TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION D.—DEPT. ANTHROPOLOGY. 557 
carrying them out under my daily superintendence. The process being fully 
described in the First Annual Report by the Committee (see Report Brit. Assoc. 
1865, pp. 19, 20), it is unnecessary to repeat it here. 
Mr. Godwin-Austen, while agreeing with Mr. Macknery that flint implements 
occurred under the Stalagmite, contended that they were found throughout the- 
entire thickness of the Cave-earth. MacInery, on the other hand, was of opinion 
that in most cases their situation was intermediate between the bottom of the 
Stalagmite and the upper surface of the Cave-earth; and, while admitting that 
occasionally, though rarely, they had been met with somewhat lower, he stated 
that the greatest depth to which he had been able to trace them was not more: 
than a few inches below the surface of the Cave-earth. (Tvans. Devon. Assoc. iii. 
326-327). The Committee soon found themselves in a position to confirm Mr. 
Godwin-Austen’s statement, and to say with hm that ‘no distinction founded on. 
condition, distribution, or relative position can be observed whereby the human 
can be separated from the other reliquiz’ (7rans. Geol. Soc. 2nd Ser. vi. 444), 
Mr. MacEnery’s ‘Plate F’ contains seven figures of three remarkable canine: 
teeth, and the following statement respecting them: ‘Teeth of Ursus Cultridens. 
Found in the cave of Kent’s Hole, near Torquay, Devon; by Revd. Mr. McEnery, 
January 1826, in diluvial Mud mix’d with Teeth and gnaw'd Bones of Rhinoceros,. 
Elephant, Horse, Ox, Elk, and Deer with Teeth and Bones of Hyenas, Bears,. 
Wolves, Foxes, §:c. 
It is worthy of note that no other plate in the entire series names the date on 
which the specimens were found, or the mammals with whose remains they were 
commingled. This arose probably from the fact, well known to MacKnery, that 
no such specimens had been found elsewhere in Britain; and possibly also to 
emphasize the statements in his text, should any doubt be thrown on his discovery. 
It is, no doubt, unnecessary to say here that the teeth belonged to a large 
species of carnivore to which, in 1846, Professor Owen gave the name of 
Machairodus latidens. MacEnery states that the teeth he found were five upper 
canines and one incisor; and the six Museums in which they are now lodged are 
well known. 
A considerable amount of scepticism existed for many years in some minds as 
to whether the relics just mentioned were really found in Kent’s Cavern, it being 
contended that from its zoological affinities Machatrodus latidens must have 
belonged to an earlier fauna than that represented by the ordinary Cave mammals; 
and various hypotheses were invented to explain away the difficulty, most of them, 
at least, being more ingenious than ingenuous. Be this as it may, it was naturally 
hoped that the re-exploration of the Cavern would set the question at rest for 
ever; and it was not without a feeling of disappointment that I had to write 
seven successive annual Reports without being able to announce the discovery of a 
single relic of Machairodus. Indeed, the greater part of the Highth Report was. 
written with no better prospect; when, while engaged in washing a ‘find’ met’ | 
with on July 29, 1872, I found that it consisted of a well-marked incisor of 
Machairodus latidens, with a left ramus of lower jaw of bear, in which was one 
molar tooth. They were lying together in the first or uppermost foot-level of’ 
Caye-earth, having over it a continuous sheet of Granular Stalagmite 2°5 feet 
thick. There was no longer any doubt of MacEnery’s accuracy ; no doubt that 
Machairodus latidens was a member of the Cave-earth fauna whatever the 
zoological affinities might say to the contrary ; nor was there any doubt that Man 
and Machairodus were contemporaries in Devonshire. 
I cannot pass from this case without directing attention to its bearing on 
negative evidence: Had the exploration ceased on July 28, 1872—the day before: 
the discovery—those who had always declined to believe that Machairodus had 
ever been found in the Cavern would have been able to urge, as an additional and 
apparently conclusive argument, that the consecutive, systematic, and careful daily 
labours of 7 years and + months had failed to show that their scepticism was un- 
warranted. Nay, more, had the incisor been overlooked—and, being but a small 
