10 
ANNALS OF THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM, No. 5. 
work and recorded the fact on monuments left to us to decypher ? 
On a former occasion those who are interested in the matter were 
asked (Pro. Lin. Soc, N.S.W., Vol. 8, p. 187) to accept a statement 
that tooth-marked bones are not unfrequently found interspersed 
among the fossils of the Darling Downs, and with it a suggestion that 
such bones bear evidence of maltreatment between the jaws of 
Thylacoleo, the cuts and bruises on their surfaces being fairly 
attributable to the action of the peculiar premolars of that animal. 
Up to that time no other teeth capable of producing the effects 
described were known, and the inference was a reasonable one, if only 
we could stand aside from the odontological dispute. No other such 
teeth have been subsequently discovered among some thousands 
collected in the interval, and the inference appears still more reasonable. 
But by way of presenting the facts in a clearer light by an appeal to 
the eye, some illustrations of the injuries to which the bones have been 
subjected are now offered. 
On Plate VI., fig. A, we have delineated a part of an ulna of 
a large kangaroo. On the convexity of its anterior surface is a 
lunulate incision (1), conformable in its downward curve to that 
convexity ; the proximal edge of the incision shows a clean slanting 
cut through the dense outer table of the bone to the vertical depth of 
a millimetre ; the other the rough splintered surface from which the 
bone tissue was broken off by the stroke. This cut into the 
substance of the bone is clearly due to a vigorous use of some broad 
incisive instrument. Near the surface of fracture appears a smaller 
nick of the like nature (2), and nearly in opposition to it several 
scorings (3), evidently the marks of gnawing teeth, show where the 
division of the bone was ultimately effected. By what means was the 
cut (1) so cleanly made ? The only two capable instruments known 
to me are the tomahawk and the tooth of Thylacoleo. The tooth of 
the dog was an incapable one, even were that animal on the spot at 
the time, which, as far as we know, it was not, The use of the human 
implement, were man also in existence then in Queensland, is 
positively denied, while that of the tooth of Thylacoleo is as positively 
affirmed by the second example. This (Plate VII., figs. Ca. and Cb.) 
is a rib of a kangaroo exhibiting on one side two adjacent cuts each 
similar to the one before mentioned, and exactly opposite to them on 
the other side two corresponding cuts. These latter prove incontestably 
that they and their opposites were made simultaneously by two 
chisel-edged shearing blades brought together with sudden force*; for 
their sloping sides are inclined in opposite directions. Of precisely 
similar character are the cuts shown on opposite sides of a third fossil 
(Plate VII., figs. Aa. and Ab.) — and if it were necessary or even 
possible, there might be figured quite a number of bones telling the 
same tale in like manner though with varying emphasis. Prom the 
surface of the bone figured on Plate VI., fig. C, two contiguous 
portions of the substance of the bone have been chopped out bodily. 
Plate VII., Figs. Ba. and Bb., represents the most striking proof, 
however, that the interpretation of these palaeoglyphs is well founded. 
It is a mandible of a young kangaroo ; on its outer side (Ba.) close 
to the root of the ascending limb the alveolar margin of the bone has 
