634 WM. P. BLAKE 
of portions of at least two individuals, an ornament, charcoal, 
and a snail of an existing species, or of any species—a thin 
fragile shell—could travel together in the bed of a river and be 
concentrated in one spot, in fact, in one mass. It is incredible. 
Much stress in the discussion upon the authenticity of this 
relic is placed upon the statement of the miner that he found 
the skull in his mine; that he found it there lying on the side of 
the channel with a mass of driftwood. While this statement of 
finding bones and driftwood together at that depth tends to dis- 
credit the statement it may be accepted, but with the question, 
how did the skull get there? The best explanation is found in 
the statement of another miner who had a claim in the vicinity 
that in going home one evening he picked up the mass, and, in 
passing his neighbor’s shaft, threw it down to frighten him, and 
get him to go home to supper. The skull was then ‘“‘ discovered” 
and taken to Angel’s Camp, where, after resting for a time in the 
window of the apothecary, it attracted the attention of Dr. Jones, 
of Murphy’s camp, and was made known to the scientific world. 
This is the story as told to me by eyewitnesses and partici- 
pants. Thus the silent but convincing testimony of the skull 
itself, and of human testimony, are against its reception as evi- 
dence of man’s antiquity. 
But while the authenticity of this skull as a Pliocene fossil 
is questioned and challenged by most authorities, it is often 
accorded a quasi-recognition rather than an unqualified rejection. 
For example Professor G., Frederick Wright relying partly upon 
new evidence presented by Mr. Becker at the meeting of the 
Geological Society of America in 1891 appears to be convinced 
of the genuineness of the skull and states “‘it would seem unreas- 
onable any longer to refuse to credit the testimony.’’* 
The most satisfactory and common-sense discussion of the 
merit of this skull as evidence with which I am acquainted is 
that by Principal Dawson in his work enitled Fossil Men.? After 
* WRIGHT, “Man and the Glacial Period, p. 296. 
?Fossil Men and their Modern Representatives, by J. W. Dawson, LL.D., 
F.R.S., F.G.S., Montreal, 1880, pp. 344-347. 
