السلام عليكم و رحمة الله
Seldom does a tooth get a lot of honour. You see, if we ever stumbled upon a tooth from Prophets or Messengers عليهم السلام then certainly it's respected for it was on the bodies of the most blessed humans ever to walk on the face of the Earth. Which makes sense.
However, there are other people in this world who would honour a tooth because there is nothing more to honour.
During the devastating war caused by the unnecessary European clash, a man from America, Harold J. Cook, dug the ground and found a tooth in 1917.[1] Harold, for unknown reason, kept the tooth with him for five years and then decided to hand it over, in 1922, to Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of American Museum of Natural History and who was responsible for expeditions to China.
Cook sent a letter to Osborn, dated, February 25, 1922, stating,
"I have had here, for some little time, a molar tooth from the Upper, or Hipparion phase of the Snake Creek beds, that very
closely approaches the human type, It was found associated with the other typical fossils of the Snake Creek, and is mineralized in the same fashion as they are...
Inasmuch as you are particularly interested in this problem and, in collaboration with Dr. Gregory and others, are in the best position of anyone to accurately determine the relationships of this tooth, if it can be done, I will be glad to send it on to you, should you care to examine and study it..."[2]
The tooth was sent to Osborn. On receiving the tooth, Osborn replied back saying,
"The instant your package arrived, I sat down with the tooth, in my window, and I said to myself: "It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid." I then took the tooth into Doctor Matthew's room and we have been comparing it with all the books, all the casts and all the drawings, with the conclusion that it is the last right upper molar tooth of some higher Primate, but distinct... We await, however, Doctor Gregory's verdict tomorrow morning... but it looks to me as if the first anthropoid ape of America had been found by the one man entitled to find it, namely, Harold J, Cook!"[3]
After the tooth was examined by Osborn and Dr Matthew, they determined it to be the second (m2) or third (m3) upper right molar tooth. But the Curator William Gregory and Dr Milo Hellman claimed it to be m2 and they claimed that it didn't look chimpanzee so they believed it resembled Pithecanthropus and man.[4]
The tooth was named by Osborn as Hesperopithecus haroldcookii (which means Harold Cook's Anthropoid of the Western World)
Osborn concluded that this m2 resembled the chimpanzee most but it's still distinct[5]. Osborn then claimed that the molar crown resembled the "Homo sapiens mongoloideus" type (the Mongoloids) but that it was also still distinct, thus, Osborn agreed with Cook, Hellman and Gregory that the tooth was related closely to human but misleading to claim that it was an ape since they needed more evidence to determine if it was an ape or human (or perhaps even a missing link) and disagreed with the claim that it resembled Pithecanthropus.[6]
Also in 1908, William Matthew found an m3 tooth which was "generically" related to Hesperopithecus but not "specifically" related[7].
Those two teeth were from the same age as Pliohippus (extinct horse), Ilingoceras (antelopes) of Asiatic affinity and hornless Rhinoceros.[8]
The first journal to record[9] Hesperopithecus was the American Museum Novitates by Osborn himself in April 25th, 1922.[10] In this article Osborn claimed that "they" were "...eagerly anticipating some discovery of this kind, but not prepared for such convincing evidence of the close faunal relationship between eastern Asia and western North America as is revealed by this diminutive specimen."[11]
Then the tooth was most honoured by being advertised next in the journal Science by Osborn.[12] The difference between the two articles is that Novitates has pictures and Science has no pictures, the text is exactly the same. Osborn claimed in the Science article (just as he did in the Novitates) that the animal to which this tooth belonged "...wandered over here from Asia... [and] It is one of the greatest surprises in the history of American paleontology and I am delighted that you are the man [i.e. Harold Cook] who found it"[13]
The news reached Arthur Smith Woodward in England. He responded to the news, thus the tooth was again most honoured for the third time, in the journal Nature[14]. Woodward's title is most curious because it's entitled "A Supposed Ancestral Man in North America" but Osborn, Hellman, Gregory and Matthew didn't yet claim it to be the ancestral link. So why did Woodward name his article that way? One possible reason is because the tooth was said to be similar to Pithecanthropus which definitely was claimed to be a missing link - at least by it's discoverer. Or maybe he misunderstood? Or perhaps the newspaper said something else? But the earliest newspaper recording of Hesperopithecus was 14 days after Woodward published his article[15], so perhaps it's not newspapers. It follows that he misunderstood or something else happened which is unknown to us.
Nevertheless, Woodward, perhaps in tumult, responded back stating,
"Prof. H. F. Osborn has just described a water worn small molar tooth from a Pliocene formation in Nebraska, U.S.A., as the first evidence of an anthropoid primate discovered in the New World [America]. The specimen was found in the Snake Creek beds by Mr. Harold J. Cook, who has already made known numerous important remains of Pliocene mammals from Nebraska, some showing marked Asiatic affinities. With the aid of Drs. W. D. Matthew, W. K. Gregory, and H. Hellman, Prof. Osborn has determined the tooth to be a second upper molar, and he has named the unknown genus and species to which it belonged Hesperopithecus haroldcookii...
[The tooth] should be made not with any Primate tooth but with the last lower molar in the primitive bears. In general appearance and shape the crown is very suggestive of that of the... Hyaenarctos... There is, indeed, some reason to suspect that Hesperopithecus has received an inappropriate name"[16]
So Woodward thought the tooth could be of a bear (Hyaenarctos). Others thought it's somehow human or perhaps ape.
The tooth then appears in the The Illustrated London News[17]. The newspaper contains the famous artwork by Amedee Forestier. Along with Hesperopithecus you can see: the wife, Pliohippus (horses), Rhinoceros (between the two trees), Pliauchenia (camels - top right), perhaps antelopes (also between the trees) and the artists name (bottom left corner).
Under the image it has some text which says,
"...Regarding the above illustration, Professor Elliot Smith says: "Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature's form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius. But if, as the peculiarities of the tooth suggest, Hesperopithecus was a forerunner of Pithecanthropus, he may have been a creature such as Mr. Forestier has depicted... Mr. Forestier himself writes: "This ape-man is supposed to have migrated from Asia under favourable conditions. He would compare with Pithecanthropus, the Java ape-man, who proportions and attitude were those of the average Englishman. The pose of the head should be noted, large muscles from the occiput to the back and shoulders having to counteract the weight of the prognathous head and heavy jaw - a simian character". Unlike Colombus, Hesperopithecus, is believed to have reached America by land, travelling from Asia by "a land bridge enjoying a warm climate"[18]
This image came with a full article by Grafton Elliot Smith who made a full commentary on the next page. In the newspaper article Elliot wrote:
"Professor Henry Fairfield Osborn's announcement... of a tooth. which he and his distinguished colleagues... are unanimous in regarding... [it] the Order Primate... [this] is an event of momentous importance to every student of the history of the human family.
