"MISSING LINKS" — MILLER 463 



Smith, G. Elliot. Man of the Dawn. Sydney Morning Herald, July 3, 1914, 

 p. 9. 



". . . if that [Piltdown] jaw had been found without any teeth, 

 or if it had been found separate from the skull, no one would have hesi- 

 tated to call it an ape's jaw." (See Smith, 1917.) 

 Smith, G. Elliot. Discussion [of a paper by Lyne]. Proc. Roy. Soc. Medicine, 

 London, vol. 9, Odont., pp. 56^58. February, 1916. 



"To bring a hitherto unknown ape into England in the Pleistocene 

 period involves an upheaval of paleontological teaching." 



Smith, G. Elliot. New phases of the Controversies Concerning the Piltdown 

 Skull, Proc. Manchester Lit. and Philos, Soc, vol. 60, pp. XXVIII-XXIX. 

 May 25, 1916. 



" In considering the possibility that more than one hitherto unknown ape- 

 like man or man-like ape expired in Britain side by side in the Pleistocene 

 period and left complementary parts the one of the other, the element of 

 impa-obability is so enormous as not to be set aside except for the most 

 definite and positive anatomical reasons. The author . . . emphasized 

 the fact that the skull itself revealed certain features of a more primitive 

 nature than any other known representatives of the human family" (p. 

 XXIX). (See Matthew, June 16, 1916.) 

 Smith, G. Elliot. " Man of the Old Stone Age." Amer. Mus. Journ., vol. 16, 

 pp. 319-325. May, 1916. 



Review of Osborn. Piltdown skull, pp. 321-322. "But the acceptance 

 of the view that the jaw is an ape's and the cranium a man's would involve 

 the supposition that a hitherto unknown and extremely primitive apelike 

 man, and an equally unknown manlike ape, died on the same spot, and 

 that one of them left his skull without the jaw and the other his jaw with- 

 out the skull. Not only so, but it would involve also the admission that an 

 anthropoid ape was living in England in middle Pleistocene times. . . ." 



Smith, G. Elliot. The Problem of the Piltdown Jaw: Human or Subhuman? 

 Eugenics Review, vol. 9, p. 167, July, 1917. 



Review of Pycraft, 1917. " By means of the large collection of data 

 relating to details of the anatomy of the teeth and jaws of chimpanzees 

 and men he has proved quite conclusively that the Piltdown jaw ... be- 

 longed to a primitive member of the human family . . ." (See Smith, 

 July 3, 1914, and Boule, 1920.) 



SoLLAS, W. J. Ancient Hunters and their Modern Representatives. Ed. 2, 

 London, 1915, pp. I-XIV, 1-591, 314 figs. 



Piltdown man, pp. 49-56. " Some have regarded such a being as an im- 

 probable monster and have suggested that the jaw may not have belonged 

 to the skull, but to a true ape. The chances against this are, however, so 

 overwhelming that the conjecture may be dismissed as unworthy of serious 

 consideration. Nor on reflection need the combination of characters pre- 

 sented by Eoanthroptis occasion surprise. It had, indeed, been long pre- 

 viously anticipated as an almost necessary stage in the course of human 

 development" (p. 54). 



Spurrell, H. G. F. Modern Man and His Forerunners, pp. I-XXII, 1-192, pis. 

 1-5, text fig. 1. London, 1917. 



Piltdown man, p. 44 and pi. 5. " The Piltdown man, though by far the 

 most apelike human remains yet found, has much in common with modern 

 man . . . while he certainly has no place in the direct line of Neanderthal 

 man's descent." 



SuTCLiFFE, W. H. A criticism of some modern tendencies in prehistoric anthro- 

 pology. Mem. and Proc. Manchester Lit. and Philos. Soc, vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 

 1-25, pis. 1-2. June 25, 1914. 



