part 3] BENEATH THE THANET SAND. 253 



such specimens proved that it was unsound to select one exceptional 

 •example from an associated group : it was the ninety-and-nine 

 which gave the scientific evidence for the origin of the one. 



In reply to Mr. Dewey, he stated that the specimens had all 

 heen dug out of the deposit by himself. He certainly agreed that 

 "the Kentish Eoliths were not the same as Bullhead chipping. 

 Mr. Green had effectively replied to the point raised by Mr. Bury. 

 The possible work of Nature was, at present, very inadequately 

 known. At the same time, the Bullhead rostro-carinates, although 

 obtained from only a few square yards of the deposit, were good 

 examples of their class, and the Author did not fear comparison of 

 them by any unprejudiced person with the type series preserved 

 in the British Museum. 



In answer to Mr. Johnson, the Author said that the ultimate 

 obliteration of flaking must surely depend upon the amount of the 

 rolling, and not upon the origin of the flaking. 



Mr. Kennard had not made allowance for differences in size. 

 The Bullhead flakings represented the operation of a force which 

 was greatly in excess of that necessary to effect Eolithic edge- 

 chipping. The Eoliths from the comparatively superficial drifts 

 represented the operation of the minimum of force. The two 

 groups presented differences, but the greater [Bullhead] group 

 included representatives of the less, and therefore discredited both 

 ■equally. 



The Kentish Eoliths placed on the table for comparison had 

 been condemned by several speakers as unsatisfactory examples. 

 These specimens all had the guarantee of Mr. B. Harrison or 

 Mr. Kennard, and these authorities would be the last to mislead 

 an avowed sceptic with examples which, in their opinion, would not 

 adequately support their own cause. 



