466 Notices of Memoirs—Prof. Boyd Dawkins’s Address. 
while that used by men in the Prehistoric age should be taken out 
of his province, or why he should be asked to study the lower strata 
only in a given section, and leave the upper to be dealt with by the 
archeologist. In these cases the ground is common to geology and 
archeology, and the same things, if they are looked at from the 
standpoint of the History of the Earth, belong to the first, and, if 
from the standpoint of the history of Man, to the second. 
If, however, there be no break of continuity in the series of events 
from the Pleistocene to the Prehistoric ages, still less is there in 
those which connect the Prehistoric with the period embraced by 
history. The Historic date of a cave or of a bed of alluvium is as 
clearly indicated by the occurrence of a coin as the geological 
position of a stratum is defined by an appeal to a characteristic fossil. 
The gradual unfolding of the present order of things from what 
went before compels me to recognize the fact that the Tertiary 
Period extends down to the present day. The Historic period is 
being recorded in the strata now being formed, exactly in the same 
way as the other divisions of the Tertiary have left their mark in 
the crust of the earth, and history is incomplete without an appeal to 
the geological record. In the masterly outline of the description 
of Roman civilization in Britain the historian of the English Conquest 
was obliged to use the evidence, obtained from the upper strata, in 
caves which had been used by refugees from the cities and villas ; 
and among the materials for the future history of this city there are, 
to my mind, none more striking than the proof, offered by the silt 
in the great Roman bath, that the resort of crowds had become so 
utterly desolate and lonely in the ages following the English Con- 
quest as to allow of the nesting of the Wild Duck. 
I turn now to the place of Man in the geological record, a question 
which has advanced but little since the year 1864. Then, as now, 
his relation to the Glacial strata in Britain was in dispute. It must 
be confessed that the question is still without a satisfactory answer, 
and that it may well be put to “a suspense account.” We may, 
however, console ourselves with the reflection that the River-drift 
Man appears in the Pleistocene strata of England, France, Spain, 
Italy, Greece, Algiers, Egypt, Palestine, and India along with 
Pleistocene animals, some of which were pre-Glacial in Britain. He 
is also proved to have been post-Glacial in Britain, and was probably 
living in happy, sunny, southern regions, where there was no ice, 
and therefore no Glacial period, throughout the Pleistocene age. 
It may further be remarked that Man appears in the geological 
record where he might be expected to appear. In the Hocene the 
Primates were represented by various Lemuroids (Adapis, Necrole- 
mur, and others) in the Old and New Worlds. In the Miocene the 
Simiadee (Dryopithecus, Pliopithecus, Oreopithecus) appear in Europe, 
while Man himself appears, along with the living species of Mam- 
malia, in the Pleistocene age, both in Europe and in India. 
The question of the antiquity of Man is inseparably connected 
with the further question: “Is it possible to measure the lapse of 
geological time in years?” Various attempts have been made, and 
