sidered, therefore, that it was unsafe to generalize from any one series of remains, as, unless the whole fauna was taken into consideration, it was probable that erroneous conclusions would be arrived at.
Mr. Flower considered that both on geological and palæontological grounds the ossiferous caves and the river-deposits were separable, and ought to be separated, and that no satisfactory results would be obtained by placing in the same category the Mammalian remains of a hundred and fifty rivers and a great number of caves of widely different ages and characters.
Mr. Evans observed that in generalizations of this kind not only the whole of the palæontological evidence should be taken into account, but the stratigraphical also. With regard to the author's middle division of the mammalia, he thought that eventually this would have to be modified. If it were to be maintained there would be a great difficulty in accounting for the presence of the high beds at Shacklewell and Highbury, as these, though in a valley confessedly excavated by the river, and regarded as of more recent age than the lower beds, would yet be at a far higher level. Though accepting the probable existence of man in preglacial times, he pointed out that up to the present time the beds in Britain in which his works had been found were all postglacial.
Mr. Boyd Dawkins, in reply, stated that, in forming his conclusions, he had not left out of view the evidence afforded by the classes of remains other than those of mammalia; but they threw no light on the classification. With regard to the middle of his divisions of the Pleistocene mammalia, he relied to a great extent on the presence of Rhinoceros megarhinus, and of a large number of Stags, to say nothing of the absence of the Reindeer. He did not attach so much importance to the question of the level, as in some cases (for example the Forest-bed of Norfolk) it was not a test of age. He gave his reasons for not regarding the Mammoth as an exclusively arctic animal. His remarks with regard to M. Lartet's classification referred rather to the expanded views of his followers than to those of M. Lartet himself. He acknowledged his obligations to MM. Gaudry, Fraas, Rütimeyer, and Nilsson for various facts which they had been kind enough to communicate to him.
June 19, 1872.
Richard Anderson, Esq., F.C.S., Uddingstone, near Glasgow; Lieut. Henry Allen Gun, R.E., South Kensington; Sir Victor Brooke, Bart., Colebrooke, Lisnaskea, Fermanagh, Ireland; Edmund James Smith, Esq., 16 Whitehall Place, S.W., and Peter Pickup, Esq., Townley, Burnley, Lancashire, were elected Fellows of the Society.
The following communications were read:—
