178 Correspondence . [March, 
snow were once more abundantly formed, or else instead there 
were violent storms, and rains occurring more frequently. The- 
denuding action of the tides of our time is very mild indeed 
compared with that of deluges of rains in the interior of a 
continent, making rivers, and scooping out valleys. — I am, &c., 
Festina Lente. 
MAN: ADAM. 
To the Editor of the Journal of Science. 
Sir, — In Colenso’s great work, the “ Examination of the Pen- 
tateuch ” (People’s Edition, § 1052), after quoting from Prof. 
Owen’s Address in Leeds, 1858 (wherein he shows the localisa- 
tion of certain species from geological ages), Colenso proceeds 
to apply this to man “ from the first differing as species. In 
that case it would be no longer necessary to believe that the 
Bushman, Australian Savage, and Andaman Islander are only 
degraded descendants of Adam or Noah, and that European, 
Chinese, Negro, and North-American Indian are all derived from 
one pair of ancestors.” Then, like Gautama’s dewdrop, he 
slips into his ocean of Geology — perhaps carried to an extreme 
sometimes. 
Surely, in this age of evolutionists, it is more agreeable to the 
mind to conceive mankind as derived from one common an- 
cestor ? The simplest explanation is most acceptable. Is not 
the very diversity that troubles some of us the key to the truth ? 
It must have been hinted ere now that the different races of men 
are not “degraded descendants ” of the first human pair, but rather 
evolutions from them ; the first fossil head we may find being 
immeasurably superior to our Adam. Why are not the human 
race ranked, like other animals, in order of evolution ? Is it not 
evident ? The lowest do “ go to the wall ” — we have but to find 
the connedling-links. The absurdity of Bible chronology has 
long been exploded, but the prejudice still lingers, and to fix 
Adam’s appearance is simply idiotic. It would probably be a 
hard feat to draw the line between the highest animal and first 
man. I see in this the opportunity for language to have deve- 
loped itself after the first man, making this “gift” easier to 
understand in the broad distinction of animal and man. The 
question rests only with the geologist, the anthropologist, and 
the physiologist. — I am, &c., 
D. Y. C, 
Ilkley, Leeds. 
