close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

Dimensions of the first and second lower molars with their bearing on the Piltdown jaw and on man's phylogeny.

код для вставкиСкачать
DIMENSIONS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LOWER MOLARS
WITH THEIR BEARING ON THE PILTDOWN
JAW AND ON MAN’S PHYLOGENY
ALESH R D L I ~ K A
THE PILTDOWN MOLARS VS. THOSE O F MODERN MAN
Further consideration of the highly interesting teeth of the Piltdown
jaw’ led the writer to examine and take careful measurements on teeth
of the principal racial groups of man of to-day, on those of other lower
jaws of Early Man, and finally also on those of the anthropoid and
other apes.
The lower molars of modern man are seen offhand to be in general
relatively short (mesio-distally )and broad (linpuo-labially). There are
observable individual exceptions, especially for single teeth, but on the
whole the maximum breadth of the crown, particularly in the less
variable MI and Mz, is seen to be not far from its length. Not seldom,
in fact, the two dimensions appear equal, and occasionally the breadth
may even show in excess of the length. A casual examination of the
lower molars of the anthropoid apes gives the impression that these
teeth are frequently relatively longer and narrower than in man, though
there are also exceptions. All of which makes it highly desirable to
have accurate and as far as possible ample measurements on both human
and anthropoid molar teeth.
A search through dental and anthropological literature shows that
the subject of tooth dimensions is not yet adequately covered. There
are various series of data, but none are conclusive. The method of
measuring, itself, has not thus far been fully standardized,2 and even
the nomenclature remains unsettled and a w l a ~ a r d . ~
‘See this Journal, 1922, V, No. 4.
2An attemDt in this direction is made bv R. Martin (“Hdb. d. AnthroD.”. 566-’7):
but the direct‘ions for the length (maximum) are found.difficult t o follow in’practice:
3Thenomenclature used by the author will be in harmony with the anthropological
rather than the unsettled dental terminology. We know the antero-posterior
diameter of either the head or the lower jaw as their “length,” and the lateral diameter of both as their “breadth,” so the terms “length” and “breadth” are applied
respectively t o the antero-posterior (or mesio-distal) and the lateral (or bucco-lingual)
diameters of the molar teeth. It feels unnatural t o call the generally longer anteroposterior diameter of these teeth “breadth” and the lateral diameter “thickness,”
as is usual with most dental writers. Moreover when speaking of the mesio-distal
diameter of the lower molars toeether, all authors will say the length of the molars
(comp. Selenka, “Menschenaffen,” 1Lief., 1898,130). Finally, thereare authors who
use the two terms as they are used here. W. Branco. in “Die menschenahnlichen
Zahne aus dem Bohnerz der Schwabischen Alb (8” Stuttgart, 1898, p. 30), speaking
of the dimensions of molars, defines “Lange” (our Length) as “die Dimension von
vorn nach hinten, im Vergleich zu Breite, von aussen nach innen” ($so pp. 45, 46).
d’Anthrop., 3 sCr., I, 406) uses the terms longueur” and
I n 1886 Topinard ((Rev.
“largeur” exactly as Length and Breadth are used in this paper.
195
AMER. J O U R . PHYS. ANTHROP.. VOL. VI, NO. 2
ALE^ H R D L I ~ K A
196
Average
mm.
Length (antero-post. or
mesio-distal diam.)
Breadth (lateral or bucco-lingual diam.)
Crania
I I . ~
10.4
Minimun Maximum
Aver=ge Minimum Maximum
mm.
mm.
mm.
mm.
10.-
12.2
10.7
-
-
9.-
11.-
9.8
--
-
mm.
I
Lower M,
Length
Breadth
Lower M,
/I
Length
Breadth
15 European
15 Negro
15 New Caledonian
In 1889, G. V. Black in his “Descriptive Anatomy of the Human
Teeth” (1st ed., Phila., 1889; 4th ed. 1897, pp. 14-21), gives tables of
measurements of all the teeth, which, there being no mention to the
contrary, were evidently derived all from white Americans. “The
numbers measured of the different varieties differed, but in all denominations they were sufficient to insure reasonable accuracy as to the average
size.” The dimensions of the 1st and 2nd lower molars are given thus:3
1Nomenclature used: “Kronenbreite”-“the mesio-distal diameter on the labial
side of the tooth;” “Kronentiefe”-the “grBsster bukko-lingualer Durchmesser.”
ZNodistinction made as t o sex or side.
3There is no distinction as t o sex. The two measurements are defined as follows:
“Mesio-distal diameter of crown: this is the extent fromg,mesialt o distal in the
greatest diameter, or at the points of proximate contact.”
Labio- or bucco-lingual
diameter.” This measurement was taken a t the greatest diameter of the crown in
the direction named.”
DIMEXSIONS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LOWER MOLARS
Lower M,
1
Average
Minimum Maximum
197
Lower M,
I
Average
Minimum Maximum
Length
Breadth
In 1895, Max de Terra, in his “Beitrage z. e. Odontographie der
Menschenrassen” (8”, Berlin, pp. 22, 71, 85), pave the measurements
and B. L. relations of a large number of human lower molars. Unfortunately he gives no means, no indices and no (or but few) individual
measurements, which much restricts the use of the data. Also there
are no distinctions as to sex or side. The records’ are:
Lower M,
KTi
jku116
Recent Europeans
(Whites)
Non-Negroid Africans (Egyptians,
N. A’s)
Recent Asiatics
(Yellow-Brown)
American Indians
(misc.)
Polynesians
Negroes
Australians
Melanesians
Length
Breadth
Lower M,
Length
Breadth
mm.
9-11.5
mm.
9-11.6
mm.
8.5-11.8
9.7-12
9.2-11.5
8-11.7
8-1 1
9-12
10.4-12.4
9.2-11.6
9-11.6
8.8-12
9.8-12.4
8.2-11
9.2-11.3
8 10.9-11.6
97 9.8-12.8
11 10.8-12.7
14 10-12.2
9.8-11.6
9-12
10-12.2
.0.2-12
9.9-10.9
9.8-12
11-12.2
9.8-12.3
9.4-10.8
9-12
10.3--11.9
9.2-12
357
71
106
31
mm.
10-12
In 1899, A. E. Taylor published the following measurements on
English teeth (“Variations in .the human tooth-form as met with in
isolated teeth,” J . Anat. 8 Physiol., XXXIII, 266-272) ;2
Lower M,3
Lower
M24
Length
Breadth
In 1909, E. Hillebrand (Pester Medizin. Chir. Presse, XLV, 212) gives
measurements of first and second lower molars of skulls from Hungary;
240 of the first molars (no distinction as to sex or side) gave him the
average measurement of 10.8mm. for length and 10.5 111111. for breadth,
‘Nomenclature: Length-“Breite;” breadth-“Dicke.”
