WITH CERTAIN EXTINCT QUADRUPEDS. 369 
made upon fossil bones exhibiting evident impressions of human 
agency. The specimens of them which I showed to you yesterday 
were those only whose origin is authentic, and which were obtained 
from deposits well defined in regard to geological relations. Thus 
the fragments of the Aurochs exhibiting very deep incisions, apparently 
made by an instrument having a waved edge, and the portion of the 
skull of the Megaceros Hibernicus, in which I thought I recognized 
significant marks of the mutilation and flaying of a recently slain 
animal, were obtained from the lowest layer in the cutting of the Canal 
de l’Oureq, near Paris. These very specimens are figured or men- 
tioned by Cuvier (Oss. Fossiles, 4to. 1823, tom. iv. pl. 6, fig. 9, M. 
Hibernicus) ; and Alex. Brongniart (Descr. des Environs de Paris, 4to. 
1822, p. 562, pl. 1 a. fig. 10) has given a detailed description of the 
deposit, consisting of distinct layers, which he considers to be of 
higher antiquity than those of the valleys. The bones of the Aurochs 
and the Megaceros were found in the same layer as the remains of 
the Elephant (Hlephas primigenius) of which Cuvier has given figures 
of two molars, which, according to that author, had not been rolled, 
and were found under circumstances which showed that they were 
in an original and not in a remanié deposit. I have said that the 
deep incisions on the bone of an Aurochs from the cutting of the 
Canal de ’Ourcq (which you may remember I showed you in the 
Gallery of the Jardin des Plantes) appear to have been made by an 
instrument with a waved edge. By this I meant an instrument 
having an edge with slight transverse inflections, so as to produce, 
by cutting obliquely through the bone, a plane of section somewhat 
undulated. The cut seems to have been made by a hatchet not 
entirely finished—a state in which the greatest part of the flint im- 
plements from St. Acheul, near Amiens, seem to be; but in the 
marked bones of Abbeville and other ancient localities the incisions 
must have been, made by rectilinear edges. These considerations 
would lead us to think that, independently of the case of the hatchets 
simply chipped and roughed out, the place for the manufacture of 
which might be near that where they are now found, those primitive 
people must have been provided with more perfect instruments, such 
as would be more suited to their ordinary wants. I should there- 
fore hesitate to adopt the system (too absolute, in my opinion) of 
Mr. Worsaae, who distinguishes the first subdivision of the ‘‘ Stone 
Period”’ by hatchets that are merely chipped, to the exclusion of 
