SCIENTISTS DISAGREE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1622, 13 December 1912, Page 2

SCIENTISTS DISAGREE.

NEANDERTHAL MAN IN ENGLAND. When it is a question'of.old bonesy Dr. Arthur Keith, of. the Eoyal Collego of Surgeons,,is rather, a.tcsty disputant (says, the..New.',York "Post"). We called at telitaoh not long ago; to the .sharp manner in which he had fallen upon Professor MTienuyv'-IHughes.' of Cambridge, for hoarding so closely in his own museum the oldest tooth in England. At tho recent meeting of the Britisn, Association tho Dootor was very "short" with Boyd Dawkins and Dr. Duckworth regarding a human jaw fragment from ICents Cavern which they described as of Paleolithic age." That is, as part of a Neanderthal man, the first relic of the 6ort ever discovered in England. Dr. Keith called "the whole thing ridiculous, and not oven scientific."

Apropos of this criticism, Mr. A.'K; Hunt has written a letter describing the late Mr. W. Pengelly's finding- of tho bone, and his exact description,or its location, which seems to make its extreme ago highly probable. Pongelly made a long and careful study of Kent Cavern, which resulted in no fewer than sixteen separate reports on his finds. In his cavern diary, under date of' January 3, 18C7, Mr; Hunt notes the following entry: —"No; 1930; In granular stalagmite, 7th "parallel, including part of a human jaw,' a flint flake, a well-rolled flint pebble, from which a chrip had been broken.' In hifl third report to the British Association, Pengelly records the further fact that the jaw was found about thirty feet from tie northern entrance of the cavern and deeply imbedded in granular stalagmite twenty inches thick. This granular stalagmite, ■; says' Hunt, appears to have been of Paleolithic ago throughout. . Well,.,writes Dr. Keith in answer to this gentle but apparently effective justification of Dr.' Duckworth, I would bo as glad as anybody to hear of the discovery of Neanderthal man in-England, and hope Pengelly was-the lucky man; but I wantthe proofs—or words to that effect. His use of-the words "ridiculous" and "unscientific" applied, he adds,' "merely to the fact that the meeting was asked to accept the discovery on a specimen whfich was absent and of uncertain origin." This isn't exactly what is known in the upper walks of culture as' "a crawl," but certainly bears some resemblanc9 to that method of controversial retreat.