Neither Eolithcs nor Archaeolithcs sliow tlic slightest 

 trace of symmetry. Of course, no symmetry can be expected 

 in any casually picked up stone ; if it exists, it is acciden- 

 tal and not intentional. One might, however, expect some 

 sort of symmetry in the wrought Archa^olithes, but not a 

 single specimen among the numerous Tasmanian Archa^o- 

 lithes, which I examined, has shown the slightest trace* 

 of symmetry. Some specimens have come to my know- 

 ledge, wh'^b prove that a great amount of work must have 

 been spent in working the elaborately chipped, indical 

 face, but the outline of these implements is devoid of all 

 symmetry. And can there be any greater difference, as 

 far as symmetry is concerned, than between the flat, polli- 

 cal and the convex, wrought indical face? 



Now let us turn to the Morpholithes. The chief 

 characteristical feature besides" the intentional form is 

 symmeta-y. The Moiioholithes are symmetrical m two 

 directions ; the bilateral symmetry is most probably the 

 result of the intentional form, but in addition to this there 

 is no longer a difference between pollical and indical face. 

 In Palaeolithic as well as in Neolithic implements, the 

 faces on either side of the w^orking edge are the same. The 

 Palfeolithes and Neolithes are wrought on both faces, bhe 

 Archseolithes on one face only, a fundamental difference, 

 which, in my opinion, has hitherto not been suttitcientiy 

 recognised. 



The above principles have been embodiea in the »ub- 

 ioined table, which concisely sets forth the differences be- 

 tween the great groups of stone implements. 



