032 KANSAS CITY REVIEW OF SCIENCE. 
era at least, and we have large species of apes; but no remains of man have been 
discovered, if we except some splinters of flint found in beds of this age at Then- 
ay in France, and a notched rib-bone. Supposing these objects to have been 
chipped or notched by animals, which is by no means certain or even likely, the 
question remains, was this done by man? Gaudry and Dawkins prefer to sup- 
pose that the artificer was one of the anthropoid apes of the period. It is true 
that no apes are known todo such work now; but then other animals, as beavers 
and birds, are artificers, and some extinct animals were of higher powers than 
their modern representatives. But if there were Miocene apes which chipped 
flints and cut bones, this would, either on the hypothesis of evolution or that of 
creation by law, render the occurrence of man still less likely than if there were 
no such apes. For these reasons neither Dawkins nor Gaudry, nor indeed any 
geologists of authority in the Tertiary fauna, believe in Miocene man. 
In the Pliocene, as Dawkins points out, though the facies of the mammalian 
fauna of Europe becomes more modern and a few modern species occur, the cli- 
mate becomes colder, and in consequence the apes disappear, so that the chances 
of finding fossil men are lessened rather than increased in so far as the temperate 
regions are concerned. In Italy, however, Capellini has described a skull, an 
implement, and a notched bone supposed to have come from Pliocene beds. To 
this Dawkins objects that the skull and the implement are of recent type, and prob- 
ably mixed with the Pliocene stuff by some slip of the ground. As the writer has 
elsewhere pointed out,* similar and apparently fatal objections apply to the skull 
and implements alleged to have been found in Pliocene gravels in California. 
Dawkins further informs us that in the Italian Pliocene beds, supposed to hold 
remains of man, of twenty-one mammalia whose bones occur, all are extinct 
species except possibly one, a hippopotamus. This of course renders very un- 
likely in a geological point of view the occurrence of human remains in these 
beds. 
In the Pleistocene deposits of Europe—and this applies also to America—we 
for the first time find a predominance of recent species of land animals. Here, 
therefore, we may look with some hope for remains of man and his works, and 
here, according to Dawkins, in the later Pleistocene they are actually found. 
When we speak, however, of Pleistocene man, there arise some questions as to 
the classification of the deposits, which it seems to the writer Dawkins and other 
British geologists have not answered in accordance with geological facts, and a 
misunderstanding as to which may lead to serious error. This will be best under- 
stood by presenting the arrangement adopted by Dawkins with a few explanatory 
notes, and then pointing out its defects. ‘The following may be stated to be his 
classification of the later Tertiary : 
I. PLEISTOCENE PERiop: the fourth epoch of the Tertiary, in which living 
species of mammals are more abundant than the extinct, and man appears. It 
may be divided into— 
*<« Fossil Men,”’ 1880. 
