

 history of the first find repeated itself. The parts of the skull were 

 universally accepted as human, and no objection was raised to re- 

 garding them as having pertained to a second member of the same 

 thick-skulled race as the original discoveries. But the teeth afforded 

 subject matter for unending controversy. Woodward considered 

 the canine to be a right lower tooth; other writers insisted that its 

 projDer place was in the left upper jaw. All agree that it is larger 

 than any known human canine and that its tip must have extended 

 beyond the level of the other teeth after the manner of an ape's 

 canine. Regarding it as a part of the dawn man, Woodward said 

 of this tooth : " In shape the canine resembles the milk canine of 

 man and that of the apes more closely than it agrees with the per- 

 manent canine of any known ape. In accordance with a well-known 

 palaeontological law, it therefore approaches the canine of the hypo- 

 thetical Tertiary anthropoids more nearly than any corresponding 

 tooth hitherto found." Those who regard the original Eoanthropus 

 as a mixture of fragments pertaining to a man and an ape naturally 

 consider the canine tooth as simian. Finding little difference be- 

 tween it and the canine of an adult female chimpanzee, they are for 

 the most part content to associate it with the jaw and the molars. 

 One author, however, declared that this association is not justified 

 and that "the pulp cavities show that the canine and the molars 

 belonged to individuals differing greatly in age. The skull an'd jaw 

 were parts of one (human) individual, but the canine is the lower 

 milk tooth of an unknown "humanoid anthropoid." (Lyne, Proc. 

 Roy. Soc. Medicine, London, vol. 9, Odont., p. 50.) 



But perhaps the most surprising differences of opinion are those 

 to which the left lower molar has given rise. This tooth, it will be 

 remembered, was, according to Sir Arthur Smith Woodward, " dis- 

 covered by Mr. Dawson in the same locality as the two pieces of 

 bone " pertaining to the third and last set of fragments. This asso- 

 ciation he regarded as very important because of its bearing on the 

 Piltdown controversy. For, in his own words, " from the facts now 

 described it seems reasonable to conclude that Eoanthropus dawsoTvi 

 will eventually prove to be as definite and distinct a form of early 

 man as was at first supposed ; for the occurrence of the same type of 

 frontal bone with the same type of lower molar in two separate locali- 

 ties adds to the probability that they belonged to one and the same 

 species." On its face this argument appears to be a powerful one. 

 Unquestionably, if a tooth identical in structure with those of the 

 original mandible but pertaining to another individual were found 

 associated with parts of a second Piltdown skull the case for uniting 