Also uses however “medio-distale Lange” and “lingun-buccale Lange.”
2His term for the antero-posterior diameter is “thickness” or “proximo-distal
length; and for the lateral or labio-lingual diameter it is “breadth” as in our nomenclature. No distinction is made as t o side or sex.
3119 extracted teet.h: 4160 extracted teeth.
ALE^ H R D L I ~ K A
198
while 272 second lower molars gave 10.2 mm. for length and 9.8 mm. for
breadth.
In 1909 also, the measurements are given of the lower molars of six
Australians by H. Klaatsch (“Die neuesten Ergebnisse der Palaontologie
des Menschen und ihre Bedeutung fur das Abstammungsproblem.
2.f. Etlziaol., 1909, XLI, 557-’S), as follows:
Lower M,
Lower M,
Length]
mm.
11.5
11.2
10.11.8
11.12.8
Australians (right & left)
GGTI
Breadth
Length
12.12.11.11.11.13.-
mm.
11.8
12.10.13.2
12 5
14:-
I
Breadth
1 mm.
1 12.12.11.2
11.2
11.2
13.-
11 11
In 1914, in his article “Ueber Zahne friihhistorisches Volker der
Schweiz” (Schweiz. Viertelj. f. Zahnheilk., XXIV, 138), F. Schwerz
gives measurements of the teeth of a series of V-VIII century Aleman
skulls from northern Switzerland:
Lower M,
Lower M,
Alemanni
mm.
mm.
1110.7
10.2
10.4
1
Mean length2
“
breadth
In 1918, M. Ramstrom, in a paper on the “Piltdown-Fund” (Bull
Geol. Inst. Upsala, XVI, 294-9), gives Max de Terra’s previous data on
the dimensions and L.B. index of human lower molars, to which he
adds the following:3
‘No distinction is made as t o sex or side.
2Terms used are “breadth” (“Breite”) for the antero-posterior; and “thickness”
(“Djcke”) for the lateral diameter.
3No differences are recorded as t o sex or side. The measurements are defined
thus: “Die Zahne, die ich gemessen habe, steckten alle in ihren Kiefern fest. Bei
jedem Zahn wurde mittels Zirkel die Lange der Krone im mesio-distalen Durchmesser, d. h. “Breite” gemessen, vom Zwischenraum zum Zwischenraum der benachbarten aneinandergepressten Zahne; und mittels eines Mikrometers zum Messen der
“Dicke” wurde diese Dimension in bucco-lingualer Kichtung in der Mitte
des Zahnes gemessen. Wo die Zahne in vorderen und hinteren Teile sehr
ungleiche Dicke aufwiesen wurden 2 Masse genommen und daraus das Mittel gezogen.
Aus den Zahlen der Dicke und Breite ist schliesslich der Index nach folgender Formel
berechnet worden :
Dicke x 100
I.
Breite
The breadth (“thickness”) measurement evidently differed from ours (the maximum)
which may account for some of the low indices of Ramstrom’s record.
DIMENSIONS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LOWER MOLARS
Length
Breadth
Length
Breadth
199
Index
(Both teeth)
Finally, in 1920, Hans Virchow in his work on the Ehringsdorf finds
(“Die menschliche Skeletreste aus dem Kampfeschen Bruch im Travertin
von Ehringsdorf bei Weimar.” 4”, Jena, 1920, 125), gives a list of
measurements and indices of the various human molars. This list
which, like all previous records also fails to differentiate sex and side. is :
ower M,
Lower M,
Length1
A Gall
Early Chinese
A Chinese
New BriLain (2835)
(2889)
“
“
(2863)
Joruba Negro
Mulatto
Earlv Greek (child)
mm.
10.5
10.7
11.7
11.7
11.10.7
11.5
12.6
10.8
Breadth
mm.
11.4
11.3
11.5
11.4
11.10.7
10.4
11.5
9.7
Index
108.6
105.6
98.3
97.5
IO0.-
IO0.-
90.4
91.3
89.8
Length
Breadth.
Index
mm.
10.10.2
11.5
10.5
10.5
10.4
11.12.-
mm.
10.3
10.7
11.10.9
10.9
9.7
11.11.5
103.I04.p
95.6
103.8
103.8
93.2
__
IO0.-
95.8
-
All these previous records leave the question of the absolute as well
as the relative dimensions of the highly important first and second lower
molars still in some uncertainty; and they throw but little light on the
meaning of the narrow teeth of the Piltdown jaw, outside of showing
them to be very exceptional. In view of this the writer undertook
carefully regulated measurements on larger and more extended series
of teeth both human and lower primate, opportunity for which was
given by the extensive collections in the Divisions of Physical Anthropology and Mammalogy in the U. S. National Museum.2
After preliminary trials, it was found that the best measurements on
teeth still in the jaws were the antero-posterior (mesio-distal)diameter
from border to border of the tooth (or interdental line to line) along the
middle of the crown, and the maxiwum lateral (bucco-lingual) diameter,
a t right angles to the preceding and at right angles also to the height
of the tooth (a vertical from midpoint between roots to midpoint of
crown). These two measurements, which for reasons explained are
called respectively the length and breadth of the teeth, are very nearly
the same as taken by other a ~ t h o r s . That
~
of the breadthis, I believe,
’Terminology: Antero-post. diam.-“Breite;”
lateral diam.-“Dicke.”
2My thanks are due t o Mr. Gerrit S. Miller and his assistant for their generous
help in furnishing the anthropoid and lower ape material.
3Comp. Martin (R.)-Lehrb. d. Anthrop., 1914, 885.
ALE^
zoo
HRDLI~KA
identical with most, but the length was by some authors measured along
the labial or buccal side of the tooth, and in loose teeth is generally the
maximum, which in some teeth is liable to differ slightly from that
along the median axis of the crown; yet the difference is in no case very
material, wherefore the previous records as well as those taken on loose
teeth are quite comparable to those to be here added.’
Even with an exact definition of the measurements, however, a considerable difficulty was found in securing accuracy of measurements,
particularly in small teeth. It is astonishing how hard in many cases
it is to get a perfect or repeatedly exactly the same, measurement.
Our ordinary instruments do not suffice, and a magnifying glass or lenses
are not only very helpful, but at times indispensable. The best results
were obtained by taking the length with a needle-point compass, reading
the measurements ofi on a standard scale; and in taking the breadth by
an accurate compas glissihre with narrow flattened branches on one side.
Where small differences appear on the two sides, as they often do, there
is a need of repeated tests on the two sides. An abstract of the older
as well as of the newer data is given by the following table:2
MEASUREMENTS OF T H E LOWER MOLARS O F MODERN MAN3
Lower MI
Lower M,
People
Whites:
1874
Germans (Muhlreiter)
1886
“European” (Topinard)
1889
American Whites
(Black)
1895
“Europeans” (M.
de Terra)
Northern Africans
(non-negroid) do
1899
English (Taylor)
Number
Length
Length
Breadth
mm.
mm.
ata
90.4
10.7
9.8
91.6
10.-
95.2
9.5
9.3
97.9
11.2
10.3
92.-
10.7
10.1
94.4
10-12
9.7-12
9-11.5
3.2-11.5
-
9-11.6
8-11.7
10.-
10.-
IO0.-
11.5
11.-
10.8
10.5
97.2
10.2
9.8
mm.
15
skulls
357
skulls
71
skulls
M,- 119
Breadth
11.5
mm.
Older
10.4
10.5
Index
M,-ltiO
1909
Hungarians (Hillebrand)
MI-240
M,-272
8.5-11.8
8-11
Index
abt
95.6
96.1
‘Even under strict regulations and with the best instruments measurements of
teeth are not easy and with the greatest care differences up t o 1 mm. by different
and even the same workers are frequent. The method here described seems t o offer
about the best chances for approximate accuracy.
*The details which show many additional, but in this place irrelevant, points of
interest, will be published later.
31Vlost of the indices and the general averages calculated by author of present paper.
DIMEXSIONS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LOWER MOLARS
201
MEASUREMENTS OF T H E LOWER MOLARS OF MODERN MAN
Lower M,
Lower M,
=I
People
1914
Alemans (Schwerz)
1918
Swedes (Ramstrom)
Length
48
teeth
Breadth
mm.
mm.
11.-
10.2
Index
92.7
Length
Breadth
mm.
mm.
10.7
10.4
10-11 9.5-10.9
10-11.5 10-11.4
Index
97.2
)O-IIO
30th
teeth)
-~
1923
U. S. Whites (HrdliEka)
10.60
160
teeth
40 skulls
120 teetk 10.48
Egyptians (XI1
skulls
Dyn.) (HrdliEka) .30
___
Yellow browns
1895
9-12
106
"Recent Asiatics"
skulls
(M. de Terra)
31 10.4-12:
American Indians
skulls
do )
8 skulls 10.9-11.(
Polynesians (do)
1918
9-11
Lapps (Ramstrom) 24 teeth
10.40
98.-
10.36
10.04
10.27
98.-
10.39
10.01
96.3
__
Older Data
8.8-12
3.2-11.6
96.9
8.2-11
3.8-12.4 9.2-11.3
9-11.6
3.8-11.6
-
9.9-10.9 9.4-10.8
9-10.5
-
8.4-10.1
8.7-11 ?3-I04
both
teeth)
Chinese (H. Virchow)
1923
Indians (U. S.)
(HrdliEka)
Eskimo (do.)
2
skulls
11.2
11.07
00 teetf
00skulls
60 teetl
0 skulls 11.19
Blacks
1886
Negro (Topinard)
1895
Negroes (M. de
Terra .
1886
Caledonians
(Topinard)
1895
Melanesians (M. de
Terra)
1920
New Britain (H.
Virchow)
1895
Australians (M. de
Terra)
1909
Australians
(Klaatsch)
1923
Negro, African &
American
(HrdliEka)
Melanesians
(do)
5 skulls
97
"
11.4
N e w Data
10.94
98.9
10.93
97.8
Older Data
10.8
10.8
10.70
10.60
99.-
10.94
10.65
973
IO0.-
11.5
10.-
9-12
92.9
-
9.8-12
9-12
-
10.4
87.4
11.1
10.5
94.6
9.8-12.3 9.2-12
-
10.17
00.3
11.3
10.5
3.8-12.8
11.9
15
"
14
"
3
"
11
"
10.8-12.
10-12.2
6
"
11.4
11.7
10-12.2 10.2-12
11.1
101.8
11.-
99.1
-
02.5
10.5
11-12.2 10.3-11.5
87.-
-
12.2
11.8
96.I
10.63
99.3
__
N e e 7ata
10 teeth
30 skulls
11.05
10.69
96.7
10.71
10 teeth
l0 skull:
11.42
.10.96
96.-
10.69
-
10.55
98.7
-
92092
ALES H R D L I ~ K A
The above records constitute together a respectable body of data
which even though there had been slight differences in the method of
measuring by the different authors, give us a fairly good picture of at least
the main conditions. They may be assumed to give us fairly definitely
the limits of size of the two lower molars and their average crown index.
The absolute dimensions are seen to range, for M1, length 9 to 12.8,
breadth 9 to 12.2; and for MZ, length 8.8 to 12.4, breadth 8.2 to 12 mm. ;
while the mean index in the different groups extends, for M1, from 8 . 4
to 102.5, and for Mz from 87 to 110.
On the basis of these records, and to facilitate our dealing with the
crown index of the lower molars, the latter may be subdivided into three
categories, which are
Breadth-length index
(B
L
loo)below and to 89.9-dolichodont;
Index 90-100. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wzesodolzt;
Index above 100. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . brachydont.
Teeth of index below 80 may properly be called hyperdolicho-, teeth
above 110, hyperbrachydont.
Under this classification, it may be observed, nearly 80 percent of the
group indices in modern man fall in the class of mesodont, IG per cent
into that of brachydont and only 5 per cent into that of dolichodont
teeth.
The Piltdown molars, with the dimensions of MI, Length-13, Breadth
-11, Index-84.6, and Mz, Length-13, Breadth-11.3, Index 86.9,
are longer than any of the modern teeth here recorded, and their index
is lower than that of any of the groups whose teeth have been measured.
They are, therefore, in comparison with the teeth of modern man, very
exceptional. Nevertheless they connect with these. In the writer’s
article on “The Piltdown Jaw” ( A . J . P. A., ’22, V, 345) it was shown
that rarely modern individual human lower molars may even in length
equal or come very close to those of Piltdown; and our own measurements
have shown that there are individual lower molars of man to-day that
equal the Piltdown teeth and may even fall below them in the crown
index.’ But such cases are very uncommon. The facts may be summarized by the statement that in both their absolute and relative length
the Piltdown molars, though connecting with the teeth of present man,
do so only at a great distance from his average conditions.
