284 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



facts were ascertained in absolute disregard of astronomy, and 

 in ignorance of Drayson's contention. 



To quote from the correspondence, " Even if such conclu- 

 sions were in accordance with purely geological evidence, it 

 would not necessarily follow that Drayson's theory was correct." 

 Perhaps not ; but when Drayson's astronomy solves a crucial and 

 fundamental question, to which astronomers have never given 

 a satisfactory answer, and which they are now unable apparently 

 to answer at all, 1 and at the same time outlines certain cosmical 

 conditions which should have prevailed on the earth during 

 30,000 years, and which geologists independently, in different 

 parts of the world, find to have existed and to have had a 

 duration in strict accordance with the theory, it becomes an 

 act of unreasoning bigotry to refuse investigation. 



Yours faithfully, 



R. A. Marriott. 

 Exeter, 



August 1919. 



II. — From W. H. Hatfield, D.Met., The Brown, Firth, 

 Research Laboratory, Sheffield 



Dear Sir, — In Science Progress of April this year we read 

 an extremely interesting article by Major R. A. Marriott, D.S.O., 

 in which the Draysonian theory relative to the Ice Age was 

 discussed. We were extremely interested, and looked forward 

 to the July Number in the hope that more matter on the same 

 subject would appear, even if only in the nature of a discussion 

 upon Major Marriott's paper. We were, therefore, extremely 

 disappointed that we only found a short letter by Mr. H. Spencer 

 Jones. That writer simply considers it desirable to point out 

 that astronomers generally do not accept Drayson's theory, but 

 does not attempt to give the necessary data which your readers, 

 as scientific people, have a right to expect when anyone con- 

 troverts a theory which had been carefully explained. After 

 a well-reasoned and very interesting article such as that which 

 Major Marriott had prepared, I am of the opinion that it is 

 hardly courteous, and certainly not truly scientific, for anyone 

 to dismiss the matter so lightly as Mr. Jones has done, and I 



1 A question as to the cause of the continuously decreasing obliquity was 

 addressed to the Royal Observatory, and though a stamp was enclosed, no reply 

 was received. 



