LYELL OK TIIE ANTIQUITY OF MAN. 
219 
form of the doctrine of transmutation would force us to the same 
conclusion. But the eloquent words in which Tyndall* refers to 
Mayer, may, in our opinion, be equally applied to our illustrious 
countryman. “ He deals with true causes: and the only question 
“ that can affect his theory refers to the quantity of action 
“ which he has ascribed to these causes. I do not pledge myself to 
“ this theory, nor do I ask you to accept it as demonstrated : still, it 
“ would be a great mistake to regard it as chimerical. It is a noble 
“ speculation ; and, depend upon it, the true theory, if this or some 
“ form of it be not the true one, will not appear less wild or less 
“ astounding.” 
Though the opinions of Sir Charles Lyell concerning the Antiquity of Man 
may not be generally adopted, we might at least expect them to be known by all 
those who undertake to write upon the present state of Science. It is surprising, 
therefore, that Dr. Gumming, (“ Moses Right and Bishop Colenso Wrong,” Part 7, 
page 138), should, so lately as last month, have cited Sir Charles Lyell as 
an authority for the recent appearance of Man upon the earth. The Doctor is, 
however, not very particular in his use of authorities. Thus (p. 33) he quotes 
Buckland’s “ Reliquiae Diluvianaa” as Geological evidence in favour of a universal 
deluge ; and, in p. 50, he parodies Scripture as follows :—“ If Bishop Colenso had 
“ believed Buckland, and Professor Sedgwick, and Professor Hitchcock, he would 
“ have believed in Moses ; but as he does not believe in their evidence, how can he 
“believe in what Moses records?” Buckland, however, long ago abandoned 
the views advocated in the above-mentioned work, Sedgwick will be surprised to 
find himself quoted as believing that there are any geological evidences of a uni¬ 
versal deluge, and not only does Professor Hitchcock agree with Bishop Colenso as 
to the non-universality of the deluge, but Dr. Gumming knew this at the tune he 
wrote ; for, in the very next page, he says “ Professor Hitchcock, from whom 
“ I have largely quoted,—a thoroughly Christian man,—also believes that the 
“ flood was not universal.” 
As ignorant apparently of Latin as of Geology, Dr. Cumming regards the 
grooves and furrows, or, as he calls them, “ the scoria,” —the italics are not ours 
—“upon the stones at Brora, for instance, in Sutherlandshire, and in other parts 
“ of the kingdom ” (p. 48), as evidences of the Mosaic Deluge I 
XYII. — Contributions to an Insect Fauna oe the Amazon 
Valley. By Henry Walter Bates, Esq. Transact. Linnean 
Soc. Vol. XXIII. 1862, p. 495. 
The author reveals some curious facts in this memoir, which from 
its unpretending and somewhat indefinite title we fear may be over¬ 
looked in the ever-flowing rush of scientific literature. The main 
subject discussed is the extraordinary mimetic resemblance which 
certain butterflies present to other butterflies belonging to distinct 
groups. To appreciate the degree of dissimulation practised by these 
insects, it is necessary to study the beautiful plates with which the 
memoir is adorned. In a district where, for instance, an Ithomia 
abounds in gaudy swarms, another butterfly, namely a Leptalis, will 
often be found mingled in the same flock, so like the Ithomia in every 
* Heat considered as a mode of motion, p. 426. 
