Remains, such I mean as are truly bone (for some are only natural petrifactions and lapides sui generis), were bones belonging to some of the biggest quadrupeds, as elephants, or some of the largest sort of fishes of the whale kind, called by Pliny in his Natural History, as they are here by Seutonius Belluae, and Belluae marine. And I am persuaded by what I have seen myself of the like kind, that the large tooth mentioned by Ol. Wormius in his Museaeum, and afterwards particularly described and figured by Thomas Bartholine in his Centuria I. Historiarum Anatomicarum Historia 98, which they both thought and would have us believe from its resemblance, was a Canine tooth of a Giant, was nothing else than the tooth of the Cetus Dentatus or Spermaceti-whale.
Writing in the 1860s, the natural historian, surgeon, and zoologist Francis T. Buckland disputed Molyneux’s view that the large os frontis indicated a massive human, and he attributed the abnormally large bone to hydrocephaly. So far as I know, no one thereafter disputed that assessment, and it was also the conclusion of Dr. Jan Bondeson, writing in A Cabinet of Medical Curiosities in 1997. The bone seems to have dropped out of gigantology literature after the 1800s, though it pops up in Charles de Loach’s Giants: A Reference Guide (1995) as evidence of giants and occasionally on the web.