> 9 6 



NATURE 



[May 22, 19 1 3 



in the country in which it occurs, even though it 

 cannot be properly packed into European compart- 

 ments. 



My statement that "too much attention has been 

 paid in the past to the palaeontological evidence" is, 

 when removed from its surroundings, obviously absurd. 

 The point I wished to emphasise is merely that cor- 

 relation based upon homotaxis can be pushed too 

 far, and that it is unscientific to break up a uniform 

 series of rocks that occurs in New Zealand into sharply 

 separated divisions on the basis of the occurrence of 

 fossils that in Europe arc found at different horizons. 

 1 1 is in this sense only that I suggest that too much 

 emphasis has been laid on the palaeontological evidence 

 in the past in New Zealand, especially as all the 

 collections of fossils are still far from complete. I 

 may add that for twenty years, owing to the influence 

 of my old and revered teacher, the late Capt. Hutton, 

 F.R.S., I endeavoured to apply his divisions of the 

 vounger rocks of New Zealand to the districts where 

 I was at work. As difficulties finally became in- 

 superable, I visited his typical localities in the expec- 

 tation of getting information that would solve them. 

 It was to my intense disappointment that I was 

 forced to the conclusion that his divisions of the 

 "system" were based upon what I considered to be 

 incorrect observation of the field evidence. 



P. Marshall. 



Otago University, Dunrdin, New Zealand. 



Prof. Marshall's clear statement of the palaeonto- 

 logical difficulties in this case should stimulate the 

 search for further fossiliferous horizons. The Ordo- 

 vician and Gotlandian beds of the British Isles were 

 laid down in many places "during the continuance 

 of uniform physical conditions and in direct continuous 

 succession " ; none the loss, two systems have been 

 conveniently maintained. The unwieldy " Karroo 

 system" of South Africa would no doubt be split up 

 were marine representatives of its strata available 

 close at hand. G. A. J. C. 



Dana's Proof of Darwin's Theory of Coral Reefs. 



1 think Mr. Crossland, in his letter to Nature of 

 April 3, is mistaken in assigning a fault origin to 

 the narrow "khors" which form the harbours along 

 the Rea Sea coast. 1 visited a number of these 

 during a land journey from Halaib to Port Sudan in 

 1908, and although I had not much time for detailed 

 investigation, I saw nothing which pointed to any 

 other origin than erosion and subsidence. The steep- 

 sided character of the shallow valleys, which Mr. 

 Crossland takes as indicative of a fault origin, is, I 

 think, merely a consequence of the toughness of the 

 coral-rock and the smallncss of the rainfall in these 

 regions. It is a character common to many inland 

 " wadis " where there is no suspicion of rift action. 



The occurrence of coral-reef coverings on the coast- 

 hills is, of course, a proof of elevation of the land ; 

 but on what does Mr. Crossland base his conclusion 

 that the elevation has been continuous? Has any 

 systematic slickensiding or brecciation of the rocks, 

 such as usually accompanies a fault, been observed 

 along the sides of the valleys? Or has it been proved 

 that the floors of the valleys consist of the same beds 

 as occur at higher levels on either side? 



Like Mr. Crossland, I write from the wilderness, 

 and cannot now refer to the papers which he cites. 

 But as an admirer of the devotion and skill with 

 which Mr. Crossland has pursued his important bio- 

 logical researches on that desolate shore, I read his 

 two last papers very carefully at the time of their 

 NO. 2273, VOL. C)l"| 



publication. If my memory is correct, the papers 

 contain no real evidence as to a fault-origin for the 

 "khors." Rather does Mr. Crossland seem to take 

 faulting for granted, and then to adopt it as the 

 explanation for all the topographical features of the 

 coast, even going so far as to regard Ras Raweiya as 

 a piece torn from the mainland and shifted several 

 miles out to sea — a view in which I imagine few- 

 geologists will agree. 



Unless further facts can be adduced, I think the 

 "khors" of the Red Sea coast are most reasonably 

 explained as valleys which were eroded by streams 

 when the land was at a greater elevation than it is 

 now, and have since been submerged by sub- 

 sidence. John Ball. 



Wadi Baba, Sinai, April 20. 



Sub-Red Crag Flint Implements and the Ipswich 

 Skeleton. 



I notice that Nature of May S contains an account 

 of a paper read by Mr. W. H. Sutcliffe before the 

 Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, in 

 which he refers to the sub-Red Crag flint implements 

 and the pre-Chalky Boulder Clay human skeleton I 

 have discovered. 



Mr. Sutcliffe argues that because the rostro-carinate 

 flints are found below the Red Crag, and (as he 

 asserts) in the Palaeolithic gravel of Hackney Downs, 

 they cannot be of human origin, because it is " incon- 

 ceivable that a human production should have retained 

 exactly the same form throughout this immense 

 period." 



Apart from the fact that the rostro-carinate speci- 

 mens have not retained exactly the same form during 

 the periods in which they were used, it appears to 

 have escaped Mr. Sutcliffe's notice that a river-gravel 

 is composed of material of the most varied ages, and 

 that therefore the examples of this type found in the 

 Hackney Downs deposit need not necessarily be of 

 Palaeolithic age. 



But even if they do belong to this period that has 

 no bearing upon their "humanity" — the ordinary 

 round-ended scraper was made in the most remote 

 times, and is still used by the present-day Eskimo. 

 Mr. Sutcliffe has also apparently " found " that the 

 rostro-carinate flints are "not adapted to any likely 

 use," and cannot therefore be held to afford good 

 evidence of Pliocene man. 



This is a very shaky and unsound objection, as it is 

 open to anyone to "find" that the ordinary Palaeolithic 

 implement is practically useless, and therefore non- 

 human. 



Mr. Sutcliffe has evidently not carefully read the 

 published accounts of the evidence in favour of the 

 high antiquitv of the Ipswich man. It has never 

 been suggested that the skeleton was lying on a land 

 surface of loose sand, and exposed to the direct 

 action of moving ice, but that the bones had probably 

 either been buried in that surface or covered by blown 

 sand to a considerable depth. 



If Mr. Sutcliffe had examined the evidence I have 

 mentioned with an open and unbiassed mind, he would 

 have recognised that the actual provenance of the 

 Ipswich bones is as well established as any prehistoric 

 skeleton yet unearthed. J. Reid Moir. 



Openings Required for Laboratory Assistants. 



You have in the past been kind enough to insert 

 a letter of mine with regard to the London County 

 Council laboratory monitors, whose services the council 

 is unable to retain after the age of seventeen, and 

 whom it has requested this association to place in 



