28 Human Foot-Prints in Solid Limestone. 



1st. Because the foot-prints are not continuous, but isolated. 



2d. Because (as it would seem) this is a solitary instance of 

 human foot-prints in solid limestone. 



3d. Because of the difficulty in conceiving the sudden consoli- 

 dation of compact limestone rock, after having received, while in 

 a plastic state, such impressions. 



Lastly, and chiefly, because of the age, nature, and position of 

 the rock, and because no human remains whatever have hitherto 

 been discovered in any similar formation. 



The isolated position of our foot-prints affords a strong pre- 

 sumption against their fossil origin. " The footsteps of the walk- 

 ing man cannot be followed farther." Mr. Anderson distinctly 

 states, that careful search has failed to detect any other human 

 tracks iu the vicinity of St. Louis. Were the tracks under con- 

 sideration those of a bird instead of those of man, the fact of 

 there being but a single pair might be accounted for under the 

 supposition that a winged creature lit and rose from the same 

 spot ; though, so far as I know, even ornithichnites have always 

 been found continuous ; but we can hardly imagine under what 

 circumstances a man could impress, thus evenly and naturally, a 

 single pair of foot-prints on a soft and yielding surface, without 

 leaving thereon other traces of his steps. 



The limestone stratum containing them, is not a partial bed, 

 but an extensive layer, necessarily deposited at one and the same 

 time. There seems, therefore, every probability, that other foot- 

 marks would have been discovered on adjacent parts of the rock, 

 had those under consideration been actually made by human feet 

 in plastic calcareous matter. 



If the specimen in my possession be unique of its kind, that 

 circumstance also is strong evidence against its fossil origin ; and 

 it would appear that it is so. Every writer, American or Euro- 

 pean, who treats of impressions of human tracks in solid rock, 

 alludes to the specimen which forms the subject of the present 

 article ; all expressly referring to the St. Louis locality, and ap- 

 parently unacquainted with any other. Yet we have already- 

 seen, that in that vicinity, none but the foot-prints in my posses- 

 sion have been discov^ered. 



Until other similar impressions, or other human remains shall 

 be found in rocks of a similar character, the presumption must 

 remain strong against the fossil origin of these. 



