六、注釋

【1】方舟子：《我的經典》，《新語絲》月刊，1999年4期。

【2】“方舟子的所作所為，其最初動機和最終目的都不過是‘名利’二字。而他選擇的道路，就是靠打成名，靠名謀利。”見：亦明：《方舟子2012年十大要聞》，中國學術評價網，2012年12月25日。另見：亦明：《文史畸才方舟子》、《科唬作家方舟子》。

【3】方舟子：《“最佳”詩人》，作於1996年1月25日；見新語絲網站《方舟子詩文集·方舟子雜文》。

【4】方舟子：《天下文女一大抄》，作於1995年10月17日；見新語絲網站《方舟子詩文集·方舟子雜文》。

【5】詳見亦明：《文史畸才方舟子》第三篇，《“偷”出來的歷史學家》。

【6】莊周：《齊人物論（續一）》，《書屋》2000年第9期24-30頁。

【7】莊周：《齊人物論：百年散文大盤點（續一）》，新語絲2000年10月5日新到資料；USTC：《我所知道的網絡寫家（1）——方舟子》，新語絲讀書論壇，2002-08-02 21:31:05；李發文：《我所知道的網絡寫家方舟子》，新語絲2002年8月3日新到資料。註：USTC是方舟子在新語絲上的馬甲。

【8】Dobzhansky, T. 1973. Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. The American Biology Teacher 35(3):125-129.

【9】Barras, C. We Have Still not Found the Missing Link between Us and Apes. www.bbc.com, May 18, 2017.

【10】Anonymous. The Earliest man? A Skull “Millions of Years Old.” The Manchester Guardian, Nov. 21, 1912.

【11】Anonymous.1912. Notes. Nature 90(2249):3390.

【12】“the most important discovery of its kind hitherto made in England.” Anonymous. 1912. Palæolithic Man. Nature 90(2251):438.

【13】“This ill-begotten form of primitive man in the several hundred papers devoted to him received nearly as much attention as all the legitimate specimens in the fossil record put together.”見：Weiner, J. S. The Piltdown Forgery. London, University of Oxford Press, 1955. p.204.

【14】方舟子：《駁斥〈華夏文摘〉的反進化論謠言》，新語絲1999年6月27日新到資料。

【15】方舟子：《錯把業餘當專業－－關於“《國家地理雜誌》古化石騙局”》，新語絲2000年5月31日新到資料。

【16】柯南：《真相永遠只有一個·辟爾唐人的騙局》，新語絲2001年5月14日。註：該文首發地址是網易的“科學大觀”論壇，時間是2001-03-17 00:04:38；文尾有這樣一句話：“柯南的習作，請大家指正:)”。

【17】方舟子此文於2008年6月23日以《“皮爾當人”騙局——科學史上著名公案（9）》為題在《經濟觀察報》首發；兩天后被方舟子以《科學史上著名公案——“皮爾當人”騙局》為題在新語絲網站公布。2009年，該文被方舟子以《“皮爾當人”騙局》為題收入自己的文集《愛因斯坦相信上帝嗎？——方舟子解讀科學史著名謎團》一書。該文還曾以不同標題在中國多家報刊上重複發表，如《教師博覽》2008年11期、《飛碟探索》2008年12期、《青年博覽》2008年18期 、《意林》2008年20期、《科技信息》2012年12A期、《人物匯報》2012年28期、2012年9月22日《城市商報》、2012年9月26日《重慶日報》，等等。

【18】見新語絲讀書論壇：2009-04-24 04:58:54。

【19】方舟子：《皮爾當人騙局》，《飛碟探索》2008年12期45-46頁。

【20】戴清：《皮爾當人：英國紳士背後的虛榮》，《飛碟探索》2007年10期36-37頁。

【21】余英時：《〈周禮〉考證和〈周禮〉的現代啟示——金春峯〈周官之成書及其反映的文化與時代新考〉序》，《中國文化》1990年2期174-183頁。

【22】田汝康：《辟爾當人頭骨——英國資產階級科學界的騙局》，1954年6月10日《光明日報》；李渢：《“辟爾當人”的秘密》，《科學通報》1954年5期66-67頁；夏鼐：《“辟爾當人”疑案的解決及其教訓》，《科學通報》1954年8期54-56頁。

【23】見：裴文中：《第二次大戰前後世界各地對於人類化石的研究——中國科學院古脊椎動物研究室丙種專刊第一號》，中國科學院1954年版12-14頁。

【24】中華書局辭海編輯所編：《辭海試行本》第13分冊，中華書局1961年版67頁。

【25】董枝明：《曙人與資產階級的偽科學》，《化石》1975年1期22頁。

【26】佚名：《為什麼說“曙人”事件是個騙局》，《十萬個為什麼》第19冊，上海人民出版社1976年版118-121頁。

【27】吳汝康：《古人類史上最使人迷惑的一幕——皮爾唐的科學騙局》。《世界科技研究與發展》1996年C1期134-138頁；吳汝康：《科學史上一場最大的騙局——皮爾唐人化石》，《人類學學報》1997年1期43-54頁。

【28】Walsh, J. E. Unraveling Piltdown: The Science Fraud of the Century and Its Solution. New York, NY: Random House, 1996.

【29】Shermer, M.  The Great Bone Hoax. Los Angeles Times, Sep. 22, 1996.

【30】Shermer, M. The Great Bone Hoax: Piltdown and the Self-Correcting Nature of Science. In:  The Borderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2001. pp.307-320.

【31】詳見維基百科“Michael Shermer”詞條。（閱讀日期：2020年6月29日。）

【32】Mouallem, O.Making a Living of Bullshit Detecting. VUE Weekly, August 28, 2008.

【33】方舟子：《為什麼人們相信怪異的事情？》，2001年1月5日《科學時報·讀書周刊》；見新語絲2001年1月6日新到資料。

【34】Michael Shermer：《針灸出來的漏洞》，新語絲2009年5月18日新到資料。

【35】亦明：《方舟子與〈中國青年報〉邪惡同盟的終結·當一個無知被捧為全知》，中國學術評價網，2011年11月2日。

【36】本文引用的方舟子《“皮爾當”騙局》一文的文字全部來自新語絲網頁：《科學史上著名公案——“皮爾當人”騙局》，新語絲2008年6月25日新到資料。不再說明。

【37】方舟子：《多維新聞網剽竊的鐵證》，新語絲2000年4月10日新到資料。

【38】“It is not, however, at all clear from the surviving correspondence when Woodward first saw the cranial fragments, though judging from letter 1.2.4 and 1.2.5 it was not until late May (see 1.2.8).”見：Spencer, F. The Piltdown Papers, 1908-1955: The Correspondence and Other Documents Relating to the Piltdown Forgery. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1990. p.19.

【39】“As this indicates the Piltdown cranial fragments were not at this time in Woodward’s possession. In fact it appears that Woodward did not see these remains until at least 24 May [1.2.8].”見：The Piltdown Papers, p.21.

【40】“Some time tomorrow (Friday), probably after lunch, I will bring the piece of skull and a few odds and ends found with it, or near it, in the gravel bed.” 見：The Piltdown Papers, p.22.

【41】The Piltdown Papers, p.203.

【42】“It was Tuesday, February 15, 1912, a date the keeper would have cause to remember. ……Already on his desk was the day's first mail, and he began flipping through the envelopes, occasionally opening and reading one. When a cancellation from the Sussex town of Lewes caught his eye he easily recognized the small, assured handwriting of the address. It was from his friend Charles Dawson, a solicitor by profession but an amateur geologist and antiquarian of some standing.”見：Walsh, J. E. Unraveling Piltdown: The Science Fraud of the Century and Its Solution. New York, NY: Random House, 1996. p.12.

【43】“In May, Woodward was given his first look at the discovery itself when Dawson came up to London on business. Visiting his friend in his office at the museum on the afternoon of May 23, he unwrapped a small package on the desk. ‘How's that for Heidelberg!’ he called out happily.” 見：Unraveling Piltdown, p.14.

【44】方舟子：《虛妄的“人體革命”——評吳伯林〈人體革命－－基因科學能使您活150歲〉》，2000年11月1日《中華讀書報》。見新語絲2000年11月2日新到資料。

【45】Dawson, C. & Woodward, AS. 1915. On a Bone Implement from Piltdown (Sussex). Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 71:144-149.

【46】見：《人物專訪：方舟子論基督教》，新語絲1999年9月10日新到資料。

【47】Harter, R. Piltdown Man: The Bogus Bones Caper. talkorigins.org，首發時間不詳。

【48】Dalrymple, G. B. The Age of the Earth. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994. pp.15-17.

【49】“more than twenty-six millions of years must have elapsed during their formation.”見：Sollas, W. J. 1900. Address of the President of the Section of Geology of the British Association. I. Evolutional Geology. Science 12(307):745-756. 關於更新世的年代估計，見：Sollas, W. J. 1900. Address of the President of the Section of Geology of the British Association. II. Obscure Chapter in the Earth’s History. Science 12(308):787-796.  “more than twenty-six millions of years must have elapsed during their formation.”見：Sollas, W. J. 1909. Address of the President of the Section of Geology of the British Association. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 65:1-cxxii.

【50】“some few hundred thousand years ago.”見：Pycraft, W. P. 1913. Ape-Man or Modern Man? The Two Piltdown Skull Reconstructions. The Illustrated London News 143(3883):444.

【51】Keith, A. 1913. Modern Problems Relating to the Antiquity of Man. Nature 90(2240):268-271.

【52】Langdon, J. H. 1991. Misinterpreting Piltdown. Current Anthropology 32(5):627-631.

【53】“Dr. Woodward, replying to a question as to the approximate date of the skull, told a reporter that it belonged to the Lower Pleistocene period, which could not be computed in terms of years. ”見：Anonymous. Paleolithic Skull Is a Missing Link：Human Remains Found in England Similar in Some Details to Chimpanzee. New York Times, Dec.19, 1912.

【54】“It cannot be measured in years only by the sequence of geological events and by the changes in animal life.”見：【51】。

【55】Wells, H.G. The Outline of History. Vol. I. New York, NY: MacMillan Co., 1920. p.70.

【56】Anonymous. 1915. Notes. Nature 95(2376):297-300.

【57】F. L. 1915. Science & Natural History . The Illustrated London News 146(3970):672.

【58】Mackenzie, L. 1922. Science and Citizenship. The Sociological Review 14(1):39-50.

【59】Montagu, A. An Introduction to Physical Anthropology. Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1960. p.226.

【59】“Of very great antiquity, perhaps of 500,000 B. C., are the fragment of a skull (2) discovered at Piltdown, England.”見：Osborn, H. F. 1920. The Hall of the Age of Man in the American Museum. Natural History 20(3):229-246.（註：在1914年的一個講座中，奧斯本說，當時關於皮爾當人年代的估計，在10萬年和30萬年之間。“The Piltdown man of Sussex, England. Antiquity variously estimated at 100,000 to 300,000 years.”見：Osborn, H. F. Men of the Old Stone Age: Their Environment, Life, and Art. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915. p.145.）

【60】Osborn, H. F. 1921. The Ancestry of Man: Stone Age Skulls and Their Story. The Illustrated London News 158(4264):40-43; Osborn, H. F. 1921. The Hall of the Age of Man in the American Museum. Nature 107(2686):236–240.

【61】“Modern science is able to estimate the age of man who made implements and fire and his immediate predecessors, at approximately five hundred thousand years.”見：Our earliest Ancestor——The Dawn Man: An authorized interview by Hugh Weir with Henry Fairfield Osborn and William King Gregory. McClure's Magazine 55(1):19-28.

【62】例見：Moir, J. R. 1926. Where Did Man Originate? The Illustrated London News, Oct. 30, 1926, p.820,850; Keith, A. Foreword to Woodward, A. S. Earliest Englishman. London, UK: Watts & Co., 1948. p.ix-xiii.

【63】Davenport, C. B. Traces Evolution by Elephant Teeth: Dr. H.F. Osborn Tells of Gauge "Proving" Man's Ancestry 1,000,000 Years Ago. New York Times, Apr. 26, 1931.

【64】Kuhn, F. Jr. Piltdown Man Marks Dawn of Human Race, Osborn Says, Contradicting Present Views. New York Times, Sept. 29, 1931.

【65】“the dates assigned to it range spaciously from 1,000,000 to 125,000 b.c.”見：Durrant, W. The Story of Civilization: Part I. Our Oriental Heritage. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1935. p.92.

【66】“a dawn man who stalked the earth 100,000 to 600,000 years ago.”見：PILTDOWN MAN BRANDED AS FAKE: CHEMICAL TESTS SHOW FAMED JAWBONE IS That of Ape, British Scientists Report. Los Angeles Times, Nov 22, 1953; Experts Make Monkey of Piltdown Man: Slay Old Belief with Jawbone of Ape. Chicago Daily Tribune, Nov 22, 1953; Piltdown Man Exposed as Scientific Fake. Washington Post, Nov 22, 1953.

【67】“In addition, it is said that the cap of the skull is genuine but, far more recent than had been bellieved-50,000 instead of 500,000 years old.”見：Hillary, J. Piltdown Man Hoax Is Exposed; Jaw an Ape's, Skull Fairly Recent. New York Times, Nov. 22, 1953.

【68】“In every way Piltdown man provided a fuller picture of the stage of ancestry which man had reached perhaps some 500,000 years ago.”見：Weiner, J. S. 1955. One of the World's Most Amazing Hoaxes. The Illustrated London News 226(6048):498; Weiner, J. S. The Piltdown Forgery. London, University of Oxford Press, 1955. p.2.

【69】“but surprisingly they appeared to be much younger than was originally thought -- perhaps only 50,000 instead of 500,000 years old.”見：Anonymous. Piltdown Man Is Revealed as Fake. WGBH, 1998.

【70】謝真元、門巋編著：《科學家的遺憾》，天津科技翻譯出版公司1998年版108-110頁。

【71】樹人：《揭示科學界的20大騙局》，《報林》2006年12期66-70頁；何京：《震驚世界的十大科學欺騙》，《科學24小時》2007年5期13-15頁。

【72】Anonymous. Dr. Kenneth Oakley: Exposure of Piltdown Hoax. Times, Nov. 5, 1981.

【73】Weiner, J. S, Oakley, K. P, & Le Gros Clark, W. E. 1953. The Solution of the Piltdown Problem. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Geology 2:139–146.

【74】“In November, 1953, The Times published evidence gathered by Kenneth Page Oakley, a professor of anthropology from Oxford University demonstrating that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species.”見：英文維基百科“Piltdown Man”詞條2008年6月15日版。（閱讀日期：2020年6月29日。）

【75】Goodrum, M. R. and Olson, C. 2009. The Quest for an Absolute Chronology in Human Prehistory: Anthropologists, Chemists and the Fluorine Dating Method in Palaeoanthropology. The British Journal for the History of Science 42(1):95-114.

【76】Middleton, J. 1845. On Fluorine in Bones, Its Source, and Its Application to the Determination of the Geological Age of Fossil Bones. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 1:214-216.

【77】Carnot, A. 1892. The Determination of Fluorine. The Chemical News and Journal of Physical Science 65(1691):198-199; Carnot, A . 1892. Recherche du Fluor dans les os modernes et les os Fossiles. Comptes Rendus de L ' Academie des Sciences  114(4):1189-1192.

【78】Cook, S. F. and Heizer, R. F. 1947. The Quantitative Investigation of Aboriginal Sites: Analyses of Human Bone. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 5(2):201-219.

【79】Oakley, K. P. 1948. Fluorine and the Relative Dating of Bones. Advancement of Science 4: 336–337.

【80】“It has long been known that fossil bones accumulate fluorine in the course of time.”見：Oakley, K.P. & Hoskins, R. C. 1950. New Evidence on the Antiquity of Piltdown Man. Nature 165(4193):379-382.

【81】“Kenneth Oakley had discovered a long neglected paper published in 1892 by the French mineralogist, Adolphe Carnot, on the absorption of fluorine by fossil bones as a function of age.”見：Ellis, L. Archaeological Method and Theory: An Encyclopedia. New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc., 2000. p.219.

【82】Piltdown Papers, p.181, 183.

【83】“Eventually, in the 40s and 50s, more advanced dating technologies, such as the fluorine absorption test, scientifically proved that this skull was actually a fraud.” 見：英文維基百科“Piltdown Man”詞條2008年6月15日版。（閱讀日期：2020年6月29日。）

【84】“it does not provide a means of close relative dating.”見：Oakley, K. P. 1949. Some Applications of the Fluorine Test. The Archaeological News Letter 2(7):101–103.

【85】“It is a mistake to suppose that the fluorine content of a fossil bone provides a direct indication of its geological, or R.3, age.”見：Oakley, K. P. Dating Fossil Human Remains. In:  A.L. Kroeber (ed.), Anthropology Today: An Encyclopedic Inventory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1953. pp.43-56.

【86】“With the co-operation of the Department of the Government Chemist, the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) has had all the available Piltdown material tested for fluorine.”見：Oakley, K. P. 1949. Some Applications of the Fluorine Test. The Archaeological News Letter 2(7):101–103.

【87】“less than 100,000 years ago.”見：Oakley, K. P. 1950. Relative Dating of the Piltdown Skull I. Advancement of Science 6:343-344.

【88】“the last warm interglacial period.”見：Oakley, K. P. & Hoskins, R. C. 1950. New Evidence on the Antiquity of Piltdown Man. Nature 165(4193):379-382.

【89】“In 1950 when a chemical dating test convinced Dr. Kenneth Oakley, British Museum geologist, that the remains were only 50,000 years old instead of a half- million.”見：Berger, C. 1956. Piltdown Hoax: a Fabulous Tale of Faking Came to Light. Popular Science 168(4):121-123.

【90】“At a Wenner-Gren International Symposium in June 1952, Oakley told his colleagues that Piltdown Man had lived not a million years ago, as Osborn had estimated; not even 200,000 years ago, Keith's estimate; but only about 50,000 years ago. But Eoanthropus had lived.”見：Blinderman, C. The Piltdown Inquest. Prometheus Books, 1986. p.67.

【91】“the deliberately cautious estimate,”“By Writing ‘probably at least’ Oakley meant to suggest the very minimum.”見：Montagu, A.  A Part of Man's Story. New York Times, Nov. 8, 1953.

【92】亦明：《方舟子與陳章良》，天涯社區關天茶舍，2008-01-29 00:47:54。

【93】亦明：《情到濫發即荒唐——評方舟子〈功到雄奇即罪名〉》，天涯社區關天茶舍，2009-08-18 22:13:04。

【94】Weiner, J. S. The Piltdown Forgery. London, University of Oxford Press, 1955. pp.26-28.

【95】吳汝康：《科學史上一場最大的騙局——皮爾唐人化石》，《人類學學報》1997年1期43-54頁。

【96】方舟子：《科學院院士也當“王銘銘”》，新語絲2003年9月21日新到資料。

【97】“The results of the fluorine test have considerably increased the probability that the mandible and cranium represent a single creature.”見：Oakley, K. P. 1950. Relative Dating of the Piltdown Skull. Advancement of Science 6: 343–344.

【98】“I am not sure whether the fact that Piltdown teeth have been slightly abraded by the action of river sand will make their surfaces difficult to interpret.”見：Oakley, K. P. Letter to David Scott. Dec. 22, 1950. Piltdown Papers, p.192.

【99】“In the first edition of ‘Man the Tool-Maker’ p.70, I risked hinting that the ‘bone implement’ was a forgery!”見：Oakley, K. P. Letter to Le Gros Clark. Aug. 12, 1953. Piltdown Papers, p.199.

【100】“It was not till one of us (J. S.W,) in the course of personal discussions put forward this proposition fairly and squarely as the only possible solution of the Piltdown puzzle, pointed out that the organic content of the mandible had never been examined, and moreover demonstrated experimentally that artificial abrasion of the teeth of a chimpanzee combined with appropriate staining produced an appearance astonishingly similar to the Piltdown molars and canine, that we decided on a critical re-study of all the Piltdown material with this specific possibility directly in view.”見：Weiner, J. S, Oakley, K. P, & Le Gros Clark, W. E.1953. The Solution of the Piltdown Problem. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Geology 2:139–146.

【101】“But because of the eventual significance of the fluorine testing it has come to be thought by many that Oakley was the prime mover in the Piltdown exposure. In the event, though he was throughout enthusiastic, assiduous, unremittant and careful, his role was essentially supportive and collaborative. The essential credit for exposing the fraud, and by so doing, clarifying our whole understanding of morphological trends in human evolution, must lie primarily with J. S. Weiner.”見：Harrison, G. A. 1983. J.S. Weiner and the Piltdown forgery. Antiquity 57 (219):46-48.

【102】“Then, in 1949, Kenneth P. Oakley applied his fluorine test to the Piltdown remains. ……Both the skull and jaw of Piltdown contained barely detectable amounts of fluorine, they could not have lain long in the gravels. Oakley still did not suspect fakery. He proposed that Piltdown, after all, had been a relatively recent interment into ancient gravels…….But a few years later, in collaboration with J.S. Weiner and W.E. le Gros Clark, Oakley finally considered the obvious alternative-that the ‘interment’ had been made in this century with intent to defraud.”見：Gould, S. J. 1979. Piltdown Revisited. Natural History 88(3):86-97.

【103】Anonymous. Piltdown Man Forgery: Jaw and Tooth of Modern Ape, “Eleborate Hoax.”. Times, November 21, 1953.

【104】Hillary, J. Piltdown Man Hoax Is Exposed: Jaw an Ape's, Skull Fairly Recent. New York Times Nov. 22, 1953.

【105】Oakley, K. P. & Weiner, J. S. 1953. Chemical Examination of the Piltdown Implements. Nature 172(4389):1110.

【106】Weiner, J. S. et al. 1955. Further Contributions to the Solution of the Piltdown Problem. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Geology 2(6): 225-287.

【107】De Vries, H. and Oakley, K. P. 1959. Radiocarbon Dating of the Piltdown Skull and Jaw. Nature 184(4682):224–226.

【108】李佐忠：《年齡的鐵證》，《課外學習》1982年1期45-48頁。

【109】劉華傑：《網上再訪方舟子》，2000年2月21日《科學時報》；見新語絲2000年3月3日新到資料。

【110】方舟子：《進化新篇章》，湖南教育出版社2000年版204頁。

【111】Anonymous. Piltdown Man Hoax: Protest against “Attacks.” Times, Nov. 26, 1953.

【112】“rather sad but exceedingly interesting,”“Prof. Hergert Fleure, 76-year-old anthropological authority, said it was "a very clever deception by someone with some scientific knowledge--perhaps a student who wanted to play a practical joke.'”見：AP. ‘Rather Sad,' Professor Says. New York Times, Nov. 23, 1953; Anonymous. Practical Joke Suspected in Piltdown Hoax: Scientists Believe Skull’s Finder Was Duped. Washington Post, Nov. 23, 1953.

【113】Anonymous. 1961. Mermaids, the Piltdown Skull and Other Curious or Brilliant Hoaxes. The Illustrated London News 238(6340):175.

【114】Stringer, C. 2012. The 100-year Mystery of Piltdown Man: Chris Stringer Explains Why the Longest-running Whodunnit in Palaeontology Is Still Worth Solving.  Nature 492(7428): 177-179.

【115】“attempts to discover ‘whodunnit’ in this mystery have somewhat obscured a far more important question in the history of anthropology, namely, what could have led so many eminent scientists to embrace such a forgery?”見：Hammond, M. 1979 A Framework of Plausibility for an Anthropological Forgery: The Piltdown Case. Anthropology 3(1/2):47-58.

【116】“it makes me angry to see the amount of effort that has been frittered away on this trivial whodunit.”見：Bowler, P. J. 1987. Review of The Piltdown Inquest by Charles Blinderman. Isis 78 (3):459.

【117】“What Piltdown raises, as the archetypal scientific fraud, are questions about the scientific process: How does fraud work? What structures exist in science to prevent its detection?”見：Marks, J. M. 1992. Review of Frank Spencer’s Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery and The Piltdown Papers. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 87(3):376-381.

【118】“the scientific method must still be considerably short of perfection.”見：Anonymous. The Piltdown Man. Washington Post, Nov. 23, 1953. p.12.

【119】Halstead, L B. The Piltdown Hoax. Times, Nov. 25, 1978.

【120】Broad, W. and Wade, N. Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. Simon & Schuster, 1982. pp.119-123.

【121】“It now turns out that all the Piltdown remains were stained with the same chemical recipe, one that was invented by Hinton.”見：Gee, H. 1996. Box of Bones 'Clinches' Identity of Piltdown Palaeontology Hoaxer. Nature 381(6580):261–262.

【122】“Crucially, analyses of the contents of Hinton's trunk by Currant and Gardiner show that they are enriched in iron as well as manganese–in the same proportions as in the Piltdown specimens.”出處同上。

【123】“... all specimens were also analysed for manganese which was found to be absent in all cases down to the sensitivity limits of the apparatus.”“It is not clear to me why apatite ( calcium phosphate) should be turned into gypsum ( calcium sulphate) by treatment with chromic acid.”見：Hall, E.T. 1996. Riddle of the Tenth Man. Nature 381 (6585):728.

【124】“The case against Hinton is not what it seems. The motive suggested by Gardiner (a quarrel about money) does not work because of timing; the incident in question happened in 1911; the first finds were in 1908. More importantly the chemical analyses do not match. The Hinton samples include Manganese; the Piltdown specimens do not. The Hinton samples do not contain gypsum (produced from the organic material); the Piltdown specimens do. [Drawhorn, correspondence]. Walsh notes that there were legitimate reasons for Hinton to have this material, including doing tests for Oakley. In any event it would have been physically impossible for Hinton to have been the sole hoaxer because he did not have the requisite access to the site in the 1912-1914 period.”見：Harter, R. Piltdown Man: The Bogus Bones Caper. talkorigins.org。

【125】Gardiner B. G. and Currant A. 1996. The Piltdown Hoax Who Done It. Linnean Society of London, Burlington House.

【126】“Contrary to the results of E. Hall (unpublished PhD thesis) our flame absorption analysis showed manganese to be present in all the bones tested. E592 (right parietal) 252ppm; E644 Barkham Mills skull 443ppm;E615 (cricket bat) 431ppm.”見：Gardiner, B. G. The Piltdown Forgery: A Re-statement of the Case against Hinton. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 139(3): 315–335.

【127】“Although gypsum was not present in E615 (‘cricket bat’) or any of the bones in the trunk, gypsum was found in the human teeth from the tobacco tin donated by Hinton’s executor.”出處同上。

【128】talkorigins.org那篇網文的作者名叫理查德·哈特爾（Richard Harter）。根據一份訃告，他生於1935年，死於2012年，三十歲時從南達科他州立大學獲得數學學士學位。根據該網站網友的回憶，他從上世紀八十年代初起就在這個網站“捍衛科學和進化論、反擊神創論（Richard was a staunch defender of science and evolution and a vocal opponent of stupidity (aka creationism)）。（Moran, L. A. Richard Harter 1935–2012. sandwalk.blogspot.com, June 13, 2012.）但可惜的是，和方舟子一樣，這個“科學衛士”在學術界和科學界一文不名。（見維基百科：Talk:Piltdown Man.閱讀日期：2020年6月29日。）

【129】江曉原：《需要這樣的“學術警察”》，2001年5月30日《中華讀書報》；見新語絲2001年5月30日新到資料。

【130】方舟子：《進化新篇章》，湖南教育出版社2000年版283頁；見《〈進化新篇章〉後記》，新語絲2001年4月14日新到資料。

【131】劉華傑：《網上訪科學/人文兩棲學人方舟子》，2000年2月21日《科學時報》；見新語絲2000年2月9日新到資料。

【132】劉菊花：《網絡奇才方舟子》，新語絲2001年7月28日新到資料；劉菊花：《讀〈潰瘍——直面中國學術腐敗〉》，2001年7月18日《工人日報》，新語絲2001年7月28日新到資料。

【133】關於方舟子的“科學哲學”和“科學史”根底，詳見亦明《方舟子與〈中國青年報》邪惡同盟的終結》相關章節。

【134】“As a narrative story, the Piltdown discovery-a big brain atop an apelike jaw -fit the scientific and cultural expectations of the day in that it conveniently supported the prevailing theory (read ‘hope’) that humans first evolved a big brain and only later such features as bipedalism and tool use. Afterall, it was argued, it was our singular ability to think in abstract ways, to plot and strategize and communicate complex ideas, that allowed us, in this progressivist model, to take the great leap forward in evolution above and beyond our simian an­cestors. Their bodies may have been similar, but their brains were not. Exceptional encephalization was what set us apart.”見：【30】。

【135】方舟子：《猿怎樣變成了人？》，新語絲之友，2000-01-10 16:04:44。

【136】方舟子：《尋找“缺環”》，新語絲之友，2000-01-19 14:24:55。註：周國興在1980年寫道：“當時有一個傳統見解，認為人腦的發展先於人體的其他部分。爪哇直立猿人長期得不到承認，也正是因為它和這個觀念相牴觸。當時北京人的頭蓋骨和文化遺物還沒有發現，這一觀念還沒有被觸動。再加上當時那個偽造的所謂‘曙人’正在英國大肆宣傳，而‘曙人’正是有一個大腦袋的所謂‘最早的人’。既然這樣，說小腦袋的塔昂幼兒居然能夠直立行走，怎麼可能呢?”（見：周國興：《人怎樣認識自己的起源 人類起源研究史話（下）》，中國青年出版社1980年版34頁。）周氏說“人腦的發展先於人體的其他部分”是“一個傳統見解”，並不確切；將爪哇人得不到承認完全歸之於“它和這個觀念相牴觸”，也與史書所載不符。見：Marsh, O. C. 1896. The Ape-Man from the Tertiary of Java.Science 3(74):789-793; Theunissen, L.T. Eugène Dubois and the Ape-Man from Java: The History of the First ‘Missing Link’ and Its Discoverer. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989. Pp.79-126; Gould, S. J. 1990. Men of the Thirty-third Division. Natural History 90(4):12-24; Reader, J. Missing Links: In Search of Human Origins. Oxford. UK: Oxford University Press, 2011. pp.131-135.

【137】方舟子：《進化新篇章》，湖南教育出版社2000年版216頁。

【138】古爾德的這篇文章有三個版本，各版本間略有差異。這三個版本分別是：1. Gould, S. J. 1979. Piltdown Revisited. Natural History 88(3):86-97; 2. Gould, S. J. 1979. Smith Woodward's Folly. New Scientist 82(1149):42-44; 3. Gould, S. J. 1979. Piltdown Revisited. In: The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co., 1980. pp.108-124.

【139】“A human cranium with an ape's jaw strikes us today as sufficiently incongruous to merit strong suspicion. Not so in 1913. At that time, many leading paleontologists maintained an a priori preference largely cultural in origin, for "brain primacy" in human evolution. The argument rested on a false inference from contemporary importance to historical priority: We rule today by virtue of our intelligence. Therefore, in our evolution, an enlarged brain must have preceded and inspired all other alterations of our body. We should expect to find human ancestors with enlarged, perhaps nearly modern, brains and a distinctly simian body.”見：Gould, S. J. The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co., 1980. pp.116-117.

【140】“That his brain had advanced more rapidly than his face and jaw was precisely in accord with current ideas.”見：Weiner, J. S. The Piltdown Forgery. London, University of Oxford Press, 1955. p.6.

【141】方舟子：《科學普及塑造第一科技強國》，1999年12月15日《中華讀書報》。見新語絲1999年12月16日新到資料。

【142】亦明：《創作、翻譯、編譯、還是抄襲？——評方舟子的〈“智商”的誤區〉》，光明網，2011-01-26 16:23:43。

【143】方舟子新浪微博，2011-8-23 00:16。

【144】Gould, S. J. 1979. Piltdown Revisited. Natural History 88(3):86-97.

【145】Gould, S. J. 1975. Posture Maketh the Man. Natural History 84(9):38-40, 44.

【146】Anonymous. 1937. Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, F. R. S. Nature 139(3506):57–60;  Young, M. 1937. Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, M. A., M. D., F. R. S., Litt. D., D. Sc., F. R. C. P. Man 37(3):51-53; Anonymous. Sir Grafton Elliot Smith: Pioneer Work in Anthropology. Times, Jan. 2, 1937.

【147】Smith, G.E. 1912. The British Association at Dundee: Section H.: Anthropology: Opening Address. Nature 90(2239):118-126; Smith, G.E. Presidential Address. Report of the 82^nd Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Dundee, 1912, September 4-11. London, UK: John Murray, 1913. pp.575-598.

【148】“So far from being an impossible combination of characters, this association of brain and simian features, is precisely what I anticipated in my address to the British Association at Dundee.”見：Smith, G. E. 1913. The Piltdown Skull. Nature 92(2292):131.

【149】“The growth of the brain preceded the refinement of the features and of the somatic characters in general.”見：Smith, G. E. 1913. Preliminary Report on the Cranial Cast. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 69:145-147.

【150】“it was the growth of the brain that first brought an ape to man’s estate.”見：Smith, G. E. 1914. The Significance of the Discovery at Piltdown. Bedrock: A Quarterly Journal of Scientific Thought 3(1): 1-17.

【151】“The outstanding interest of the Piltdown skull is the confirmation it affords of the view that in the evolution of man the brain led the way. It is the veriest truism that man has emerged from the simian state in virtue of the enrichment of the structure of his mind. It is singular that so much biological speculation has neglected to give adequate recognition to this cardinal fact. The brain attained what may be termed the human rank at a time when the jaws and face, and no doubt the body also, still retained much of the uncouthness of man's simian ancestors. In other words, man at first, so far as his general appearance and ‘build’ are concerned, was merely an ape with an over­grown brain. The importance of the Piltdown skull lies in the fact that it affords tangible confirmation of these inferences.”見：Smith, G. E. 1916. Primitive Man. Proceedings of the British Academy 7:455-505.

【152】“The conventional interpretation is that the forgery was a masterful splicing of human and orangutan bones to provide material support for (or mockery of) the theories of Grafton Elliott Smith and Arthur Keith.”見：Langdon, J. H. 1991. Misinterpreting Piltdown. Current Anthropology 32(5):627-631.

【153】“which was designed to suggest cerebral primacy in the evolution from ape to human ancestors.”見：Foster, J. B. The Return of Nature: Socialism and Ecology. New York, NY: NYU Press, 2020. p.278.

【154】“The skull differed so much from those of the cavemen already found in Germany, Belgium, and France that it was difficult at first sight to interpret it.”見：Anonymous. A Palaeolithic Skull. Times, Dec. 19, 1912.

【155】Piltdown Papers, p.2.

【156】Piltdown Papers, pp.26-27; White, M. J. William Boyd Dawkins and the Victorian Science of Cave Hunting: Three Men in a Cavern. South Yorkshire, UK: Pen and Sword History, 2016. p.225.

【157】“I fully accept Dr. Smith Woodward's opinion that the find belongs to the early Pleistocene period.”見：Dawkins, W. B. The Geological Evidence in Britain as to the Antiquity of Man. Report of the 85^th Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Manchester, 1915, September 7-11. London, UK: John Murray, 1916. pp.421-423.

【158】Pycraft, W. P. 1912. Science Jottings: Man and his Origin.The Illustrated London News 141(3834):541.

【159】Spencer, F. Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery. Oxford University Press, 1990. p.xxiv, 65.

【160】“A discovery of supreme importance to all who are interested in the history of the human race.”見：Pycraft, W. P. 1912. The Most Ancient Inhabitant of England: The Newly-Found Sussex Man. The Illustrated London News 141(3845):958.

【161】Langham, I. 1978. Talgai and Piltdown – The Common Context. The Artefact 3(4): 181–224.另見：Millar, R. W. The Piltdown Man. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 1972. pp.150-152; Spencer, F. Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery. Oxford University Press, 1990. p.93.

【162】“and it certainly helped to create a climate of opinion in which the Piltdown fraud would be taken seriously.”見：Bowler, P. J. Theories of Human Evolution : A Century of Debate, 1844-1944. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986. p.164.

【163】“On the anatomical side, the Piltdown skull realized largely the antipations of students of human evolution.”見：Weiner, J. S. The Piltdown Forgery. London, University of Oxford Press, 1955. p.6.

【164】Dawson, C. and Woodward, A. S. 1913. On the Discovery of a Palæolithic Human Skull and Mandible in Flint-Bearing Gravel Overlying the Wealden (Hastings Beds) at Piltdown, Fletching (Sussex). Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 69(1):117-151.

【165】“Whether the erect attitude or the characteristic brain-development  was first obtained by man has been debated for many  years. In this case, the evidence was taken to show that the assumption of the erect attitude came as a means of surmounting the crux of the situation. Thenceforth the upper limb was emancipated entirely from its locomotor functions. Upon this emancipation followed the liberation of jaws and mouth from their use as organs of prehension. Simultaneously the mechanism whereby the head is attached to the neck and trunk became profoundly modified. This alteration gave to the brain an opportunity of growth and increase previously denied, but now seized, with the consequent accession of intellectual activity so characteristic of the Hominidae.”見：Duckworth, W. L. H. Prehistoric Man. Cambridge University Press, 1912. p.3.

【166】“I am still unable to match the Piltdown mandible in regard to the symphysial (or para-symphysial) region!”見：Piltdown Papers, p.69.

【167】“Dr. W. D. H. Duckworth, Reader in Anthropology in Cambridge University, said he had come independently to the conclusion that a mistake had been made in the reconstruction of the Piltdown skull. In his opinion Professor Keith was right: the Brain capacity was nearly 1,500 cubic centimeters.”見：Anonymous. The Piltdown Skull: Discussion on the Size of the Brain. Times, Aug. 12, 1913.

【168】“His knowledge of the non-metrical features of the primate skull was unique, and his experience had given him a redoubtable sense of the appropriate in reconstructions. Consequently, he was always critical of the association of the Piltdown jaw with the cranium, and if he had been listened to in the earlier discussions on that material, several reputations in human palaeontology might be a little less tarnished than they now are.”見：Boyd, J. 1956. Dr. W. L H. Duckworth. Nature 177(4507):505–506.

【169】Tobias, P. V. Introduction to a Forgery. In: Spencer, F. Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery. Oxford University Press, 1990. pp.viii-xii.

【170】李濟：《論“道森氏·曉人”案件及原始資料之鑑定與處理》，《現代學術季刊》1957年第1卷第2期1-13頁。

【171】Anonymous. 1916. Societies and Academies. Nature 97(2418):25-27.

【172】“forever demolish all heresies.”見：Miller, G. S. Letter to A. S. Woodward. March 21, 1917. Piltdown Papers, 144-145.

【173】“From the new facts now described it seems reasonable to conclude that Eoanthropus dawsoni will eventually prove to be as definite and distinct a form of early Man as was at first supposed; for the occurrence of the same type of frontal bone with the same type of lower molar in two separate localities adds to the probability that they belonged to one and the same species.”見：Woodward , A . S . 1917. Fourth Note on the Piltdown Gravel, with Evidence of a Second Skull of Eoanthropus dawsoni. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society 73(1):1-10.

【174】“Very recently the jaw of the Piltdown man has been restudied and referred by more than one expert to a fully adult chimpanzee. This leaves us still in doubt as to the exact geologic age and relationships of the Piltdown man…”見：Osborn, H. F. Men of the Old Stone Age: Their Environment, Life, and Art. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1918. p.144.

【175】“The problem whether the Piltdown jaw belongs to this human skull or whether it belongs to a fossil chimpanzee is still not actually settled.”見：Osborn, H. F. 1920. The Hall of the Age of Man in the American Museum. Natural History 20(3):229-246.

【176】“La déconveite de l’homme de Piltdown est peut-être le fait le plus important qui se soit produit en Paléontologie humaine depuis dix ans”“Comme par exprès, le condyle s’est trouvé manquer!”見：Teilhard de Chardin P. 1920. Le cas de l'homme de Piltdown. Revue des Questions Scientifiques 77:149–155.

【177】Gould, S. J. 1980. The Piltdown Conspiracy. Natural History  89(8):8-28.

【178】“Eoanthropus, the ‘dawn man’ of Piltdown, has had a battle royal for recognition by the scientific world. Since the first fragments of his skull were reported in 1911 by the geologist, Charles Dawson, and first made known to the scientific world in I913 by Dawson and Arthur Smith Woodward, the latter Keeper of Fossils in the British Museum, the contest of opinion has been long and heated and at times acrimonious. Over a few fragments of skull bone, three teeth, and a portion of the jaw, the wise anatomists of Great Britain, of western Europe, and of the North American continent have expressed opinions of every variety.”見：Osborn, H. F. 1921. The Dawn Man of Piltdown, Sussex. Natural History 21(6):577-590.

【179】“Even to this day, however, some anthropologists  regard this jaw as belonging to a new type of ape.”見： Smith, G. E. Human History. London: Jonathan Cape Ltd., 1934. pp.84-86.

【180】“The problem whether the Piltdown jaw belongs to this human skull or whether it belongs to a fossil chimpanzee is now actually settled, because a second specimen of the Piltdown man has been found two miles from the first in the same Piltdown gravels; this specimen has the same kind of lower grinding teeth and the same form in the bone of the forehead.”見：Osborn, H. F. The Hall of the Age of Man. The Guide Leaflet Series No. 52. American Museum of Natural History, 1923. p.9.

【181】劉咸：《從猿到人發展史》，中國科學圖書儀器公司1950年版53頁。

【182】“Paradoxical as it may appear, O Lord, it is nevertheless true, etc.”“the writer desires not only to recant his former doubts as to the association of the jaw with the skull.”見：Osborn, H. F. 1921. The Dawn Man of Piltdown, Sussex. Natural History 21(6):577-590.

【183】DeSimone, A. A. Ancestors or Aberrants: Studies in the History of American Paleoanthropology, 1915–1940. University of Massachusetts Amherst, Ph. D. Dissertation, 1986. pp.37-39. 關於奧斯本的種族主義思想，見：Osborn, H. F. 1926. The Evolution of Human Races. Natural History 26(1):3-13; Morris,  H. M. and ‎ Morris, J. D. The Modern Creation Trilogy: Scripture and Creation, Science and Creation, Society and Creation. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1996. p.101; Regal, B. Henry Fairfield Osborn: Race and the Search for the Origins of Man. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2018. p.xvi, 102.

【184】“a memorial to a forgery and its forger.”見：Donovan, S. 2016. The Triumph of the Dawsonian Method. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association. 127(1):101-106.

【185】“an examination of the cranial fragments in detail  shows a greater harmony between the anatomical features of the jaw  and cranium than has usually been believed to exist.”轉引自：Miller, G. S. Jr. 1928. The Controversy over Human “Missing Links.” Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution for 1928, pp.413–465.

【186】“the skull is brought into closer relation with the skull of the anthropoids”; “As a result, the cranium falls into complete harmony with the chimpanzee-like jaw”; “the paradox which has hitherto been a stumbling-block to the acceptance of the jaw as indubitably belonging to the fragments of the cranium now disappears.”見：Anonymous. 1922. Research Items. Nature 109(2744):726.

【187】Anonymous. 1913. The Piltdown Skull. Nature 91(2286):640–641; Anonymous. 1913. Ape-Man or Modern Man? the Two Piltdown Skull Reconstructions. The Illustrated London News 143(3878):245; Keith, A. 1913. Ape-Man or Modern Man? the Two Piltdown Skull Reconstructions. The Illustrated London News 143(3879:282; Anonymous. The Piltdown Skull: Discussion on the Size of the Brain. Times, Aug. 12, 1913.

【188】Anonymous. 1925. Whence Man? Time 5(22):18-19; Cole, F. 1925. The Evolution of Man. The Scientific Monthly21(3):317-322; Scopes, J. T. The World's Most Famous Court Trial. Cincinnati , OH: National Book Company, 1925. p.237, 278.

【189】“If the Piltdown jaw belongs with the skull, and of this there can be little reasonable doubt, we shall have to abandon the old functional theory that the human brain evolved because the jaws atrophied and shrank, as a result of their loss of function through the freeing of the arms for prehension.”見：Hooton, E. A. Up from the Apes. London: Allen & Unwin, 1931. p.314.

【190】“This is one way of getting rid of facts which do not fit into a preconceived theory; the usual way pursued by men of science is, not to get rid of facts, but frame theory to fit them.”見：Gould, S. J. 1979. Piltdown Revisited. Natural History 88(3):86-97.

【191】“Evolution is not a harmonious progression of all parts of the organism; it is a jerky and asymmetrical transformation.”見：Hooton, E. A. Up from the Apes. New York, NY: MacMillan Co., 1946. p.311.

【192】“The skull and jaw of the ‘Piltdown Man,’ found in a gravel pit in England and announced to the world in 1912, were a sensation because the discovery upset prevailing theories about the antiquity of the modem human form.”見：Wilford, J. N. Mastermind of Piltdown Hoax Unmasked? New York Times, June 5, 1990.

【193】“Indeed, out of Germany came a treasure trove of fossils, starting with the breath­taking finds from the valley of Neander, giving the name to the most famous of all our ancestors. Out of France came our most recent and advanced relatives, the Cro-Magnons, with their cave paintings, clothing, jewelry, and complex tool kits that allowed them to develop what could genuinely be called culture. Ad­ditional fossils were discovered in Holland, Belgium, and scattered areas of Asia and Southeast Asia, including significant finds at Peking (‘Peking Man’) in China and at Java (‘Java Man’) in southeast Asia. ……It seemed everyone was getting in on the great human fossil hunt; everyone except the English, that is. Was it possible that humans did not evolve in En­gland? Were Englishmen nothing more than a recent migration from the con­tinent, a backwater of human evolution? If only an ancient hominid could be found here. And what a coup it would be that if that hominid, unlike many of the finds coming from elsewhere, clearly showed a humanlike brain sitting atop more primitive primate features, especially a jaw. Seek and ye shall find, build it and they will come -pick your metaphor. The British got what they were wishing for in 1912. ”見：【30】。

【194】“Before Piltdown English paleoanthropology was mired in a limbo now occupied by students of extraterrestrial life: endless fields for speculation and no direct evidence. Beyond some flint "cultures" of doubtful human workmanship and some bones strongly suspected as products of recent interments into ancient gravels, England knew nothing of its most ancient ancestors. France, on the other hand, had been blessed with a superabundance of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons and their associated art and tools. And French anthropologists delighted in rubbing English noses with this marked disparity of evidence. Piltdown could not have been better designed to turn the tables. It seemed to predate Neanderthal by a considerable stretch of time. If human fossils had a fully modern cranium hundreds of thousands of years before beetle-browed Neanderthal appeared, then Piltdown must be our ancestor and the French Neanderthals a side branch.”見：Gould, S. J. 1979. Piltdown Revisited. Natural History 88(3):86-97.

【195】“Piltdown also buttressed some all too familiar racial views among white Europeans. In the 1930s and 1940s, following the discovery of Peking man in strata approximately equal in age with the Piltdown gravels, phyletic trees based on Piltdown and affirming the antiquity of white supremacy began to appear in the literature (although they were never adopted by Piltdown's chief champions, Smith Woodward, Smith, and Keith). Peking man (originally called Sinanthropus, but now placed in Homo erectus ) lived in China with a brain two-thirds modern size, while Piltdown man, with its fully developed brain, inhabited England. If Piltdown, as the earliest Englishman, was the progenitor of white races, while other hues must trace their ancestry to Homo erectus, then whites crossed the threshold to full humanity long before other people. As longer residents in this exalted state, whites must excel in the arts of civilization.”出處同上。

【196】“No one has ever (and rightly, in my opinion) suspected Smith Woodward, the superstraight arrow who devoted his life to the reality of Piltdown and who, past eighty and blind, dictated in retirement his last book with its chauvinistic title, The Earliest Englishman (1948).”出處同上。

【197】日加洛夫：《英國新法西斯主義：起源、主旨、特徵》，原載蘇聯《歷史問題》1980年7期；桂寶康摘譯，見：《現代外國哲學社會科學（文摘）》1981年2期44-45頁。

【198】“From the 1840s to the 1940s, Britain's "native policy" was dominated by racism. The golden age of the British Empire was the golden age of British racism too.”見：Fryer, P. Staying Power: The History of Black People in Britain. London, UK: Pluto Press, 1984. p.165.

【199】方舟子：《信仰馬克思主義的西方科學大師》，2002年10月10日《南方周末》；見新語絲2002年10月11日新到資料。

【200】“Dr. Smith Woodward, the retiring Keeper of Geology at the British Museum, is famous for his work on the Piltdown Skull.”見：C. N and Barratt. 1924. Personalities of the Week: People in the Public Eye. The Illustrated London News 164(4429): 393.

【201】“the three leading lights of British anthropology and paleontology.”見：Gould, S. J. 1979. Piltdown Revisited. Natural History 88(3):86-97.

【202】Reader, J. Missing Links: The Hunt for Earliest Man. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Company, 1981. p.54.

【203】“a proponent of scientific racism.”見：英文維基百科，Arthur Keith。（閱讀日期：2020年6月29日。）另見：Sawday, J. ‘New Men, Strange Faces, Other Minds’: Arthur Keith, Race and the Piltdown Affair (1912–53). In: Ernst, W. and Harris, B. (eds.) Race, Science and Medicine, 1700-1960. London, UK: Routledge, 1999. pp.259-288; Taguieff, P. The Force of Prejudice: On Racism and Its Doubles. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2001. pp.362-363.

【204】“Believing, however, that heredity is true, I have difficulty in even supposing that the native peoples  of Africa were ever pioneers in advancing the cultures of the world”， “In the Chinese culture of to-day old things are combined with new; there seems to have been the same mixture in the Chinese cultures of palaeolithic times.”見：Keith, A. New Discoveries Relating to the Antiquity of Man. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co., 1931. p.171, 247.

【205】Osborn, H. F. Hesperopithecus, the First Anthropoid Primate Found in America. American Museum Novitates No. 37, April 25, 1922; Osborn, H. F. 1922. Hesperopithecus, the First Anthropoid Primate Found in America. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 8(8): 245–246; Osborn, H. F. 1922. Hesperopithecus, the First Anthropoid Primate Found in North America. Science. 55 (1427):463–465.

【206】Smith, G. E. The Earliest Man? An American Discovery. Times, May 20, 1922.

【207】Woodward, A. S. The Earliest Man? Times, May 22, 1922; Woodward, A. S. 1922. A Supposed Ancestral Man in North America. Nature 109(2745):750.

【208】Smith, G. E. 1922. Hesperopithecus: The Ape-Man of the Western World. The Illustrated London News 160(4340):944.

【209】“One of my friends, Prof. G. Elliot Smith, has perhaps shown too great optimism in his most interesting newspaper and magazine articles on Hesperopithecus.”見：Osborn, H. F. 1922. Hesperopithecus, the Anthropoid Primate of Western Nebraska. Nature 110(2756):281–283.

【210】“Reduction of black pigment in the skin”; “This process of suppression of pigment - formation was carried farthest in the blond Nordic race.”見：【208】

【211】Smith, G. E. Foreword: Man’s Pedigree. In: Smith, G. E. The Evolution of Man. London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1924. pp.1-15.

【212】“In the process of evolution of the races of Mankind there was a progressive loss of pigmentation.”見：Smith, G. E. Human History. London: Jonathan Cape Ltd., 1934. p.76.

【213】“The Japanese, for instance, sometimes have a skin as white as the European, especially in those parts of the body which are protected by clothing from exposure to the sun.”出處同上，pp.149-150.

【214】“The Japanese make steam-engines and build battleships, although they had no share in the invention of these devices of Western civilization.”“A considerable ingredient in the composition of the population of Japan is formed by this Mediterranean element.”出處同上，p.113, 153.

【215】“It would be interesting and entertaining to discuss the history of some of the false claims made by over-enthusiastic searchers in different parts of the world; such, for example, as the mistaking of …..or the assumption that the tooth of a Pliocene peccary from Nebraska gave America the right to claim this ‘Playboy of the Western World’ (Hesperopithecus) as the earliest known member of the Human Family.”見：Smith, G. E. Early Man: His Origin, Development and Culture. London, UK: Ernest Benn Limited, 1931. p.20.

【216】Osborn, H. F. 1927. Recent Discoveries Relating to the Origin and Antiquity of Man. Science 65 (1690): 481-488; Osborn, H. F. 1927. Recent Discoveries Relating to the Origin and Antiquity of Man. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 66:373–389.

【217】Gregory, W.K. 1927. Hesperopithecus Apparently not an Ape nor a Man. Science 66 (1720):579–581; Anonymous. Nebraska Ape Tooth Proved a Wild Pigs: 'Million-Dollar' Molar Stirred. New York Times, Feb. 20, 1928.

【218】周國興：《人怎樣認識自己的起源 人類起源研究史話 下》，中國青年出版社1980年版55頁。註：周國興所說的故事，很可能是根據前蘇聯1959年出版的一本書：“The reactionary German scientist, Franz Koch, whom we have already mentioned, made original use of the discovery of the Hesperopithecus. In a monograph (l929, S. 164, Karte X) he included a curious genealogy in which the Hesperopithecus was shown as an ancestor of modern man. Since Koch's monograph gave the central place to the North European or Nordic race as being the highest type of human being, he had included that fossil North American pig amongst the ancestors of his Nordic man.”（Nesturkh, M. F. The Origin of Man. Moscow, USSR:  Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1959. p.74.）

【219】轉引自：夏鼐：《“辟爾當人”疑案的解決及其教訓》，《科學通報》1954年8期54-56頁。

【220】梁國釗：《科研與道德》，廣西人民出版社1986年版114頁。

【221】“Although his theory was first publicized in the second decade of the century, he did not mention genes, but rather spoke about heredity through hormones.”見：Barkan, E. The Retreat of Scientific Racism:_Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States between the World Wars.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992. p.42.

【222】見：1925年出版的《遠古人類》第二版（Keith, A. The Antiquity of Man. London, UK: Williams and Norgate, 1925. Two volumes, 753 pages）； 1931年出版的《與遠古人類有關的新發現》（Keith, A. New Discoveries Relating to the Antiquity of Man. London, UK: Williams and Norgate, 1931. One volume, 512 pages）。

【223】Barkan, E. The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States between the World Wars.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992. p.42.另外，耶魯大學生物學家蘭鐸說：紀斯對皮爾當人頭骨的描述與史密斯的描述是那麼不同，以致人們會懷疑他們是在描述同一件化石。（“Keith's description of the Piltdown skull differs so much from the one found in Elliot Smith's The Evolution of Man that one may wonder whether they refer to the same fossil.”見： Landau, M. Narratives of Human Evolution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993. p.5.）

【224】Editorial. 2012. John Maddox prize: Two Strong-minded Individuals Are the First Winners of an Award for Standing up for Science. Nature 491(7423):160.

【225】Ge, X. A Response to the Statement by Ms. Tracey Brown, Dr. Philip Campbell, and Dr. Colin Blakemore, 3 Judges of the John Maddox Prize. China Academic Integrity Review, July, 11, 2013; 亦明：《方舟子2013年十大要聞：十、大不劣癲，啊美麗奸》，中國學術評價網，2013年12月31日。

【226】“Professor Keith also drew attention to the fact that when the skull, as reconstructed by Dr. Smith Woodward, was articulated to the backbone, the upper joints of the spinal column came so near the palate that the person, as reconstructed at South Kensington, could neither breathe nor eat. It was possible, the speaker added, that Eoanthropus could not speak, but they must suppose he could breathe and eat.”見：Anonymous. The Piltdown Skull: Discussion on the Size of the Brain. Times, Aug. 12, 1913.

【227】“I do not profess to have any expert knowledge of teeth,”見： Smith, G. E. 1916. Discussion. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 9 (Odontological Section):56-58.

【228】“I was extremely skeptical of the interpretation; for it seems to be utterly impossible that a creature so susceptible to the effects of climatic changes as an anthropoid ape could have made the journey to America,”見：Smith, G. E. The Earliest Man? Evidence of Primitive Migration. May 23, 1922.

【229】 “It may seem hazardous to base such far-reaching conclusions on the evidence of a single tooth,” 見：Smith, G. E. The Earliest Man? An American Discovery. Times, May 20, 1922.

【230】“Such investigations have been made by perhaps the most experienced authorities on fossil teeth.” “these American savants’ authority in such matters is unquestionable.”出處同上。

【231】“I happen to know that Dr. Matthew and Dr. Gregory, whose authority and practical experience in such matters is unrivalled,”見：Smith, G. E. The Earliest Man? Evidence of Primitive Migration. May 23, 1922.

【232】Smith, G. E. The Nebraska Tooth: How to Utilize the Accident. Times, Feb. 21, 1925.

【233】Lyne, W. C. The Nebraska Tooth. Times, Feb. 27, 1925.

【234】Lyne, W. C. 1916. The Significance of the Radiographs of the Piltdown Teeth. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 9(Odontological Section): 33–51.

【235】亦明：《方舟子早在1995年就抄襲MSU教授的英文文章》，虹橋科教論壇，2010-10-14 06:00:54。

【236】“Root-Bernstein博士污衊我從新語絲拿工資發博文、我的文章90%是其論文內容、我逐字照抄其文字和例子（其實我已做恰當的改寫並舉自己的例子）、我剽竊其論文和侵犯其版權，全是謠言，他授權‘方學家’詆毀我，我不起訴他已算客氣，他還敢揚言告我？這是我對該事件最後表態，以後有人再問一概拉黑。”見方舟子新浪微博：2011-8-22 22:42。

【237】“於是他無視二者表述上的細微差別（比如我更準確地指的是平均數），斷定我那句話出自賈士榮的文章。”見：方舟子：《玉米花粉的妄想狂笑話》，新語絲2007年12月4日新到資料。

【238】方舟子：《剽竊的層次》，《環球》2005年15期55頁；見新語絲2005年8月1日新到資料。

【239】“這網上，能讓人讀得下去的文章無非兩類：掐架的和炫耀才學的。”見：方舟子：《烏鴉詞和名女人》，《方舟子雜文》，新語絲網站。

【240】方舟子：《關於中國科大的現狀和未來》，新語絲2000年1月31日新到資料。註：“一等一的全才”是方舟子中科大校友、著名方粉王艷紅（網名“碧聲”）謊稱是網友對方舟子的讚頌之詞。見：王艷紅：《方舟在線——網絡鬥士方舟子訪談》，新語絲2000年7月25日新到資料。

【241】方舟子：《如何避免學術不端行為》，2007年2月14日《中國青年報》；見新語絲2007年2月14日新到資料。

【242】方舟子：《對“方舟子抄襲穎河”一事再說幾句》，新語絲2007年2月3日新到資料；新語絲讀書論壇：2012-07-26 05:12:37。

【243】方舟子：《智力正常地解決“編譯”問題——答覆旦大學醫學院公共衛生學院副教授邊建超》，新語絲2001年10月11日新到資料。

【244】“這位《東方企業家》執行主編居然把注射疫苗視同謀殺，即便如此，首惡也是衛生部和世界衛生組織，只敢把其無知的憤恨發泄到一個不過是在普及科學界主流觀點的科普作家身上，血口噴人，裝什麼好漢？”見：方舟子的新浪微博，2010-9-25 13:54。

【245】亦明：《方舟子四年前曾抄襲一家英國醫學院學報》，虹橋科教論壇，2010年11月21日。

【246】亦明：《方舟子與〈中國青年報〉邪惡同盟的終結：當一個無知被捧為全知（之三）》，中國學術評價網，2011年11月11日。

【247】亦明：《方老偷，還在偷──給〈新華每日電訊〉總編輯解國記先生的第四封公開信》，中國學術評價網，2012年11月12日。

【248】亦明：《方氏文賊的方式科唬──給〈新華每日電訊〉的第八封公開信》，中國學術評價網，2014年11月29日。

【249】路甬祥：《紀念達爾文》，《科學文化評論》2009年4期5-12頁。

【250】李雲芳：《“冰桶挑戰”——玩轉微博公益的新實踐》，見謝毅主編：《年度音視頻經典案例選粹 2015年》，暨南大學出版社2015年版42-55頁。

【251】費偉偉、趙鵬：《福建基礎夯實穩中求進》，2012年6月3日《人民日報》。

【252】胡慧敏：《雲霄假煙雲散煙消了嗎》，《福建質量信息》2002年4期7-10頁。

【253】高老頭：《清華學位授予能否走出黑暗》，新語絲2002年6月20日新到資料。

【254】大洋彼岸的紳士：《證據確鑿：方舟子造謠誹謗習近平》，大洋彼岸的紳士的新浪博客，2012-10-04 08:09:16；亦明：《方舟子2014年十大要聞·二、溷兮龜來，螃蟹蛤蟆》，中國學術評價網，2014年12月30日。

【255】佚名：《福建雲霄惡名遠揚 制假煙落下個窮》，2002年3月14日《中國消費者報》。

【256】佚名：《打假英雄、打假辦主任、技監局局長方鎮山卸任剛十天住宅遭爆炸》，《城市技術監督》2000年1期15頁；本刊編輯部：《堅決聲援打假衛士──兼親切慰問原雲霄縣技監局局長方鎮山同志》，《城市技術監督》2000年1期15頁。

【257】楊陽騰：《“打假辦”主任緣何假打》，《廣西質量監督導報》2001年5期17-18頁；福建省雲霄縣人民檢察院：《分析特點 剝去偽裝 力克堡壘——查處雲霄縣原技術監督局局長方鎮山放縱製售偽劣商品犯罪行為罪的做法》，見：最高人民檢察院瀆職侵權檢察廳編：《瀆職侵權罪案偵查經驗點評》，當代世界出版社2002年版539-544頁。

【258】見趙嘉敏的新浪微博：2011-1-8 10:50。

【259】見方舟子的新浪微博：2011-1-8 17:38。

【260】Estrelita：《方舟子：我是一個對真相有潔癖的人》，《福建人》2014年10期24-30頁。

【261】亦明：《方舟子2011年十大要聞》，中國學術評價網，2011年12月29日。