4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 65 



no proof is afforded. To Dr. Woodward the parts appeared to 

 present no discrepancies as to size ; but to others who have examined 

 the casts the jaw seems to be too lightly built to correspond with the 

 massive cranial bones. A mandible as heavy as that of the pleisto- 

 cene Homo heidelbergensis would probably be in due proportion; 

 but the Piltdown jaw is even less robust than in well developed recent 

 men. As regards actual dimensions the table on page 20 shows the 

 wide divergence of the Piltdown jaw from both Homo sapiens and 

 H. heidelbergensis, and its essential agreement with that of recent 

 chimpanzees. Comparisons with Gorilla and Pongo are not neces- 

 sary. About the teeth Dr. Woodward went so far as to say : " such 

 a marked regular flattening has never been observed among apes, 

 though it is occasionally met with in lower types of men" (Dawson 

 and Woodward, 1913, p. 132) . Yet I find that among nine chimpan- 

 zees with teeth at nearly the same stage of wear as in the type, the 

 smooth condition shown by the fossil is closely approached by one 

 individual and exactly matched by another (No. 84655, pi. 1, fig. 1, 

 from cast, and pl.^2, fig. 1", from actual specimen) . While the thick- 

 ness of the enamel is usually greater in Homo than in Pan, individual 

 variation in both genera is sufficient to make this character, taken 

 by itself, of little diagnostic value. The cast and Dr. Woodward's 

 figures indicate that the Piltdown teeth have enamel differing in no 

 essential feature from that of Pan No. 84655 (compare pi. 2, figs. 

 1" and 2") . As regards the mandible of the fossil it must be remem- 

 bered that the articular process is worn off to the level where it begins 

 to widen and thicken to form the base of the condyle. From the 

 characters of the part which remains Dr. Gregory reasoned that the 

 condyles were " more slender, less expanded transversely, and sup- 

 ported by more slender pillars of bone " than in the great apes, 

 features which would make the jaw "more like the average human 

 type" (1914, p. 195)- This conclusion may be true when the only 

 alternatives considered are Homo and Pongo, but it does not hold 

 good when the Piltdown jaw is compared with those of Homo and 

 Pan. The articular process near level of fracture shows more lateral 

 compression than I have been able to find in any specimen of Homo, 

 and there is no indication of the deep concavity beneath the inner two- 

 thirds of anterior edge of condyle which is a conspicuous feature of 

 this region in Homo as compared with all the great apes. While the 

 outer border of the fracture is unusually long relatively to the poste- 

 rior and inner borders of the same region as seen in most specimens 

 of Pan, the conditions in the Piltdown jaw would be almost exactly 



