Notes and Comments. 5 



one band came next in order, although these varieties were 

 not the most abundant in the neighbourhood. This study 

 has been continued by Mr. A. E. Trueman, B.Sc., in The Annals 

 and Magazine of Natural History for October, 1916. He 

 states : — 



AND NATURAL SELECTION. 



"Striking confirmation of Mr. Woodruff e-Peacock's obser- 

 vations on the localization of the different varieties was 

 obtained while making this collection ; thus in the lane near 

 Broxtowe for a distance of 50 yards quite four-fifths of the 

 shells found had one band only. The complete details of the 

 collections were as follows : — 



Standard Collection. " Anvil " Collection. 

 Unbanded .... 25 per cent. 38 per cent. 



1 band 16 „ 23 



2 2 ,, 2 ,, 



3 ',', 5 „ 6 „ 



4 ,. 9 .. § ., 



5 , 42 „ 23 „ 



6 ,, less than 1 ,, 



Thus, although fully two-fifths of the standard collection had 

 the normal five bands, little more than half this proportion 

 of the broken shells were so marked. Further, although 

 unbanded shells constituted only a quarter of the standard 

 collection, they occurred in greater numbers among the broken 

 shells. The chances of an unbanded shell being observed 

 are, according to these figures, about three times as great as 

 of a normal shell. Stated more concisely, in the standard 

 collection, there was an average of 2*9 bands per shell ; among 

 the broken shells the average was much lower, viz., 1-9 per 

 shell." 



EARLY MAN. 



Mr. J. Reid Moir writes : — " It is pleasing to a prehistorian 

 to notice the amount of space devoted in the November number 

 of The Naturalist to the subject of early man. It is also of 

 interest to me that two of my latest papers have been mentioned 

 by the writer of your ' Notes and Comments.' But I fail to 

 understand why on page 339 he states, in reference to my 

 paper in the Journal of the Anthropological Institute, that 'we 

 are not quite sure of the object of the contribution.' On page 

 338 he quotes the title of the paper in full, ' On the evolution 

 of the earliest palaeoliths from the rostrocarinate implements,' 

 and this title seems clear and incapable of misunderstanding. 

 But if your reviewer was unable to grasp its meaning, a careful 

 perusal of the paper itself would have dispelled his doubts. 

 Can it be that he has not read the paper through ? If he has 

 not, it would seem that he ought not to criticise it." 



1917 Jan.], 



