124 Scientific Intelligence. 
ing in every appearance which commonly Ee fossil bones, and 
Sepecially those found elsewhere in the Somme depos Had the con- 
Commission, and direct testimony to the actual occurence of the jawin 
th 1” w t forward to the conviction of the 
mission. But there was not the same unanimity respecting age of 
j 
the jaw itself. Two of the English members of the Commission, Dr. 
Falconer and Mr. Busk, handed in notes of the opinions at whic they 
had arrived on the general case. These we insert.— ae 
“ Abbeville, May 13, 1863. 4 
“T am of opinion that the finding of the human jaw at Moulin- | 
Quignon i is authentic; but that the characters which it presents, taken in 
connexion with the conditions under which it lay, are not consistent with 
the said jaw being of any very great antiquity. H. Farconsr.” 
ea et. es De 
Abbeville, May 13, 1863. | 
“Mr. Busk desires to i that signee he is ‘a opinion, judging from 
the external condition of the j aw, and from other _considerations of ‘3 
more cireumstantial A that ther re is no Leese ason to doubt that — 
as found in the situation and under the siadvsene reported by , 
M. Boucher de Perthes, nevertheless it appears to him that the internal 
condition of the bone is wholly irreconcilable with an antiquity equal to | 
that assigned to the deposits in which it was found.” ae 
Mr. Busk of course refers here to the received opinion that the Moulin- eo 
Quignon deposits belong to the “high level” gravels of Mr. Prestwich, ee: 
which are considered to be the oldest of the Somme beds. 8 
From all this, it will be seen that the question of ue relative anciqulll s 
of the relic is left open to discussion. It is manifest that the evidence 
was very conflicting; that it is in some respects of an incompatible char- % 
acter; and that a great deal still remains to be clea oe anges re the “a 
scientific world can arrive at a definite judgment on the oe 
further add, that the subject was again brought before the he Academy of 
Sciences, on Monday eo in two distinct notes, by M. Miln Edwards 
and M. de Qua 
trefages, who, we. understand, did ample pecon! ‘0 the can- 
tion of their remarks, M. Elie de Beaumont stated that, in his opinion, 
the gravel deposit of Moulin-Quignon did not alg to the Quater- 
nary or Diluvian age at all, but that it was a mem | the eee 
meubles of the actual or modern period, in which he dele not be the 
Jeast surprised if human bones wake found ; adding, moreover, that: 
did not believe in the asse ence of man as a contemporal 
| a me. extinct —. thinoceroses, a of the Quaternary pans 
