231 
can form only a more or less uncertain estimate of these 
effects, it is impossible that our conclusions can be other than 
vaguely approximative. Even on the most extravagant 
assumption, however, as to the former rate of stalagmitic 
accretion, we shall be compelled to admit a period of many 
thousands of years for the formation of the stalagmitic 
pavements in Kent's Cavern." 
In the previous pages (81-83) Dr. Geikie reduces the esti- 
mate of 240,000 years for the upper layer of stalagmite, and 
576,000 years for the underlying layer (arising from “the 
rate at which the large boss in question has accreted ") as 
“ excessive " to 60,000 for the upper stalagmite, “and the 
lower bed 144,000 respectively for their growth." “In other 
parts of the cave, however, we have evidence to show that the 
stalagmite has accreted at a more rapid rate," but “we should 
still have a period of 20,000 years for the formation of the 
upper, and of 48,000 years for the lower. But on the sup- 
position that, owing to an excessive rainfall, the stalagmites 
formerly increased four times more rapidly than they do now, 
the first period would be reduced to 5,000 years, and that of 
the lower stalagmite to 20,000 years." (!) 
The “ scientific fact," then, is reduced to the probability of 
“ many thousand " years for the formation of the above pave- 
ments — which nobody can deny ! 
The Chairman. — It is now my pleasing duty, on behalf of the meeting, to 
convey our thanks to Mr. Howard for his paper, and to invite discussion 
thereon. 
Mr. T. K. Callard, P.C.S. — I have on two occasions very carefully 
examined Kent’s Cavern, and after having done so, and having also heard 
Mr, Howard’s former paper, I wondered what Mr. Pengelly would say in 
reply to that paper. And I wondered still more when I read the reply, for 
it scarcely referred to Mr. Howard’s arguments. I certainly think it was 
unbecoming in a scientist to deal with a paper like that of Mr. Howard’s as 
Mr. Pengelly has done. There could hardly be stronger evidence that he 
had nothing important to say in reply to Mr. Howard than that he felt it 
necessary to spend so many pages over the correction of such errors as “ 350 
implements,” for “ upwards of 350,” and which Mr. Pengelly tells us 
really was 366. If Mr. Pengelly thought it so important that the exact 
number of 366 should be given, why did he not himself give it as 366, and 
why did he himself say “upwards of 350”? It appeared to me to be 
mere trifling. Had Mr. Howard raised the question whether these things 
were implements or not, Mr. Pengelly should have met it ; or if Mr. Howard 
had said there were no implements there at all, that would have affected the 
question ; but whether the number was 350 or 450 did not matter a straw — 
