400 APPENDIX. 



which chipped flints and cut bones, this would, either on 

 the hypothesis of evolution or that of creation by law, 

 render the occurrence of man still less likely than if there 

 were no such apes. For these reasons neither Dawkins 

 nor Gaudry, nor indeed any geologists of authority in the 

 Tertiary fauna, believe in Miocene man. 



In the Pliocene, as Dawkins points out, though the facies 

 of the mammalian fauna of Europe becomes more modern 

 and a few modern species occur, the climate becomes colder, 

 and in consequence the apes disappear ; so that the chances 

 of finding fossil men are lessened rather than increased in 

 so far as the temperate regions are concerned. In Italy, 

 however, Capellini has described a skull, an implement, 

 and a notched bone, supposed to have come from Pliocene 

 beds. To this Dawkins objects that the skull and the ira- 

 plement are of recent type, and probably mixed with the 

 Pliocene stuff by some slip of the ground. As the writer 

 has elsey^here pointed out,* similar and apparently fatal 

 objections apply to the skull and implements alleged to 

 have been found in Pliocene gravels in California. Daw- 

 kins farther informs us that in the Italian Pliocene beds 

 supposed to hold remains of man, of twenty-one mammalia 

 whose bones occur, all are extinct species except possibly 

 one, a hippopotamus. This of course renders very unlikely, 

 in a geological point of view, the occurrence of human 

 remains in these beds. 



In the Pleistocene deposits of Europe— and this applies 

 also to America — we for the first time find a predominance 

 of recent species of land animals. Here, therefore, we 

 may look with some hope for remains of man and his 

 works, and here, according to Dawkins, in the later 

 Pleistocene they are actually found. When we speak, 

 however, of Pleistocene man, there arise some questions 

 an to the classification of the rieposits, which, it seems to 

 * " Foasil Men," 1880. 



