290 THE GEOLOGIST. 



as peculiar to goats ; it has, on the contrary, those belonging to the 

 antelope. 



The teeth, of the upper jaw bone, and particularly of the lower one, 

 have the interlobular tubercules jutting out, becoming in some speci- 

 mens real columns. The principal part of the skull does not recede 

 behind the horns as does that of the goat. It is straight and massive, 

 and forms a right angle with the occiput. As there is no existing 

 sub-genus of antelope in which this could be placed, the name of 

 tragoceras (rpdyos goat, and x*P as horn) has been proposed for it, 

 and Trag. Amalthceus in the name M. Gaudry would give the above 

 described species. 



In a small skull of an antelope, still furnished with its teeth and the 

 bony axes of its horns, the extremity of the nasal and intermaxillary 

 bone is still preserved. This discovery allows him to determine a 

 great many axes which, up to the present time, had been found sepa- 

 rated, and which M. Wagner had included under the name of Antelope 

 brevicornis. The skull discovered can be classed in the sub-genus 

 gazelle. It resembles the general form of the head of the common 

 gazelle in the direction of its horns, their point of insertion, their 

 spread and the orbital depressions at their base. 



Some specimens of the Antelope Lindermay&ri have also been dis- 

 covered, which much resemble the Oreas canua, though differing in 

 detail. M. Gaudry, therefore, proposes to name it Palaeoreas 

 Lindermayeri. 



Entire skulls of all the antelopes found at Pikermi are now in the 

 possession of M. Gaudry. An undescribed one, much resembling the 

 sub-genus Antidorcas has just been forwarded to him. 



Two skulls, found in 1855, resembling Tragoceras amalthcms ap- 

 pear sufficiently distinct to constitute another specie 5 *, which M. 

 Gaudry names Trag. Valenciennesi, in honour of the distinguished 

 savant to whose good counsel in palaeontology M. Gaudry owes so 

 much. 



On Flint Implements, By MM. Boucher de Perthes and Robert. 



In our number for May we gave a resume of a paper by M. Robert on 

 the substances worked by the primitive Gauls, in which he stated his 

 opinions on the age of the Celts, &c, which have been discovered in 

 several parts of France. 



M. Boucher de Perthes, in a memoir read before the Paris Academy 

 of Sciences, replies to this paper, and, having arrived at a very different 

 result from M. Robert on the subject, proceeds to state the grounds 

 for so doing. 



In the first place he says, that recent bones have never been found 

 at St. Acheul, Abbeville, or indeed in any deposit of diluvium mixed 

 with fossil bones. This statement differs toto ccelo from that of M. 

 Robert, to which we again refer our readers. 



Secondly, he states that M. Robert is in error in saying that the 