For many years an experienced geologist, Mr. Harold J. Cook, has been collecting the remains of the extinct fauna that lived in Western Nebraska in Pliocene times... Since then Mr Cook has continued the work of collecting and has acquired thorough knowledge of the stratigraphy... Hence he is not likely to have been deceived as to the horizon in which a particular fragment was found. When some months ago (Feb. 25, 1922) he wrote to Professor Osborn [stating that he found a molar tooth that] closely approaches the human type." the accuracy and reliability of Mr Cook's identification of it's its geological age and provenance was not questioned..."[19]
Elliot carries on talking about how Gregory arrived at the conclusion that the tooth is of Pithecanthropus & man rather than apes. And he said how it (the tooth) was further studied and shown to be of a human but not us nor Pithecanthropus but a different "genera of the human family". He carries on saying that this "astounding" discovery needs more evidence and how tantalizing it is to find a fossil, how all extant humans are related to sapiens but Australians are the most primitive after Homo neanderthalensis,[20] and how the negro (blacks) and Australians still retain the primitive black skin colour which was probably common to all species and genera of the human family and of the chimpanzee and gorilla. Then he carries on saying how after the other humans split of the blacks and Australians, the skin become less dark thus producing Mongoloid, Alpine and finally Nordic (white) races. Then he goes on to speak of the other species of more primitive humans like Neanderthals, Heidelberg and Rhodesian man. Then going even more primitive he talks about Eoanthropus (the famous Piltdown man) and Pithecanthropus. And now... he adds Hesperopithecus to the grand family tree. He called it "long-lost cousin" of the family and says,
"...For not only is he the only human being so far discovered who lived in the remotely distant time of the Pliocene period, but he and his forbears had already wandered so far from the original home of the family in Asia or Africa as North America"[21]
The imagination has gone wild but he carries on,
"The discovery of a single tooth may seem rather a frail and hazardous basis upon which to build such tremendous and unexpected conclusions: and many, if not most, scientists have grave doubts as to the justification for such an interpretation. But the specimen was discovered by a geologist of wide experience, and its horizon has been satisfactorily established. Moreover, the determination of its affinities and its identification as one of the higher Primates closely akin to the Ape-Man of Java, Pithecanthropus, have been made by the most competent authorities on the specific characters of fossilised mammalian teeth, Professor Osborn and Drs. Matthew and Gregory, who not only have had a wider experience of such material than any other paleontologists, but also are men with exact knowledge and sound judgement. One can therefore, place implicit trust in their claim that the tooth found in the Pliocene beds of Nebraska is really that of a primitive member of the human family. Hesperopithecus is more nearly akin to Pithecanthropus than any other member of the human family, and the fact that the latter was found in what at the end of the Pliocene period was the south-eastern corner of Asia, and the former in North America, which was connected with a Eastern Asia by a land bridge enjoying a warm climate, minimises the difficultly of explaining a discovery that at first sight seems to be wholly incredible."[22]
After skipping what is already mentioned (ref 18) Elliot said,
"Professor Osborn tells me that a great expedition is being organised to make a thorough search of the Snake Creek beds for further remains of perhaps the most remarkable and intriguing fossil ever discovered. In the meantime he is preparing for a British journal a fuller account of the teeth (for a second but much-worn tooth of Hesperopithecus has been in the American Museum for several years) and the evidence relating to the Pliocene connections between Asia and America; and he tells me that this statement will afford ample justification for the tremendous claims he has based upon such small scraps of what really seems to be the earliest member of the human family so far discovered."[23]
Remember Elliot is a professor of anatomy. He also has a family tree which includes Hesperopithecus. Yes, within 3 months of the announcement it has a place in our tree.
As it's shown in that tree of life Hesperopithecus is right at the bottom right corner which means it's not our ancestor but still an ape-man. Notice that no one had yet claimed that Hesperopithecus was a missing link but rather something closely related to Pithecanthropus (which was human but they, with their fancy evolutionary ideas, failed to see that), humans and ape-man. And ape-man doesn't necessarily mean it's a missing link but rather it means that the being could be a cousin of us but still retain his ape characters. Only Woodward, either erroneously or some reason we don't know, called it a missing link.[14]
Now Osborn takes it further and honoured the tooth for the fourth time by publishing it in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.[25] This article mentions how the tooth is further "proved" by the other m3 tooth and Osborn said "The animal is certainly a new genus of anthropoid ape, probably an animal which wandered over from Europe and Asia..."[26] He also admits that "we must seek more material before we can determine its relationships" and someone "humorously" mocked William Jennings Bryan by calling Hesperopithecus "Bryopithecus." Bryan was a staunch anti-evolutionist and certainly a smart one. He blamed evolution as one of the factors that caused the First World War[27]. Due to his staunchness the evolutionist wanted to ridicule him by naming that tooth Bryopithecus. Despite all the naming, in the end Bryan was the intelligent among them and later ان شاء الله you will see why. Osborn said that he "advised" Bryan to consult a passage in the Bible, Book of Job, which says "Speak to the earth and it shall teach thee" and that it is a "remarkable coincidence that the first earth to speak on this subject is the sandy earth of the Middle Pliocene Snake Creek deposits of western Nebraska." What that means is that because Bryan was born in Nebraska and the tooth is found in Nebraska therefore Bryan should accept evolution.[28]
The optimism of Elliot and the incredulity of Woodward is what bothered Osborn, so he decided to reply to the two "extremes" in Nature.[29] He said,
"One of my friends, Prof. G. Elliot Smith, has perhaps shown too great optimism in his most interesting newspaper and magazine articles on Hesperopithecus, while another of my friends, Dr. A. Smith Woodward, has shown too great incredulity in his article in Nature of June 10, It is in reply to both extremes that I have especially prepared for Nature addition information regarding the fauna and habitat of this new Primate..."[30]
In the article he said that "Fresh and violent attacks on the Darwinian theory have been made during the last two or three years all over the United States, especially under the leadership of William Jennings Bryan, a man of ingenious and fertile mind and persuasive powers of oratory, gifted as a politician and as a religious advocate."[31] But because Bryan is an opponent of Darwinism (as Osborn said) and that high authorities in science won't persuade Bryan (no surprise, he had a common sense brain) so Osborn referred Bryan to the writings of St. Augustine and the same passage of Job. "In brief, I advised Mr. Bryan to drop all his books... [and] become an evolutionist" without losing his religion. You can clearly see how Bryan was a thorn to the evolutionist.
Osborn then mentioned that "While we have all eagerly looked forward to such a discovery, and I have always regarded it as possible, I have never regarded it as probable, for the reason that the higher Primates, seeking the protection of forests, never venture out for long distances on the plains; moreover, accustomed to a forest fruit supply, they would have been exposed to great dangers in migrating from Asia to Western North America except by the aid of a continuous forest belt..."[32]
After repeating everything he already mentioned in Novitates and Science he just adds his disagreement with Woodward's claim that the tooth was of a bear,[33] and adds a picture of comparative study of different teeth and concludes "...[sic] It is therefore a new and independent type of Primate, and we must seek more material before we can determine it's relationships" and in the next paragraph he said "I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-Man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover an anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), just as we have discovered in the true Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) teeth closely imitating those of chimpanzee"
Which simply means that he disagreed with the hype of Elliot and the dullness of Woodward by saying that he's not sure. That doesn't mean he didn't believe that Hesperopithecus was not a creature walking on two legs or four. He already assumed it could walk but whether it was an ape or man or possibly a missing link was doubtful.
Three months after that Nature article, William P. Pycraft wrote an article in Nature about what he thought on this whole disagreement.[34] He said that the comparison (above) was not good, nothing was definite and they need more evidence. He also requested Osborn to make a comparison of a worn tooth from a bear in order to see if Woodward was right and concluded very convincingly,
"The danger of dogmatising on the evidence afforded by photography and casts alone, was forcibly illustrated in the case of Piltdown man. But it is also imperatively necessary, in the interest of science, that even remotely possible relationships should be seriously examined. It is always unwise to assume that what ought to be, must be"[35]
Two months after Pycraft's words, Gregory and Hellman wrote a full scientific article analyzing the tooth[36] in January 1923. Skipping the scientific jargon where they compare the tooth with a chimpanzee, American Indian and Pithecanthropus. The conclusion of the article was that:
(1) Hesperopithecus cannot be the bear
(2) cannot be procyonid (like raccoons) (but who thought of that?)
