TOWELING HAT 
Thirsty terry cloth toweling is 
shaped into a hat that beats 
summer heat. Use it to wipe 
your perspiring brow or douse 
it in water, wring it out and 
wear it to keep you cool at 
tennis, golf, boating, fishing, 
camping Sizes: 
M(7-7U U7’/.-7%), XK7’/2-7%), 
XXL(7 3 /4-7 7 /(). Colors: Sailing Blue, Powder 
Blue, White, Yellow. Toweling Hat $7.75 ppd. 
Order Today! Money Back Guarantee! 
Enclosed is my check or money order tor $ 
(Add sales tax where applicable ) 
Please RUSH my #2002 Toweling Hat 
Size Color 
Name 
Address 
City 
State Zip 
□ Send me your FREE color catalog of quality 
outdoor apparel and equipment. 
Dept. GNH, Fifth & Union, Seattle, WA 98124 
Beautiful 
Lingerie! 
luxurious 
catalogue of 
lacy teddies, 
camisoles 
& tap pants, 
French bra & 
bikini sets, 
fashionable 
garter belts & 
hosiery, 
elegant gowns, 
kimonos. . . 
& much, 
much more. 
ir- designer 
lingerie 
Send $1 for catalogue to NFl-o6 
Box 31442, San Francisco CA <44131 
Boutiques in San Francisco, Palo Alto & Cupertino, CA 
Similarly, all biologists study some 
chemistry, physics, and mathematics, 
but that does not make us chemists, 
physicists, or mathematicians. It is a 
common mistake to equate “priest” 
and “theologian.” Later, Gould says 
that Teilhard “seemed to hide passion, 
mystery, and good humor behind a 
garb of piety.” This seems to suggest 
hypocrisy, and 1 believe that it is not 
only unjustified but that it contradicts 
those who worked with him most close- 
ly (for example, George B. Barbour 
and Helmut de Terra). 
Teilhard wrote to Oakley that, as 
a theology student at Hastings, he had 
not had much free time. Gould finds 
this inconsistent with Teilhard’s letters 
to his parents, in which he talked much 
about travels in southern England. 
Again, it appears that the conflict is 
in the interpretation rather than in 
the facts. Anyone who knows anything 
about the Jesuit seminary curriculum 
knows that it is an onerous one that 
leaves minimal spare time. Nonethe- 
less, there is always some time for 
recreation. When students write home, 
they rarely send transcripts of class 
notes. They are more likely to write 
about recreation, hobbies, and special 
interests, even if these occupy only 
a small part of their time. 
Gould says that “Leakey also men- 
tioned Teilhard’s knowledge of chem- 
istry and the clever staining of the 
Piltdown bones.” Was his knowledge 
of chemistry out of the ordinary? He 
did no graduate work in chemistry. 
The main evidence of his expertise 
in this field is that he taught elemen- 
tary chemistry for three years at the 
Jesuit college in Cairo. To teach ele- 
mentary chemistry in a classical col- 
lege, however, does not require any 
unusual mastery of the subject. Most 
of the principals in the case, as science 
graduates of British universities, prob- 
ably equalled or surpassed Teilhard 
in this respect. 
Let me summarize the case as I 
see it. Teilhard went to England as 
a seminarian with a strong extracurri- 
cular interest in natural history, es- 
pecially geology and paleontology, and 
he put as much time into his hobby 
as the curriculum would permit. He 
soon met other amateur collectors, in- 
cluding Dawson, a lawyer who had 
been collecting in Sussex for many 
years and who had sent enough ma- 
terials to the British Museum to make 
up a “Dawson collection.” Teilhard 
was much impressed by his new friend 
and probably flattered that so senior 
and distinguished a collector should 
take an interest in him. When Dawson 
confided that he had found probable 
fossils of very early man, and espe- 
cially when so distinguished a scientist 
as Smith Woodward championed the 
fossils, it could not fail to make a 
tremendous impression on a young 
amateur who had only dreamed of 
finding important fossils of early man 
and of receiving the confidence of sci- 
entists of the importance of Smith 
Woodward. In such a situation, it is 
hardly surprising that he was over- 
awed, tended to romanticize the in- 
cident, and accepted it as presented 
by Dawson and Smith Woodward. 
Upon returning to Paris, he began 
his work under Boule. Here, for the 
first time, he studied mammalian, pri- 
mate, and human fossils systematic- 
ally, and he learned the critical at- 
titude toward them that was so char- 
acteristic of Boule. Here he became 
convinced of the incompatibility of the 
Piltdown jaw and cranium. At best, 
these now appeared as an accidental 
association of unrelated parts; at 
worst — could it have been fraud? Pos- 
sibly he was suggesting this very ten- 
tatively with the phrase comme par 
expres. He shrank from the repugnant 
possibility that any of his friends 
might have been involved in such an 
act. In any event, having once called 
it right (1920), he then put it out 
of mind and went on to other materials 
that did not raise such distressing 
problems. 
When, forty years after the events, 
Oakley questioned Teilhard, it is 
hardly surprising that he had to grope 
for the answers. Far from suggesting 
complicity (as it might, had it con- 
cerned recent events), it merely sug- 
gests that, for all the sublimity of his 
thought, he was still very much a man 
with human limitations, even as the 
rest of us. 
After all of this, I must concede 
that it is possible that Gould is right, 
although 1 do not consider it probable. 
If so, his hypothesis of a joke that 
got out of hand seems to be the best 
available explanation. The French love 
to twist the tail of the British lion, and 
Teilhard was a quintessential French- 
man. 
But if not Teilhard, then who? Smith 
and Sollas are implicated far more 
strongly than Gould concedes. On the 
basis of Douglas’s statement, I would 
consider Sollas to be the most prob- 
able coconspirator. As I have not seen 
van Esbroeck’s book I cannot assess 
20 
