Notes and Comments. 229 
even were we capable of doing so. On one point, however, 
Sir Henry has apparently a convenient memory—or lack of it! 
It will be remembered that some time ago he put forward the 
theory that the Scandinavian erratics on our east coast were 
‘Viking anchors’! or ballast lost or thrown over from Scandi- 
navian ships. A lengthy list of records of boulders of rhomb- 
porphyry, etc., at great depths below the surface, and at 
localities inland * caused Sir Henry to write to the ‘ Geological 
Magazine’ (1897, pp. 154-5) as under :—‘I am bound to say 
that... the reports of the British Association, and especially 
Mr. Sheppard’s recent researches, make it zmposszble for me 
to maintain any longer the extreme position I took up in my 
controversy. Iam convinced now that the rocks are certainly 
Norwegian, and that these Norwegian boulders have actually. 
been found in undisturbed Boulder-clay and in its associated. 
beds, and that, therefore, if they are to be explained, some other 
explanation than the one I gave must be forthcoming.’ That 
was ten years ago. The same writer, who then found it 
impossible to maintain his theory any longer, now says :— 
“I am more than ever convinced that a great proportion of the 
foreigners in the shingles, especially the so-called Scandinavian 
boulders, are derived from ballast, either from wrecks or dis- 
carded from ships, and are entirely misleading in their 
testimony.’ Where are we now? Sir Henry has accomplished 
impossibilities ! 
MR. LAMPLUGH'S BRITISH ASSOCIATION ADDRESS. 
Mr. Lamplugh’s address to Section C of the British 
Association at York? is also referred to. ‘That Mr. Lam- 
plugh is right in his views about inter-glacial beds I have no 
doubt. ... The conclusions which he now publishes, as if 
he was the first to generalise in their sense have been pressed 
for nearly thirty years in many papers and two big works by 
one Howorth. None of these publications are noticed in his 
address.’ We have previously found Sir Henry complaining of 
his two big books being ignored, so that in this respect Mr. 
Lamplugh is not alone. Possibly there is a reason for it. As 
regards the Interglacial beds, we must congratulate Mr. 
Lamplugh on being in the same boat as Sir Henry Howorth. 
If they don’t pull together they will at any rate ‘row,’—towards 
Norway and the Maelstrom, surely! where ‘the waters seamed 
* *Glacialists’ Magazine,’ 1895, pp. 129-131. 
+ See ‘ Naturalist,’ 1906, pp. 304-317 and pp. 360-366. 
1907 July 1. 