(3) there is very little similarities between Hesperopithecus and Lagothrix (south american monkey)
(4) gibbon, gorilla, orangutan and chimpanzee are all different from Hesperopithecus but close to chimpanzee yet distinct
(5) thus they agree with Osborn that it is an unknown primate but it has a combination of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus and of man yet "it is hardly safe to affirm more than that Hesperopithecus was structurally related to all three"[37]
(6) it is hard to determine whether Hesperopithecus was or was not an ancestor to man but from the comparisons, the Hesperopithecus contradict all the human special features in tooth, thus Hesperopithecus represent a primitive feature which no one has witnessed
(7) Hesperopithecus can be within the group of "Hominoidea" (the group which includes humans and apes).
(8) Hesperopithecus managed to survive and apparently spread "northeastward" along with other mastodons (elephants), antelopes and other mammals.
They even show what they believed by making a tree of human life where Hesperopithecus is believed to be an off-shot of the descendants towards gorillas & chimpanzees.
This study was criticized by Dr. Gerrit S. Miller[38]. So Gregory and Hellman responded back and honoured the tooth for the fifth time by publishing it in Bulletin American Museum of Natural History[39]. Skipping the scientific jargon, the conclusions are:
(1) The tooth is m2
(2) The tooth resembles chimps and gorilla more than orangutan and Hellman thinks its more towards human resemblance whilst Gregory think its more towards apishness.
(3) Gregory and Hellman disagrees with Miller's claim that Pithecanthropus is of extinct Javan great ape because Pithecanthropus looks like "human, or subhuman" and of course that logically means Hesperopithecus cannot be Pithecanthropus since Hesperopithecus is not human.
(4) Not everyone agrees with Osborn that the tooth should be assigned to a new genus & species because some think that the tooth belongs to (1) bear (2) unknown carnivore (3) procyonid (also carnivore but not "unknown") (4) gigantic relative of South American monkeys Pithecia and Lagothrix (5) horse and finally (6) gigantic mammal.
Then an unknown man mentions the tooth briefly in 1924[40]. This unknown man mentions the study of Gregory and Hellman and their disagreement with Miller and Woodward and concludes that there needs to be more material.
Then in May 1924, an unknown man talks about the tooth again.[41] The man mentions a study done by A. A. Mendes-Correa which appeared in Scientia. Mendes-Correa said (according to the unknown man) that "...too great reliance is placed upon the evidential value of the teeth of fossil man, particularly of the so-called Hesperopithecus tooth from Nebraska..."
Then it was briefly mentioned the next year, 1925, in Nature.[42] The unknown man talks about a work compiled by Matthew. The work talks about many birds, reptiles and amphibians and the "...celebrated tooth of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii..."
Then in November 1926, the tooth was honoured for the sixth time by being mentioned, by Harold, in Scientific American. Harold published the article mentioning the antiquity of man in America.[43] Hesperopithecus was mentioned twice, one by an "editor" and the other by Harold,
(1) "Not only has he contributed specimens to many large museums, but his recent discovery of the fossil tooth of an anthropoid ape of great antiquity made him well known among scientists"
(2) "That such stocks did enter America [he's talking about the "migration" of animals from Asia] at this time we know through the finding of the much-discussed Hesperopithecus..."
Then in December 1926, an unknown man talks about the above article in Nature[44] about the favourable condition in which the animals migrated from Asia to America and that Hesperopithecus was with them.
In 1927 Osborn wrote a new article in Science[45] talking about brain sizes, history of the evolution of man and does not at all talk about Hesperopithecus except once by misspelling the name, he wrote it as "Herperopithecus". And he does include a human tree of life which he includes Hesperopithecus. See right and below of the trees that were included in his article. The difference between the tree of life that Gregory made is that Osborn thinks Hesperopithecus is more "human" based on his tree because you can see Hesperopithecus being an offshot of the descendants towards humans. Whilst Gregory thinks it's an offshot from the descendants who became gorillas and chimpanzees. It seems like Osborn is saying that Hesperopithecus is our "long-lost" brother rather than cousin as Elliot and Gregory show.
But the hype was dying. An article in Science in 1927[46] by Gregory raised doubt concerning everything outlined above. Gregory admitted that "The scientific world, however, was far from accepting without further evidence the validity of Professor Osborn's conclusion..." and that "Many authorities made the objection "Not proven", which is raised to nearly every striking new discovery or theory, and in course of time nine suggestions were put forward by responsible critics as to what the type of specimen of "Hesperopithecus" might represent other than any kind of ape and man."
So what happened?
"In the hope of discovering more remains of this highly interesting fossil, Professor Osborn send Mr. Albert Thomson, of the Museum staff, to collect in the Snake Creek beds of Nebraska in the summers of 1925 and 1926. At different times Mr. Thompson was joined there by Mr. Barnum Brown, Professor Othenio Abel, of Vienna, Professor Osborn and the writer [Gregory himself]. Among other material the expedition secured a series of specimens which have led the writer to doubt his former identification of the type as the upper molar of an extinct primate, and to suspect that the type specimen of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii may be an upper premolar of a species of Prosthennops, an extinct genus related to the modern peccaries [pigs]"
Gregory carries on saying that the teeth from the extinct pigs that were found were "more or less" similar to the Hesperopithecus teeth. But nothing was for sure, so he concluded "It is hoped that further exploration this summer (1927) will secure sufficient material to remove all doubt in this matter".
So is the tooth of a human? Ape? Ape-man? Horse? Raccoon-like? Pig? Gigantic mammal? Monkey?
An unknown man in 1928, in Nature[47] comments that an "interesting" article appeared in Science (referring to Gregory's article) which placed doubt to whether Hesperopithecus was even a primate. So he said that Gregory's opinion that the tooth is actually that of Prosthennops [pig] "carries the greatest weight".
Another man in 1928, in Nature[48] also mentioned that Hesperopithecus is in "great doubt".
Then pretty much Hesperopithecus died out. Osborn and everyone else, at least in the journals, do not talk about it anymore. It faded away in the pile of mistakes that scientist make, naturally (some though, intentionally).
It was briefly mentioned again in 1951 in Nature[49] which said "When in the early twenties a single tooth from Nebraska identified as that of an ape with certain human affinities, Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, was shown later to belong to a peccary..."
There you have it - this is the story of a tooth that was honoured six times by being mentioned in six different journals.
Summary
I decided to type up this story because I know there are a lot of misconceptions about this topic on the internet. I wanted to go through and show what really happened rather than adding my own interpretation to it (but I will in this summary). So what you read above are the words from primary sources, all of it, from the beginning to the end.
Is there something we can learn from this incident? Yes, that we should never haste in judgement and that science is, by it's very nature, an ever-changing process.
The story starts with honesty and ends with honesty which is good but of course there is no justification to the hype art that Amedee drew and that problem still remains with us today. Art is a powerful tool to tell and convince the public about your ideas. You think the art that evolutionist make has ended? No, far from it. Back in 1980's when a scrap of bones of Pakicetus was discovered, the Geological Education journal published an image of how the creature "looked" like. The image below (left) shows the skull of Pakicetus but the shaded areas are what was actually discovered and (right) a half whale-mammal was drawn. So the problem of art has not yet ended and it will never end.
Note that in the article, it says that the author just "...finished teaching a large lecture course on primate and human evolution recently." I guess he taught with more fanciful images?
In any case, after finishing writing this blog, I went to Stephen J Gould[51] to assess myself of the story of Hesperopithecus. Gould and I agree on all points but he mistakenly claimed that creationist don't believe that science is a self-correcting procedure.[52] Far from that, creationists are fed up with images created from little evidence just as they mention over and over again & their religion being attacked due to little evidence.[53] Creationist, here I'm specifically talking about Young Earth Creationist (as Gould, I'm sure, intentionally did) admit that science is "often self-correcting"[54]
I want to add that Othenio Abel (part of the team that excavated more fossils in the above saga) later in his life joined the Nazis.[55] He requested to found the "Research Institute for the History of Life" in Salzburg but despite sympathetic talks with the Nazis, it never happened - most likely due to the fact that he requested this in 1940, when Germany was at war.[56]
Also, see how Bryan was the smart one? He, from the start, doubted it despite ridicule.
