404 Early Traces of Man . [June, 
Tertiary Man . — -Important as are the results of the An- 
thropological Exposition from the point of view of quater- 
nary man, they are still more so from the point of view of 
tertiary man. 
But first let us understand what is meant by the terms 
quaternary and tertiary man. 
The fauna of the mammals serves clearly to determine 
the limits of these later geological periods. 
The Tertiary is characterised by terrestrial mammals en- 
tirely different from extant species ; the Quaternary by the 
mingling of extant with extinCt species ; the present period 
by the extant fauna. 
The man of the early Quaternary, he who made the St. 
Acheul hatchets and used them, is the man of Neanderthal, 
of Canstatt, of Enggisheim, of La Naulette, of Denise. 
He is indubitably a man, but differing more widely from the 
Australian and the Hottentot than the Australian and Hot- 
tentot differ from the European. Hence unquestionably he 
formed another human species, the word species being taken 
in the sense given to it by naturalists who do not accept the 
transformation doCIrine. 
Tertiary man, therefore, must have been still more dis- 
tinct — of a species still less like the present human species ; 
indeed, so different as to entitle it to be regarded as of dis- 
tinct genus. For this reason I have given to this being the 
name of man’s precursor. Or he might be called anthropo- 
pithecus — the man-monkey. 
The question of Tertiary man should therefore be ex- 
pressed thus : — Did there exist in the Tertiary age beings 
sufficiently intelligent to perform a part of the aCts which 
are characteristic of man ? 
So stated, the question is settled most completely by the 
various series of objects sent to the Anthropological Expo- 
sition. 
The first and oldest of these collections was that made by 
the late Abbe Bourgeois, at Thenay (Loir-et-Cher). At the 
International Congress of Prehistoric Archaeology and An- 
thropology, held in Paris in 1867, the Abbe Bourgeois exhi- 
bited tertiary flints which, he claimed, had been chipped 
intentionally. These early specimens were not very con- 
clusive, lost as they were amid a multitude of other specimens 
which certainly had not been fashioned intentionally, unless 
one can suppose that they had been intentionally split by 
the aCtion of fire. The result was that the Abbe’s commu- 
mication won to his side but few adherents. But, profoundly 
convinced of the reality of his discovery, the Abbe Bourgeois 
