[News and Views]

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/125061b0

IF: 64.8

1930-01-01

Nature

Abstract:ONE of the realisations which have crept into the biological thought of the last decade is that the starting points of the main groups of animals are far more remote in time than had been supposed; and what is true for the great phyla would seem also to be true for many lesser stocks. Since the ancestral forms of present-day families of hoofed mammals had already attained the characteristic specialisations of their kind in Lower Eocene times, how much more remote must have been the critical point where the common history of the ungulates began. Struck by this and other recent discoveries in the principles of phylogeny, Prof. Henry Fairfield Osborn has re-examined the story of the origin of man in the new light, and has summarised his conclusions in an address delivered at the close of the year to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, under the title, “The Discovery of Tertiary Man”. The address, which appears elsewhere in this issue of NATURE (p. 53), will be welcomed, since it clearly defines Prof. Osborn's position, and ncmst remove the misconceptions to which some of his pronouncements have given rise amongst those anxious to regard every scientific dispute as a nail driven into the coffin of man as a product of evolution He states his case in a nut-shell: “No one should misunderstand the ‘dawn man’ hypothesis I have been advocating in a series of papers and addresses since April 7, 1927. I am not ignoring the strong evidence for an Eocene arboreal stage in our ancestry; I am not ignoring the overwhelming evidence of a remote community origin between man and the anthropoid apes; I am combating the special feature of the Lamarck-Darwin hypothesis that man once passed into highly specialised arboreal adaptations attained by the Miocene apes; finally, I am inclined to separate the human stock at a geologically earlier pre-Miocene period of anthropoid evolution.”

multidisciplinary sciences