212 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society. 
\ 
3. The jaw was entirely different from any known specimen of the jaw 
of man, recent or prehistoric, the teeth were of the same size as 
those in the famous Heidleberg jaw, but the rest of the jaw was 
dissimilar. 
The interior surface of the skull has been subjected to a very careful 
examination by Prof. Elliot Smith, and casts were made of this surface with ~ 
a view to discovering the pattern of the convolutions and lobes of the brain 
which the skull contained. The conclusion has been drawn that the brain 
was of a simpler and more primitive type than any yet known in prehistoric 
man. ‘The cranial fragments are undoubtedly of great antiquity, and one is 
not surprised to learn that the type of brain was simple, but I would remind 
you that few specimens of skulls are yet available for this purpose, and the 
reliability of the conclusions drawn from the endocranial casts of such crania, 
is not yet established. | 
At the first meeting, at which the remains were described, I expressed 
doubt of the propriety of assigning the mandible to the cranium, and in 1913 
I expressed strongly the view that from a study of the mandible it seemed 
to me to be unjustifiable to assign both fragments to the same individual, on 
the principle that a correlation exists between cranium and mandible in the 
human and in the ape’s skull, and that no such correlation was shown in the 
parts discovered. 3 
The opinion which I expressed was met by the statement that the jaw 
was certainly very hke a chimpanzee jaw, but that the teeth which it 
contained were entirely human, and the inference was made, but not 
expressed, that some undefined dental characters can override even the 
‘most striking structural features of the mandible. | 
Nor was the attitude of the upholders of the original view modified by the 
discovery of a canine tooth, which was most distinctly not human, but which 
they assigned to the same mandible, even though this involved the paradox 
of a characteristically human skull, whose jaw unmistakably resembled 
the jaw of a chimpanzee, which contained teeth of which a front one 
(canine) “differed fundamentally from that of any member of the genus 
Homo,” while the back teeth were “ essentially and characteristically 
human.” 
Some time after the publication of the original description, an important 
paper was published by Gerrit. 8. Miller! of the Smithsonian Institute at 4 
Washington. He made a careful examination of the casts of the fragments 
and of a large series of anthropoid material, and reached the definite con- 
1 Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 65, No. 12. 
