118 Notes and Comments. 
is here called in question, we may as well state the reason why 
the matter has been referred to on more than one occasion 
in these pages. It is as follows: supposing an unindicated 
museum, were seriously damaged by the enemy, the very first 
question the townspeople would ask would be, “ Did the 
Curator take the necessary steps to safeguard the building and 
its contents ?”’ Now if, in these circumstances, the Curator 
had acted on his own responsibility, he would, we imagine, 
find himself in an unenviable position. Whether a museum 
be marked or left unmarked, it is important that the Curator 
should safeguard himself ; and the obvious thing to do is for 
him to consult his committee, and to leave the decision and 
the responsibility with that body.’ 
THE ‘ PROVINCIAL CURATOR’ AGAIN. 
To this the ‘ Provincial Curator’ naturally replies :— In 
case the editorial footnote to his previous letter gives the 
impression (as it well may do) that ‘‘ Provincial Curator’ is 
neglecting necessary precautions for the protection of the 
building or buildings under his charge, let him say that he has 
already consulted his committee, which has decided not to 
show any distinguishing marks, such decision being regarded 
as in the interests of safety by the committee, which consists 
of prominent citizens, broad-minded business men. Perhaps 
for the guidance of other provincial curators you would not 
mind telling us, Mr. Editor, what our national museums have 
done in the way of marking their buildings by “ protective 
signs.’ Has the suggestion been adopted at your museum, at 
Hastings ?’ To this question no reply is given, from which 
it is fair to assume that the editor of The Museums Journal 
not only insinuates that those not carrying out his suggestions 
are neglecting their duty, but shows that he does not back up 
the advice he so kindly gives to others by carrying out the 
suggested methods of protection which he advocates. We 
hope his committee won’t hear about fis ‘neglect of duty’ ! 
THE PILTDOWN REMAINS. 
At a recent meeting of the Manchester Literary and Philo- 
sophical Society a communication was given on ‘ New Phases 
of the Controversies concerning the Piltdown Skull,’ by Prof. G. 
Elliot Smith, M.A., M.D., F.R.S. He considered the different 
views that had been recently expressed ; (1) that the canine 
belonged to the upper and not the lower jaw; (2) that the 
mandible was not human, but that of a hitherto unknown 
species of chimpanzee, which by some unexplained means 
made its way into England in the Pleistocene period ; (3) that 
the features differentiating this mandible from that of modern 
man had been unduly exaggerated ; (4) that the canine tooth 


Naturalist, 
