16 



Now the first mentioned instance (the Abbott argillites) cannot be 

 accepted by reason of the recent splendid work of Professor Holmes, 

 who has shown, first, that the supposed paleoliths are not finished im- 

 plements, but work-shop rejects or blanks; and, second, that there is 

 grave reason for questioning whether the objects are not confined to the 

 modern talus — i. e., whether they occur in the Trenton gravels at all. 



The second instance was formerly accepted by archeologists as evidence 

 concerning the distribution of the hypothetic glacial man whose existence 

 was supposed to be proved by the Trenton and Little Falls testimony ; 

 but since the occurrences are isolated, since the finder is not a skilled geolo- 

 gist able to discriminate between undisturbed glacial deposits and the 

 talus derived therefrom, and since in one case similar objects occur on the 

 surface above the point at which the "paleolith" was found, the presump- 

 tion is against the evidence and the "finds" cannot be accepted as proof 

 of the existence of man during the glacial period. The same must be 

 said also of the third and fourth instances ; and in connection with the 

 last it is necessary to observe that the indirect personal statements of the 

 Reverend Professor Wright (page 251) are unworthy of confidence 

 partly because they are indirect, partly because his incompetence as a 

 geologist is tested by another of his "instances" (the Nampa figurine). 



The fifth instance (that of Little Falls) must be rejected because Pro- 

 fessor Holmes, with Professor N. H. Winchell, who first found artificial 

 ilakes in the surface sands at this place, has within the year shown by 

 means of excavations and extended surveys that there is no implement- 

 bearing stratum at the locality in question, and that the quartz chips 

 are confined to the talus and to the surface soil and subsoil within reach 

 of the windfall excavations now pitting the surface of the glacial ter- 

 race. It is painful to learn that a conscientious observer like the late 

 Miss Babbitt should be at fault in a matter of so grave import; enough to 

 say that the original discoverer accepts Professor Holmes' conclusions. 



"These cases," cited by him, include nine discoveries including N. H. 

 Winchell 's, Gilbert's and — bless my soul — one by McGee himself. He 

 has on pages 28-36 a very precise description of the country where the 

 New Jersey implements were deposited, with several maps and bird's-eye 

 views, so precise that he could have gotten it only from his "G^emorphy," 

 and on page 31 makes the astounding statement, "The implements occur 

 in such numbers that over 25,000 have been collected by Abbott," which 

 is 24,600 more paleoliths than Abbott ever claimed to have found. He 

 says the "'turtle back' type (of implement) is found throughout the 

 deposit" (Trenton gravel) from top to bottom but most abundantly in the 

 lower half and in progressively diminishing abundance from bottom to top 

 of the upper half, while the 'leaf shaped' type is found only in the upper 

 half and in progressively increasing abundance upward," etc. * * * 

 "The implements of higher type occur over the surface of the Trenton gravels 



