PROCEEDINGS OF THE OHIO ACADEMY OF SCIENCE. 399 



at a meeting of the Boston Society of Natural History an imple- 

 ment of pakeolithic type, closely resembling one of Dr. Abbott's, 

 found by Dr. C. L. Metz, in undisturbed gravel of glacial age, 

 eight feet below the surface in Madisonville, Ohio (see Proceed- 

 ings B. S. N. H.. vol xxii, p. 242). This was accompanied by 

 the announcement that Dr. Metz had found another implement 

 of similar character in the undisturbed glacial gravel of the Little 

 Miami Valley at Loveland, a few miles above Madisonville. 

 Subsequently, in the spring of 1887, Dr. Metz reported another 

 implement of the same character from an excavation in the 

 glacial gravel on the west side of the Little Miami opposite 

 Loveland. In the near vicinity to this latter discovery "mas- 

 todon bones were found in a deposit of sand underlying the 

 coarse gravel and pebbles." This implement was found about 

 thirty feet below the surface. 



Secondly, in October, 1889, Mr. W. C. Mills, for many 

 years past the accomplished curator of the museum of the Ohio 

 vState Archaeological and Historical Society, found a flint imple- 

 ment of palaeolithic type in undisturbed gravel fifteen feet l^elow 

 the surface of the glacial terrace at Newcomerstown. Ohio, on 

 the Tuscarawas River. 



Thirdly, in 1892, Mr. Sam Huston of Steubenville discov- 

 ered, projecting from the face of a fresh gravel pit at Brilliant, 

 Ohio, a well fashioned flint implement beneath eight feet of 

 crossbedded sand and gravel, in the glacial terrace bordering the 

 Ohio River. On my exhibiting this implement at the Springfield 

 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of 

 Science in 1885, Professor F. W. Putnam. Mr. F. H. Gushing 

 and Miss Alice Fletcher all recognized it as an indubitable relic 

 of great antiquity. Mr. Gushing asserted that this was indicated 

 by the patina with which it was covered, and by the fact "that 

 the form was antique, being intermediate between that of 

 palaeoliths and that of modern Indian implements." 



Various attempts have been made to discredit the glacial 

 age of these relics, by throwing doubt upon the competence of 

 the discoverers to determine whether the gravel was undis- 

 turbed, and their possible failure accurately to observe and re- 



