258 Notes and Comments. 



of East Anglia seems to indicate are distinctly either of the 

 Neolithic or Bronze Age. 



SCRATCHES ON FLINT. 



Further, the scratches are made on the outer white coat 

 of the flint nodules, and having regard to the age attributed 

 to them, these would surely have disappeared by ordinary 

 denuding agencies long ere this, as the white coatings of the 

 nodules are comparatively soft and, of course, the scratchings 

 do not enter the flint proper. It is also difficult to conceive 

 the nature of the implement used in making the scratches, 

 especially the small circles on the noses and the representations 

 of eyes, though this particular argument is not pressed. One 

 of the pieces of flint in the illustration is obviously a frac- 

 tured piece, presumably broken since the time the drawing 

 was made, in which case it seems exceptionally lucky that 

 the Elk head just happens to be retained rmbroken. 



ELK AND DEER. 



Also, if palaeolithic man drew these animals, and with such 

 anatomical care and accuracy as is shown, surely he would 

 have not made the error of representing antlers of a Red 

 Deer upon the head of an Elk. (Since these particular remarks 

 were made at the meeting referred to, I find Mr. Reginald 

 Smith draws attention to this same anomaly — see page 85 

 of The Antiquaries Journal — Mr. Smith's words are: 'The 

 engraving is not a portrait, and there might be a difference 

 of opinion as to the animal represented. The long legs and 

 short body were in favour of the Elk, but it was difficult to 

 believe that the massive palmated antlers of that animal 

 escaped the notice of the artist who had produced something 

 more like those of a Red Deer '). 



A CATCH. 



With Mr. Reginald Smith I agree that a paleolithic man, 

 who was clever enough to represent the unmistakable char- 

 acters of an Elk so finely and with so few strokes, would not 

 have made the grievous error of adorning the animal with 

 antlers of another beast altogether. I do not for a moment 

 wish to suggest that Mr. Leslie Armstrong has done other 

 than give us an accurate description of what he considers he 

 has found, but I can only repeat that there seems to be a 

 catch somewhere. In the discussion which followed. Sir Ray 

 Lankester did state that a careful examination of the actual 

 scratches on the flints did not seem to show that the animals 

 were so cleverly drawn as represented in the photograph, 

 which is a photograph of the Chinese WTiite infillings of the 

 cracks, made presumably by the author for the better repro- 

 duction of the photographs. 



Naturalist 



