Prehistoric man / by W.L.H. Duckworth.

  • Wynfrid Duckworth
Date:
1912
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Prehistoric man / by W.L.H. Duckworth. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    21/180 page 9
    than that of arboreal animals such as the Gibbon, the Cebiis monkey, or the Lemurs (especially Nycti- cebns). And therefore, if the deteianination to retain skull-cap and thigh-bone in association be adhered to, it seems that the title ‘erectns’ is not fully justified. Another method of rebutting the objection is based on the suggestion that Pithecanthropus is not a human ancestor in the direct line. Thus to describe an uncle as a parent is an error not uncommon in palaeontology, and it was treated leniently by Huxley. To my mind this position can be adopted without materially depreciating the value of the evidence yielded by the conjoint remains, provided only that their original association be acknowledged. Should this fissumption be granted, the claims put forward on behalf of his discovery by Professor Dubois seem to be justified. On the other hand, should the association of skull-cap and thigh-bone be rejected, the former has not lost all claim to the same position. For the most recent researches of Professor Schwalbe® of Strassburg, and the further elaboration of these by Professor Berry^ and Mr Cross® of Melbourne, support Professor Dubois’ view. And though the objections may not have been finally disposed of, a review of the literature called forth by Professor Dubois’ publications will shew' a slight margin of evidence for, rather than against his view.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3