63 
consequence of the diversity of opinion as to the specific 
identity of the wolf and the dog, I am not able to assign the 
above skulls, jaws, and other bones to either of these animals 
with certainty. They are too small for a mature wolf of the 
ordinary size, and we know they cannot have been immature, 
as the teeth leave no doubt of their having belonged to adult 
animals. The molar teeth especially, and the low contracted 
character of the forehead closely resemble the wolf; but 
when placed beside the remains of a wolf found in the same 
cave, the contrast in size is very obvious. The inference 
appears to be that the canine remains belonged either 
to a smaller species of wolf, (which has been hitherto 
undescribed) or to a wolf-like variety of dog, equally 
unknown, named by me provisionally, Canis primaevus, which 
existed in Britain contemporaneously with the former, and 
from which it is not possible to distinguish it by the bones 
alone. If the dog is only the domesticated progeny of the 
wolf, as some writers believe, it might, a priori, be imagined 
that the numerous bones found were simply the remains of 
dogs belonging to the ancient human inmates of the caves 
which had been kept to hunt down the wild animals of the 
district for food, who had died in the cave, and became 
gradually buried up. This conjecture, however, appears 
liable to serious objections ; for, although unquestionably 
contemporary with man, it is not so certain that they were 
co-tenants of the cave at the same period ; as, in the first place, 
these bones occur below the mass of articles of human con- 
struction and human remains, except in the one startling 
instance of the parietal bones at the bottom of the stalag- 
mite. And again, the human bones are so few as to suggest 
the probability of their having been carried to the cave as 
food by the carnivorous quadrupeds, rather than that the 
latter were the servants of the primaeval human occupants, 
who would scarcely have allowed the decomposing bodies of 
