344 The Amcj'ica/i Geologist. June, 1898 
and if proved would in no way interfere with Prof. Geikie's 
theory."^ The immense length of palseolithic time and the 
monotonous sameness of palaeolithic weapons are in perfect 
accord with what we must believe was an immensely slow 
progress from the anthropoid to the man. At the same time 
we must bear in mind that much of this monotony is very 
likely due to our lack of minute acquaintance with the re- 
mains of different periods of palaeolithic time. 
What has been said above regarding England is true for 
a large but undefined area in northwestern Europe. But out- 
side of the glaciated region the wide gap existing in England 
between the eras of palaeolithic and neolithic man is not ob- 
vious. The probability is that the future will reveal stages 
of palaeolithic culture more advanced than those indicated 
by the surface discoveries in Britain. The French cavern de- 
posits and others may also be quoted in this connection. 
Again earlier stages of neolithic culture will very likely come 
to light from places yet unsearched and in this way the chasm 
existing in the British history of man will probably be filled. 
But that this link will be found in Britain or in any country 
that was devastated by the ice at its widest extension is un- 
likely. The whole fauna of which palaeolithic man was a sin- 
gle member disappeared from causes still largely unknown and 
a new one took its place with which came, as its most ad- 
vanced member, neolithic man.f 
*The plateau implements to which attention was called a few years 
ago by Sir Joseph Prestwich in some of his last papers are apparently 
the oldest 'human remains yet known in England, and in spite of all the 
objections urged against their authenticity they may yet prove of 
preglacial age. The immense erosion of the Wealden district which has 
occurred since they were made and buried is alone suflicient proof of 
the immense antiquity of these "eoliths" as they have been well termed. 
TNote. — Since this paper was written the objections against the 
very ancient plateau implements of Kent have been formulated by Mr. 
Cunnington in "Natural Science" and fully answered by Mr. Kennard 
(Nov., 1897, and Jan.. 1898). On which side lies the greater weight 
each reader must decide for himself, but some of the objections strongly 
remind one of those which Sir John Evans has so justly criticized in 
the passage quoted above. 