‘Several lower molars of white American women gave the index of 86.4, while
the right second lower molar of one gave that of 81.8.
DIMENSIONS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LOWER MOLARS
203
EARLY MAN
The next logical step in the study of the positon of the Piltdown molars
is to contrast them with those of other remains of Early Man.
A number of original (as well as of copied) data on the dimensions of
the lower molars in ancient man are fomd in literature, but the record
is not complete. Moreover, authors who in some instances have measured the same teeth, do not give exactly the same results (compare
Klaatsch’s and Hans Virchow’s measurements of the teeth of the
Mousterian youth), and there are in various cases differences between
the published records and measurements on casts of the same specimens.
There is a need of remeasuring by one person and the best instruments
of all the originals. The data to be given below are the records of the
principal authors, supplemented, where such records are wanting, by
the present writer’s measurements on either the originals or first-hand
casts.’ The data are given chronologically, and the records are supplemented by a summary arranged on the basis of the toothindex, which
is steadily growing in interest as more observations are being gathered:
they are as follows:
In 1887, Julien Fraipont and Max Lobest in their memoir on “La
race humaine de Nkanderthal ou de Canstadt en Belgique” (Arch. de
Bid., VII, 637-643), give measurements of the teeth of the two Spy
crania and lower jaws. The dimensions of the 1st and 2nd lower molars
are given as follows:2
Lower Mr
Spy No. 1
Spy No. 2
j
Length
%)
11.- t o 11.5
I
Breadth
E%
11.- t o 11.5
1
Lower M,
Length
T?
11.-
1
Breadth
mm.
10.11.-
In 1906, in his final report on “Der diluviale Mensch von Krapina”
(4”,Viiesbad., 202-3), GorjanoviE-Krambergergives revisedmeasurem-ents
of the Krapina teeth.3 The dimensions of the first and second lower
molars are:
‘The measurements of the teeth of the Mauer jaw, recorded in the writer’s article
on the Mauer Jaw (this Journal, 1922, V, 345), taken on a cast, areevidentlyatfault;
the measurements given here will be those of Schoetensack, taken on the original.
2Nomenclature: Length, “largeur;” breadth, “Cpaisseur.”
3Earlier measurements may be found in his “Der palaolitisChe Mensch” etc.
Mitt. Anthrop. Gess. Wien, 1901, XXXI, 192-3.
ALE;
904
HRDLIEKA
13.4
12.4
11.2 to
13.8
11.-12.9
12.3
r.11.3
1.11.5
11.4
D”
“E”
“G”
“H”
Length* Breadth
(diam. (diam.later
anter.post)
max.)
H . Heidelberg.
Ochos (Moravia)
mm.
11.6
r. 11.5
I. 12.-
mm.
11.2
11.11.2
Index
96.6
95.7
93.3
Left
12.4
10.8
10.5 to
12.4
10.6
12.1
11.4
10.9
11.-11.1
~~
12.1
11.4 to
11.-10.2
10.6to
11.4
1
__
-
12.8
12.6
12.-11.5
12.--
11.5
11.4
11.6
11.5
11.8
I
1
I
I
Length
Breadth
(diam. (diam.later
anter.post.1
max.)
mm.
12.7
12.12.-
--
1
______
~
Isolated Teeth
Teeth showing no wear
(4 teeth not pairs)
Teeth showing some wear
(10 first, 7 second)
Teeth,,in Jaws
mm.
12.12.2
11.5
Index
94.5
101.6
95.8
Left
H . Aurignacensis
H . Mousteriensis
Galley Hill
P. Adloff, in 1910 (“Neue Studien iiber das Gebiss der diluvialen und
rezenten Menschenrassen,” D. Monatsschr. f.Zuhnh., XXVIII, 134-159),
besides giving older measurements of teeth of Early Man (Spy, Heidelberg, H. Mouster.) adds a few of his own taken on the teeth of several
‘“Kronenbreitk” or mesio-distal diameter ; “Kronendicke” or labio-lingual diameter. But on previous pages the molars are referred to as “lang” and “breit,” as
in our nomenclature.
2Terminology: “Kronenbreite” (mesio-distal diameter) ; “Kronendicke” (labiolingual diameter). No distinction as t o sex.
DIMENSIONS OF T H E FIRST AND SECOND LOWER MOLARS
Le Moustier youth
Ehri;gsdorf adult
JUV.
The Taubach molar
Length’
Breadth*
mm.
12.11.7
12.(11.7)
mm.
11.5
10.9
10.5
(10.4)
Index
95.8
93.2
87.5
(88.9)
205
Length
Breadth
Index
mm.
12.7
13.12.9
mm.
11.5
11.5
10.8
-
90.5
95.8
83.7
-
206
ALE^
HRDLI~KA
THE LOWER MOLARS OF EARLY MAN
Arranged on the Basis of the Crown Index
Lower M.
~~
Right & Left
Length
Breadth
___.--
Index
Right & Left
Length
Brradtt Index
-
mm.
mm.
mm.
mm.
11.11.r. 10.II0.10.5
Obercassel, Female
11.II0.10.5
10.(Bonnet)
1. 10.12.12.12.Male (Bonnet) r. 11.5
104.3
12.11.5
12.1. 11.104.5
12.La Quina, (HrdliEka,
11.5
12.5
r. 11.104.5
11.5
12.12.5
from cast)
1. 10.5
I093
11.2
H. Aurignacensis, (Hrd- r. 11.11.5
11.5
104.5
liEka, from cast)
11.8
11.5
11.5
1. 11.107.3
10.10.Spx No. 1 (Fr7ipont)
10.5
10.105.11.11.11.IO0.No. 2
r. 11._IO0.11.5
1. 11.5
12.12.Jersey Teeth (HrdliEka, r. 12.12.from cast)
1. 9.5 t’ 9.75 to
Piedmost (Adloff)
10.-to
11.-to near
11.5
11.5
11.25 IO0.12.5
12.Ochoz, Moravia (Schoe- r. 11.5
11.12.2
95.7
11.5
12.tensack)
11.2
1. 12.93.3
11.7
12.Sipka (HrdliEka, from
11.7
12.3
95.1
cast)
13.Ehringsdorf, adult (H.
