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 augle with the occiput. As there is no existing 
sub-genus of antelope in which this could be placed, the name of 
tragoceras {rfjayos goat, and x^P^^ 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 afi 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 Antelojje 
hrevicornis. 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 Lindermayeri have also been dis- 
covered, which much resemble the Oreas canua, though differing in 
detail. M. Gaudry, therefore, proposes to name it Falaeoreas 
Lindermayeri. 
Entire skulls of all tbe 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 amalthceus 2i^- 
pear sufficiently distinct to constitute another specie^, which M. 
Gaudry names Trag. Valenciennesi, in honour of the distinguished 
savant to whose good counsel in palseontology M. Gaudry owes so 
much. 
On Flint Implements. By MM. Boucher de Perthes and Egbert. 
In our number for May we gave a resume of a paper by M. Robert on 
tbe substances w#rked 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 Prance. 
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 
