222 
before they are handed down as facts to succeeding genera- 
tions. 
I am not aware how this can be accomplished, except 
through the medium of the Victoria Institute. In bringing 
my views on the subject before this body, it was, of course, 
open to Mr. Pengelly to have attended the meeting at which 
my paper was read, and to have challenged any of my state- 
ments. This was not done; but, instead of this, Mr. Pengelly 
occupies from p. 594 to p. 651 of the Report and “ Transac- 
tions of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of 
Science, Literature, and Art,” in strictures on my pamphlet 
of not more than forty pages. I take this as an admission 
that my reasoning is not very easily disposed of. 
Further, I may add, that it appears to me the criticisms of 
Mr. Pengelly tend very much to establish the main points of 
my argument. In the first place, it may be recollected that I 
contended that the stalagmite — on the rate of the accumula- 
tion of which by successive drops such vast theoretical deduc- 
tions were made to rest — was to a large extent not stalagmite 
at all ; that much of it could not have been formed by drop- 
ping from rock through which it had passed in a state of 
solution ; and I showed before the Institute specimens to 
prove my assertion. 
Now I find that Mr. Pengelly is forced to admit the truth 
of this, for he says (p. 614, as above) under head, 
“ Stalagmite versus Magma,” 
(C If the word Stalagmite is to be strictly confined to the 
meaning its etymology justifies, it must be admitted that it 
may have been applied to calcareous precipitates in Kent’s 
Cavern, which have no literary claim to it,” — that is to say, 
have no real claim to it at all. This word “ literary ” (literal ?) 
refers to a quotation from Page’s Handbook of Geological 
Terms, in which this Author describes Stalagmite as derived 
from the Greek, Stalagma, a drop. 
I trust that Mr. Pengelly will not dispute the accuracy of 
my quotation. I wish that many pages could be transcribed. 
In the meantime, it will be well to remark how this bears 
upon the whole case. This has been stated probably many 
hundred times ; but I quote from a pamphlet, called (< The 
Ancient Cavesmen of Devonshire,” headed by an “ Illustration 
of the Entrance to Kent’s Cavern.” 
*' f The important point which we have established is, that 
relics of human art are found beneath the floor of Stalagmite. 
After taking every precaution, by sweeping the surface and 
examining most minutely whether there were any traces of 
