148 THE HUMAN SKULL, ETC. FE03I PILTDOW> T . [March I913, 



broken front end of the mandible, proving the existence of a long 

 and flattened symphysis as in the chimpanzee. He considered 

 that Dr. Smith Woodward was fully justified in the conclusion 

 which he drew from this portion of the specimen as to the ape-like 

 character of the completed jaw and of its dentition ; and, though 

 the restoration of the jaw on this basis undertaken by Dr. Smith 

 Woodward was a very bold step, he considered that it was justified. 

 He considered that this lower jaw presents simian characters 

 distinct from, and more decisive than, those of the Heidelberg jaw. 

 As to the age of the specimens, he did not think that any conclusion 

 could be arrived at ; for the human bones might be earlier than 

 the flints and as early as the Mastodon tooth, or later than either. 

 He did not consider it certain that the lower jaw and the skull 

 belonged to the same individual ; and hence no convincing argument 

 as to their age could be drawn from their juxtaposition in the 

 gravel. He would prefer not to use the word 'Eolith' to describe 

 any flint-implement, or supposed flint-implement. Those called 

 ' Eoliths ' by Mr. Dawson resembled (as did many pieces of the 

 flint) the flints of the High Plateau- gravel of Ightham. The 

 coarsely-worked triangular and irregular flints found in the gravel 

 were certainly of a different character, and probably later. But he 

 did not agree to their being termed ' Chellean " or ' early Chellean.? 

 Chelles was simply a locality, and there was no definite 'form' of 

 flint-implement which had been designated by the word ' Chellean.' 

 It was better to describe the forms of flint-implements, without 

 making use of names for them which had no authorized and 

 accepted meaning and might lead to misunderstanding. 



Prof. A. Keith regarded the discovery of fossil human remains 

 just announced as by far the most important ever made in England, 

 and of equal, if not of greater consequence than any other discovery 

 yet made, either at home or abroad. He agreed that the reconstruc- 

 tion of the skull had been executed with great skill, the only point 

 in the restoration about which he was not convinced being the 

 chin-region of the mandible and the form of the incisor, canine, 

 and premolar teeth. The restoration approached too nearly the 

 characters of the chimpanzee. The very simian characters of the 

 sub-symphysial region of the mandible, the undoubtedly large 

 anterior teeth, the primitive characters of the skull and brain, 

 seemed to him altogether incompatible with the Chellean age 

 assigned by the Authors. In his opinion the skull must be 

 assigned to the same age as the mammalian remains, which were 

 admittedly Pliocene. In the speaker's opinion, Tertiary man had 

 thus been discovered in Sussex. In coming to this conclusion the 

 speaker was influenced by the fact that in the Heidelberg jaw, 

 which was of early Pleistocene date, the symphysial region of 

 the jaw was essentially human in its markings and characters ; 

 whereas the same features in the remains just described were 

 simian, and therefore presumably much earlier. 



Prof. Boyd Dawkins said that he agreed with the Authors of 

 the paper that the deposit containing the human remains belonged 



