232 
it had nothing to do with the argument ; and whether Mr. Howard calls a 
man “James Farrar/’ or Farrar, leaving out the “Mr.,” in no way affects 
the question, and was not worthy of remark in a scientific paper. It 
certainly has struck me that if Mr. Howard, instead of writing another paper, 
had simply brought that of Mr. Pengelly here, and read it, we should have 
arrived at the conclusion that if that were all Mr. Pengelly had to say, 
Mr. Howard’s former paper must have been one of considerable weight. 
(Hear.) 
Mr. D. Howard, F.C.S. — lam glad that this question has again been brought 
before the Institute, because I think the admissions made by Mr. Pengelly 
are important to the issue . Surely the whole ground of the argument based 
on Kent’s Cavern is this, — that there was a floor of stalagmite which was 
formed at a certain infinitesimal rate, and that, therefore, any human bones 
or implements, or the bones of any animals contemporaneous with those of 
human beings, found under that stalagmite, must put back the age of man 
for so many thousands of years. I confess it is a little bewildering to find 
that a supposed accurate estimate will bear dividing by ten without any 
serious interference with the result, as appears to be the case here. When 
we are told that the period may have comprised 250,000 years, or that it 
may have been only 25,000, one is apt to leave out one or more of the zeros 
that still remain, if one should be so inclined. I am certainly of opinion that 
scientific accuracy fails in this case. But of far more importance appears to 
be the question that now seems to be conceded, namely, that the so-called 
stalagmite floor is not a stalagmite floor at all. If this were a question of 
the construction of a wall of a certain thickness and height, and if the 
calculations as to how many bricks it contained, and the time it took to build, 
were made entirely on the basis that it was formed of bricks joined with 
cement, would not the result be very naturally affected if it were shown that 
the wall had been run up with thin outer lines of bricks and cement, and 
the intervals filled in with cartloads of concrete ? It appears to me that the 
stalagmite is in a similar position. There are shown to be traces of stalag- 
mite, the age of which is very uncertain ; but the bulk of the floor is simply 
composed of magma. Under these circumstances, the argument seems to 
me to have failed, because the major and the minor premises having given 
way, the calculation naturally goes with them, and any argument in favour 
of excessive antiquity that might have been deduced from a stalagmite 
floor falls to the ground with the admission that the floor is not stalagmite, 
but magma. (Hear, hear.) 
Captain F. Petrie (hon. sec .). — I think that there is one part of the con- 
troversy which has taken place upon this subject that requires a little explana- 
tion. Early in 1879, when Mr. Howard read his first paper “ On the 
Caves of South Devon ” before this Institute, Mr. Pengelly was invited to 
be present, and with that invitation was forwarded an early and uncorrected 
printer’s proof of Mr. Howard’s paper. It was sent thus early, although 
uncorrected, in order that Mr. Pengelly might have time before the meeting to 
prepare any remarks that he might wish to make. His brief letter acknow- 
