PROF. G. F. WRIGHT AND HIS CRITICS. 779 



ment of fifty feet per day in the middle. The glacier of Karajak, 

 four miles across, moves at thirty feet daily, while one at Uperna- 

 vik travels at ninety-nine feet every twenty-four hours. Combin- 

 ing all these statements we recommend waiting before criticising. 



The severe and caustic animadversions above criticised certain- 

 ly show on the part of the critic a courage almost amounting to 

 recklessness, but he has not always tempered his zeal with truth. 

 In his anxiety to discover " unhistoric statements," as Prof. Hux- 

 ley once called them, in Prof. Wright's book, he has not been suf- 

 ficiently careful that his " finds " were in undisturbed strata, that 

 they did not come from a talus, or had not been inserted at a later 

 date. But what shall we say if they prove to have been inserted 

 by himself for subsequent exhumation, Cardiff -giant fashion ? 

 Let us read what he says in the review here under consideration 

 (page 92) : " Prof. Wright conveys the implication that the Clay- 

 mont argillite indicates the existence of early glacial or preglacial 

 man, and that the Calaveras skull and the Nampa image in like 

 manner indicate preglacial or Tertiary man, the implication be- 

 ing, however, deceptively guarded by indefinite expressions and 

 meaningless cross-references." 



We have already quoted (page 770) Prof. Wright's language 

 regarding the Claymont tool, and will only express our surprise 

 that any one possessing our critic's command of the English lan- 

 guage could extract from it the above meaning. 



As to the other two instances, we will trespass on our reader's 

 patience by giving here also Prof. Wright's own words (page 299) : 

 Xi I can only say that the amount of erosion since the lava erup- 

 tion of western Idaho is not excessive, and very likely may be 

 brought within ten or twenty thousand years." And in regard to 

 the Calaveras lava he writes (page 230), "The question of abso- 

 lute time can not be considered separately without much further 

 study." Then, following a suggestion of Prof. Prestwich, adopted 

 by Mr. Becker, he infers, " not that man is so extremely ancient in 

 California, but that many of these plants and animals have con- 

 tinued to a more recent date than has ordinarily been supposed." 



Consideration of the above extracts on both sides renders it in- 

 comprehensible how Prof. Wright's language can be interpreted 

 to imply a belief in preglacial or Tertiary man. The whole tenor 

 of his book is opposed to this belief, and those geologists who are 

 familiar with the long rows of figures whereby this very critic is 

 accustomed to express his date for the Ice age and the yet longer 

 array which gives the date assigned by him to the preglacial or 

 Tertiary period, will be amused at his nervous apprehension here 

 expressed about ten or twenty thousand years. 



The zeal of the proselyte is proverbial, and the readiness with 

 which he forgets his former faith. But this gentleman will excuse 



