233 
ledging the invitation appears in the thirteenth volume of our Journal, 
published at the end of 1879. He was subsequently offered several weeks 
in which to write any comments he might desire to send for insertion in the 
Journal ; but he stated that he would take another opportunity of replying. 
About four weeks after this a copy of the People’s Edition, fully corrected, 
was placed in his hands, and he was informed that any printer’s or other 
errors in the original proof sent to him, had been expunged from this issue. 
However, Mr. Pengelly, I think erroneously, preferred, in criticising Mr. 
Howard’s paper fourteen months afterwards, to base his criticism on the early 
printer’s proof, instead of the People’s Edition. I may here mention that, 
when Mr. Pengelly expressed his intention of taking another opportunity of 
replying to the paper, I wrote to him as follows : — “ I hope I may be permitted 
to see your reply when it is published, and if it be read at a meeting I hope for 
permission to be present.” To this he replied three days afterwards : — “ Your 
letter of the 30th of March [1879] is to hand. I shall have great pleasure in 
complying with your request relative to any reply to Mr. Howard’s paper that 
I may read or publish.” — Towards the end of November, 1880,1 received a letter 
from a friend calling my attention to the fact that Mr. Howard had been 
taken to task by Mr. Pengelly in the “ J ournal of the Devonshire Association 
for the Advancement of Science,” of which my friend (a Vice-President of 
that Association) sent me his own copy, and on looking into it I found that 
it contained Mr. Pengelly’s “ reply,” which he had read at a meeting held 
during the summer of 1880, and by unfortunately forgetting to carry 
out his promise as to sending an invitation to the meeting in question 
(a proof copy of his paper would have been welcome), he had deprived 
Mr. Howard of that opportunity of replying in the journal of which he, 
Mr. Pengelly, is Editor, which we on our part had been so ready and anxious 
to accord to him in the Journal of this Institute. I venture to say 
what I have because I conceive that the whole of the Victoria Institute’s 
proceedings in this matter exemplify the open and impartial way in which 
we conduct our discussions. There is one point in Mr. Howard’s paper 
to which I would refer. Mr. Whitley has written in regard to what 
Mr. Howard says about the flint tools, and has sent these two specimens of 
flint implements [producing them]. One is termed “a neolithic arrow-head” 
and the other “a palaeolithic implement.” Mr. Whitley regards the first as 
having been chipped artificially, the last naturally. I should not, perhaps, 
have alluded to this, but for the fact that we have a visitor in this room 
who has been in South America, and has seen the savages forming their 
arrow-heads. 
The Chairman. — If he would kindly oblige the meeting by offering a few 
remarks I am sure we shall all be pleased to hear him. (Hear.) 
Mr. F. R. Mackenzie. — I have been called on very unexpectedly ; but 
shall be happy to relate a fact of which I was once witness. A good many 
years ago I happened to be in the Straits of Magellan for a period of seven 
or eight months, and during that time I saw a good deal of the Fuegan 
savages, a race of beings whom I should be inclined to put very low in 
