Long before the beginning of the glacial period, therefore, some groups must have been far ahead of others, and in the manufacture of stone implements some tribes excelled others; some making ruder ones than others, and some perhaps making well-finished, polished tools. There are a good many arrow- and spear-head shapes, and it is possible that each form originated at a different time or in a different locality. And in our present state of knowledge of these matters, no time position can be assigned to many American stone tools, polished or not. They may have been used over and over again by various tribes for centuries, or for a thousand years, or they may have been made by tribes of our own day. Some of these tribes made no smoothed or polished implements, though otherwise of advanced type, and polished implements have been found that may be many thousand years old. This is no indication that tribes do not change, but that development began and continues unevenly, and that tribes existed ten thousand or more years ago that were in advance of some that are extant to-day. Nobody can say whether the stone implements, rough or smooth, that have been found in Chiriqui belong to comparatively modern or to very ancient times. The whole subject of stone implements appears to be in a chaotic state, mummified and petrified by a slavish respect and devotion to European patterns. It is a case of cart before the horse. It will be apparent that I do not consider the finish of stone tools, in the present state of our understanding of them, any guide for a world-classification of peoples in a time-scale, especially in North America. This has been admitted by others back to a certain point, but beyond that point they have continued to play follow-the-leader with their world-classifications of “Paleolithic” and “Neolithic,” two of the most confusing, misleading, and useless terms ever invented. Below the limit of the ice action there is nothing to fix the age of stone tools when found on the surface or near it. “Paleoliths” and “neoliths” might therefore be picked up side by side, and the paleolith might not be as old as the neolith, or both might be of the same age. And if a well-made tool, or one resembling some of to-day, is found in an ancient gravel, it does not necessarily mean an intrusion, but that men lived in that far past who were more skilful than some of their neighbours, and more skilful than we have heretofore been willing to admit. That very ancient men made very rude tools is doubtless true, but that _all_ ancient men made rough tools of the same style down to a certain fixed time, and then all began on an improved or a smoothed type, is undoubtedly wrong.