426 Correspondence — T. Riqjert Jones. 



locked up at the Eoyal Society for years after his death." The 

 Eev. McEnery's reports on Kents Cavern were finished about 1826, 

 and Professor Huxley having been born in 1825 must have been 

 always under age and without influence in the Eoyal Society whilst 

 McEnery's paper was supposed to be " lost," but really kept 

 in the background by influence of the Eev, Dean Buckland, who 

 ascribed the occurrence of anything like human implements to 

 burials of late date, as I myself have heard him afSrm at a meeting 

 of the Geological Society. 



The reference to Professor Huxley in the paper alluded to above 

 is probably only one of the evidences of the hasty character of 

 the paper; but at first sight it appears, not only uncalled for, but 

 unkind. 



Some of his friends, like the writer of this critique, will regret 

 Sir H. Howorth's inability to recognize the actual classification of 

 eoliths as practically established by Prestwich, and illustrated in 

 his own and B. Harrison's collections, as well as in the Museum 

 of the Geological Survey, Eoyal College of Science, the British 

 Museum (Natural History Branch), and elsewhere. Also, it is 

 lamentable that he cannot appreciate Prestwich's lucid explanation 

 of the geological history and settlement of the eolithic gravel of the 

 Chalk Downs, as reproduced in Mr. Bullen's pamphlet, to which he 

 alludes as having read. 



To other shortcomings we need not refer ; it is a pity that there 

 should be any, for the author is doubtless an industrious gatherer 

 of facts and notions, evidently so when he seems to have searched 

 one set of about twenty volumes, "1829-50 " (!), for the history of 

 Ami Boue's discovery of bones near the Lahr (p. 339). 



T. EupERT Jones. 



EOLITHIC IMPLEMENTS. 



Sir, — Sir H. H. Howorth, F.E.S., has done me the honour of 

 mentioning in the Geological Magazine for August my little 

 paper on the above subject. 



Like Balaam, having set himself to curse Israel, he has instead 

 blessed them altogether. On p. 342 he says (assuming their identity 

 with pal^oliths), " Such remains are claimed to have been found 

 at that horizon [the Forest Bed] in Norfolk by Mr. Abbott and 

 Mr. Savin, in Dorsetshire by Dr. Blackmore, and they have been 

 also reported from the same horizon at St. Prest in France and 

 in the Val d'Arno, north of Italy, in each case the remains of 

 human workmanship being accompanied by those of E. meridionalis, 

 I believe these finds are quite genuine." (Italics mine.) The im- 

 plements referred to as Dr. Blackmore's, pi. iii in my paper, have, 

 as a matter of fact, an eolithic facies, and Sir H. H. Howorth's 

 admission concedes all that for which Sir Joseph Prestwich's followers 

 contend. "I thank thee, Eoderick, for that word !" 



Sir Henry mentions five men as upholding eoliths, including their 

 original discoverer, Mr. Benjamin Harrison, and that paladin of 



