[hill-tout] PHYLOGENY OF MAN 81 



of what the skull form and the facial and dental characters of Homo- 

 simius precursor were, we can best do this by forming a composite 

 picture of the features which man and the young anthropoids share 

 in common. In this connection I feel convinced that a critical com- 

 parison of the skulls of 'the young Krapina children with those of 

 the young anthropoids would yield valuable results. I believe this 

 has never yet been attempted. 



The fortunate discovery of two new fragments of a skull and a 

 human molar by Dawson at Piltdown, in 1914-15, has made it quite 

 clear that in dealing with Eoanthropus Dawsoni we are dealing not 

 with a solitary and, therefore, possibly an abnormal, specimen of 

 humanity, but with a true race with distinct generic characters. One 

 of these fragments formed part of the supra-orbital region of a right 

 frontal bone. The other fragment is a part of the occipital bone. 

 Both fragments agree with the type specimen in their mineralised 

 condition and in their unusual thickness of bone, though in the 

 occipital fragment this thickness is not quite so pronounced as in the 

 type specimen. 



The tooth is the first lower molar and agrees closely with that 

 in the type mandible. In this connection it is of interest to remark 

 that some of our American authorities, notably, Osborn, following 

 Matthews, have placed the canine tooth found with the original 

 remains in the upper jaw. This association has astonished Keith 

 and other of our British anatomists. 



The point at issue is obviously an important one and carries 

 profound significance with it For if the canine rightly belongs to 

 the upper jaw, and the fact is susceptible of conclusive proof, then 

 all the evidence piled up so meticulously by Millar in his effort to 

 prove the mandible to be the jaw of an ape, falls at once to the ground, 

 and the relation of the mandible to the skull is established beyond a 

 shadow of a doubt. 



It may be that the evidence of relationship of this canine tooth 

 to the upper or the lower jaw is of that same indeterminate 

 character as the evidence adduced by the two schools of opinion to 

 prove that the mandible was or was not related to the cranium. If 

 this be so, then no definite decision on the point can be reached, 

 and the main question of the relation of the mandible to the skull 

 will remain just where it was before. 



And now, in closing this brief review of the evidence bearing 

 upon man's past history, the author would again point out that if 

 the conclusions arrived at in this paper are valid and follow logically, 

 as they seem to him to do, from the evidence at our disposal, then 



—19 



