90 
Mr. Redd ie. — But although Professor Huxley has said that, it should be 
remembered that he does not believe in the successive creation theory him- 
self, for he is an avowed Darwinian. (Hear.) Without at all intending to 
controvert what has been so well said, as to the absolute impossibility of 
predicting any uniform rate of deposit of mud, from the irregularity of such 
deposits, as is shown by experience from the system of warping which has 
been described by Mr. Baxter and Mr. Waddy ; and not entering on the 
proposition of Mr. Warington, that you should bottle off the water of the 
Nile with the mud in solution in order to ascertain how much might annually 
be deposited ; I will venture to take Professor Huxley on his own argument, 
that the same quantity of mud is brought down every year by the Nile, and 
that therefore the same depth of mud is deposited year by year ; and I say 
that conclusion is totally wrong. I might argue that this is an utter impos- 
sibility, if we consider merely the varying depth of the water, as has been 
pointed out by Mr. Waddy ; but even if we assume that the whole waters of 
the Nile from the first year in which they commenced their flow, down to the 
present time, have been the same, and have yearly brought down the same 
quantity of mud, still the depth of the mud-deposit could not possibly be the 
same now as it formerly was. The fact is, that the basin of the Nile is 
narrower at the bottom than at the top, so that even if you have the same 
quantity of mud flowing down now that used to flow in former times, the 
deposit at the bottom of the basin before its width had been increased could 
not possibly be merely the same as it is now, when the area of the basin 
which has to be covered by the mud is so very much greater than formerly. 
The oldest deposits in the narrower basin must necessarily have been deepest. 
But it is also clear, from what has been said by Mr. Waddy and Mr. Baxter, 
that the quantity of mud in one part of the stream will be smaller or greater 
than it is in another part, according to the variations of the force of the 
currents at different times and places, so that even if Mr. Warington could 
bottle off the whole of the Nile (laughter), I do not know how he could ascer- 
tain the annual rate of deposit in the way he anticipates. With reference to 
Mr. Mitchell’s valuable paper, there is one point to which I would beg leave 
to take exception, relative to the Denderah planisphere, although I doubt 
whether any argument of value as regards the present discussion can be 
founded upon the authenticity of that planisphere. Latrone came to the 
conclusion that the Denderah zodiac was no older than Nero’s reign ; but the 
proof that the Egyptians had a knowledge of astronomy and knew the signs 
of the zodiac does not depend upon the authenticity of the Denderah plani- 
sphere, because other zodiacs can be appealed to, which are undoubtedly of 
very ancient date. And there is great reason to doubt whether Latrone’s 
conclusion is sound. In the British Museum you will find the signs of the 
zodiac on ancient stone coffins from Egypt, and also on landmark-stones 
from Assyria. And these zodiacal signs are not only to be found on Egyptian, 
but also to some extent upon Central American sculptures. There is, at any 
rate, a sufficient resemblance in the Mexican figures to show that they cannot 
be accounted for except by a common tradition and by intercourse between 