Elliot Smith was clearly the most hyped of them all. Especially his collaboration with Forestier the artist.
Woodward was simply way too wrong - he misunderstood the 2 articles he cites thinking that they say Hesperopithecus was a missing link.
Osborn was ok.
Harold is innocent.
Abel joined the Nazi's and the Nazi's liked him.
Gregory, Hellman and Matthew did their job in respectable manner, especially when Gregory had the guts to retract the previous claims - something that evolutionist don't do these days.
Pycraft was the most careful.
But you know what? It's not honourable. You know why? It's a pig. Pigs are haram.
و الله اعلم
Notes & References
1. Morris F. Skinner, Shirley F. Skinner & Raymond Gooris, 1977, Stratigraphy and Biostratigraphy of Late Cenozoic Deposits In Central Sioux County, Western Nebraska, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, Volume 158, Article 5 page 355
2. Henry Fairfield Osborn, 1922, Hesperopithecus, The First Anthropoid Primate Found in America, American Museum Novitates, Number 37, (April 25, 1922), pages 1-5 (the quote is on page 1)
3. Ibid, page 1.
4. "On the whole, we think it's nearest resemblances are with "Pithecanthropus" and with men rather than with apes" Ibid, page 2. Pithecanthropus was thought to be a missing link due to it's alleged primitive traits and little smaller head compared to extant humans. The discoverer of Pithecanthropus was Eugene Dubois who believed Pithecanthropus to be a "missing link" even though he had very little evidence. The word Pithecanthropus means ape-like man. Pithecanthropus was also known as Java Man but today it's part of a large group of humans called Homo erectus.
5. Henry Fairfield Osborn, 1922, Hesperopithecus, The First Anthropoid Primate Found in America, American Museum Novitates, Number 37, (April 25, 1922), page 2.
6. Ibid, page 4.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid, page 5.
9. I tried my best to look for all the journals which record Hesperopithecus. So if there is/are more then I will edit my article (if they are worthy). Also this article is going in chronological order from earliest to latest using journals from UK & USA and UK newspapers.
10. Henry Fairfield Osborn, 1922, Hesperopithecus, The First Anthropoid Primate Found in America, American Museum Novitates, Number 37, (April 25, 1922), pages 1-5
11. Ibid, page 1.
12. Henry Fairfield Osborn, Hesperopithecus, the First Anthropoid Primate Found in America, Science, New Series, Volume 55, Number 1427 (May 5, 1922), pages 463-465
13. Ibid, page 464.
14. Arthur Smith Woodward, 1922, A Supposed Ancestral Man in North America, Nature, Volume 109, Number 2745, (June 10th 1922), page 750.
15. The Illustrated London News, June 24, 1922, pages 942-944 (the famous drawing is on pages 942-943). On page 942-43 the title is "The earliest man tracked by a tooth: An "Astounding Discovery" of human remains in Pliocene strata" and as for page 944, its "Hesperopithecus: The Ape-Man of the Western World".
16. Arthur Smith Woodward, 1922, A Supposed Ancestral Man in North America, Nature, Volume 109, Number 2745, (June 10th 1922) page 750.
17. The Illustrated London News, June 24, 1922, pages 942-944 (the famous drawing is on pages 942-943). On page 942-43 the title is "The earliest man tracked by a tooth: An "Astounding Discovery" of human remains in Pliocene strata" and as for page 944, its "Hesperopithecus: The Ape-Man of the Western World". Image created courtesy of THE BRITISH LIBRARY BOARD, Image reproduced with kind permission of The British Newspaper Archive (www.britishnewspaperarhive.co.uk)
18. Ibid, pages 942-943
19. The Illustrated London News, "Hesperopithecus: The Ape-Man of the Western World". June 24, 1922, page 944.
20. Homo neanderthalensis are a group of humans who also went extinct and not primitive.
21. The Illustrated London News, "Hesperopithecus: The Ape-Man of the Western World". June 24, 1922, page 944.
22. Ibid (bold are mine)
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid. Image created courtesy of THE BRITISH LIBRARY BOARD, Image reproduced with kind permission of The British Newspaper Archive (www.britishnewspaperarhive.co.uk)
25. Henry Fairfield Osborn, 1922, Hesperopithecus, the First Anthropoid Primate Found in America, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 8, Number 8, (August 15th 1922), pages 245-246
26. Ibid, page 245
27. Richard Weikart, 2004, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany, Palgrave macmillan, page 1
28. Henry Fairfield Osborn, 1922, Hesperopithecus, the First Anthropoid Primate Found in America, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 8, Number 8, (August 15th 1922), page 246.
29. Henry Fairfield Osborn, 1922, Hesperopithecus, the Anthropoid Primate of Western Nebraska, Nature, Volume 110, Number 2756, pages 281-283.
30. Ibid, page 281
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid
33. Ibid, page 283
34. William P. Pycraft, 1922, The Nebraska Tooth, Nature, Volume 110, Number 2769, (November 25th, 1922), pages 707-708
35. Ibid, page 708
36. William K. Gregory and Milo Hellman, Notes on the type of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii Osborn, American Museum Novitates, Number 53 (January 6, 1923) pages 1-16.
37. Ibid, page 14.
38. The criticism is strangely in the appendix of William K. Gregory and Milo Hellman, 1923, Further Notes on the molars of Hesperopithecus an of Pithecanthropus, Bulletin American Museum of Natural History, Volume 48, Article 13, (December 4th, 1923) page 527-530
39. Ibid, pages 509-526
40. Research Items, "Ancient Man in North America" Nature, Volume 113, Number 2827 (January 5th 1924), page 25.
41. Research Items, "The Origin of Man" Nature, Volume 113, Number 2847 (May 24th 1924), page 761.
42. Research Items, "An American Extinct Fauna" Nature, Volume 115, Number 115 (February 14th, 1925)
43. Harold J. Cook, 1926, The Antiquity of Man in America: Who were the First Americans? Whence came they? Scientific American, (November 1st, 1926), pages 334-346
44. Research Items, "The Antiquity of Man in America", Nature, Volume 118, Number 2980 (December 11, 1926), page 855
45. Henry Fairfield Osborn, 1927, "Recent Discoveries Relating to the Origin and Antiquity of Man", Science, New Series, Volume 65, Number 1690 (May 20th, 1927), pages 481-488.
46. William K. Gregory, 1927, Hesperopithecus: Apparently Not an Ape Nor a Man, Science, New Series, Volume 66, Number 1720 (December 16, 1927), pages 579-581
47. Research Items, "Hesperopithecus", Nature, Volume 121, Number 3039 (January 28, 1928), page 148
48. Research Items, "The Evolution of Man and Apes", Nature, Volume 121, Number 3044 (March 3, 1928), page 336.
49. Unknown author, "Teeth of Fossil Primates and Modern Apes", Nature, Volume 167, Number 4252 (April 28, 1951), page 676.
50. Philip D. Gingerich, 1983, Evidence for Evolution from the Vertebrate Fossil Record, Journal of Geological Education, 1983, Volume 31, Issue 2, pages 140-144
51. Stephen Jay Gould, 1991, Bully for Brontosaurus: Reflections in Natural History, Radius, pages 432-447
52. Ibid, page 447.
53. Carl Wieland, 2014, Evolution's Achilles's Heels, Creation Book Publishers, page 148.
54. Ibid.
55. Stephen Jay Gould, 1991, Bully for Brontosaurus: Reflections in Natural History, Radius, pages 442; Olivier Rieppel, 2013, Othenio Abel (1875-1946) and "the phylogeny of the parts", Cladistics 29 (2013): 328-335.
