440 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 19 2 8 



all the previous finds as parts of one creature would be greatly 

 strengthened. This view of the case is enthusiastically taken up by 

 Professor Osborn, who writes (Natural History, vol. 21, pp. 580- 

 581): 



Scepticism as to the association of the chimpanzeelike jaw with the skull 

 was very widespread. In the original description Smith Woodward himself 

 proclaimed the resemblance of the jaw to that of a cliimpauzee. The present 

 writer was one of the American school of sceptics who finally reached the 

 opinion that this was an instance of the accidental association of two wholly 

 unrelated fossils. It would have been diflHcult lu dislodge this opinion, so 

 widely entertained in Europe and America, but for the overwhelming confirma- 

 tion afforded to Smith Woodward by the discovery, announced in 1917,* of the 

 remains of a second Piltdown man, not in the original quarry but at another 

 exiwSTire of the Piltdown gra^'els about 2 miles distant, a discovery made by 

 the original finder, Dawson. If there is a Providence hanging over the affairs 

 of prehistoric men, it certainly manifested itself in this case, because the throe 

 minute fragments of this second Piltdown man found by Dawson are exactly 

 those which we should have selected to confirm the comparison with the original 

 type — namely (1) a first lower molar tooth, (2) a bit of bone of the forehead 

 near the right eyebrow, (3) the middle part of an occipital bone of the skull. 

 Both the grinding tooth and the eyebrow region are absolutely distinctive. 

 Placed side by side with the corresponding fossils of the first Piltdown man 

 they agTee precisely ; there is not a shadow of difference. As shown in the 

 accompanying photograph, published by permission of Dr. Smith Woodward, the 

 two grinding teeth differ only in respect to age. The first Piltdown man was 

 more advanced in years and the teeth were more worn ; the second Piltdown 

 man was younger and the teeth were unworn ; but they present precisely the 

 same characters. Smith Woodward very quietly published this confirmatory 

 evidence without, however, alluding in any way to his critics or yielding to the 

 natural temptation of writing " I told you so," a phrase which would certainly 

 have appeared from a less patient and dignified pen. 



Professor Osborn, who examined the actual specimen, tells us 

 that the newly found tooth must have belonged to a second Piltdown 

 man because its crown is unworn, its different degree of w^ear prov- 

 ing it to have pertained to a much younger individual than that 

 which had possessed the original jaw with its smoothly ground-down 

 molars. Sir Arthur Smith Woodward declared that the tooth agrees 

 " very closely with that of the original specimen of EoantJu'opus 

 dawsoni" but that it is " more obliquely worn by mastication." He 

 further says that " both the outer cusps are worn down to the dentine, 

 the anterior exposing a slightly larger area than the posterior cusp. 

 The small fifth cusp ... is also worn down so as to expose 

 a very small area of dentine," a description which would apply 

 rather well to the teeth in the original jaw. Not degree but kind 

 of wear is for him the determining feature of the tooth. In view 

 of these contradictions of statement, unusual interest attaches to 



* Woodward, A. S. Fourth Note on the Piltdown Gravel with Evidence of a Second 

 Skull of Eoanthropiis daicsoni. With an appendix by Prof. G. Elliot Smith. (Quart. 

 Journ. Geol. Soc.„ London, Vol. 73, 1917, pp. 1-10, pi. I, figs. 1, 2.) 



