It has always appeared to me that if any real advance in our knowledge of early man is to be made, it is essential that the sequence of events during the Pleistocene period must be known, but judging from recent literature the prevalent ideas as to this succession are decidedly nebulous. Some years ago Prof. Penck drew up a scheme of Pleistocene chronology based on stratigraphical Alpine evidence which may or may not have been correctly interpreted. Instead of checking this Teutonic theory by English evidence the theory was generally accepted, and various authors have since tried to squeeze the English facts into the German theory with the result that there is no agreement between them, and it is self-evident that either the facts are, or the theory is, wrong. The custom has been far too prevalent in this country of accepting German scientific work at the author's valuation, and it cannot be too strongly insisted upon that German science has all the inherent defects of modern German thought. Classical archæology has thrown off the yoke of German theories based on preconceived ideas. Is it too much to hope that Prehistoric archæology may soon attain freedom? After all even a Geheimrath can err, and there is no room in science for ex cathedra opinions.