56. Olivier Rieppel, 2013, Othenio Abel (1875-1946) and "the phylogeny of the parts", Cladistics 29 (2013): 328
Seldom does a tooth get a lot of honour. You see, if we ever stumbled upon a tooth from Prophets or Messengers عليهم السلام then certainly it's respected for it was on the bodies of the most blessed humans ever to walk on the face of the Earth. Which makes sense.
However, there are other people in this world who would honour a tooth because there is nothing more to honour.
 |
| Harold J. Cook |
Cook sent a letter to Osborn, dated, February 25, 1922, stating,
"I have had here, for some little time, a molar tooth from the Upper, or Hipparion phase of the Snake Creek beds, that very
closely approaches the human type, It was found associated with the other typical fossils of the Snake Creek, and is mineralized in the same fashion as they are...
 |
| Henry Fairfield Osborn |
The tooth was sent to Osborn. On receiving the tooth, Osborn replied back saying,
"The instant your package arrived, I sat down with the tooth, in my window, and I said to myself: "It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid." I then took the tooth into Doctor Matthew's room and we have been comparing it with all the books, all the casts and all the drawings, with the conclusion that it is the last right upper molar tooth of some higher Primate, but distinct... We await, however, Doctor Gregory's verdict tomorrow morning... but it looks to me as if the first anthropoid ape of America had been found by the one man entitled to find it, namely, Harold J, Cook!"[3]
After the tooth was examined by Osborn and Dr Matthew, they determined it to be the second (m2) or third (m3) upper right molar tooth. But the Curator William Gregory and Dr Milo Hellman claimed it to be m2 and they claimed that it didn't look chimpanzee so they believed it resembled Pithecanthropus and man.[4]
The tooth was named by Osborn as Hesperopithecus haroldcookii (which means Harold Cook's Anthropoid of the Western World)
 |
| A map from Osborn's book which he included in the journal Nature. England on left, Russia middle and America right. The place marked X is the place of discovery. Copyright: Nature. Used with permission. |
Also in 1908, William Matthew found an m3 tooth which was "generically" related to Hesperopithecus but not "specifically" related[7].
Those two teeth were from the same age as Pliohippus (extinct horse), Ilingoceras (antelopes) of Asiatic affinity and hornless Rhinoceros.[8]
The first journal to record[9] Hesperopithecus was the American Museum Novitates by Osborn himself in April 25th, 1922.[10] In this article Osborn claimed that "they" were "...eagerly anticipating some discovery of this kind, but not prepared for such convincing evidence of the close faunal relationship between eastern Asia and western North America as is revealed by this diminutive specimen."[11]
Then the tooth was most honoured by being advertised next in the journal Science by Osborn.[12] The difference between the two articles is that Novitates has pictures and Science has no pictures, the text is exactly the same. Osborn claimed in the Science article (just as he did in the Novitates) that the animal to which this tooth belonged "...wandered over here from Asia... [and] It is one of the greatest surprises in the history of American paleontology and I am delighted that you are the man [i.e. Harold Cook] who found it"[13]
The news reached Arthur Smith Woodward in England. He responded to the news, thus the tooth was again most honoured for the third time, in the journal Nature[14]. Woodward's title is most curious because it's entitled "A Supposed Ancestral Man in North America" but Osborn, Hellman, Gregory and Matthew didn't yet claim it to be the ancestral link. So why did Woodward name his article that way? One possible reason is because the tooth was said to be similar to Pithecanthropus which definitely was claimed to be a missing link - at least by it's discoverer. Or maybe he misunderstood? Or perhaps the newspaper said something else? But the earliest newspaper recording of Hesperopithecus was 14 days after Woodward published his article[15], so perhaps it's not newspapers. It follows that he misunderstood or something else happened which is unknown to us.
Nevertheless, Woodward, perhaps in tumult, responded back stating,
"Prof. H. F. Osborn has just described a water worn small molar tooth from a Pliocene formation in Nebraska, U.S.A., as the first evidence of an anthropoid primate discovered in the New World [America]. The specimen was found in the Snake Creek beds by Mr. Harold J. Cook, who has already made known numerous important remains of Pliocene mammals from Nebraska, some showing marked Asiatic affinities. With the aid of Drs. W. D. Matthew, W. K. Gregory, and H. Hellman, Prof. Osborn has determined the tooth to be a second upper molar, and he has named the unknown genus and species to which it belonged Hesperopithecus haroldcookii...
[The tooth] should be made not with any Primate tooth but with the last lower molar in the primitive bears. In general appearance and shape the crown is very suggestive of that of the... Hyaenarctos... There is, indeed, some reason to suspect that Hesperopithecus has received an inappropriate name"[16]
So Woodward thought the tooth could be of a bear (Hyaenarctos). Others thought it's somehow human or perhaps ape.
 |
| The famous artwork by Amedee Forestier[17] Copyright: Illustrated London News Ltd. Used with permission. |
The tooth then appears in the The Illustrated London News[17]. The newspaper contains the famous artwork by Amedee Forestier. Along with Hesperopithecus you can see: the wife, Pliohippus (horses), Rhinoceros (between the two trees), Pliauchenia (camels - top right), perhaps antelopes (also between the trees) and the artists name (bottom left corner).
Under the image it has some text which says,
"...Regarding the above illustration, Professor Elliot Smith says: "Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature's form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius. But if, as the peculiarities of the tooth suggest, Hesperopithecus was a forerunner of Pithecanthropus, he may have been a creature such as Mr. Forestier has depicted... Mr. Forestier himself writes: "This ape-man is supposed to have migrated from Asia under favourable conditions. He would compare with Pithecanthropus, the Java ape-man, who proportions and attitude were those of the average Englishman. The pose of the head should be noted, large muscles from the occiput to the back and shoulders having to counteract the weight of the prognathous head and heavy jaw - a simian character". Unlike Colombus, Hesperopithecus, is believed to have reached America by land, travelling from Asia by "a land bridge enjoying a warm climate"[18]
This image came with a full article by Grafton Elliot Smith who made a full commentary on the next page. In the newspaper article Elliot wrote:
"Professor Henry Fairfield Osborn's announcement... of a tooth. which he and his distinguished colleagues... are unanimous in regarding... [it] the Order Primate... [this] is an event of momentous importance to every student of the history of the human family.
