rative toughness of the quartzite, or to the Indian implements having been made by a less cultivated, and therefore, very possibly, a more ancient people.

Mr. Foote appears to be unacquainted with Dr. Falconer's speculation (even in the form in which it was published in 1844), as he makes no allusion to it, and mentions no facts having a direct bearing on the probable relation of the implement-bearing deposits to the Miocene period. To his mind the case is simply as follows:Stone implements, comparable with the flint implements of Europe, occur near Madras in deposits probably identical with those which in neighbouring districts underlie the modern alluvium. Therefore the Indian deposits are contemporary with the European, and are of Quaternary age, if not more recent.

In Mr. Foote's opinion, these deposits, which are composed of Lateritic conglomerates and sands, "were deposited at the bottom of a shallow sea studded with mountainous islands, between which flowed strong and rapid currents." These islands are supposed to have been either "inhabited or visited by the people who made the quartzite implements which are at present the only record of their existence." The greatest height at which quartzite implements have been found is 370 feet, so that a considerable period of time must have elapsed since the formation of the deposit in which they occur; and presuming that the alluvial deposits overlying them are to some extent synchronous with the oldest alluvium of the valley of the Ganges, we get a more or less probable measure of their antiquity. But the lapse of time thus indicated by no means carries us back to the Miocene period, as the essentially superficial Lateritic deposits can hardly be correlated with the highly inclined Sewalik

strata.

It therefore appears that from the positive facts now in our possession we are not justified in assigning a period so remote as the Miocene for the advent of man in India. We must therefore return to those "considerations of a different order" to which we have before alluded.

Dr. Falconer writes, "It is not under the hard conditions of the Glacial period in Europe that the earliest relics of the human race upon the globe are to be sought. . It is rather in the

great alluvial valleys of tropical or sub-tropical rivers, like the Ganges, the Irrawaddi, and the Nile, where we may expect to detect the vestiges of his earliest abode. It is there where the necessaries of life are produced by nature in the greatest variety and profusion, and obtained with the smallest effort; there where climate exacts the least protection against the vicissitudes of the weather; and there where the lower animals which approach man nearest now exist, and where their fossil remains turn up in the greatest variety and abundance."

Everyone must admit the justice of the remark that the earliest traces of man are more likely to be found in a genial than in a rigorous climate; but as regards the valley of the Ganges, according to Mr. Fergusson, but an insignificant portion of it was habitable at so recent a date as B.C. 3000. The last sentence refers to a different consideration altogether, and it will doubtless be asked by some, What bearing has it on the question? Why should we expect that man appeared first in those regions where the animals which approach him nearest now exist, and where their fossil remains turn up in the greatest variety and abundance? We are a little uncertain whether we have here a statement of extreme development opinions, clouded by the effort not "to shock the strong prejudices on the subject," which are now educated men," dominant among or whether there be not some "reciprocal" view which we cannot perceive.

The probable origin of man could hardly fail to become a subject of speculation to those engaged in determining his antiquity; accordingly we find that several naturalists have ventured to tread on this very delicate ground. In his 'Prehistoric Times,' Mr. Lubbock has touched upon this subject, and it may be useful to cull from his pages two or three quotations containing expressions of the opinion of certain savants of eminence. Professor Huxley, for instance, has remarked that "the first traces of the primordial stock whence man has proceeded need no longer be sought, by those who entertain any form of the doctrine of progressive development, in the newest Tertiaries; but that they may be looked for in an epoch more distant from the age of the Elephas primigenius than that is from us." Sir Charles Lyell "thinks that we may expect to find remains of man in Pliocene strata, but there he draws the line." Mr. Lubbock combats this opinion, but does not advance any strong argument against it, though he eclipses everyone else in the candour with which he states his opinion. Thus, "it is true that few of our existing species or even genera have as yet been found in Miocene strata; but if man constitutes a separate family of mammalia, as he does in the opinion of the highest authorities, then, according to all palæontological analogies, he must have had representatives in Miocene times. We need not, however, expect to find the proofs in Europe; our nearest relatives in the animal kingdom are confined to hot, almost to tropical climates, and it is in such countries that we must look for the earliest traces of the human race.

Admitting Mr. Lubbock's premisses, man may, not must, have had "representatives" in Miocene times. Then "according to all palæontological analogies," the duration in time of a group of animals (whether family, genus, or order) varies inversely with its organization, so the family represented by man must have had a geologically

short duration compared with that of other families of mammalia. The opinion contained in the last sentence quoted is identical with that expressed by Dr. Falconer, but it reveals more clealy the idea on which it is founded. At present man stands alone and quite isolated in the animal kingdom, and the certain records of his existence are as yet confined to Post-pliocene, probably to Postglacial, deposits. We ought, nevertheless, to be prepared to receive facts which will extend his range in time, and lessen the gap between him and his "nearest relatives." Let us mention as two shadows, such as coming events cast before them, first, the discovery of markings on the bones of Elephas meridionalis, an animal of Pliocene age, supposed by M. Desnoyers and other naturalists to be of human production; and secondly, the discovery of a remarkable tooth, associated with remains of Diprotodon, &c., by Mr. Gerard Krefft, in an Australian cavern, which that gentleman describes as follows:-"In shape it resembles the first of the premolar series of the lower jaw in man: the root, however, is much longer, the crown smaller, protruding, and considerably worn; the root is not smooth as in man, but somewhat ridged, with a few tubercles on the upper part." Mr. Krefft may well say, "I have no conjecture to offer as to which genus this tooth is referable."

EXPLANATION OF THE PLATE.

FIG. 1. Quartzite Implement from the Atrumpakkam nullah, one-half the natural size. (After Foote.)

2. Flint Implement from Icklingham, one-third the natural size.

3. Quartzite Implement from the Atrumpakkam nullah, one-half the natural

size. (After Foote.)

4. Flint Implement from Milancourt, one-third the natural size.

5. Quartzite Implement from the Atrumpakkam nullah, unusually well made, one-half the natural size. (After Foote.)

6. Flint Implement from Abbeville, one-half the natural size.

7. Quartzite Siing Stone, from the Atrumpakkam nullah, one-half the natural size. (After Foote.)

3. Flint Sling Stone, from an Abbeville Tourbière, one-half the natural size.

* 'Geological Magazine,' December, 1865.