Fbbeuaky 18, 1916] 



SCIENCE 



229 



of opinion especially in regard to the capacity 

 of the brain-case. Authorities are quite gen- 

 erally agreed that the cranium as well aa the 

 brain embodied certain primitive characters, 

 even though the brow-ridges were smaller and 

 the forehead less retreating than in Mousterian 

 man (Homo neandertalensis) . 



When it came to fitting the fragmentary 

 lower jaw to the cranium, difficulties multi- 

 plied; it was the right half of the mandible, 

 and the articular condyle was missing. Even 

 had it been present, there was no right glenoid 

 fossa to receive it. However a part of the left 

 temporal bone, including its glenoid fossa, had 

 been preserved, but it was typically human. 

 The lack of the parts necessary to bring the 

 mandible and cranial base into actual contact 

 served to cloak the lack of harmony existing 

 between the two. This lack of harmony was 

 likewise further obscured by the incomplete- 

 ness of the symphyseal region. 



The proximity of the brain-case and lower 

 jaw in the gravel bed, their apparent agree- 

 ment in size and the non-duplication of parts 

 present ; the fact that they bore the same marks 

 of f ossilization, showing " no more wear and 

 tear than they might have received in situ"; 

 the failure of previous discoveries to confirm 

 the presence of higher apes among European 

 Pleistocene faunas; and i)erhaps above all the 

 belief that a " generalized type " had been 

 found led inevitably to the association of 

 cranium and mandible as parts of one indi- 

 vidual or species. Was such a conclusion the 

 only logical one; was it even scientifically 

 justifiable ? 



In dealing with the contents of a gravel bed, 

 it is easy to overestimate the importance of 

 proximity. Had Piltdown been a cave deposit 

 or a camp site, the case for proximity might 

 have been somewhat stronger; even in these 

 there is abundant opportunity for chance asso- 

 ciation. In any event association can never 

 be made to take the place of articulation ; and 

 so far as Piltdown is concerned, nothing short 

 of the actual articulation of the mandible 

 with the skull should have sufficed to outweigh 

 the lack of harmony existing between these 

 parts. 



The only course to pursue then is to study 

 the parts separately, classifying each on its 

 own merits just as if the mandible had been 

 found at Piltdown and the brain-case in a 

 similar deposit somewhere else in Sussex. 

 When this is done, the problem is at once 

 clarified and there appears a solid foundation 

 on which to build. Viewed in this light, the 

 lower jaw is not only no longer human, it does 

 not belong even to a generalized type. In jus- 

 tice to Dr. A. Smith Woodward and his highly 

 meritorious researches, it should be acknowl- 

 edged before proceeding further that no one 

 has given a more exact description of the Pilt- 

 down mandible than he ; for he was the first to 

 point out its resemblance to that of a chim- 

 panzee and added : " It seems reasonable to 

 restore the fossil on this model." Thus far 

 he was on safe ground; but instead of stop- 

 ping there, he completed the sentence with: 

 " and make the slope of the bony chin inter- 

 mediate between that of the adult ape and 

 that of Homo heidelbergensis." This proved 

 to be the parting of the ways ; for after a fur- 

 ther description of both cranium and mandi- 

 ble, we find the following : 



The specimen therefore represents an annectant 

 type, and the question arises as to whether it shall 

 be referred to a new species of Homo itself, or 

 whether it shall be considered as indicating a 

 hitherto unknown genus. The brain-case alone, 

 though specifically distinguished from all known 

 human crania of equally low brain-capacity, by 

 the characters of its supraorbital border, and the 

 upward extension of its temporal muscles, could 

 scarcely be removed from the genus Homo; the 

 bone of the mandible so far as preserved, how- 

 ever, is so completely distinct from that of Homo 

 in the shape of the symphysis and the parallelism 

 of the molar-premolar series on the two sides, that 

 the facial parts of the skull almost certainly dif- 

 fered in fundamental characters from those of any 

 typically human skull. I therefore propose that 

 the Piltdown specimen be regarded as the type of 

 a new genus of the family HominidsB, to be 

 named Eoanthropus and defined by its ape-like 

 mandibular symphysis, parallel molar-premolar 

 series, and narrow lower molars which do not de- 

 crease in size backwards; to which diagnostic char- 

 acters may probably be added the steep frontal 

 eminence and slight development of brow-ridges. 



