Aug. 18, 1870] 
NATURE 
art 
the still-existing lakes over which the retreat of the ice, 
if it took place at all, was rapid); erosion of the river 
terraces. ; 
6. New advance of the glaciers to a line drawn from 
Dagmersellen to Baden ; overlaying of the older glacial 
deposits with fresh erratic materials ; formation of large 
moraines ; origin of the small cross-valleys in the molasse 
hills outside of the ice-covered region. 
7. Periodic retreat of the glaciers (with perhaps an oc- 
casional renewed advance) until the ice had finally retired 
from the canton; newer deposits of moraines, &c., and 
formation of lakes and marshes where the moraines were 
laid down across valleys. 
8. Changes which are still going on. 
There is nothing, indeed, which is novel in this synopsis, 
but it is satisfactory to find that it is borne out by so 
large an array of evidence as the author has here brought 
together. On one or two points we could have wished 
for information. There is no record given of the direc- 
tion of the strie on the rocks. No doubt the molasse is 
not well adapted for the preservation of such markings, 
though they would remain even on that rock when pro- 
tected by superficial clayey deposits. We can hardly 
doubt that if looked for, striated rock surfaces would be 
found in Aargau as good as those in the adjoining can- 
ton of Solothurn. Herr Miihlberg says nothing of any 
warmer interglacial epoch, as indicated by lignites lying 
between the deposits of the first and second glacier 
periods. Is it that no such evidence exists in Aargau, or 
that the attention of the observers was not specially 
directed to this subject ? 
We cordially commend this little volume to the notice 
of local scientific societies in this country. Such 
societies often fail of success, either because on the one 
hand they are too ambitious and seek to emulate the 
greater societies in such a manner as to enstre certain 
failure ; or, because, though they possess the will and 
the ability to work, they lack the strength and the enthu- 
siasm which spring out of well-directed and hearty co- 
operation. Let them take a lesson from the way in 
which the Aargau Natural History Society has cele- 
brated its fiftieth anniversary. ARCH. GEIKIE 
PRIMITIVE MAN 
By Louis Figuier. Revised Transla- 
(London ; Chapman and Hall, 1870.) 
FIGUIER has been singularly fortunate in the 
+ mode in which his books have been received by 
the French public, “ Le Monde avant le Deluge” had a 
large circulation, and even in England the translation re- 
vised by Mr. Lristow met with considerable favour. It 
is almost needless to remark that it reproduces the wild 
catastrophic doctrines that were given up in England 
some thirty years ago, with a grace and elegance which 
lead the dilettante reader to believe that he is learning at 
the feet of a modern Gamaliel. ‘J.’ Homme Primitif ” 
takes up the narrative where it was dropped by the pre- 
ceding work, and tells the story of the early races of 
men that have lived in Europe, with that vivacity and 
idealism which is only to be found in perfection among 
the people for whom it was written, It is undoubtedly 
Primitive Man. 
tion. 8vo. 
true that M. Figuier’s works give a faithful outline of the | 
present state of science in France; but it is none the 
less true that in England catastrophism is practically ex- 
tinct, and that many of the inferences of French Archao- 
logists are received by English savazfs with a consider- 
able amount of reserve. We, therefore, hold that Science 
is not really advanced by these books being put before the 
non-scientific English reader. Of the two books the latter 
is by far the best, but it is disfigured by many and grave 
mistakes. There can be no doubt that it will become 
almost as popular in England as in France, although the 
elegance of style cannot be preserved in plain straight- 
forward English. 
“Primitive Man,” the English editor tells us, is in- 
tended to “fill an open place in the literature of Pre- 
historic Archeology,” although it covers precisely the 
satne ground as Sir John Lubbock’s “ Prehistoric Times,” 
and rivals that work in size. If this means that “the 
Raffaelesque idealism” of the illustrations is intended to 
find its way to the hearts of a British public that is given 
to sensational literature, we think that the editor is right. 
The frontispiece, representing a family of the Stone age, is 
admirably adapted to arrest the attention of the mother 
of a family ; and the feasting during the Stoneand Bronze 
ages is fitted to strike gourmands, the pictures of the 
chase, sportsmen ; while the cultivation of gardens during 
the Bronze epoch is a touching scene of rural happiness. 
A man is hoeing the ground, while a woman is sowing 
seed, and hard by stands Phyllis with a basket on her 
head, and leading a favourite goat that is reaching forward 
to eat a tempting vegetable (also of the Bronze age), while 
Corydon up an apple tree is shaking its riches into 
Galatea’s lap, and behind are the sheep tended by a shep- 
herdess, and kine and long-snouted pigs are looking on 
fromthe palings. Allthis is extremely pretty, and will doubt- 
less attract many readers. We doubt, however, whether 
an appetite for archzological knowledge created by such 
stimulants would be satisfied with the sober logic of the 
English standard works on the subject. In the letter- 
press we have failed to detect any fact of high importance 
which is not to be found in “ Prehistoric Times,” or in 
“The Antiquity of Man.” The English edition of “ Primi- 
tive Man” has been corrected and altered from the French 
original, and therefore may be treated as a purely English 
work. In his preface the editor is so anxious to give 
reasons for translating the book, that he seem3 conscious 
that he holds a bad brief. We shall proceed to point out 
some of the more glaring mistakes. 
M. Figuier gives an account of the celebrated contro- 
versy about the Moulin-Quignon jaw, in which he states 
that Dr. Falconer, Dr. Carpenter, Professor Busk, and 
Mr. Christy “unanimously agreed in recognising the 
correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the inde- 
fatigable geologist of Abbeville,” viz., that the flint Adches 
and the human jaw were of the same Quaternary age as 
the extinct mammutia found in the same gravel pit. So 
far from this being the case, Dr. Falconer stated in the 
proces-verbaux that “ the character which the jaw presets, 
taken in connection with the conditions under which it 
lay, are not consistent with the said jaw being of any 
very great antiquity,” while Prof. Busk wrote that “the 
internal condition of the bone is wholly irreconcilea¥le 
with an antiquity equal to that assigned to the deposits 
in which it was found.” Mr. Evans also afterwards 
