[hill-tout] PHYLOGENY OF MAN 69 



understand that he may have appeared on the globe at the same 

 time as more highly-developed and less simian-like types did. This 

 view also enables us to see in Homo heidelbergensis a type of man 

 similar to Homo neanderthalensis. We may indeed go farther than 

 this and see in him, if we are led to take that view, an earlier form 

 of the same genus. There is nothing in the character of the Mauer 

 jaw to hinder us from regarding the men of Heidelberg as the direct 

 forerunners of Neanderthal man. The only thing which seems to 

 stand in the way of our establishing this view is the absence of all 

 evidence of the presence of either type during the long interval 

 between the Mousterian epoch and the Mafflian, which latter, Rutot 

 regards as the epoch of Homo heidelbergensis. But this does not 

 mean that none exists or that it will not be found. Remains of either 

 or both may come to light at any time. All we can say is that up 

 to the present we have no direct evidence of the presence of either 

 of these races of man between these two epochs. The human re- 

 mains now regarded as characteristic of this intervening period are 

 those of the High-terrace men, so called because these remains have 

 been found mainly in the upper 100-foot terraces of several of the 

 rivers of Western Europe. These terraces or ancient river-beds 

 antedate by many millennia the later and lower 50-foot terraces 

 characteristic of the Mousterian culture. 



These men are best exemplified in the Galley Hill, the Clichy 

 and the Olmo types. The valleys of the Thames, Somme, Seine and 

 Arno have all revealed this same kind of man, who, in his general 

 cranial characters approximates very closely to the modern type. 

 Keith, after his critical and detailed survey of the human remains 

 known to us now as antedating the Mousterian epoch, comes to 

 the conclusion that all the remains of early man of which we have 

 any knowledge, with the one exception of Heidelberg man, resemble in 

 their cranial characters the skulls of modern man rather than those 

 of Homo neanderthalensis. 



From the point of view taken in this paper, this is exactly what 

 we ought to find. If the skulls of the young anthropoids represent 

 in their general characters, as they must, according to von Baer's 

 biogenetic law, the skull-form of the ancestor common to themselves 

 and man, we should find this type of skull more surely the farther back 

 in man's history we go. That this view is sound we are assured by 

 the discovery of Eoanthropus who though very much older than the 

 High-terrace type of man, possessed similar cranial characters. 



These skulls of early man, while exhibiting the general contours 

 and cranial capacity of those of modern man, yet possess at the same 



R.ARY 