10.9
11.7
11.5
93 -2
Virchow)
H. Heidelbergensis
11.2
96.6
12.7
12.r. 11.6
(Schoetensack)
H. Mousteriensisl
11.8
12.5
11.6
r. 12.5
94.4
(.Klaatsch)
11.5
12.5
11.6
1. 12.4
92.7
Krapina (GorjanoviE8 Mi
11.29
11.29
Kramberger)
12.02
93.9
Extreme
18 MI
14 Mz
(11.- to (10.5 to (87.1 to (10.7 t c (10.6 t o
12.4)
13.8)
11.6)
12.6)
98.2)
(10.4)
Molar of Taubach (H.
(11.7)
(88.9)
Virchow
10.5
12.12.9
10.8
Ehringsdorf, juv. (H.
87.5
r. 13.13.84.6
11.3
Vir chow)
11.11.1. 13.84.6
Piltdown (HrdliEka)
il%
104.8
105.IO@.IO0.-
96.96.97.4
IO0.IO0.100.-
__
IO0.IO0.-
near
IO0.IOI.6
95.8
97.5
95.8
94.5
91.8
92.8
94.4
:89.8100,-)
83.7
86.9
-
APES
I n view of the above and of what has been written about the apparent
ape-like characteristics of the jaw, it becomes of great interest to compare more thoroughly than has been possible heretofore, the Piltdown
molars with corresponding teeth of the anthropoid apes. Thanks to
Mr. Gerrit S. Miller, I was able to utilize the rich materials from the
Division of Mammals of the U. S. National Museum. The previous
records and the writer’s results are given in the following pages and
table.
‘H. Virchow (Die menschl. Skeletreste v. Ehringsdorf, p. 125) gives: lower MI12., 11.5,95.8;! ower Mi-12.7, 11.5, 90.5. There is evidently an error in the length
of the Mi.
DIMENSIONS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LOWER MOLARS
207
The first to give valuable measurements of t,he lower molars of the
anthropoid apes is P. Topinard (Rev. d’Anthrop., 1886, 3 sQ., I, 405).
The teeth of 11gorillas and 4 orangs gave him the following dimensions:’
Lower M,
Lower M,
I ?& I g? 1
Length
Gorillas (11)
Orangs (4)
I
13.4
Breadth
Length
12.-
mm.
16.4
14.1
Breadth
I
mm.
14.3
12.4
E. Muhlreiter in 1892, in his “Ein Beitrag zur Grossen-Bestirnmung
der Zahne der anthropoiden Affen” (D. Vierteljahrschr. f. Zalznh., X,
323-336), gives incomplete measurements of a series of anthropoid teeth
of which the following may be extracted:
>ewer M,
Lower M,
Length
Number
GoLilla e;g.2
1‘
‘ I
‘1
‘ I
Female
Chimpanzees
14.-
16.15.2
15.14.5
11.7
11.6
Male
Male
--
12.5
11.-
Breadth
18.4
16.7
16.5
16.5
11.7
-
16.15.16.14.5
11.5
-
In 1893 Batujeff, in an article “On thegeneralmorphological characteristics of the crowns of human teeth and other vertebrates” (Publ. Milit.Med. Acad., St. Petersb., I, Pt. 1, 26-100. I n Russian), gives (quoted
after M. de Terra) the following measurements for the lower molars cJf
the anthropoid apes:
I
Gorillas
Chimpanzees
Orangs
Gibbons
I
1
Lower M,
Length
mm.
14-16
9-10
11-14.5
5-8.5
I
1
Lower
Breadth
I
Length
mm.
11-13
8-9
I
mm.
14.5-18.5
9.5-10.5
12-15
5-9
yrk!:
1
Breirlth
1
I
?6;
10-15
4.5-5.5
In 1895, in his “Ueber einen menschlichen Molar aus dem 13iluvium
von Taubach bei Weimar” (2.
f.Ethiiol., 1895, 573-’7),A. Nehring gives
the measurements of 2 gorillas, 3 chimpanzees and 4 orangs:
lNo separation as t o side or sex.
ZMeasurements of another male G. eng. are given as: M,, L--15.2, B-15; M,,
L--17.2, B--17.
These figures are evidently erroneous-no gorilla has ever beeii
known with teeth practically as broad as long, and with the breadth of one of the
molars reaching 17mm.
The author also gives the following plainly erroneous data for the dimensions of
M,, L-18.2, B--12.5; no known orang tooth has reached
a male orang: MI, L-18;
such a length or anywhere near such a low index.
208
Number
Sex
Length
mm.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Gqfilla
Chjmpanzee
Orangs
Male
Female
Male
Female
Female
Male
Female
I
Breadth
10.3
10.10.7
13.8
13.7
12.7
13.4
Length
Breadth
I mm
mm.
I
mm.
15.15.11.10.10.13.13.11.6
12.5
10.5
10.9
15.13.7
12.7
13.6
9.7
12.3
12.2
11.12.-
W. Branco, in 1898,in his report on the fossil teeth from the Schwabian
Alb (8”,Stuttgart, Pt. I, 43), gives a series of measurements of the teeth
of various anthropoid apes :
Lower M,
I Length
mm.
11.4
12.8
14.9
15.3
6.6.8.-
Chimpanzee
Orang
Gorilla
Hylobates leuc.
Hylobates synd.
Breadth
mm.
10.3
11.8
13.‘13.5
5.5.5.8
Lower M,
Index
I
90.3
92.2
87.2
88.2
83.3
83.3
72.5
Length
Breadth
mm.
12.15.5
-16.6.7
6.6
8.5
mm.
11.2
13.9
-
14.6
5.6
6.7.-
Index
93.3
90.-91.3
83.6
90.9
82.3
In 1905, Max de Terra, in his “Odontographie des Menschenrassen”
Parchimi, M., 256-269), adds the measurements of the teeth of 4
gorillas, 5 orangs, 3 chimpanzees, and 3 gibbons:’
(8O,
1
1
1
1
3
5
1
1
Gorilla gina
Orangs
‘
juv.
Chimpanzees
juv.
Hypbates lar.
syndact .
12
7
$ex
?
Male
Female
‘I
Male
Female
?
?
?
Male
Female
2
1
Male
1
?
-
mm.
15.17.14.5
15.3
13-14.9
11.5-12.7
12.7
14.8
13- 13.5
10.4-12
10.8-11
5.2-5.3
8.7.5
mm.
I mm.
12.15.2
12.8
18.11.5
16.12.2
17.11.7-13.6 14.5-16
10-11.3 12.2-13.8
12.7
10.8
12.8
15.l l .5-11.8
9.2-11
10.5-12.5
8.9-9.8
4.7
6.25.9
I I
5.5T
I K
mm.
