351 
whilst as to the fact of a connection having existed at no distant period 
(speaking of time geologically) between the continent of Europe and these 
islands there is abundant evidence, not the least striking part of which is that 
which shows a gradual diminution as we pass westwards and northwards of 
plants and animals of existing species, which are common both to Great 
Britain and the North-Western regions of Europe. It can only be reasonably 
accounted for by the supposition that the connection was severed before the 
species had time to spread generally. 
REMARKS BY S. R. PATTISON, ESQ., E.G.S. 
Professor Hughes is so cautious, that his testimony concerning disputed 
facts has all the strength of an admission. We may, therefore, accept as 
conclusive, 1st, his denial of any evidence of the existence of man in Pre- 
glacial times ; 2nd, his statement of the untrustworthiness of stalagmite as a 
measure of duration; and 3rd, his affirmance of the absence of any measure 
of Post-glacial time in geology. Into the field thus cleared of positive scien- 
tific facts hypothesis enters, and seeks to govern by analogies. Here we do 
not consider the Professor as equally skilful, or even equally cautious. Uulike 
his distinguished predecessor at Cambridge, Sedgwick {clurum et venerabile 
nomen), lie repudiates catadym in the past, and relies on causes in present 
operation, and apparently on present rates of action. He argues that 
all the events indicated have been brought about by minute changes ; 
that this has been the case with the cutting back of the rivers forming the 
valleys of the Thames* and the Somme, with the change in the groups of 
mammalia, and the variation in the local freshwater fauna. Therefore, he 
says, that the time which has elapsed since the deposition of the flint imple- 
ments is “enormously long,” a “ vast time,” a “great lapse;” implying that 
it is far longer than is assigned by the ordinary Mosaic chronology. But the 
power of these analogies depends entirely on the circumstances of the two 
cases being equal. Surely Professor Hughes cannot hold that this is the 
case. We affirm, on the contrary, that the elevation of the inland cliffs and 
of the coast, the traces of violent land movements, the tokens of alternate 
immense rushes of water and ice with periods of repose and tranquil sedi- 
ment, the excavation of materials by side-cutting and their rolling and 
re-sorting, are phenomena which, in the extent indicated, do not now occur, 
and can never have occurred from causes now in action at the present or any 
other conceivable rate of uniform progress. If this be so, or if it may be so, 
* A Member, writing from Cirencester, states that he has not observed 
evidence of the “cutting back ” higher up the stream of the Thames. 
