844 The American Naturahst. [September, 
between them was principally that of material, and this was in some 
cases much the same ; for argillite implements were found at Trenton, 
while the quartzite implements of Piney Branch would comp&re in all 
respects with those found by MM. d’Ahemar, Noulet, and Cartailhac in 
the valley of the Garonne. Mr. Wilson continued his discourse at 
some length by the comparison of the neolithic types from America 
with those of Europe. Many of both kinds were shown, some by the 
original and others by photographs and drawings 
M. Verneau discovered in the islands of the Canaries the polished 
stone hatchets of which the material, form, and work recalled those 
which were found in the Antilles, and, above all, at Porto Rico. There 
were other things of the same order which showed analogies, particu- 
larly the pintaderas of the Canaries, with the imprints of the ancient 
Mexicans. 
M. Cartailhac gave a resume of the EEE E which he had just 
terminated upon the prehistoric archeology of the Balearic Isles, and 
proved that all the affinities of the archipelago were with the south. 
He had not found a trace of the age of stone, and the grand monu- 
ments had an African aspect or appearance. 
. Tardy dilated upon the beginnings of civilization in Algeria, and 
the synchronisms of the first stages of the earlier ages of humanity in 
Africa and in Europe. 
M. Belucci ‘presented a note upon the relations between the central 
and southern portions of Italy at the epoch of the polished stone. 
These relations are established not only by the obsidian of Lapiri, which 
came from Central Italy, but also by the particular forms of arrow- 
heads, and by the scrapers and knives of a variety of flint which had 
its origin in the southern provinces; finally by the polished stone 
hatchets of the form doméé, which were common in Southern Italy, 
and which were met, though rarely, in Central Italy. 
M. Adrien de Mortillet communicated a summary of the results of a 
mission which had been confided:to him by the Commission of Mega- 
lithic Monuments: to study the monuments of the same nature in 
Algeria, and to compare them with those of France. 
M. Hamy did not agree with these conclusions, and he commended 
conservatism in our opinions, and advised us to guard against generali- 
zations in regard to prehistoric monuments of countries which, though 
FETE yet offer from the archeologic point of view such profound 
differences 

