352 
then the whole analogy is destroyed. Having displaced existing causes, or 
rather existing rates of action, we are then free to assert that the irregular 
work of Post-glacial forces may have been accomplished, say within 10,000 
years, for aught that geology can show to the contrary. In fact, that science 
does not, as yet, displace the common chronology of our Bible, which, as we 
well know, admits of very considerable extension. We are at liberty, there- 
fore, so far as geology is concerned, to accept the reasonings of Dr. Southall, 
Dr. Andrews, Dr. Dawson, Mr. Callard, and others, on the recent origin of 
man, the close and crown of animated nature, according to the commonly- 
received interpretation of the Scripture. 
EEMAEKS BY JAMES C. SOUTHALL, M.A., LL.D. 
(Kichmond, Virginia). 
I certainly concur in what Professor Hughes says as to the breaking-down 
of the evidence for the existence of Miocene, Pliocene, and Glacial man. It 
is hardly worthy of serious consideration, and I think the bringing forward 
of insufficiently considered facts of this sort for the purpose of establishing 
the antiquity of man brings discredit on the cause of science. If the 
antiquity of man is to be proved, we must have more careful and judicious 
investigators. The Miocene man of the Dardanelles, the chipped flints from 
Thenay, the perforated sharks’ teeth of the Crag, the sharpened sticks from 
Durnten, the human fibula from the Victoria Cave, have been severally 
patronized by very distinguished scientific names, and should serve to 
admonish us of the necessity for that “ caution — caution — caution,” which 
Mr. John Evans has been compelled to recommend. 
The remarks of Professor Hughes with regard to the evidence beariug on 
the antiquity of Quaternary man are so vague, that it is difficult, while dis- 
senting from his conclusions, to criticise what he has said. 
If I understand him, he rests the antiquity of Quaternary man on the 
fact that the paleolithic implements of the river gravels antedate the excava- 
tion of the river valleys by the present streams. He argues that the time 
required for the Somme Eiver to excavate its valley is the measure of tho 
age of the upper gravels, a nd the implements found in them. 
He asserts that there are ancient terraces along the banks of this river, 
and that these terraces mark the former position of the stream, as it cut its 
way back from the sea up to the present “ rapids,” which are now, ho says, 
“ far back towards Central France.” 
At the mouth of the Somme the gravels fringe the coast at an elevation of 
100 feet above the sea. If I understand Professor Hughes, the cataract or 
the rapids must have originally existed at the sea, and tho rapids have 
slowly retreated into “ Central France.” 
