216 Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society. 
difference between the figures is in each tooth 2 mm. and the index 
igeOD: | 
So great a difference has not been found present in the case of any 
human molars, prehistoric or recent, and an index so low has not been 
obtained in any human case. 
Lastly, I would mention briefly the question of the canine tooth which 
was found in the same layer. It was of conical form, laterally compressed _ 
so that the lingual surface was concave, the labial gently convex. The 
enamel on the inner face has been entirely removed by mastication, the 
surface forming a gently curved cavity evidently produced by a single 
tooth, and it extends to the basal edge of. the crown. The tooth was 
stated to agree more closely with the milk canine of man and apes than 
with the corresponding permanent teeth, and was assigned to the left half 
of the mandible. 
Subsequently, upon what appears to me to be conclusive evidence, it has 
been shown that the tooth is in reality the right upper canine, and Mr Miller 
found that it was almost identical with the right upper canine of a female 
chimpanzee from the French Congo in the collection at his disposal. 
In conclusion, I would say, that at Piltdown a discovery of the first 
importance has been made. It has established the presence in England 
in the Pliocene or Pleistocene period of a form of anthropoid hitherto almost 
unknown in Europe, and also of a form of elephant hitherto unknown in 
Western Europe. 
It has established the existence in England in the later Pleistocene time 
of a human species resembling closely in many details the Aurignacian © 
race. It has added another to the evidences already known of the exist- 
ence of man in a form similar to his present form at a very remote 
geological period. 
On the question of the relation of the cranium and mandible, I am 
convinced that in dealing with separate fragments of uncertain origin, and 
of a mixed kind, each bearing indubitable evidence of its general affinities, 
it is not permissible to combine together such fragments in a single skeleton 
without clear evidence that such a combination actually existed. Especially 
is this the case in regard to two elements such as the mandible and the 
cranium, when, as in the present case, such association infringes the whole 
of the harmony of correlation which has hitherto been found to exist in 
authentic, complete specimens of similar prehistoric remains. The teeth, 
moreover, have now been shown not to possess the human characters at 
first attributed to them, and with this the only ground for assigning the 
mandible to the cranium has disappeared. 
e 
(Issued separately, 6th May 1921.) 
