26 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL.83 



able age, and I, for one, am much obliged to you for having brought 

 it under notice, and for the hberal way in which you have allowed it 

 to be examined." Since then the specimen has not been heard of. 



Professor Osborn, in the previously named publication (1921), 

 after reviewing what is known about the specimen, writes as follows : 

 " It would be hazardous for the writer even to express an opinion as 

 to whether this jaw is of Pliocene age. The imperfect figure repro- 

 duced on the opposite page shows it to be different from the two 

 most ancient jaws we know, namely, those of the Piltdown and 

 Heidelberg men, for it apparently had a prominent chin. It is possible 

 that the mineralization of the jaw was due to deep intrusive burial. 

 To settle these questions the jazt' must he traced and found. Even if 

 the jaw proves to belong to Homo sapiens, Doctor Collyer's paper 

 has suddenly become a classic because it has led to the long awaited 

 discovery of Tertiary man, which may now be described. 



" It remained for Moir, half a century later, to unearth Collyer's 

 paper of 1867, to vindicate his entire procedure, and above all to 

 rediscover the actual sixteen-foot level at Foxhall in which Doctor 

 CoUyer believed the jaw was located." 



Mr. Moir himself, two years later,* after similarly reviewing what 

 is known about the jaw, says : " The above account makes it clear 

 that, while there seems much probability for regarding Collyer's dis- 

 covery as of considerable importance, the fact of this importance is 

 not scientifically established. When all the circumstances of the case 

 are considered, it is not possible to speak of the Foxhall jaw-bone 

 as affording certain evidence of the existence of Tertiary man, nor 

 is it desirable or reasonable that the acceptance or rejection of the 

 flaked flints found by me, under strictly scientific conditions, at the 

 16 foot level at this place, should be influenced by the specimen 

 described by Collyer." 



Discussion. — From all the preceding a number of facts seem clear. 

 The first is that there is no authentic information as to the circum- 

 stances of the find. The second is that for eight years the specimen 

 lay unreported ; and that when eventually reported, men of the caliber 

 of Owen, Busk, and Huxley were not impressed with its value, though 

 the scientific world just then was quite alert as to the importance of 

 such finds on account of the publicity given to the jaw of Abbeville 

 (Molin Quignon). The bone was "fossilized," through infiltration 

 with red oxide of iron ; but such changes are well known to depend on 

 the geophysical and chemical conditions to which a specimen is sub- 

 jected and are no safe criteria of time. 



* Amer. Journ. Phys. Anthrop., p. 416, 1924. 



