198 Mr. Cumberland on [March, 



Article IX. 



On Animal Remains found in Caves. By G. Cumberland, Esq. 



(To the Editor of the Annals of Philosophy.) 



SIR, Bristol, Dec. 29, 1824. 



When, in the Annals for February last, you did me the 

 favour to publish my remarks on the enigmatical cave at Picker- 

 ing, which has given rise to so many unsatisfactory conjectures, 

 I confess I was carried away with the then prevailing opinion, 

 that the remains of the animals found there had been localized to 

 the spot, and their assembling there for safety was in that case 

 not improbable at the rising of waters of the general flood. But 

 I have since felt, that the objection founded on climate is insur- 

 mountable, and that they could not have been dragged there by 

 the hyaenas is now, I believe, the most general belief; for not to 

 insist on what Dr. Knox asserted at the Wernerian Lectures, 

 reported in the Physical Journal, No. 16, viz. that the hyamas of 

 southern Africa are not in the habit of conveying their prey 

 away into dens, it seems impossible to reconcile to reason that 

 they should have found such various animals near together, as 

 the elephant, rhinoceros, ox, horse, hippopotamus, tiger, bear, and 

 wolf; or, if they had, that they should have been able to effect 

 such a labour, so much beyond their united strength, or to have 

 destroyed all the skulls by even their forcep jaws ; neither can 

 any one be made to believe, could all this be proved, that such 

 animals as these antediluvian hyaenas are described to be in point 

 of magnitude, would have left even the smallest remains of such 

 small bones as those belonging to the rat, mouse, raven, pigeon, 

 and lark. Ducks and partridges would have been but a mouth- 

 ful to them, and it is not very easy to imagine by what means 

 they could be able to catch them any more than rabbits and 

 hares. 



Let us suppose the gnawed marks on the bones to be esta- 

 blished by comparison ; it proves nothing of their having been 

 gnawed where they were found ; and as to the polish acquired by 

 their feet and hair passing over them, that really must always 

 be considered as conjectural, and proves nothing as to locality. 



Admit even that a considerable portion of original gelatinous 

 matter (as has been asserted) remained, it could only show that 

 the period since the destruction of these auimals had not been 

 very extended, not that they died there. Again, if no skull was 

 left entire, but only chips found, and solid parts of bones, or 

 angular fragments projecting through the stalagmite above, we 

 should be a little cautious in naming so many species, and varie- 

 ties of species, of small animals : — even Messrs. Cuvier and 



