December, 1842.] 225 



business by special resolution". 



By special permission,- the Committee, consisting of Dr. 

 Godclard, Mr. Taylor, and Prof. Eogers, to whom was 

 referred a paper by Peter A. Browne, Esq., on the subject 

 of the supposed human foot prints found near St. Louis, in 

 the Carboniferous Limestone, made a Eeport as follows : 



That they do not consider that the ingenious arguments 

 of the author can tend in the least to invalidate the reason- 

 ings of Dr. Owen in favor of the artificial nature of the 

 foot marks. The evidence furnished by the paper and 

 accompanying drawing of Dr. Owen, of which the com- 

 munication before the Committee is a criticism, appears 

 sufficient to place this question at rest for ever. 



That these impressions are not genuine imprints of the 

 human feet, but rude imitations, is obvious upon a slight 

 anatomical consideration of them. Both the form and 

 attitudes of the toes are entirely at variance with nature, 

 and are such as to suggest that the sculptor exercised but 

 a slight familiarity with the structure and capacities of 

 motion of the parts. A mere inspection will satisfy all 

 anatomists upon this point. 



The geological proofs against their having been formed 

 whilst the limestone was yet in a plastic state are no less 

 decisive, since the facts stated by Dr. Owen go distinctly 

 to show that the slab containing these foot prints is a por- 

 tion of the carboniferous limestone formation of the Mis- 

 sissippi Valley, the Oceanic origin of each layer of which 

 every geologist is prepared to demonstrate. Formed in 

 the bed of an extended sea, and buried previous to its 

 upheaval under an enormous accumulation of other 

 deposits, it is impossible to conceive how human footsteps 

 could gain access to the unconsolidated rock, even if the 

 human race had existence at the time. That the race of 

 man is of incalculably later origin than the rock containing 



