Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
cally) suggested that future information about the geological age of the
specimen might place it very far back in time, necessitating a “recasting
in attributing some of Taung's supposedly advanced characteristics to
its youthfulness and in calling for more information, especially about
the brain. His remarks, however, were less stinging than theirs: “Should
Prof. Dart succeed in justifying these claims, the status he proposes
for the new ape-form should be conceded. Much will depend on the
interpretation of the features exhibited by the surface of the brain . . .
and since Prof. Dart is so well equipped for that aspect of the inquiry,
his conclusions must needs carry special weight there.”
9
Years later Dart recalled, “I was disappointed that these four emi-
nent British anthropologists had not accepted my findings, but was
not entirely surprised. After all, I was getting away much more lightly
than Dubois [discoverer of
Pithecanthropus
] and others who had made
outstanding fossil discoveries. But criticism rather than adoration of
a few months, however, the British establishment's assessment of Taung
became even more negative in Dart's eyes. His “old chief,” as he
called Elliot Smith, was quoted saying that it was unfortunate that
Dart had not had access to skulls of infant apes, because they would
have revealed many of the same features that Dart had identified
as comparatively advanced-looking on Taung. (Although this is an
overstatement, infant apes appear more humanlike than adult apes in
some features, such as the shape of the forehead and lack of fully de-
veloped brow ridges.) Taung, Elliot Smith said, was an “unmistakable
ape,” and “although
Australopithecus
had been claimed as the missing
link, it was certainly not one of the really significant links for which
though he did not entirely share Dart's interpretation of Taung, he
was proud of his young protégé and would soon have occasion to rise
to his defense.