For many years an experienced geologist, Mr. Harold J. Cook, has been collecting the remains of the extinct fauna that lived in Western Nebraska in Pliocene times... Since then Mr Cook has continued the work of collecting and has acquired thorough knowledge of the stratigraphy... Hence he is not likely to have been deceived as to the horizon in which a particular fragment was found. When some months ago (Feb. 25, 1922) he wrote to Professor Osborn [stating that he found a molar tooth that] closely approaches the human type." the accuracy and reliability of Mr Cook's identification of it's its geological age and provenance was not questioned..."[19]
Elliot carries on talking about how Gregory arrived at the conclusion that the tooth is of Pithecanthropus & man rather than apes. And he said how it (the tooth) was further studied and shown to be of a human but not us nor Pithecanthropus but a different "genera of the human family". He carries on saying that this "astounding" discovery needs more evidence and how tantalizing it is to find a fossil, how all extant humans are related to sapiens but Australians are the most primitive after Homo neanderthalensis,[20] and how the negro (blacks) and Australians still retain the primitive black skin colour which was probably common to all species and genera of the human family and of the chimpanzee and gorilla. Then he carries on saying how after the other humans split of the blacks and Australians, the skin become less dark thus producing Mongoloid, Alpine and finally Nordic (white) races. Then he goes on to speak of the other species of more primitive humans like Neanderthals, Heidelberg and Rhodesian man. Then going even more primitive he talks about Eoanthropus (the famous Piltdown man) and Pithecanthropus. And now... he adds Hesperopithecus to the grand family tree. He called it "long-lost cousin" of the family and says,
"...For not only is he the only human being so far discovered who lived in the remotely distant time of the Pliocene period, but he and his forbears had already wandered so far from the original home of the family in Asia or Africa as North America"[21]
The imagination has gone wild but he carries on,
"The discovery of a single tooth may seem rather a frail and hazardous basis upon which to build such tremendous and unexpected conclusions: and many, if not most, scientists have grave doubts as to the justification for such an interpretation. But the specimen was discovered by a geologist of wide experience, and its horizon has been satisfactorily established. Moreover, the determination of its affinities and its identification as one of the higher Primates closely akin to the Ape-Man of Java, Pithecanthropus, have been made by the most competent authorities on the specific characters of fossilised mammalian teeth, Professor Osborn and Drs. Matthew and Gregory, who not only have had a wider experience of such material than any other paleontologists, but also are men with exact knowledge and sound judgement. One can therefore, place implicit trust in their claim that the tooth found in the Pliocene beds of Nebraska is really that of a primitive member of the human family. Hesperopithecus is more nearly akin to Pithecanthropus than any other member of the human family, and the fact that the latter was found in what at the end of the Pliocene period was the south-eastern corner of Asia, and the former in North America, which was connected with a Eastern Asia by a land bridge enjoying a warm climate, minimises the difficultly of explaining a discovery that at first sight seems to be wholly incredible."[22]
After skipping what is already mentioned (ref 18) Elliot said,
 |
| The human tree of life by Grafton E. Smith, 1922[24] Copyright: Illustrated London News Ltd. Used with permission. |
Remember Elliot is a professor of anatomy. He also has a family tree which includes Hesperopithecus. Yes, within 3 months of the announcement it has a place in our tree.
As it's shown in that tree of life Hesperopithecus is right at the bottom right corner which means it's not our ancestor but still an ape-man. Notice that no one had yet claimed that Hesperopithecus was a missing link but rather something closely related to Pithecanthropus (which was human but they, with their fancy evolutionary ideas, failed to see that), humans and ape-man. And ape-man doesn't necessarily mean it's a missing link but rather it means that the being could be a cousin of us but still retain his ape characters. Only Woodward, either erroneously or some reason we don't know, called it a missing link.[14]
Now Osborn takes it further and honoured the tooth for the fourth time by publishing it in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.[25] This article mentions how the tooth is further "proved" by the other m3 tooth and Osborn said "The animal is certainly a new genus of anthropoid ape, probably an animal which wandered over from Europe and Asia..."[26] He also admits that "we must seek more material before we can determine its relationships" and someone "humorously" mocked William Jennings Bryan by calling Hesperopithecus "Bryopithecus." Bryan was a staunch anti-evolutionist and certainly a smart one. He blamed evolution as one of the factors that caused the First World War[27]. Due to his staunchness the evolutionist wanted to ridicule him by naming that tooth Bryopithecus. Despite all the naming, in the end Bryan was the intelligent among them and later ان شاء الله you will see why. Osborn said that he "advised" Bryan to consult a passage in the Bible, Book of Job, which says "Speak to the earth and it shall teach thee" and that it is a "remarkable coincidence that the first earth to speak on this subject is the sandy earth of the Middle Pliocene Snake Creek deposits of western Nebraska." What that means is that because Bryan was born in Nebraska and the tooth is found in Nebraska therefore Bryan should accept evolution.[28]
The optimism of Elliot and the incredulity of Woodward is what bothered Osborn, so he decided to reply to the two "extremes" in Nature.[29] He said,
"One of my friends, Prof. G. Elliot Smith, has perhaps shown too great optimism in his most interesting newspaper and magazine articles on Hesperopithecus, while another of my friends, Dr. A. Smith Woodward, has shown too great incredulity in his article in Nature of June 10, It is in reply to both extremes that I have especially prepared for Nature addition information regarding the fauna and habitat of this new Primate..."[30]
In the article he said that "Fresh and violent attacks on the Darwinian theory have been made during the last two or three years all over the United States, especially under the leadership of William Jennings Bryan, a man of ingenious and fertile mind and persuasive powers of oratory, gifted as a politician and as a religious advocate."[31] But because Bryan is an opponent of Darwinism (as Osborn said) and that high authorities in science won't persuade Bryan (no surprise, he had a common sense brain) so Osborn referred Bryan to the writings of St. Augustine and the same passage of Job. "In brief, I advised Mr. Bryan to drop all his books... [and] become an evolutionist" without losing his religion. You can clearly see how Bryan was a thorn to the evolutionist.
Osborn then mentioned that "While we have all eagerly looked forward to such a discovery, and I have always regarded it as possible, I have never regarded it as probable, for the reason that the higher Primates, seeking the protection of forests, never venture out for long distances on the plains; moreover, accustomed to a forest fruit supply, they would have been exposed to great dangers in migrating from Asia to Western North America except by the aid of a continuous forest belt..."[32]
 |
| Teeth comparison between: 6. Chimpanzee 1. Hesperopithecus 2. Chimpanzee 3. Pithecanthropus 4. Hesperopithecus 5. American Indian Copyright: Nature. Used with permission |
Which simply means that he disagreed with the hype of Elliot and the dullness of Woodward by saying that he's not sure. That doesn't mean he didn't believe that Hesperopithecus was not a creature walking on two legs or four. He already assumed it could walk but whether it was an ape or man or possibly a missing link was doubtful.
Three months after that Nature article, William P. Pycraft wrote an article in Nature about what he thought on this whole disagreement.[34] He said that the comparison (above) was not good, nothing was definite and they need more evidence. He also requested Osborn to make a comparison of a worn tooth from a bear in order to see if Woodward was right and concluded very convincingly,
"The danger of dogmatising on the evidence afforded by photography and casts alone, was forcibly illustrated in the case of Piltdown man. But it is also imperatively necessary, in the interest of science, that even remotely possible relationships should be seriously examined. It is always unwise to assume that what ought to be, must be"[35]
Two months after Pycraft's words, Gregory and Hellman wrote a full scientific article analyzing the tooth[36] in January 1923. Skipping the scientific jargon where they compare the tooth with a chimpanzee, American Indian and Pithecanthropus. The conclusion of the article was that:
(1) Hesperopithecus cannot be the bear
(2) cannot be procyonid (like raccoons) (but who thought of that?)
(3) there is very little similarities between Hesperopithecus and Lagothrix (south american monkey)
(4) gibbon, gorilla, orangutan and chimpanzee are all different from Hesperopithecus but close to chimpanzee yet distinct
(5) thus they agree with Osborn that it is an unknown primate but it has a combination of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus and of man yet "it is hardly safe to affirm more than that Hesperopithecus was structurally related to all three"[37]
(6) it is hard to determine whether Hesperopithecus was or was not an ancestor to man but from the comparisons, the Hesperopithecus contradict all the human special features in tooth, thus Hesperopithecus represent a primitive feature which no one has witnessed
(7) Hesperopithecus can be within the group of "Hominoidea" (the group which includes humans and apes).
(8) Hesperopithecus managed to survive and apparently spread "northeastward" along with other mastodons (elephants), antelopes and other mammals.
