2 Dr. A. Smith Woodward — Early Man. 



connected with the early ancestry of man those of Pithecanthropus 

 erectus from Java are probably the oldest hitherto discovered. 

 Professors Osborn and Obermaier, however, differ considerably in 

 their interpretation of this remarkable fossil species, the former 

 regarding it as a lowly type of man, the latter treating it as a gigantic 

 ape. The fact is that no further progress can be made in under- 

 standing Pithecanthropus until Professor Kugene Dubois publishes his 

 long-promised detailed description of the cast of the brain-cavity 

 which he has so beautifully prepared. During my last visit to Holland, 

 in 1913, Professor Dubois kindly showed me all the original specimens 

 with materials for comparison, and my own impression was that the 

 resemblances to the gibbon which he has pointed out in each part are 

 very real and striking. The upper molar teeth and the distal end of 

 the femur, for example, have some remarkably gibbon-like characters. 

 A. detached lower premolar, it is true, is essentially human in type ; 

 but the fragment of mandible, from the same geological formation, so 

 often mentioned in notices of Pithecanthropus, was found a few miles 

 distant from the other remains and cannot at present be associated 

 with them. This specimen is merely a waterworn piece of bone 

 beneath the two premolars, which have lost their crowns ; but, so far 

 as preserved, it appears to be typically human. There is thus some 

 reason to suspect that man himself lived in Java with Pithecanthropus, 

 and that the latter was really a gigantic and precocious gibbon. 

 The occurrence of such an animal in the large island of Java — the 

 special home of gibbons — would be precisely analogous to the presence 

 of the extinct gigantic and precocious lemurs in the swamps and caves 

 of the large island of Madagascar — the special home of lemurs. 



For some reason which I do not appreciate, Professor Osborn supposes 

 that Homo heidelhergensis is next in antiquity to Pithecanthropus, 

 while Eoanthropus dawsoni (Piltdown man) flourished much later. 

 Such an opinion can only be founded on negative evidence, and 

 the reverse is suggested by the characters of the lower jaw itself. 

 Eoanthropus may have survived to become contemporary with 

 Heidelberg man, but it can scarcely have had a later origin. 

 Professor Osborn's own restoration of the skull and mandible of 

 Eoanthropus (made with the help of Professor J. H. McGregor) is, 

 indeed, essentially similar to the latest restorations made independently 

 both by the British Museum and by the Royal College of Surgeons, 

 and certainly represents the lowest human type hitherto discovered. 

 Professor Osborn only mars his work by placing the canine tooth in 

 the upper jaw, with no opposing tooth in the lower jaw which could 

 produce its characteristic deep surface of wear. He also fails to 

 recognize the fact that this canine tooth is more closely similar in 

 shape to the lower milk-canine of Homo sapiens than to the canine, 

 either upper or lower, whether temporary or permanent, of any 

 known ape. In the second edition of his volume (without, however, 

 altering the main part of the text) he seems to realize the difficulties 

 of his position, and even adopts the strange opinion of Mr. Gerrit 

 S. Miller, 1 that the Piltdown lower jaw and canine tooth do not 



1 G. S. Miller, The Jaw of the Piltdown Man, Smithson. Miscell. Collections, 

 vol. Ixv, No. 12, pp. 31, pis. v, 1915. 



