214 
Professor Dawkins appeals to those who believe in the doctrine of evolu- 
tion, and thinks that they will see the force of his remarks on the non- 
existence of man in the Miocene period. I do not believe in evolution, 
but see the force of his remarks. Still, this point arises. How does this 
fit with the doctrine of the “ survival of the fittest,” if there were such apes 
once ; according to the evolution theory, they had no right to go out 
of existence prior to the appearance of man. It is contrary to all rule 
that they should have done so ; they ought to exist now. if the principle 
of evolution be right, and we ought at the present moment to have the 
highest type of ape along with man. But I do not feel that we are shut up 
to either conclusion. "We have had evidence that flints have been 
naturally fractured, so as to resemble implements made by man. If 
we have some evidence of this and no evidence of apes having chipped flints, 
I think it is more in accord with the principle of arguing from the known to 
the unknown to suppose that the Miocene flints were chipped by nature and 
not artificially, and I w'ould say, by way of caution, if the Miocene imple- 
ments were naturally fractured flints, would it not be befitting of us to be 
exceedingly careful how we receive these chipped flints of the Quaternary 
period when there is no collateral evidence to show that they were the work 
of man ? 
The Hon. Secretary said, — Mr. E. Hepple Hall, F.R.G.S., who has not 
been able to stay, has given me permission to mention that he accompanied 
Professor Whitney in his explorations over the Rocky Mountains, but that, 
so far from his opinion being the same as Dr. Whitney’s, he must confess to 
being obliged to agree with Professor Dawson and Professor Hughes. 
Mr. E. Charlesworth, F.G.S.* (a visitor), said he had from an early period 
of his life taken up with great interest the study of natural history, and 
as a branch of natural history that of geology. In his early days geology 
was comparatively a new science, and it was then that a number of 
persons who had time and ability were turning their attention to it. He 
was much interested in what was going on, and now for a period of 
something more than half a century had been, more or less, personally 
in communication with all the great lights in the geological world. If the 
meeting would allow him, he would tell them the conclusion to which he had 
come was that geological science,— what might be termed the grand 
truths of the science, — were completely established, just as were the 
truths of astronomical science, but when you got beyond that, when 
* Mr. Charlesworth is well known as a painstaking geologist. He attended 
the meeting as a visitor. His intimate relations with such men as Professor 
Owen, and others amongst those scientific worthies of whom all Englishmen 
are justly proud, are well known. The freedom with which he alludes to 
their errors— and all are liable to err — shows how strong can be the language 
of a fellow-worker in regard to a colleague’s mistakes, even when under no 
circumstance can the most hypercritical antagonist sa} r that such language 
indicates disloyalty to Science.— Ed. 