They even show what they believed by making a tree of human life where Hesperopithecus is believed to be an off-shot of the descendants towards gorillas & chimpanzees.
 |
| Relationship between the primates according to "evidence" by Gregory, 1922. The circled one is Hesperopithecus. You can see that it is not an ancestor but a cousin ape-man as Elliot claimed in the newspaper. Copyright: American Museum of Natural History. Used with permission. |
This study was criticized by Dr. Gerrit S. Miller[38]. So Gregory and Hellman responded back and honoured the tooth for the fifth time by publishing it in Bulletin American Museum of Natural History[39]. Skipping the scientific jargon, the conclusions are:
(1) The tooth is m2
(2) The tooth resembles chimps and gorilla more than orangutan and Hellman thinks its more towards human resemblance whilst Gregory think its more towards apishness.
(3) Gregory and Hellman disagrees with Miller's claim that Pithecanthropus is of extinct Javan great ape because Pithecanthropus looks like "human, or subhuman" and of course that logically means Hesperopithecus cannot be Pithecanthropus since Hesperopithecus is not human.
(4) Not everyone agrees with Osborn that the tooth should be assigned to a new genus & species because some think that the tooth belongs to (1) bear (2) unknown carnivore (3) procyonid (also carnivore but not "unknown") (4) gigantic relative of South American monkeys Pithecia and Lagothrix (5) horse and finally (6) gigantic mammal.
Then an unknown man mentions the tooth briefly in 1924[40]. This unknown man mentions the study of Gregory and Hellman and their disagreement with Miller and Woodward and concludes that there needs to be more material.
Then in May 1924, an unknown man talks about the tooth again.[41] The man mentions a study done by A. A. Mendes-Correa which appeared in Scientia. Mendes-Correa said (according to the unknown man) that "...too great reliance is placed upon the evidential value of the teeth of fossil man, particularly of the so-called Hesperopithecus tooth from Nebraska..."
Then it was briefly mentioned the next year, 1925, in Nature.[42] The unknown man talks about a work compiled by Matthew. The work talks about many birds, reptiles and amphibians and the "...celebrated tooth of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii..."
 |
| Tree of life by Osborn in his Science article. Copyright: Science. Used with permission. |
Then in November 1926, the tooth was honoured for the sixth time by being mentioned, by Harold, in Scientific American. Harold published the article mentioning the antiquity of man in America.[43] Hesperopithecus was mentioned twice, one by an "editor" and the other by Harold,
(1) "Not only has he contributed specimens to many large museums, but his recent discovery of the fossil tooth of an anthropoid ape of great antiquity made him well known among scientists"
(2) "That such stocks did enter America [he's talking about the "migration" of animals from Asia] at this time we know through the finding of the much-discussed Hesperopithecus..."
Then in December 1926, an unknown man talks about the above article in Nature[44] about the favourable condition in which the animals migrated from Asia to America and that Hesperopithecus was with them.
In 1927 Osborn wrote a new article in Science[45] talking about brain sizes, history of the evolution of man and does not at all talk about Hesperopithecus except once by misspelling the name, he wrote it as "Herperopithecus". And he does include a human tree of life which he includes Hesperopithecus. See right and below of the trees that were included in his article. The difference between the tree of life that Gregory made is that Osborn thinks Hesperopithecus is more "human" based on his tree because you can see Hesperopithecus being an offshot of the descendants towards humans. Whilst Gregory thinks it's an offshot from the descendants who became gorillas and chimpanzees. It seems like Osborn is saying that Hesperopithecus is our "long-lost" brother rather than cousin as Elliot and Gregory show.
 |
| Another tree on the same article by Osborn but Hesperopithecus is not mentioned. Copyright: Science. Used with permission. |
But the hype was dying. An article in Science in 1927[46] by Gregory raised doubt concerning everything outlined above. Gregory admitted that "The scientific world, however, was far from accepting without further evidence the validity of Professor Osborn's conclusion..." and that "Many authorities made the objection "Not proven", which is raised to nearly every striking new discovery or theory, and in course of time nine suggestions were put forward by responsible critics as to what the type of specimen of "Hesperopithecus" might represent other than any kind of ape and man."
So what happened?
"In the hope of discovering more remains of this highly interesting fossil, Professor Osborn send Mr. Albert Thomson, of the Museum staff, to collect in the Snake Creek beds of Nebraska in the summers of 1925 and 1926. At different times Mr. Thompson was joined there by Mr. Barnum Brown, Professor Othenio Abel, of Vienna, Professor Osborn and the writer [Gregory himself]. Among other material the expedition secured a series of specimens which have led the writer to doubt his former identification of the type as the upper molar of an extinct primate, and to suspect that the type specimen of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii may be an upper premolar of a species of Prosthennops, an extinct genus related to the modern peccaries [pigs]"
Gregory carries on saying that the teeth from the extinct pigs that were found were "more or less" similar to the Hesperopithecus teeth. But nothing was for sure, so he concluded "It is hoped that further exploration this summer (1927) will secure sufficient material to remove all doubt in this matter".
So is the tooth of a human? Ape? Ape-man? Horse? Raccoon-like? Pig? Gigantic mammal? Monkey?
An unknown man in 1928, in Nature[47] comments that an "interesting" article appeared in Science (referring to Gregory's article) which placed doubt to whether Hesperopithecus was even a primate. So he said that Gregory's opinion that the tooth is actually that of Prosthennops [pig] "carries the greatest weight".
Another man in 1928, in Nature[48] also mentioned that Hesperopithecus is in "great doubt".
Then pretty much Hesperopithecus died out. Osborn and everyone else, at least in the journals, do not talk about it anymore. It faded away in the pile of mistakes that scientist make, naturally (some though, intentionally).
It was briefly mentioned again in 1951 in Nature[49] which said "When in the early twenties a single tooth from Nebraska identified as that of an ape with certain human affinities, Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, was shown later to belong to a peccary..."
There you have it - this is the story of a tooth that was honoured six times by being mentioned in six different journals.
Summary
I decided to type up this story because I know there are a lot of misconceptions about this topic on the internet. I wanted to go through and show what really happened rather than adding my own interpretation to it (but I will in this summary). So what you read above are the words from primary sources, all of it, from the beginning to the end.
Is there something we can learn from this incident? Yes, that we should never haste in judgement and that science is, by it's very nature, an ever-changing process.
The story starts with honesty and ends with honesty which is good but of course there is no justification to the hype art that Amedee drew and that problem still remains with us today. Art is a powerful tool to tell and convince the public about your ideas. You think the art that evolutionist make has ended? No, far from it. Back in 1980's when a scrap of bones of Pakicetus was discovered, the Geological Education journal published an image of how the creature "looked" like. The image below (left) shows the skull of Pakicetus but the shaded areas are what was actually discovered and (right) a half whale-mammal was drawn. So the problem of art has not yet ended and it will never end.
 |
| Head of Pakicetus. Shaded area is what was discovered. The author named it "Cetacean" (like dolphins) [50] |
 |
| This was drawn from the little pieces from the skull.[50] |
Note that in the article, it says that the author just "...finished teaching a large lecture course on primate and human evolution recently." I guess he taught with more fanciful images?
In any case, after finishing writing this blog, I went to Stephen J Gould[51] to assess myself of the story of Hesperopithecus. Gould and I agree on all points but he mistakenly claimed that creationist don't believe that science is a self-correcting procedure.[52] Far from that, creationists are fed up with images created from little evidence just as they mention over and over again & their religion being attacked due to little evidence.[53] Creationist, here I'm specifically talking about Young Earth Creationist (as Gould, I'm sure, intentionally did) admit that science is "often self-correcting"[54]
I want to add that Othenio Abel (part of the team that excavated more fossils in the above saga) later in his life joined the Nazis.[55] He requested to found the "Research Institute for the History of Life" in Salzburg but despite sympathetic talks with the Nazis, it never happened - most likely due to the fact that he requested this in 1940, when Germany was at war.[56]
Also, see how Bryan was the smart one? He, from the start, doubted it despite ridicule.
Elliot Smith was clearly the most hyped of them all. Especially his collaboration with Forestier the artist.
Woodward was simply way too wrong - he misunderstood the 2 articles he cites thinking that they say Hesperopithecus was a missing link.
Osborn was ok.
Harold is innocent.
Abel joined the Nazi's and the Nazi's liked him.
Gregory, Hellman and Matthew did their job in respectable manner, especially when Gregory had the guts to retract the previous claims - something that evolutionist don't do these days.
Pycraft was the most careful.
But you know what? It's not honourable. You know why? It's a pig. Pigs are haram.
و الله اعلم
Notes & References
1. Morris F. Skinner, Shirley F. Skinner & Raymond Gooris, 1977, Stratigraphy and Biostratigraphy of Late Cenozoic Deposits In Central Sioux County, Western Nebraska, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, Volume 158, Article 5 page 355
2. Henry Fairfield Osborn, 1922, Hesperopithecus, The First Anthropoid Primate Found in America, American Museum Novitates, Number 37, (April 25, 1922), pages 1-5 (the quote is on page 1)
3. Ibid, page 1.
4. "On the whole, we think it's nearest resemblances are with "Pithecanthropus" and with men rather than with apes" Ibid, page 2. Pithecanthropus was thought to be a missing link due to it's alleged primitive traits and little smaller head compared to extant humans. The discoverer of Pithecanthropus was Eugene Dubois who believed Pithecanthropus to be a "missing link" even though he had very little evidence. The word Pithecanthropus means ape-like man. Pithecanthropus was also known as Java Man but today it's part of a large group of humans called Homo erectus.
5. Henry Fairfield Osborn, 1922, Hesperopithecus, The First Anthropoid Primate Found in America, American Museum Novitates, Number 37, (April 25, 1922), page 2.
6. Ibid, page 4.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid, page 5.
9. I tried my best to look for all the journals which record Hesperopithecus. So if there is/are more then I will edit my article (if they are worthy). Also this article is going in chronological order from earliest to latest using journals from UK & USA and UK newspapers.
10. Henry Fairfield Osborn, 1922, Hesperopithecus, The First Anthropoid Primate Found in America, American Museum Novitates, Number 37, (April 25, 1922), pages 1-5
11. Ibid, page 1.
12. Henry Fairfield Osborn, Hesperopithecus, the First Anthropoid Primate Found in America, Science, New Series, Volume 55, Number 1427 (May 5, 1922), pages 463-465
13. Ibid, page 464.
14. Arthur Smith Woodward, 1922, A Supposed Ancestral Man in North America, Nature, Volume 109, Number 2745, (June 10th 1922), page 750.
15. The Illustrated London News, June 24, 1922, pages 942-944 (the famous drawing is on pages 942-943). On page 942-43 the title is "The earliest man tracked by a tooth: An "Astounding Discovery" of human remains in Pliocene strata" and as for page 944, its "Hesperopithecus: The Ape-Man of the Western World".
16. Arthur Smith Woodward, 1922, A Supposed Ancestral Man in North America, Nature, Volume 109, Number 2745, (June 10th 1922) page 750.
17. The Illustrated London News, June 24, 1922, pages 942-944 (the famous drawing is on pages 942-943). On page 942-43 the title is "The earliest man tracked by a tooth: An "Astounding Discovery" of human remains in Pliocene strata" and as for page 944, its "Hesperopithecus: The Ape-Man of the Western World". Image created courtesy of THE BRITISH LIBRARY BOARD, Image reproduced with kind permission of The British Newspaper Archive (www.britishnewspaperarhive.co.uk)
18. Ibid, pages 942-943
19. The Illustrated London News, "Hesperopithecus: The Ape-Man of the Western World". June 24, 1922, page 944.
20. Homo neanderthalensis are a group of humans who also went extinct and not primitive.
21. The Illustrated London News, "Hesperopithecus: The Ape-Man of the Western World". June 24, 1922, page 944.
22. Ibid (bold are mine)
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid. Image created courtesy of THE BRITISH LIBRARY BOARD, Image reproduced with kind permission of The British Newspaper Archive (www.britishnewspaperarhive.co.uk)
25. Henry Fairfield Osborn, 1922, Hesperopithecus, the First Anthropoid Primate Found in America, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 8, Number 8, (August 15th 1922), pages 245-246
26. Ibid, page 245
27. Richard Weikart, 2004, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany, Palgrave macmillan, page 1
28. Henry Fairfield Osborn, 1922, Hesperopithecus, the First Anthropoid Primate Found in America, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 8, Number 8, (August 15th 1922), page 246.
29. Henry Fairfield Osborn, 1922, Hesperopithecus, the Anthropoid Primate of Western Nebraska, Nature, Volume 110, Number 2756, pages 281-283.
30. Ibid, page 281
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid
33. Ibid, page 283
34. William P. Pycraft, 1922, The Nebraska Tooth, Nature, Volume 110, Number 2769, (November 25th, 1922), pages 707-708
35. Ibid, page 708
36. William K. Gregory and Milo Hellman, Notes on the type of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii Osborn, American Museum Novitates, Number 53 (January 6, 1923) pages 1-16.
37. Ibid, page 14.
38. The criticism is strangely in the appendix of William K. Gregory and Milo Hellman, 1923, Further Notes on the molars of Hesperopithecus an of Pithecanthropus, Bulletin American Museum of Natural History, Volume 48, Article 13, (December 4th, 1923) page 527-530
39. Ibid, pages 509-526
40. Research Items, "Ancient Man in North America" Nature, Volume 113, Number 2827 (January 5th 1924), page 25.
41. Research Items, "The Origin of Man" Nature, Volume 113, Number 2847 (May 24th 1924), page 761.
42. Research Items, "An American Extinct Fauna" Nature, Volume 115, Number 115 (February 14th, 1925)
43. Harold J. Cook, 1926, The Antiquity of Man in America: Who were the First Americans? Whence came they? Scientific American, (November 1st, 1926), pages 334-346
44. Research Items, "The Antiquity of Man in America", Nature, Volume 118, Number 2980 (December 11, 1926), page 855
45. Henry Fairfield Osborn, 1927, "Recent Discoveries Relating to the Origin and Antiquity of Man", Science, New Series, Volume 65, Number 1690 (May 20th, 1927), pages 481-488.
46. William K. Gregory, 1927, Hesperopithecus: Apparently Not an Ape Nor a Man, Science, New Series, Volume 66, Number 1720 (December 16, 1927), pages 579-581
47. Research Items, "Hesperopithecus", Nature, Volume 121, Number 3039 (January 28, 1928), page 148
48. Research Items, "The Evolution of Man and Apes", Nature, Volume 121, Number 3044 (March 3, 1928), page 336.
49. Unknown author, "Teeth of Fossil Primates and Modern Apes", Nature, Volume 167, Number 4252 (April 28, 1951), page 676.
50. Philip D. Gingerich, 1983, Evidence for Evolution from the Vertebrate Fossil Record, Journal of Geological Education, 1983, Volume 31, Issue 2, pages 140-144
51. Stephen Jay Gould, 1991, Bully for Brontosaurus: Reflections in Natural History, Radius, pages 432-447
52. Ibid, page 447.
53. Carl Wieland, 2014, Evolution's Achilles's Heels, Creation Book Publishers, page 148.
54. Ibid.
55. Stephen Jay Gould, 1991, Bully for Brontosaurus: Reflections in Natural History, Radius, pages 442; Olivier Rieppel, 2013, Othenio Abel (1875-1946) and "the phylogeny of the parts", Cladistics 29 (2013): 328-335.
56. Olivier Rieppel, 2013, Othenio Abel (1875-1946) and "the phylogeny of the parts", Cladistics 29 (2013): 328
