HRDLICK A] SKELETAL REMAINS ee Oil 
The measurements of both specimens which could be secured exactly 
or with a close degree of approximation are as follows: 
| Cave skuil 
Calaveras 
skulls | 5 A805 
cm. | cm. 
SePuCtectrOu tal MIMI MMs 4 9. a-c\itao- cee esc S ese s onsen se stone g-eeeee sees 10.1 9.4 
VL STL ei OMe) ene beeen ae Se eee ee ee ae ai2.0 11.8 
RMT TM areal Ce ace eee amiss Sta so cnn Secs ser eee aoe ei ceieenee ee oossecincicene | 13.1 12.3 
Nose: | 
NE aL emi ielRal TUT eee aN ete =< as wills ereie -wstels = ee SR Eat Seis eea Aece ee 5. 05 5.35 
SESSLER eX NUM eect aisnie ie =o oii sioainjn Sib einen = oe we oe ieseeectaed este cece 20 Pel 
SIRES Seem RSL KILI IM ete eee eee ea tol two 1c, cae nae dae ate’ a a ayScinseete)lace sieiciee coin Sciam 53.5 50.5 
Orbits: 
WW bnfl ISIS Ais S46 Gn ed bopQdOee Aaa eae nee ee Pe 3. 67 3. 67 
“LETS DP SACIIN 63 J 5550 cSSC nN SOO Me Cee ee a ee eta a ee re 3. 95 3.90 
Vukeil TGS Se SS aged Seo SOU ese CR See ae ae SS cee ee 93.0 9h. 2 
Meee MeCN ANC LOL aeeee et oar oo ac se ee seiet ec eaes-Sccetensede- sees scence shay Oi 
Greatest surface length of left temporal (measured with a tape) --.........--- 9. 95 9.9 
fermen Mizy Omaha AxXIMUIM. - 522. 2.5.5 os cc ee boone acne cesses eee eco ees a14.3 | a14.3 
« Approximate. 
The thickness of the frontal bone could not be measured in the cave 
skull on account of the stalagmitic deposit inside, but it is apparently 
very nearly the same as that in the Calaveras specimen. 
The measurements show a somewhat smaller frontal bone in no. 
295172, which probably indicates that the Calaveras skull-as a whole 
was larger. At all events such differences are not outside of the scope 
of individual variation within a single people. The remaining meas- 
urements, particularly the important nasal and orbital indexes, are so 
much alike that on the basis of these and of the other resemblances it 
is impossible to do otherwise than to pronounce the two specimens of 
the same type, which necessarily leads to the implication that the 
Calaveras skull is geologically recent. 
There is one feature connected with the Calaveras skull besides the 
searcity of secondary injuries which may not have received the con- 
sideration it deserves; this is its calcareous coating, which, though col- 
ored on the surface, is white and crystalline on fracture, exactly like 
that of the cave skulls. How could such a coating have been formed, 
and formed with much uniformity, over the surfaces of a skull packed 
in sand or mud and gravel of an ancient river? It is probable that, 
under special circumstances, bones manifest some affinity for calcare- 
ous matter in solution, and it is known that animal fossils with some- 
what similar coating have been recovered from ancient sands or grav- 
els. This phenomenon is most commonly observed in caves or crevices 
into which water percolates, carrying lime in solution, and, in view of 
the presence of numerous such caves and crevices in the Calaveras 
region, the occurrence of typical cavern deposits on the surfaces of the 