12.2
15.13.6
14.13.2-14.8
10.8-11.7
11.3
13.5
9.6-11.5
5.7.2
6.4
In 1918 M. Ramstrom, in his study on early and modern human teeth
(up. cit.), gives also a series of data on chimpanzees. These data show
‘The actual number of specimens whose teeth were measured, as in the case of
other authors, is greater, but the lower molars were not always present.
DIMENSIONS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LOWER MOLARS
Orang, Male
?
?
Chjmpanzee, male
female
Gorilla male
'
juv:
Hylobates syndact., male
female
Macacus fusc.
I'
Length
Breadth
mm.
13.12.12.9
10.5
10.8
16.4
16.8.3
7.8
8.1
mm.
12.2
10.5
11.5
(3.5
9.7
14.14.1
6.2
6.7
6.4
Index
93.9
87.5
89.1
90.5
89.9
85.4
88.1
74.7
85.9
70.-
QO9
Length
Breadth
Index
mm.
14.2
13.14.8
11.5
11.6
18.-
mm.
13.7
11.4
12.5
10.5
10.7
15.-
96.5
87.7
84.4
9I.3
92.2
83.3
-
-
9.4
8.5
9.6
6.8
7.3
7.7
_-
72.3
85.9
80.2
The preceding data, supplemented by an abstract of those of the
writer, secured on the excellent and well identified material in the U. S.
National Musuem, may be, as far as practicable, summarized in the table following. (next page)
This brief table is full of interest. Various facts appear clearly for
the first time, but the main is that with the Piltdown teeth there is no
direct relation. They do not belong to this group. They are larger
and especially longer and have a lower index, than any in the chimpanzees ;
They are relatively longer than those of the orangs, relatively broader
than those of most of the gibbons; and the second molar differs markedly
from all those of these apes in being of very nearly the same size with the
first, which is a common human but exceedingly rare ape character.
The nearest in relative proportions to the Piltdown molars are the teeth
of the gorillas, but the relation goes no further. Notwithstanding their
peculiarity the Piltdown teeth are plainly (especially when besides the
measurements all their other characters are taken into consideration)
much nearer the early human than they are to those of any existing
SLE; HRDLIkKA
a10
SUMMARY OF DIMENSIONS OF LOWER MOLARS OF PRESENT-DAY
ANTHROPOID APES
No.
of
Sex
law:
-
Chimpan.lees
Gorillas
Orangs
Male
Fern.
Male
Fem.
!3 -1 Both
!3 -1
20
2
20
-. 2
Male
Fern.
Male
Fern.
-
+
!6 Both
12 4
20
20
20
20
Gibborss
H.syndacl
Symphnlangid
synd.
Hylobales
var. sp.
mm.
17 i 3 0 t h ~
8-1
10
10
10
10
-
Length
Breadth
Average'
Range /Average
Range
Male
Fern
Male
Fern.
-
5 Both
4
10,s
11.5
10.63
10.30
10.90
10.55
15.3
16.6
15.32
14.25
17.27
16.12
13.35
14.05
13.65
12.48
14.39
12.69
__
7.92
S.66
8.55
Male
7.62
Fern.
8.48
4 Male
8.40
4 Fern.
__ __
4
4
4
4
Both
10
4
10
4
Male
Fern.
Male
Fern.
5.6
6.1
6.01
5.74
6.42
6.20
-
mm.
r;.9
mm.
Older
9-12
9.5-12.5 10.7
New Dolo
9-11.5
1 9.97
Older Datn
~ _ _
14-18
12-18
14.5-18.5 14.6
New Data
13-18 I 13.46
14-14.5 ii.45
14.5-20 15.15
15.5-16.5 13.10
I
8-11
8-11.5
92.93 .-
9-10.5
9-10.5
9-11.5
9-11
92.2 86.4-100
93.1 90- 100
95 .- 90-100
94.5 87-100
11-14.1
12-16
88.- 80.2-96.9
12-16
11.2-11.7
13.2-18
13-13.2
88.9
80.4
87.7
81.2
__
I
:add4
I
!
Older Data
5.2-6 I 4.85
5.5-6.65 I 5.4
New Data
5.5-6.5
4.95
5.2-6.5
5.05
6-7
5.59
5.5-7 I 5.44
i
Index
Range
mrn.
Older Data
11-14.9 11.85 9-13.6
10-15
12-16
12.6
New Data
12-15
11-13.5 11.35 10-12.5
13-17
13-16
13.74
11-13
11-14
12.15
Older
7.5-8.3 6.16
7.9-9.4
New Data
8.2-9
6.63
7-8.5
6.18
8.7-9.2
7.26
7.3-9.3
6.80
ivera
83.5 '5.2-92.1
93.1
90.9
95.5
759
77.9
6.5-6.8
5.5-6.7
7-7.5
6.5-7.2
77.6
4.7-5.2
4.8-5.5
52.6
4.8-6
79.4-96.8
77.2-83.6
'9.4-94.3
78.8-85.2
88.7 85.1-93.9
89.9 84.4-96.5
5.8-6.7
6.4-7.3
4.7-5
5-5.8
89.4-95.1
90-98.3
90.3
85.7-104
83.3-100
i6.7-106.2
;8-106.6
72.5-85.9
72.3-85.9
72.2-82.9
76.5-86.7
PO.8 77.8-83.3
9I.- 76.5-89
91.1
96.5 33.3-89.5
98.5 87.2-89.3
76.9-86.2
76.9-92.3
53.9-93.3
97.7 82.9-94.8
92.4
98.97.-
anthropoid apes. They stand ,art from the latter and connect, even
though a t the base of the scale, with the former.
'The averages of the older data are only approximate, derived as closely as
possible from the total of the records.
% the older records males predominate; though sex is not always given nor,
judging from the size of the teeth, always reliably determined.
'Doubtless the same genus as reported in older records under the name of H . synd.
DIMENSIONS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LOWER MOLARS
ell
The data on the anthropoid apes themselves show a number of features
of some importance which may be brought out in this connection.
The first thing that strikes one’s attention are the remarkable differences not merely in the actual size of the teeth in the different species,
but also in the form of the crown. The indices of the latter range, i t is
seen, from hyperdolichodont in the Symphalangus, to dolichodont in the
Hylobates and Gorilla and to mesodont in the Chimpanzees and Orangs.
The most unexpected difference in this respect is that between the teeth
of the Symphalangus and the Hylobates, two genera of one family-the
Gibbons. The difference lies principally in the greater length of the
teeth of the Symphalangus: the Symphalangus is a larger ape and has
larger teeth than the Hylobates, which may have some connection with
the difference of tooth form.
