Section C. — Address by Mr. W. Pengelly , President. 429 
whilst they differ in the two cases, agree in being such as may have been 
furnished by the districts adjacent to the Caveru-hills respectively, but 
not by the hills themselves, and must have been deposited prior to the 
existing local geographical conditions. In each, this bed contained fliut 
implements and relics of Bear, but in neither of them those of Hyaena. 
In short, the Fourth Bed of Windmill Hill Cavern, Brixham, and tbe 
Breccia of Kent’s Hole, Torquay, are coeval, and belong to what I have 
called the Ursine period of the latter. 
2nd. The beds just mentioned were in each Cavern sealed with a sheet 
of Stalagmite, which was partially broken up, and considerable portions of 
the subjacent beds were dislodged before the introduction of the beds next 
deposited. 
3rd. The Great Bone Bed, both at Brixham and Torquay, consisted of 
red clayey loam, with a large per-centage of angular fragmeuts of lime- 
stone ; and contained flake implements of flint and chert, inosculating 
with remains of Mammoth, the tichorhine Rhinoceros, and Hyaena. In 
fine, the Cave-earth of Kent’s Hole and the Third Bed of Brixham Cavern 
correspond in their materials, in their osseous contents, and in their flint 
tools. They both belong to what I have named the Hycenine period of the 
Torquay Cave. 
But, as already stated, there are points in which the two Caverns 
differ : — 
Ist. Whilst Kent’s Hole was the home of Man, as well as of the Con- 
temporary Hyaena during the absences of the human occupant, there is no 
reason to suppose that either Man or any of the lower animals ever did 
more than make occasioual visits to Brixham Cave. The latter contained 
no flint chips, no bone tools, no utilized Pecten- Shells, no bits of charcoal, 
and no coprolites of Hyaena, all of which occurred in the Cave-earth of 
Kent’s Hole. 
2nd. In the Torquay Cave relics of Hyaena were much more abundant 
in the Cave-earth than those of any otber species. Taking the teeth 
alone, of which vast numbers were found, those of the Hyaena amounted 
to about 30 per cent. of the entire series, notwithstanding the fact that, com- 
pared with most of the Cave-mammals, his jaws, when furnished completely, 
possess but few teeth. At Brixham, on the other hand, his relics of all 
kinds amounted to no more than 8 ‘5 per cent. of all the osseous remains, 
whilst those of the Bear rose to 53 per cent. 
3rd. The entrances of Brixham Cavern were completely filled up and its 
history suspended not later than the end of the Palaeolithic era. Nothing 
occurred within it from the days when Devonshire was occupied by the 
Cave and Grizzly Bears, Reindeer, Rhinoceros, Cave Lion, Mammoth, and 
Man, whose best tools were unpolished flints, until the quarrymen broke 
into it early in a.d. 1851. Kent’s Cavern, on the contrary, seems to have 
never been closed, never unvisited by Man, from the earliest Palaeolithic 
times to our own, with the possible exception of the Neolithic era, of 
which it cannot be said to have yielded any certain evidence. 
Though my History of Cavern Exploration in Devonshire is now com- 
pleted, so far as the time at my disposal will allow, and so far as the 
materials are at present ripe for the historian, I venture to ask your 
furtlier indulgence for a few brief moments whilst passing from the region 
of Fact to that of Iuference. 
That the Kent’s-Hole men of the Hysenine period — to say nothing at 
present of their predecessors of the Breccia — belonged to the Pleistocene 
times of the Biologist, is seen in the fact that they were Contemporary 
with Mammals peculiar to, and characteristic of, those times. Tliis 
contemporaneity proves them to have belonged to the Palceolitkic era of 
Britain and W estern Europe generally, as defined by the Archaeologist ; 
