File:The American Museum journal (c1900-(1918)) (17537846174).jpg

Title: The American Museum journal
Identifier: americanmuseumjo14amer (find matches)
Year: c1900-(1918) (c190s)
Authors: American Museum of Natural History
Subjects: Natural history
Publisher: New York : American Museum of Natural History
Contributing Library: American Museum of Natural History Library
Digitizing Sponsor: Biodiversity Heritage Library

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
^ftlT ^^-\ ,:,.. 1 \ 1 c iiW" \ xL^ i i5^ i^^Jtai 1 L>^ ik5^^*1^ '■ 1 ;r->»^,. \ ^ Wl 1 ■ B occ ^i ^llUu •-"
Text Appearing After Image:
Fig. 9. Projections of the brain-case as seen from the rear, as reconstructed by Professors Smith Woodward (A), Elliot Smith (B), and Keith (C) Did the Piltdown man have a very large brain case? We come now to the most contro- versial part of the whole subject. Did the Piltdown man have a small brain- case as in Dr. Smith Woodward's re- construction (Fig. 9 A), or a very large one as in Professor Keith's reconstruc- tion (Fig. 9 C), or one of intermediate type as in the drawing published by Professor Elliot Smith (Fig. 9 B)? Un- fortunately several pieces of critical importance are missing from the middle of the skull-top and this has made possible the markedly different results of Smith Woodward and Keith. For if the remaining pieces of the skull-top are placed close together as by Dr. Wood- ward, the brain will be a very small one, estimated at 1070 cubic centimeters capacity, while if these same pieces be tilted upward and moved further apart as by Professor Keith, the brain capacity will be as large as in many modern men, namely 1500 cubic centimeters. The subject is an exceedingly difficult one, as the writer has learned to his cost, after long eiforts to assemble the casts of the separate pieces in their natural positions. It may be briefly stated that the writer inclines to the recon- struction offered by Dr. Elliot Smith (Fig. 9, C) which avoids the extreme asymmetry of the opposite halves of the l)rain-case noticeable in Dr. Woodward's reconstruction, and gives more space at the top for the ends of the meningeal vessels. Dr. Elliot Smith has also dis- covered certain marks on the inner sur- face of the frontal bone which appear to settle the vexed question of the location of the median plane.

Note About Images