Quadrupeds . 1627 



trespassing upon your space, but I scarcely think, that, in justice to 

 the subject, or to Mr. Owen, I can close my paper without one or two 

 other remarks. 



It appears that Mr. Owen conceives these skulls to present the 

 sexual characters of the male, viz., greater breadth in proportion to 

 their length, than is to be met with in those of the female ; as well as 

 more marked development of certain elevations and depressions, sup- 

 posed to possess a relation to the vast horns characteristic of the male 

 animal . Had Mr. Owen asserted these heads to be those of a mon- 

 ster, that is, an undeveloped male, his positions would have been less 

 extraordinary, though even had he done so, he would have been 

 called upon to explain why developments connected with the presence 

 of horns, existed, when those horns themselves were not present to re- 

 quire them ; as well as other matters which, should he now adopt 

 my suggestions, and try " on the new tack, " I shall not be backward 

 in adducing, — but as he has asserted that the frontal fracture was pro- 

 duced by wrenching off the horns, the Professor must recant that 

 theory before he can embark upon the new one. For my own part, T 

 merely observe, that the superior developments of which Professor 

 Owen speaks, are not uncommon, nor would he have conceived them 

 to be so, had he possessed an opportunity of examining a suffi- 

 cient number of the skulls ; for I can inform him, that the skulls of 

 the giant deer, both male and female, present many discrepancies from 

 each other, evident to any comparative anatomist, who has an oppor- 

 tunity of inspecting them ; nor should Mr. Owen have so soon for- 

 gotten the large size of these skulls, so obviously producing an in- 

 creased development of parts, but which he only noticed as furnishin; 

 an inference of their belonging to the male — besides which, what h? 

 become of the ridge and peduncles ? Had Professor Owen the ad- 

 vantage of examining a number of these skulls, he would also have 

 been more cautious in basing a theory upon a foundation so very un- 

 stable, as variety in size — a foundation at once unstable and unphilo- 

 sophic. 



There are other circumstances connected with the discovery of 

 these remains which demand explanation from Mr. Owen, but from 

 all mention of which he has apparently shrunk. I allude to the fact 

 of these skulls having been found in company with the skulls of many 

 well-known domestic animals — such as the ox, the goat, the hog. 

 These latter skulls were similarly fractured. As also spear-heads, 

 hatchets, and other utensils, and chiefly of a domestic nature, among 

 which was a knife-handle of curious workmanship, since presented by 



