230 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XLIII. No. 1103 



The species of which the skull and mandible have 

 now been described in detail may be named 

 Eoanthropus dawsoni, in honor of its discoverer. 



From the start there were not lacking those 

 who hesitated to accept the cranium and man- 

 dible as belonging to the same individual. 

 This was the stand taken by Sir Eay Lankester 

 on the occasion of the first report of the dis- 

 covery before the Geological Society of London 

 in December, 1912. On the same occasion 

 Professor Waterston was even more emphatic, 

 saying it was very difficult to believe that the 

 two specimens could have come from the same 

 individual, since the mandible resembled that 

 of a chimpanzee, while the skull was human 

 in all its characters. In a later paper on the 

 Piltdown mandible,^ he concludes that refer- 

 ring the mandible and cranium to the same 

 individual would be equivalent to articulating 

 a chimpanzee foot with the bones of a hiunan 

 thigh and leg. 



Objections soon came also from France and 

 Italy. Basing his opinion on the cranial char- 

 acters, Dr. E. Anthony^ thought the specific 

 name should have been Homo dawsoni instead 

 of Eoanthropus daivsoni. About the same time 

 a similar conclusion was reached by Dr. V. 

 Ginffrida-Ruggeri. To Professor MarceUin 

 Boule,^ the Piltdown mandible is exactly like 

 that of a chimpanzee; so that if this mandible 

 had been found alone in the gravels of Pilt- 

 down associated with remains of Pliocene ani- 

 mals, it would certainly have been called Tro- 

 glodytes dawsoni. Without rejecting Smith 

 Woodward's interpretation, which Boiole con- 

 siders to be within the realm of the possible, 

 even of the probable, it would nevertheless 

 seem to him prudent to leave the matter still 

 open. He objects to the choice of the name 

 Eoanthropus, and finally in his judgment 

 Woodward's restoration does not ring true 

 {elle Sonne faux). 



It was this false note that impressed me 

 most of all on seeing the restoration for the 

 first time. The inherent difficulty in making 

 Dr. Woodward's restoration ring true rests on 



-L Nature, November 13, 1913. 



2 Rev. anthropologique, September, 1913. 



^ L'anthropologie, Jan.-Avril, 1915. 



the attempt to adjust parts that were never 

 intended for each other. This would seem to 

 have been demonstrated to an absolute cer- 

 tainty by Dr. Gerrit S. Miller* of the United 

 States National Museum. He has compared 

 the cast of the Piltdown mandible with casts 

 of chimpanzee mandibles mutilated in the 

 same manner, and finds not only similarity, but 

 absolute identity. During the month of De- 

 cember, 1915, the writer was in Washington 

 and examined the material on which Miller 

 bases his conclusions, conclusions from which 

 it would seem impossible for any one to escape, 

 who approaches the question with an open 

 mind. In an article on " Recent Progress in 

 Vertebrate Paleontology," which appeared in 

 Science^ after the present article was begun, 

 one of the joint authors. Dr. W. D. Matthew, 

 says that Dr. Miller's " argument is convinc- 

 ing and irrefutable." The ape-like canine 

 tooth found at Piltdown by Father Teilhard 

 and referred by Woodward to the right side of 

 the lower jaw, is considered to be the left upper 

 canine by Miller, who thus agrees with the 

 views previously expressed by Mr. A. E. 

 Anderson and Dr. W. K. Gregory. 



Regarding the Piltdown specimens then, we 

 have at last reached a position that is tenable. 

 The cranium is htiman as was recognized by 

 all from the beginning. On the other hand, the 

 mandible and the canine tooth are those of a 

 fossil chimpanzee. This means that in place 

 of Eoanthropus dawsoni we have two individ- 

 uals belonging to different genera, namely: 

 (1) Homo dawsoni, and (2) Troglodytes daw- 

 soni as suggested by Boule, or Pan vetus, sp. 

 nov., if we adopt Miller's nomenclature. 



Such a revision does not by any means mini- 

 mize the importance of the Piltdown discovery. 

 On the other hand it contributes to our knowl- 

 edge of the fossil fauna of the period in ques- 

 tion by the addition of the chimpanzee to the 

 list. As for the Man of Piltdown, he still 

 exists and is quite as ancient as he was before 

 the revision, which is saying a good deal ; even 

 if he is robbed of a muzzle that ill became him. 



4 "The Jaw of the Piltdown Man," Smithson- 

 ian Misc. Colls., Vol. 65, No. 12, November, 1915. 



5 January 21, 1916, p. 107. 



