Page:The Journal of geology (IA journalofgeology11893univ).pdf/175

Mills' moral character, his education or business reputation, diminish the danger of error. The specimen may not have been found in place notwithstanding all possible verification, and it may be a reject notwithstanding its resemblance to foreign types, and Professor Wright may be wrong in urging his conclusions upon the public, notwithstanding his painstaking efforts to secure all possible affirmative testimony.

It is nowhere stated that Mr. Mills actually picked the specimen out of the gravels; it was probably loose when he discovered

Figs. 1 and 2.Sections of wall of gravel-pit showing redistribution of surface objects by sliding masses. The dark figures represent objects of art.

it, but even if he could say that it was fixed in the gravel mass, the necessity of questioning the find would still exist. All the authentication Professor Wright can possibly secure will not enable him to determine whether Mr. Mills struck with his walking stick a small mass of the gravel in place at a depth of sixteen feet, or whether he was dealing with a mass which had slid with its inclusions of modern relics from the surface to a depth of sixteen feet, as indicated at C, Fig. 2. The object may have been in place, but can we afford to decide momentous questions upon the evidence furnished by a single specimen obtained under the conditions existing in this case, and by a collector who for months after the finding "was not aware of the importance" of the discovery?