Java, in which this specimen was found, is of the same geologic age as the European Pleistocene, there is nothing in the configuration of the skull-cap to place it in a different category from those remains of human Quaternary Man obtained in Europe, which already have been referred to as possessing similar characters" (Proc. Roy. Soc. of Edinburgh, vol. xx., p. 436).
The thigh-bone he regarded as human, but its locus standi, as evidence, was rejected on the ground of the extreme improbability that it was a thigh of the skeleton to which the calvaria belonged. Subsequently, after having seen the actual bones, and heard Dr Dubois' further explanations both in Edinburgh and London, he still adhered to his formerly expressed opinions ; but with regard to the thigh-bone he made the following explanation :—
"If, however, the thigh-bone and calvaria belong to the same skeleton, and Dr Dubois, from his personal examination of the locality, has no doubt on this point, the establishment of the human character of the femur would require us to regard the calvaria as also human" (Jour. Anth. Inst., vol. xxv., p. 250).
When Sir William Turner read his paper I had an opportunity, in the course of the discussion which followed, of remarking that there could be no difficulty in assigning the femur and skull to the same individual, since, in accordance with the doctrine of evolution, the former would have acquired its specific characters long before the latter, because the attainment of the erect posture, and the consequent specialisation of the fore-limbs into manipulative organs necessarily preceded, and, indeed, partly accounted for, the higher mental organisation of man. The erect posture and a larger brain were, in my opinion, sufficiently characteristic to place man in a separate category at the head of the great chain of organic life. (See Prehistoric Problems, pp. 170-8.)
The full text of my address at the British Association (1893) on this subject was at the time published in several scientific journals, and is referred to in Dr Dubois' original memoir. But, notwithstanding, the doctrine thus enunciated does not appear to have made much impression on the minds of Dr Dubois' eminent critics, as only two of them, so far as I have had access to their productions, viz., Dr Arthur Keith and
