1893. NOTES AND COMMENTS. 169 
teresting series of papers on the Quaternary Geology of Russia. The 
most valuable of these, especially to the foreign reader, will be 
Professor S. Nikitin’s outline of the present state of our knowledge of 
the subject. In this summary it is pointed out that Paleolithic man 
existed in Russia contemporaneously with the mammoth during the 
second half of the Glacial Epoch, but only towards the southern limit 
of the glaciated area. In the more northern districts all the imple- 
ments yet found belong to the more advanced Neolithic races. The 
existence of a distinct Interglacial Period, like that recognised by 
Scandinavian and German geologists, has not yet been satisfactorily 
demonstrated in Russia. 
It is impossible to criticise this paper without an intimate know- 
ledge of Russian geology, but it may be worth while to remark that in 
Western Eurcpe also, the relics of Paleolithic man are only found in 
regions beyond the southern limits of the last glaciation. Is it possible 
that in Russia, as was perhaps the case in Britain, Paleolithic man 
was Interglacial? His relics are not found in the areas covered by 
ice during the last glaciation, and this has been explained as the direct 
result of the advance of the ice, which ploughed up and destroyed 
all the pre-existing Paleolithic deposits as far as it could reach. 
Our MontTHLY SELECTION. 
Mr. James Payn has somewhere expressed regret at the supposed 
fact that men of science are unable to make their subject popularly 
interesting. It is certainly true that ‘‘ popular science ” does not, as 
a rule, result from the literary activity of persons qualified to write 
upon such subjects. We have had occasion more than once to point 
out that this, if a blessing, is one securely wrapped up; for it is to be 
presumed that an individual, if he cares to read scientific articles, 
prefers them to be fairly reliable, else why read an article which is 
clearly meant to be instructive ? 
The editor of a recently-started journal, entitled ‘‘ The Sketch,” 
advertises his willingness to consider paragraphs which are “‘ smartly ”’ 
written. As an indication of what he wants, attention may be 
directed to a paragraph in the first number—‘‘ Why not a Professor 
of the Zoo?” The writer talks a little about the parietal eye; for 
this overworked organ of vision appears to have just filtered down 
through the ‘“ dailies” to the ‘‘ weeklies.” In the course of time it 
may perhaps reach the monthlies. We present Mr. Payn gratis with 
the suggestion. The antiquity of the points with which it deals is, 
however, not the only claim which this paragraph has to be considered 
smart. Many of us will be astonished to hear that the “hole” in a 
baby’s head at birth is the vestige of a parietal eye! The writer 
concludes with a lament that there is no professor at the Zoo to make 
men acquainted with these facts (!). Even though he presumably 
possesses no parietal eye himself, the two usual organs of vision would 
