^{page 546 note 2} Prestwich, J., Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., vol. xlv, p. 270, 1889; vol. xlvii, p. 126, 1891; Journ. Anthrop.Inst., vol. xxi, p. 246, 1892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 546 note 3} Warren, S. H., Man, 1905, 103; 1906, 3; Journ. Anthrop. Inst., vol. xxxv, p. 337, 1905.Google Scholar

^{page 546 note 4} Bennett, F. J., Geol. Mag. 1913, p. 47.Google Scholar

^{page 546 note 5} In the same number of the Geological Magazine (1913, p. 46) a letter also appeared from Mr. J. Reid Moir in which he raised certain personalities. These were the outcome of an unfortunate misunderstanding, and I have Mr. Moir's authority for stating that he has withdrawn them. I am particularly glad of this, as one is naturally desirous of discussing a theoretical question upon its own intrinsic merits, and in a spirit that is personally friendly towards those from whom one differs.

^{page 547 note 1} Moir, J. Reid, Abstracts Proc. Geol. Soc., November 28, 1913, p. 16; and elsewhere.Google Scholar

^{page 547 note 2} In this I am taking the theory of my opponents as it stands. It may be correct, but personally I am of opinion that the striations in question are due essentially to solifluction, possibly, but not necessarily, assisted by the additional weight of snow or ice. From the point of view of the flint chipping the matter is not important, as either the soil or the ice would furnish the necessary pressure.

^{page 548 note 1} Warren, S. H., Journ. Anthrop. Inst., vol. xxxv, p. 349, 1905.Google Scholar

^{page 548 note 2} Since this was written the paper has been read at a joint meeting of the Royal Anthropological Institute and the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia on February 17, 1914, but it is not yet published.

^{Page 548 note 3} See also Abstracts Proc. Geol. Soc., November 28, 1913.

^{page 549 note 1} [It may not be without interest to record that the late Dr. Richardson (F.R.S. Tas.) informed me (many years ago) that on the old beaches along the coasts of Tasmania he had found very ancient native ‘middens’ marked by heaps of bivalve shells which had been opened with sharp-edged stones; in other spots the middens consisted of broken univalves (Tritons, etc.) whose whorls had been crushed with round stones. In each case the appropriate implement was found at that locality with the shells of the particular molluscs upon which the natives had subsisted.—Ed. Geol. Mag.] This is a very interesting point. Taking Dr. Richardson's conclusion with regard to the ‘sharp-edged stones’ as correct, they come within the group of cutting instruments. The round stones belong to the primitive pebble-hammers. The eoliths cannot claim to belong to either group.—S. H. W.

^{page 549 note 2} McGee, W. J., “On the Seri Indians”: Bull. Bureau Amer. Ethnol., 17, pt. i, 1896.Google Scholar

^{page 549 note 3} See also G. & A. de Mortillet, Le Prėhistorique Origine et Antiquitė de l'homme, 3rd ed., p. 143, 1900. The argument here is that the Chellėen instrument is essentially primitive.

^{page 550 note 1} Schwartz, A. & Bevor, H. R., Mem. and Proc. Manchester Lit. and Phil. Soc., vol. liii, p. 29 of reprint, 1909.Google Scholar

^{page 550 note 2} Moir, J. Reid, Abstracts Proc. Geol. Soc., November 28, 1913, p. 16; and elsewhere.Google Scholar

^{page 551 note 1} Grist, C. J., Journ. Anthrop. Inst., vol. xl, p. 198, 1910.Google Scholar

^{page 551 note 2} This is particularly evident in the Reading Beds at Harefield, where I first found these forms on a recent visit of the Geologists' Association.

^{page 552 note 1} The question of the selection of, say, 2 per cent (as has been suggested) of the eoliths as being more probably human implements than the remainder is a very difficult one. There is much to be said in its favour, but, on the other hand, the members of the eolithic groups have so much essentially in common that to my mind it seems more logical to consider that they must stand or fall together.

^{page 552 note 2} Haward, F. N., Proc. Prehist. Soc. East Anglia, vol. i, p. 185, 1912; vol. i, p. 347, 1913;CrossRefGoogle ScholarSutcliffe, W. H., Mem. and Proc. Manchester Lit. and Phil. Soc., vol. lvii, No. 7, 1913;Google ScholarBoule, M., L'Anthropologie, vol. xvi, p. 266, 1905;Google Scholar W. G. Smith, Man, 1907, 99; 1908, 53; Breuil, H., L'Anthropologie, vol. xxi, p. 385, 1910;Google ScholarSarasin, P., Verhand. Naturfor. Ges. Basel, vol. xxii, p. 1, 1911. Further references may be found in these papers.Google Scholar