The differences next in importance are those between the two sexes.
I t is seen that the molars of the females are invariably, on the average,
perceptibly smaller than those of the males. But the teeth of the females
differ also from those of the males in their relative dimensions, as shown
by the tooth index. These latter differences are, however, not the same
in all species. I n the Gorillas and Orangs the male teeth, particularly
the first molars are relatively stouter i. e . broader than those of the
female; in the Chimpanzees a slight difference in the samedirectionis
observed in the second molars, but the first molars appear to be relatively
slightly shorter in the females, giving them a slightly higher crown index;
in both genera of the Gibbons, finally, the first lower molar is perceptibly
shorter in the females, giving these a higher crown index, while the
second molars are about the same in the two sexes.
Regardless of sex, the average index of the first molars in all the apes
here shown, except perhaps in the female Hylobates, differs from that
of the index of the second molar, the latter being slightly to moderately
higher. On comparison of the respective lengths and breadths of the
two teeth it is found that the higher index of the second molar is generally
due to its relatively greater thickness.
The third fact t o be noted is one which has already been partly mentioned, namely the greater average dimensions in all the species of anthropoid apes of the second than the first lower molar. The percental
relation of the length and breadth of the second to the first molar in the
different groups, M, being taken as 100, is as follows: Chimpanzees,
males 104.1; females, 103.6; Gorillas, males 112.6; females 113.7;
Orangs, males 106.6; females 104.2; Symphalangus synd., males 106.9;
females 110.1; Hylobates, males 109.6; females 107.9. I n the Piltdown
ALE^
912
HRDLI~KA
teeth this relation is just a trifle over 100, in the human lower molars it
varies from slightly above 100 in a few individuals, to below 100 in a
great majority.
For purposes of possible indications, the author also made measurements on a dozen representative species of Old World monkeys as well
as on 10 American forms.
The Old World apes show a crown index ranging from decidedly hyperdolicho-to mesodont in the first molars and slightly brachydont in the second (two species). Some of the species therefore connect in this respect
with the anthropoid apes.
LOWER MOLARS I N OLD WORLD MONKEYS
Right
__
M.
@ 3d'th Ind
Colobus caudatus, 182,366
Male
Magus
199.905 Male
Lasopyga pyger.
162,896 Male
Macaca syrichta
144,681 Female
Cynopithecus
niger
144,549 Male
Simia sylvanus
196,984 ?
Cercocebus albigena
164,578 Female
Nasalis
196,789 Male
Papio anubis
182,146 Male
Simias concolor
121,663 Male
Erythrocebus
whitei
164,684 Male
Theropithecus
obscurus
142,505 Female
Ms
Ind.
- B'dtl -
.'ah
mm n m
nm nm
7 .- 6.- 85.7 7.2 6.5 90.3
M
MI
Ind. L'gth B'dth Ind.
L'gtt B'dt __
nm nm
nm nm
7.- 6.- 85.7 7.2 6.5 90.3
7.2 6.- 83.3
8.-
7.-
5.3 4.5 84.9
6.7
5.3 79.I
83.3 8.2 7.2 85.4
5.4 4.7 87.- 6.7 5.5 82.1
6.5 5.5 84.6
7.5 6.-
80.-
6.5 5.6 86.2 7.5 6.2 82.7
87.5
7.2 6.-
5.- 83.3
7 .-
5.5 78.6
7.8 6.- 76.9
9.2
7.-
76.1
7.8 6.-
7699 9.2 7.-
76.1
6.5 6.-
923
6.5 5.-
76.9 6.5 6.-
92.3
9.1 5.6
72.5
6.-
6.5
5.- 76.9
7.2 5.5 76.4
9.1 6.5 71.4
10.5 8.- 76.2 12.7 10.- 78.7
6.5 4.9 75.4
7.-
5.2 74.3
6.5
5.2 80.-
8.5 5.2 72.9
11.- 7.5 68.2 13.5 9.-
-
6.-
5.-
83.3 7.-
7.2 5.7 79.'
10.5 8.-
5.5 78.6
76.2 12.5 10.- 80.-
6.5 4.9 75.4 6.5 5.2 80.-
7.-
5.2
74.3
3.5 5.2
72.9
66.7 11.- 7.5 68.2 13.5 9.- 66.7
-
In all these monkeys as in all the higher apes the second molars are
larger than the first. In five species the second molars are relatively
broader (or shorter) than the first; in seven species they are relatively
longer (or narrower). In three species the first molar, and in three
species the second molar is broader on the left than on the right side;
in the remaining cases the teeth are equal. Interesting relationships
DIMENSIONS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND LOWER MOLARS
213
LOWER MOLARS IN NEW WORLD MONKEYS
Lf t
R .ht
'gtl
-
Cebus hypoleuc.
14,156 Male
Pithecia pith.
38.432 Male
Leontocebus
illigeri
38,749
Saimiri sciureus
35,802 Male
Ateles ater
194,337 Female
Cebus capuc.
114.848 Female
Ateles geoffroyi
Female
Lagothrix cana
35,177 Male
Alouata seniculus
194.309 Female
Pygathrix rubic.
153,793 Female
M,
3'dth Ind.
.'gtl
-
.'gth
M.
3'dth Ind.
im nm
t.2 4.2
'00.-
4.-
4.2
4.2
4.2
100.-
nm nm
4.- 4.2
3.5
3.5
'00.-
3.5
3.5 roo.- 3.5
3.5
100.-
3.5
3.3
3.2
97.-
3.3
3.2
97.-
3.3
3.2
97.-
3.-
2.9
96.7 2.8
2.8
100.-
3.-
2.9
96.7 2.8
5.-
4.8
96.- 5.05 4.8
95.1 5.-
4.8
96.-
i.05 4.8
4.8
4.5
93.7
4 .- 2.02 100.5 4.8
4.5
93.7
4.-
LO2 '00.5
5.-
4.5
90.-
4.7
4.5
95.7 5.-
4.5
90.-
4.7
4.5
95.7
6.-
5.-
83.3
6.2
5.3
85.5 6.0 5.2 86.7
6.2
5.5
88.7
7.2
6.-
83.3 7.8
6.-
76.9 7.2
83.3 7.8 6.-
76.9
6.C
4.5
75.-
nm
6.0 4.9
105.-
6.-
81.7 6.0 4.5
- -
75.-
'05.-
3.5 '00.-
3.3 3.2
2.8
97.'00.-
95.1
6.0 4.9 81.7
- -
and differences appear between the various species, but consideration
of these would be irrelevant to this paper.
