}\dit<n'iiil ( 'oin iiirtil . Ill 
distinction. Still more regivttubk' is it when a controversy on a 
scientific subject betrays the wish to lower one earnest w^orker in 
public esteem in order to extol another. There is in the field 
ample room for all and no monopoly or •corxiering' of any i)art 
of it can be for a moment recounized. 
These remarks are called forth by the tone of the discussion al- 
luded to above, tit least as conducted by some disputants of the 
one party. It may be that the inevitable inferences which the 
ordinary reader can scarcely fail to draw from the expressions of 
Prof. AVrights assailants are unintended and unjustified. In that 
case we can only regret that the writers were not more guarded 
and more temperate in their language for they have exposed them- 
selves to the severe counter-criticism that their ol)jeetions have 
rather the authoritative tone of the ecclesiastical controversialist 
than that of the scientific investigator. 
The chapter of Prof. Wrights ])ook which has called forth 
the severest remarks is that on "The Relics of Man in tin- (Jlacial 
Era.'" In this Prof. W. briefly mentions the leading instances 
that have l)een adduced of the discovery of human works and re- 
mains under strata considered of glacial date or in (Others ascribed 
to pre-glacial tinu'. 
Omitting the instances quoted from Europe to which no objec- 
tion has been raised those from America are as follows: The well 
known '-finds' of Dr. Abbott at Trenton. X. .).. those of Dr. 
Metz at Madisonville, (). , that of Mr. Cresson. in. Jackson county, 
Ind., and of Mr. Mills at Newcomerstown. ().. those of Prof. 
Winchell and Miss Balibitt of Minnesota, the second find of Mr. 
Cresson at Claymout, Del., the various discoveries on the Pacific 
coast made know)i by Prof. Whitney and Mr. Becker, and histly 
the now familiar "Nampa Image" from Idaho. 
In setting forth these examples Prof. W. of course' relies on 
the evidence presented b}^ their ditl'erent authors. No other 
course was open to him. They are (piotecl with the caution due 
to their rarity and significance though tlu- tannulative value of the 
evidence is commented on. The wholesale rejection of this evi- 
dence by some of Prof. W.s critics means the condemnation of 
witnesses such as Whitney, Abbott. Metz, Cresson. Winehell 
(N. H.), Upham. Shaler. etc. This should not l)e lightly done. 
The testimony even of careful ordinary observers to facts may 
need confirmation l)Ut must not Ite contemptuously wnived aside. 
