214 The Kent's Hole Machairodus. [April, 



known, they were exclusively those of bears. Not only 

 were there no bones or teeth of the hyaena, but none of his 

 coprolites, nor were any of the bones broken after his well- 

 known pattern, or scored with his teeth marks. 



The bones found in the black mould, or most modern 

 deposit, differed much in specific gravity from those in the 

 lower accumulations, and were generally so light as to float 

 in water. The remains in the cave-earth and breccia had 

 lost their animal matter, and adhered to the tongue when 

 applied to it, so as frequently to support their own weight ; 

 but those from the latter were much more mineralised than 

 the specimens found in the cave-earth. 



The following general statements may be of service here : — 

 i. Animal remains were much more abundant in the 

 mechanical deposits than in the stalagmites. 



2. The period represented by the Breccia and Crystalline 

 Stalagmite may, so far as the cavern is concerned, be termed 

 the Ursine period ; the deposits having yielded remains of 

 bears only. 



3. The period of the Cave-Earth and Granular Stalagmite 

 may be denominated the Hyczna period ; the hyaena remains 

 being restricted to these deposits. 



4. The period of the Black Mould may be called the 

 Ovine period; remains of the sheep having been found in 

 but not below this accumulation. 



5. The bones of each period were distinguishable by their 

 mineral condition ; those in the Black Moidd being much 

 lighter, and those in the Breccia being more mineralised, than 

 the remains yielded by the Cave-Earth. 



Some of the masses of breccia occasionally incorporated 

 in the cave-earth were found to contain bones possessing all 

 the characters of such as were met with in the undisturbed 

 breccia ; and a few fossils, easily distinguishable by their 

 mineral condition, had certainly been dislodged from the 

 breccia or older deposit, and re-deposited in the relatively 

 modern cave-earth, without being attended by any dis- 

 coverable portion of the accumulation in which they had 

 been primarily interred. Hence the question, "Is not this 

 the History of the Kent's Hole Machairodus?" is one which 

 presents itself when considering the era of that species, 

 and which presses for a distinct and definite reply. Indeed, 

 it has recently received a qualified answer in the affirmative,* 

 but which appears to us not to be borne out by the evidence. 



The following is the substance of MacEnery's statements 



* See Brit. Pleist. Mammals, Pal.Soc, Part iv., 1872, p. 191. 