As to the monkeys of the New World we note first of all the curious
fact that the indices of the crown, with the exception of three species,
are all quite high, ranging from mesodont to the lower confines of brachydont. We also note that in the larger species with crown index of 90
or above, in not less than four the second molar is smaller than the first,
whilein two of the species it is of the same size and in only one it is a
trace larger. This holds true on both right and left side. In the three
species with crown index below 90 the second molar is in all cases the
larger.
The meaning of these facts is not clear. There is really little if any
connection between these data and the subject of this paper and they are
merely given for the sake of greater completeness.
FOSSIL APES
A comparison of far greater importance would be that of the Piltdown
teeth with those of Old World fossil apes of large size. Such data,
unfortunately,are difficult to secure. We have, however, a few valuable
measurements on the two principal species of Dryopithecus :
ALE;
214
Length
mm.
13.1
12.11.8
Bohnerz Teeth
(“Dryopithecus
rhenanus”)
downTeetl
Lower M, Length
Breadth
Index
Lower M, Length
Breadth
Index
mm.
13.11.84.6
__13.11.3
S6.0
HRDLIVCKA
Breadth
I ::!I
mm.
11.-
Index
84.-
81.7
83.-
Length
mm.
11.11.1
11.-
I I 2::
Brcadth
Indcx
mm.
Dryopithecus rhen.
(Branco)
(Teeth not identified as t o M, or M,)
1 tooth
5 teeth
L. 13.1
11-12
B. 11.9-9.8
I. 84.8 I -84.5
8.3.5
)ryopithecusfont
(Branco)
mm.
10.5
9.-
85.7
12.-; 11.5
10.5; 10.5
87.5;91.3
The conditions shown in this table are a serious surprise. Here is a
line of large apes, from ancient western Europe, the lower molars of
which, in shape, and in one case even in size, resemble more than those
of any other group of Primates or man, the teeth of the Piltdown jaw.
What is this?
The general resemblance in type and size as well as the marked difference in relative dimensions of the fossil teeth in question to andfrom
those of man have been brought t o our attention by W. Branco (op. cit.);
but their remarkable closeness in the relative and in one case also in the
absolute dimensions to the teeth of the Piltdown jaw, is a new fact.
DIMENSIONS OF THC FIRST AKD SECOND LOWER MOLARS
215
What is its meaning> Are the resemblances merely accidental, or do
they have deeper foundation’
The teeth that most closely resemble those of Piltdown are those of
Dryopithecus rhenauus Pohlig (Schlosser, M , Zool. Anz., 1901, XXIV,
261). Theybelong to a relatively large series of fossil teeth gathered
previous to 1850 by workingmen in the “Bohnerz” formation of the
Schwabian “Alb”, near the village of Falmcndingen and in the general
neighborhood. These teeth were first supposed to be human. They
were thoroughly described and illustrated in 1898 by Branco who attributed them to a n ape of the Dryopithccus type, and in 1901 the form
they represent received by Schlosser the name of Dyyopitheczis rhcnanus
Casts of the unworn crowns of six of these teeth, three upper and three
lower molars, kindly loaned by Dr. VIGlliam I<. Gregory of the American
Musuem of Natural History, lie before the author. T h e three upper
molars are similar in size to those of man, and are remarkably humanlike in both dimensions and form, differing only in the detailed sculpture
of the cusps, which is not human. Of the lower molars, one is so much
larger (13 x 11 mm.) than the two others represented in these casts
(11.5 x 9.3, 10 x 9.2 mm.) and shows such differences from the smallest
of the three teeth, that it is hard to conceive of it as belonging to one
and the same species or variety. It is this large tooth that is practically
identical in crown measurements and in index with the Piltdown
molars. I n details, however, the two differ. The Bohnerz molar resembles more some lower human molars (though differing somewhat
from these in detailed sculpture-particularly
in the presence of a
marked anterior and smaller posterior median fossa in the occlusal
surface of the crown), than those of Piltdown. The Piltdown teeth,
especially the second molar, are remarkable through being almost as
stout posteriorly as anteriorly; the Bohnerz tooth, behind the second
cusps, distinctly tapers backward and inward. The Piltdown molars
are of a distinct type from this fossil tooth, notwithstanding fundamental
relations. The Piltdown being was not a Drvopithecus, but may have
had ancestral relations with some species of this genus or family as close
as those with the chimpanzees, if not even closer. A theory that the
Eoanthropus may have evolved from such apes as represented by the
Bohnerz molars, and that perhaps all man’s evolution took place in
western Europe, is a very seductive one and may possibly prove true,
but it would be premature to give undue weight to this hypothesis.
The remains of Dryopithecus rhen. appear to be of late Miocene or early
Pliocene age, which would seem to give plenty of time for the develop-
216
ALE:
HRDLIOCKA
ment from the type represented by the Bohnerz molars of such differences as presented by the molars of the Piltdown jaw, but the evidence
a t hand hardly warrants as yet such far-reaching assumptions. Nevertheless, the near-human character of the Bohnerz teeth together with
some of the features of the Piltdown molars are a strong incentive for
our giving a greater attention than in the past to the remains of the
European fossil Primates.
SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S I O ? S
The peculiar molars of the Piltdown jaw connect, though in respect
to their length and crown index only a t the base of the range of variation, with the teeth of man of to-day.
They connect more closely with the more ancient teeth of Early
Man and may without violence be included among them.
They do not connect with the teeth of any of the living forms of an
thropoid apes, though in general these are nearer to them than most
man's teeth in the crown index.
I n relative, and in one case even in absolute proportion, they resemble
very closely the teeth from the Bohnerz Alb attributed to Dryopithecus
rhenanus, particularly one of the lower molars; but in morphological details they differ from these, being more human.
The only conclusion that appears justified from these further as from
previous studies is, that the Piltdown teeth, primitive as they are in some
respects, are already human or close to human. Their characteristics
speak for their belonging either to a very early man or his very near precursor.
The close relation of the Piltdown molars to some of the late Miocene
or early Pliocene human-like teeth of the Bohnerz Alb, as well as to those
of the Ehringsdorf jaws, while not conclusive alone, raises legitimately
the query as to whether man may not have evolved altogether in western
Europe.
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
0
Размер файла
1 174 Кб
Теги
second, dimensions, first, molar, jaw, piltdown, man, lowe, bearing, phylogeny
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа