In 1714, the Irish physician and respected member of the Dublin Philosophical Society, Thomas Molyneux published an intriguing account of fossil teeth found in Ireland in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. It argued that these specimens were the remains of prehistoric elephants and dismissed the popular belief that they belonged to extraordinarily large humans. Although Molyneux’s paper embraced the Royal Society’s emphasis on direct observation and empirical evidence, it was largely ignored by its contemporary audience. Fourteen years later, in 1728, the eminent naturalist and President of the Royal Society, Hans Sloane, published a similar piece in the Philosophical Transactions. It employed the same arguments and evidence as Molyneux’s work but was warmly received and widely cited. This paper discusses the different reactions to Molyneux and Sloane’s articles. It considers why the latter was more effective at undermining belief in the existence of giants tens- and hundreds-of-feet-tall and attributing the fossil teeth to elephants. It examines these works in the specific context of the scientific journal and explores the interaction between serial publications, personal natural history collections and institutional reputation in the early eighteenth century. A close analysis of the style and content of Molyneux and Sloane’s articles teases out subtle differences in their presentation. It grants insights on the link between scholarly reserve, ownership of specimens and academic credibility in pieces published in the Philosophical Transactions.
