A CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDY OF AUSTRAI.ITES. 
27 
writing to Professor Kerr Grant, criticising his paper, and in 
that communication each of his arguments was taken seriatim, 
and showed how, in my opinion, the conclusion to be deduced 
from his premises was exactly the opposite of that which he 
drew in support of his contention. I must apologise to Professor 
Kerr Grant for the liberty 1 took and am taking, but the episode 
was a most useful one to me, as it provided me with a series of 
arguments from which to start different lines of thought and 
investigation on which to build up my thesis. It put into my 
hands an able exposition of the foundations of the meteorite 
hypothesis, requiring demolition by the exponents of the bubble 
theory. 1 will now take the further liberty of using this paper 
of Professor Kerr Grant’s, which I presume was sent to me for 
my instruction and my criticism, and elaborating from it my 
advanced arguments in support of the working hypothesis which 
I consider has all the evidence in its favour and has never been 
satisfactorily combatted. I trust that Professor Kerr Grant will 
not take anything I may say in my criticism of his arguments as 
in any way a personal matter. I only take his brochure as it 
is the fullest and most comprehensive statement in favour of 
the meteorite theory, by an authoritative expert, that 1 have 
read, and I have therefore used it as by showing the. fallacy of 
his arguments 1 can most conveniently establish my own. 1 
hope no one will think that 1 mean the slightest discourtesy to 
Professor Kerr Grant ; 1 simply state my reasons for my own 
personal beliefs, giving at the same time the meteorite arguments, 
I hope fairly and, as far as possible, in Professor Kerr Grant’s 
own words. I then leave it to you and to others who may do 
me the honour of reading this paper to arrive at the truth. 
As an argument against the possibility of the bubble theory. 
Professor Kerr Grant says : — 
" It is evident without exact investigation that one part of the interior 
(of a bubble) cannot be convex while another is concave. But as both the 
upper and lower surfaces of the obsidianites are invariably convex it is obvious 
that the attachment of the ' bleb ’ to the bubble in the way imagined bv 
Mr. Dunn is a physical impossibility." 
As I have already said, 1 had then recently been able to 
get some glass bubbles blown with blebs on them ; some were 
blown so thin that they burst, but in every case the bleb was 
convex on the inside of the bubble as w r ell as outside. (Plate 
XIX, Fig. 3). It may not unreasonably be suggested that the 
glass blebs had cooled and become too rigid to take the perfect 
shape of a normal bubble before the completion of its blowing. 
1 therefore am hoping, when 1 am able to blow my new bubbles, 
that they will be in further support of this experiment. I also 
propose to endeavour to produce dumb-bells and others of those 
curious shapes that are so difficult to account for. 
