199 
osbilerous caverns If so, we know that evidence from this source is very 
uncertain. Professor Dawkins says, with regard to these caverns, that it is 
impossible to tell with certainty their precise relation to the Glacial period. 
If it is impossible to tell this, we must be left in doubt about glacial survivals. 
And I do say that those who hold to the hypothesis of evolution would require 
to bring evidence of more than a few forms living through the Glacial period to 
account for a new fauna. Every species now living should have had living 
representatives in the pre-glacial period, seeing that there was not time 
during the Glacial epoch — for which 160,000 years is claimed— for evolution, 
according to the views I am dealing with, to produce the multifarious 
changes required by the hypothesis. If these changes have not been pro- 
duced during the post-glacial times, and if they could not have been 
produced during the Glacial period, then all the animals we see around 
us — the dog, the horse, and all the other multitudinous forms of animal life — 
must have had representatives in the pre-glacial period. If, therefore, 
I should have two or three forms pointed out in which my deficiency in 
palaeontological knowledge causes me uncertainty about their stratigraphical 
position, Mr. Charlesworth will, perhaps, be able to remove the difficulty, as 
he did in the case of the pliocene badger. But to come to the question 
of negative evidence : I say that there is no evidence of there having been 
mammals (land mammals) in the cretaceous period. Mr. Charlesworth says 
that this is but negative evidence — mammals may yet be found ; and, in draw- 
ing a parallel with his own experience in the Suffolk crag, those present who 
are not geologists might understand Mr. Charlesworth to mean that Suffolk 
crag is cretaceous. If, in the Geological Society, I were to venture, in Mr. 
Charlesworth’s presence, to say that there had been mammalian life in the 
Laurentian rocks, I think he would stare at me. But why should I not 
say so ? He would say, “We have never found any.” I reply, “No, but 
perhaps we may in the future.” Would not Mr. Charlesworth say, “You 
* In the lower deposit, at the entrance to Victoria Cave, Settle, there was 
found the remains of a fauna beneath glacial clay. It was the same deposit 
in which the supposed fibula of man was discovered, and which led to the 
supposition that pre-glacial man lived in Yorkshire. The argument that 
claimed man as pre-glacial would equally apply to all the fauna in that 
deposit. Amongst this fauna were eight out of the fourteen forms said by 
Mr. Pattison to be pre-glacial, and two out of the four forms so claimed by 
Mr. Mello. As the evidence at first stood, all the forms in that deposit 
would be correctly claimed as pre-glacial. In 1876 I visited the cavern, 
and (for the reasons assigned in a paper read before the Victoria Institute), 
I satisfied myself that the glacial clay covering the animal remains was 
remanie , — a re-deposit at a later date. Both Professor Dawkins and 
Professor McKenny Hughes expressed the same conviction at the conference 
held in 1877 to consider the present state of the question of the Antiquity 
of Man. Great care is needed in receiving evidence from pleistocene fauna 
respecting their pre- or post-glacial position. Dr. David Page, in his Text 
Booh of Geology, points out the difficulty of fixing with certainty the limit 
of the pleistocene system. — T. K. 
