678 ROLLIN T. CHAMBERLIN 



this place. But in his symposium paper Dr. Sellards had come to 

 regard this marl as probably equivalent to formation No. 3 (upper 

 creek fill), 1 and in that article assigned to it a thickness of 18 inches. 2 

 Only a few inches of brown sand therefore remain as a basis for 

 referring the bones to the lower creek deposit in a case in which 

 the correct reference is a matter of critical importance. The case 

 accordingly does not seem to the present writer to be one that may 

 safely be regarded as conclusive. 



The other human remains reported from the lower creek deposit 

 were obtained in the extensive diggings carried on at the point 

 marked N in Fig. 4. In the section at this point the lower fill shows 

 extreme irregularity. This is assigned to subsequent scour and fill, 

 evidences of which are more marked here than anywhere else in the 

 sections exposed by the canal excavations. Cutting by the stream 

 has been so pronounced that, in the midst of the area over which 

 the bones are scattered, the lower deposit has at one point been 

 completely removed, and the upper filling rests in a depression cut 

 into formation No. 1 (the underlying marine beds). 3 



A few feet to the west of this more human bones were found 

 along the contact line of formations Nos. 2 and 3 (the upper and 

 lower creek deposits), or slightly within the basal portion of the 

 upper creek deposit. Because of the close association of these two 

 finds, because there is no duplication of parts, and because all the 

 bones came from a large individual, Dr. Sellards believes that the 

 bones mentioned in the last paragraph and referred to the lower 

 fill and those here mentioned as found a few feet to the west along 

 the contact of the two fillings, all belong to the same skeleton. 4 

 This may be called skeleton No. 2. 



If these bones all belong to one skeleton, the fact that a part of 

 them were found in formation No. 2, as interpreted by Dr. Sellards, 

 and a part of them in the base of formation No. 3 requires explana- 

 tion. This naturally led to the suggestion that those bones which 

 were found in the basal portion of the upper fill reached that posi- 

 tion by being washed out of the lower deposit. 5 If, however, one 

 examines Fig. 6 of the Florida state report, it is seen that the bones 



1 Symposium, p. 17. 3 Eighth Ann. RepL, etc., Fig. 6, p. 137. 



2 Ibid., p. 22. t Ibid., p. 142. s Symposium, p. 54. 



