Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
As scientists, Lydekker and Virchow were known for their anti-
Darwinian views . 13 According to Dubois's biographer, Pat Shipman,
Virchow's “passionate rejection of Darwin's evolutionary theory and of
all claims for human evolution had only grown stronger and louder. . . .
Virchow was the enemy, the target, the one whose stubborn convictions
had to be overturned if Dubois's wonderful find was to gain accep-
tance.” 14 Similar to Teuku Jacob, who complained about lack of access
to the Homo floresiensis remains, Virchow raised a ruckus about the lack
of access to Dubois's finds with the director of the National Museum of
Natural History, in Leiden. 15
Like Dart, Dubois also received criticism from religious fundamen-
talists. For example, according to an anonymous 1893 newspaper report:
As a firm Darwinist, he [Dubois] dreams of making a discovery which the
great master of evolution will greet with joy. . . . At present Darwinism is the
backbone of the education of most high school graduates. The heavy facts
that are brought up against Darwin's theory by the most competent authori-
ties—these leave them cold. . . . I fear, however, that this time the Darwinian
outlook of the esteemed Mr. Dubois has played a trick on him. . . . A non-
Darwinist would scratch himself through his fur before he would propose a
genetic link between the monkey skull and the monkey molar and the femur,
which has a close speaking acquaintance with a human femur. . . . I am afraid
that the esteemed Mr. Dubois, prejudiced because he has completely swal-
lowed Darwinism, has gone too far. . . . This publication of Dr. Dubois will
create a furore, especially in the “Land of Intellectuals” . 16
Dubois's announcement of Pithecanthropus met with skepticism from
scientists for different, sometimes contradictory, reasons. 17 One camp
rejected the assertion that the skullcap and tooth that were found in 1891
and the modern-looking femur that was recovered from the same strata
the following year belonged to the same individual. These scientists
regarded the skullcap as apelike but the femur as humanlike. Others
thought that the skullcap and femur were both from a human that was
either very ancient or, if not, a “microcephalic idiot.” 18 According to
Dubois, “Only Professor Manouvrier of Paris, and Professor Marsh in
Search WWH ::




Custom Search