Skeleton lately found at the Tilbury Docks , Essex. 141 
little importance wliat name is given to an ancient geological 
formation lying between two fairly definite horizons, great 
care is necessary in dealing with the most modern, with 
regard to which the evidence of relative antiquity is often 
extremely scanty and doubtful. However, I do not object to 
Pleistocene, here, on account of a preference for its equivalents, 
“ Newer-Pliocene” or “Post-Pliocene,” but because the 
Tilbury Dock Alluvium can only properly be classed as 
“Recent.” For, if the term Recent is ever applicable, it 
must be to a series of strata the deposition of which began 
when our Physical Geography was almost precisely what it 
now is; and would be going on still, but for the embankment 
which confines the river and prevents its overflow. The 
writers of the newspaper paragraphs are also too much 
inclined to dwell on the depth at which the skeleton was 
found as a proof that it is rightly described as Palaeolithic. 
Of course the mere fact that it was discovered deep down in 
alluvium that has received no addition to its thickness since 
the Roman occupation proves the prehistoric age of the 
skeleton. But human remains found at a depth of two or 
three feet in an old alluvial deposit formed when the river 
flowed at a height of twenty or thirty feet above its present 
level (which would be styled Paleolithic by universal consent) 
would have a claim to very much higher antiquity. They 
would be also divided Rom remains found in recent alluvium 
by a distinct interval of time, marked by a change in Physical 
Geography. And I may here remind you that flint imple¬ 
ments were discovered by M. Boucher De Perthes in old river- 
gravel Rom 80 to 100 ft. above the present level of the River 
Somme; and that they have also been found in old Thames 
Valley deposits, 50 ft. above the present level of that stream. 
Many examples might also be given of human remains found 
in caves below a covering of stalagmite, and associated with 
the bones of extinct Mammalia, which, again, would rightly 
be styled Palaeolithic. It is necessary, however, to bear in 
mind that the test of age in the latter case is by no means so 
conclusive as that afforded by presence in strata of a certain 
definite antiquity. For association with extinct Mammalia 
