CORRESPONDENCE 



"MAN AND HIS FORERUNNERS" 



To the Editor of "Science Progress" 



Sir,— 



I have been asked by Prof. v. Buttel-Reepen to correct an error in the 

 review of his book, Man and His Forerunners, which appears in the October 

 number of Science Progress. Your reviewer states that we "go the whole 

 way with Rutot." It is not clear to what this vague statement refers, since 

 Dr. Rutot necessarily " goes " in different directions on different subjects, but if 

 (as appears probable) it refers to that scholar's well-known advocacy of Oligocene 

 eoliths, it is quite erroneous. The question of Oligocene eoliths is discussed on 

 p. II, and the author rejects their claims, stating that he believes the Upper 

 Miocene to be the oldest stratum in which worked stones have been found. It 

 is true that the " some experts " who believe in the genuineness of the Oligocene 

 specimens are not mentioned by name, but of course we cannot suppose 

 Prof. Elliot Smith to be ignorant of the fact that Rutot is one of the chief 

 upholders of this doctrine. So far from going the whole way with Rutot on this 

 question, Prof. v. Buttel goes no more than half the way with that authority. 



Several of Prof. Smith's other comments are misleading, and I may add that 

 the opinions expressed in the book are not necessarily in all cases those of the 

 translator. 



Yours faithfully, 



A. G. Thacker. 

 Gloucester, November 15, 1913. 



To the Editor of " Science Progress " 

 Sir,— 



I accept Mr. Thacker's correction that " Prof. v. Buttel-Reepen goes no 

 more than half way with Rutot " ; but at the same time I do not think such an 

 arithmetical qualification seriously affects the real meaning of my criticism. 

 Prof. v. Buttel-Reepen leaves the solid ground of fact (i.e. that no unquestionable 

 human remains or certain evidence of human workmanship has been found except in 

 the Pleistocene, so that even to postulate the existence of man in the late Pliocene 

 is straining inference to its uttermost) and when he takes the plunge into the 

 waters of unrestrained conjecture it does not matter much whether he floats in 

 the Upper Miocene or dives into Oligocene, or even Eocene, depths. In either 

 case he is in the water with Rutot. 



Yours faithfully, 



G. Elliot Smith. 

 The University of Manchester, November 17, 1913. 



To the Editor of "Science Progress" 

 Dear Sir,— 



Will you allow me to correct a misprint in your last issue. In the 

 footnote on p. 263 occurs the term bad ratios ; it should be lead ratios. The 

 value of this method I hope to deal with on a future occasion. 



Youis truly, 



H. S. Shelton. 

 5S8 



