Quadrupeds. 1631 



1839, I had an opportunity of seeing some of the skulls, and as far as 

 I recollect, the discovery was then a very recent event. The skulls of 

 cattle are not identical with those now domesticated in Ireland, and 

 serious doubts were entertained by the most eminent naturalists, as to 

 what species of Bos they could with propriety be referred. Similar 

 skulls have been found in various parts of Ireland, and now again 

 occur at Lough Gur, as recorded in the Zoologist (Zool. 1591). The 

 manner in which these bones have been buried, the frontal fracture 

 when it occurs, and the concomitant presence of human implements, 

 all point to the conclusion, that the living cattle were at some period 

 co-existent with man, although we are at present without any suf- 

 ficient clew to the exact date of this co-existence. I could, without 

 difficulty, mention a number of instances in which the bones of these 

 extinct breeds of cattle and those of giant deer have occurred together, 

 but as this is debatable ground, I will only cite the recent instance 

 at Lough Gur : can there exist a sceptic on this point ? And if not, 

 we may proceed a step further : the bones of the deer and the cattle 

 not only occur in company, in similar situations and under similar cir- 

 cumstances, but their condition is similar, they all still contain that 

 large proportion of animal matter, which implies the comparatively 

 modern date of their existence. This has to be accounted for, and 

 we find that " the presence of animal matter, and the peculiarly 

 fresh and recent appearances of these remains, is to be attributed 

 to the antiseptic properties of the turf or bog in which they are 

 found." This seems rational, but why should it apply solely to 

 the giant deer ? Why not to the slaughtered oxen ? Why not to 

 the slaughtered swine ? Why not to human bodies ? Why are not 

 all organic remains thus preserved alike pre-adamite ? Professor 

 Owen seems to have caught a glimpse of this argument ; at any rate, 

 he has found that the bog is not quite old enough for the purpose; he 

 therefore removes the deer-bones beyond the reach of bog and bog- 

 water, and thus loses the benefit of their " antiseptic properties : " he 

 " met with no person who had seen them in the peat itself," they were 

 invariably " dug out of the lacustrine shell-marl beneath the peat or 

 bog-earth." My readers will doubtless see how diametrically opposed 

 are these two ways of establishing the antiquity of the bones under 

 consideration ! Now for the frontal facture. Here are certain skulls of 

 deer, cattle and swine found in company, and so similar in their state 

 of preservation, that the most skilful geologist cannot decide on the 

 greater antiquity of either : all these animals have a manifest frontal 

 fracture, and the apertures are so similar that they might all have 



