148 NATURAL SCIENCE. March. 



made the subject of an intelligent brief address, if only its author will 

 take a little pains ; and we emphatically assert that it is the duty of 

 the officers of all our Societies to prevent such disrespectful treatment 

 of the Fellows or Members in meeting assembled, as that to which we 

 have referred. 



Sir Henry Howorth. 



A recent lively discussion in the House of Commons had at 

 least one result of importance to scientific men : that philosophical 

 and judicial critic, Mr. T. Healy, decided that Sir H. H, Howorth, 

 though not much of a dynamiter, was "a distinguished geologist." 

 This induced us to reconsider a few of the geological writings of our 

 occasional correspondent. Two papers especially, recently published in 

 the Geological Magazine, had not yet been otherwise disposed of. These 

 discuss the Chalky Boulder-Clay of Eastern England, and the sands 

 and gravels associated therewith, and their author absolutely repudiates 

 the idea that any of these deposits are at all the result of ice-action. 

 Such an opinion is unpopular with English geologists, and it is possible 

 that scant notice will be taken of Sir Henry's summary of the objections 

 to the orthodox explanation. Now, Sir Henry Howorth's geological 

 work may be divided into two parts, one analytic and critical ; the 

 other constructive. The former attacks the theory of those whom he 

 calls the " ultra-glacialists " ; the latter enunciates a rival theory of 

 his own. As a destructive critic Sir Henry is at his best ; and his 

 criticisms would appear to be so unanswerable that glacial geologists 

 prefer to ignore them, and simply to ridicule the alternative theory 

 that he proposes. Unfortunately for these folk, the papers before us 

 contain no allusion to catastrophic deluges, but only a summary of 

 objections to the view that in Pleistocene times a great ice-sheet 

 deluged Eastern England and deposited the Chalky Boulder-Clay as 

 a glacial moraine. There are remarks in these, as in other writings 

 of our erudite humorist, that had been better omitted, for they weaken 

 his case by exaggeration, and rouse opposition by over-emphasised 

 heresy. But these clear statements of fact appear to us fatal to the 

 ice-sheet theory : they show it to be inconsistent with the distribution 

 and composition of the supposed glacial beds, and with the form and 

 nature of the included pebbles and rock-fragments. Moreover, the 

 extracts quoted from the writings of those who support the theory 

 show that their classification of the East Anglian drifts is based on 

 arbitrary distinctions. These papers by Sir Henry Howorth should 

 be widely read, and ought to clear away much extravagant speculation. 



The Organisation of Science in the United States. 



Two important articles dealing with this subject have recently 

 appeared in Science. The first, which is an editorial, appeared in the 

 number for January 8, and urges a step that has been somewhat 



