To discredit the discoveries at Trenton and Newcomerstown, Mr. Holmes relies largely upon the theory that portions of gravel from the surface had slid down to the bottom of the terrace, carrying implements with them, and forming a talus, which, he thinks, Mr. Mills, Dr. Abbott, and the others have mistaken for undisturbed strata of gravel. In his drawings Mr. Holmes has even represented the gravel at Newcomerstown as caving down into a talus without disturbing the strata to any great extent, and at the same time he speaks slightingly of the promise which I had made to publish a photograph of the bank as it really was. In answer, it is sufficient to give, first, the drawing made at the time by Mr. Mills, to show the general situation of the gravel bank at Newcomerstown, in which the implement figured on page 252 was found; and, secondly, an engraving from a photograph of the bank, taken by Mr. Mills after the discovery of the implement, but before the talus had obscured its face. The implement was found by Mr. Mills with its point projecting from a fresh exposure of the terrace, just after a mass, loosened by his own efforts, had fallen away. The gravel is of such consistency that every sign of stratification disappears when it falls down, and there could be no occasion for a mistake even by an ordinary observer, while Mr. Mills was a well-trained geologist and collector, making his notes upon the spot.[AA] [Footnote AA: The Popular Science Monthly, vol. xliii, pp. 29-39.] [Illustration: Height of Terrace exposed, 25 feet. Palæolith was found 14-3/4 feet from surface.] [Illustration: Terrace in Newcomerstown, showing where W. C. Mills found the Palæolithic implement.] I had thought at first that Mr. Holmes had made out a better case against the late Miss Babbitt's discoveries at Little Falls (referred to on page 254), but in the American Geologist for May, 1894, page 363, Mr. Warren Upham, after going over the evidence, expresses it as still his conviction that Mr. Holmes's criticism fails to shake the force of the original evidence, so that I do not see any reason for modifying any of the statements made in the body of the book concerning the implements supposed to have been found in glacial deposits. Yet if I had expected such an avalanche of criticism of the evidence as has been loosened, I should at the time have fortified my statements by fuller references, and should possibly have somewhat enlarged the discussion. But this seemed then the less necessary, from the fact that Mr. McGee had, in most emphatic manner, indorsed nearly every item of the evidence adduced by me, and much more, in an article which appeared in The Popular Science Monthly four years before the publication of the volume (November, 1888). In this article he had said: