Hi? 27ie Atiiencan Geologi)it. K.i.iiiiuy. iH9:i 
Dorogutory remarks as to i;oiupeteiicy are ([iiite oul of phute in 
connection with such namt>s as those above (j noted. 
We do not propose here and now to enter on a discussion of 
illacial man. It would exceed our due limits in an article of this 
kind. We will at present content ourselves with a protest against 
the tone adopted by some of the critics and the air of assumption 
and of superiority that pervades their lemarks. Both are emi- 
nently unbecoming to scientific literature and derogatory of the 
dignity of science. We may add that they are in striking con- 
trast to the modesty and caution of the replies. 
To pick out what is admittedly anil necessarily the weakest 
part of a book for destructive criticism, omitting all its excellencies, 
is hardly the work of a reviewer while the insinuation of disin- 
genuousness is equally unworthy of a critic. The scope and tone 
of some of the articles must, whether justly or unjustly we can- 
not say, awaken in the minds of many readers the suspicion 
of an ulterior or i)i'rsoaal motive. This is deeply to be re- 
gretted. 
AVe will add hut :i few words. (i ranting that all these ([Uoted 
cases fail, as of course they d(i, to prore the presence of man in 
America during the Ice- Age thev must l)e admitted by impartial 
judges to tend in that direction; for it is impossible to admit that 
they are all and altogether fallacious. Only by the accumulation 
of such proof can we expect to establish the position. Al)So- 
lutely conclusive single instances are not probable. Why then 
should so great anxiety be manifested to l)reak down the testi- 
mony in their favor? No reasonable doubt can now be enter- 
tained that man was coeval with the ice in some part of the world 
and no evolutionist can well afford to date his first appearance 
later than the Ice-Age. It is somewhat difficult therefore to dis- 
cover the motive that has led to so violent an atttu'k on a work 
which after all merely summarizes with caution the evidence as it 
stands and draws a (puUified conclusion from it. Strange indeed 
is it to see the theologian in tht^ van of the evolutionary 
armv with the geologist and the archaeologist lingering in the 
rear. 
In the March number of the (Jeolooist we shall gather to- 
gether the opinions of a number of American geologists so as to 
present a sort of symposium on this sMl)jeft. 
