JO FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY-NINTH ANNUAL REPORT. 
by Rollin T. Chamberlin, Journal of Geology, vol. 25, pp. 25-39, January-Feb- 
ruary, 1917. 
On Reported Pleistocene Human Remains at Vero, Florida, by Thomas 
Wayland Vaughan, Journal of Geology, vol. 25, pp. 40-42, January-February, 1917. 
Preliminary Report on Finds of Supposedly Ancient Human Remains at 
Vero, Florida, by Alex Hrdlicka, Journal of Geology, vol. 25, pp. 43-51, January- 
February, 1917. 
The Quaternary Deposits at Vero, Florida, and the Vertebrate Remains 
Contained Therein, by Oliver P. Hay, Journal of Geology, vol. 25, pp. 52-55, 
January-February, 1917. 
Archaeological Evidences of Man’s Antiquity at Vero, Florida, by George 
Grant MacCurdy, Journal of Geology, vol. 25, pp. 56-62, January-February, 1917. 
Further Notes on Human Remains from Vero, Florida, by E. H. Sellards, 
Amer. Anthropologist, n. s. pp. 239-251, vol. 19, No. 2, April-June, 1917. 
The Problems of Man’s Antiquity at Vero, Fla., by GecTrge Grant Mac- 
Curdy, Amer. Anthropologist, n. s. pp. 252-261, vol. 19, No. 2, April-June, 1917. 
On the Finding of Supposed Pleistocene Human Remains at Vero, Florida, 
by Oliver P. Hay, Journal Washington Academy of Sciences, Vol. 7, pp. 258-260, 
June 4, 1917. 
To the conclusion that the human remains and artifacts at Vero 
are of Pleistocene age, some objections have been offered. On the 
other hand, the detailed studies that have been made both of the 
vertebrate and plant fossils, and also of the section, have very 
materially strengthened that conclusion. The objections as well as 
the new evidence will be reviewed in this paper. 
GV^ctions to this conclusion have been offered by Drs. Hrdlicka, 
MacCurdy and Chamberlin. Dr. Hrdlicka, alone of those who 
have seen the deposits, offers the interpretation that the human 
remains represent merely recent, or relatively recent, inclusions in 
the deposit by human burials. Dr. MacCurdy, on the other hand, 
regards the human remains and artifacts as normal inclusions 
within this deposit, but is not convinced that the deposits are of the 
Pleistocene period. Dr. Chamberlin based his objection to the 
Pleistocene age of the deposits on the assumption that the extinct 
vertebrates had washed into these beds from an older formation 
nearby and hence were secondary. 
These several objections, it may be noted, are not related the 
one to the other. If the human bones and artifacts represent recent 
burials by human agency as claimed by Hrdlicka, there is no oc¬ 
casion to maintain either that the Pleistocene fossils have washed 
into recent beds as suggested by Chamberlin, or that the deposits 
themselves are of relatively recent age as maintained by MacCurdy. 
