189 
the lerel of the sea. D’Orbigny ridicules Darwin, who attributes these 
effects (or perhaps I should say that portion of them which fell under his 
observation) to a River. The deposits of bones, I am informed, are 
mostcurious— especially in Columbia, where one place is called Los Gigantes, 
from their abundance. This was out of Humboldt’s course, and has not 
since been explored by any scientific traveller that I am aware of. 
I do not think that any remains have been found showing that man was a 
denizen of the earth at the time when this occurred ; but it is otherwise in 
Guyana, where Dr. Maurel, a member of the Anthropological Society of 
Paris, has found well-formed stone implements beneath a layer of auriferous 
clay, showing, as he considers, “que I’homme existait a la Guyane 
frangaise au moment ou un mouvement des eaux a convert sa surface.” 
How do the evolutionists meet all these facts opposed to their theory ? 
Simply by silence. The tactics of the evolutionist sect are remarkable. 
Whatever they cannot answer they studiously ignore ; and, whatever assertions 
they may choose to make, they expect their credulous readers to accept as true. 
The Editor of the Journal of Science has found himself at last compelled 
'to notice a translation of M. A. de Quatrefages on the “ Human Species,” 
which has reached a second edition. I hope that neither M. Quatrefages nor 
any of the foreign members of the Victoria Institute will take this so-called 
“Analysis” as a specimen either of the candour or good feeling of our 
insular “ scientists.” I forbear to stigmatise the whole as it deserves, but 
notice one expression. This reviewer asks (p. 748), “ Does not the 
balance of facts observed point so uniformly against the fixity and reality of 
species that the day for useful discussion is well-nigh over ? ” This very 
characteristic suggestion merits attention. Discussion is indeed useless with 
men of a certain class ! He depreciates M. Quatrefages, whose eminence as a 
naturalist has been, I think, universally admitted in France, and asks : “Is 
he not aware that Darwin has been, and still is, one of the most patient and 
persevering observers and experiraentators (sic) the world has ever wit- 
nessed ? ” Probably he is, and also cognisant, as are French naturalists 
generally, that the patience of his observation does not prove that his judg- 
ment is accurate. They think that in Darwin we have an acute observer, 
but an illogical thinker. 
The Honorary Secretary (Captain F. Petrie) then read the following com- 
munication from S. R. Pattison, Esq., Member of Council of the Geological 
Society : — 
Qth February ^ 1882. 
I quite agree with Mr. Callard’s condemnation of Mr. Darwin’s hypothesis 
of evolution, but not on the grounds indicated in the paper. There was no 
break in mammalian life at the Glacial epoch. The Horse, Hippopotamus, 
Boar, Red deer, Rein-deer, Elk, Roebuck, Ox, Bison, Musk Ox, Bear, Lion , 
Mammoth, Hyena, and a host of small animals existing before it, survived 
until after, and most of them until the present day, in identical species. 
Nor can it be shown that the glacial work was strictly contemporaneous over 
the whole earth, so that there may not have been a total extinction of 
species by cold, and the above biological facts show that there was not. 
With par. 58 I entirely agree, and submit that it is quite sufficient to 
