216 
most beautifully mineralised. A geologist could swear to them when he saw 
them in any part of the world, but Professor Phillips being a Yorkshireman, 
and not being, like himself, thoroughly acquainted with this Pliocene deposit, 
when this skull was put into his hands, and he was told that it had been 
taken from the Pliocene, he, as a matter of course, thought there could be no 
doubt about it. Professor Owen then got hold of it, and published it as a 
genuine crag fossil. Now, there was a name that he dared to say was familiar 
to many of the members of the Institute — that was the Rev. W. B. Clarke, 
of Sydney in Australia, who had- done so much with regard to the gold- 
discoveries in that country. In one of his (the speaker’s) early papers on this 
Suffolk crag, he had mentioned that no mammalian remains had ever been 
found. Mr. Clarke at once rushed into print to say that Mr. Charlesworth 
had made a most extraordinary blunder, and said that from one of these 
quarries near Hoxne he had a collection of bones. He (the speaker) was 
very much amused when he saw that, because he knew the quarry very well, 
and he knew that, like all other quarries in Suffolk, there were two deposits — 
there was a bed of sand and gravel, 15 feet or 16 feet deep, and then the 
older formation underneath, which was Pliocene. Therefore the question 
was, had these bones come from the sands above, or from the lower part ? 
and he immediately replied to Mr. Clarke’s paper and said, “Will Mr. Clarke 
be so good as to tell us if he took those bones out of the quarry himself ? 
and, if so, if he took them out of the sands or from the bottom of the quarry V* 
In reply Mr. Clarke said that it had never occurred to him that there were 
two formations. He would like to go into the other department. They 
would understand that what he had been saying all related to what might be 
called the physical surrounding under which these things were said to be 
found, but let him say something about the objects themselves. He could 
go on all the evening, giving them the history of mistakes in regard to 
these, and these mistakes only showed how extremely necessary it was to 
thoroughly sift the statements made to you before you receive them. They must 
not think that what he was going to say was intended to disparage what Pro- 
fessor Owen had done, but the misfortune was, that every now and then, when 
a case of the kind occurred, a man thought that, because he had a great name, 
he was bound to tell you what a thing was when he saw it. At Manchester, 
Professor Owen read a paper on “ An Anaplotherium,” found in the Cliffs at 
Cromer, in Norfolk. He (the speaker) had not seen the beast, but he had 
seen a picture of it, and he doubted its being an Anaplotherium. That was 
one of the extinct animals that Cuvier described as found in the neighbour- 
hood of Paris. As soon as the British Association was over at Manchester, 
he (the speaker) went to Norwich to see the animal, which he found 
had been purchased by subscription for the Norwich Museum, and was just 
being mounted ; asking permission to examine it closely, he did so, and what 
did they think it was ? A roebuck. He thereupon wrote a letter to the 
Athenceum and to the Literary Gazette , describing what he had seen, and that 
he had found it to be a roebuck ; but Professor Owen would not have it, and 
