94 IOWA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE Vol. XXIV, 1917 
case of the occurrence of human remains in undoubted, undis- 
turbed loess is known in Europe. In his recent work, Osborn 1 
repeatedly refers to loess stations, but in most cases, encloses 
the term “loess” in quotation marks and does not enter into a 
discussion of the correctness of the designation. 
Not only is there doubt in the cases cited that the material is 
loess, but in some of the prominent cases cited by this and 
other writers, there is a great difference in opinion as to the age 
of the deposit from which the human remains were obtained. 
Thus Osborn 2 following Werth 3 refers the Heidelberg (or 
Mauer) man to the Second Interglacial Stage. Sehoetensack, 4 
who published the original account of the discovery of the lower 
jaw of this man, referred the sands in which it was found to the 
First Interglacial Stage. Babor 5 refers it to the Third Glacial 
Stage, partly on the basis of stratigraphy, but chiefly on ac- 
count of the character of the mammalian and molluscan faunas. 
The entire section has also been carelessly included in loess, 
though the difference in age of the lower sands and the over- 
lying loess has long been recognized. 6 
The human, mammalian, and molluscan remains discussed by 
the several authors here quoted came from the older sands, and 
not from the overlying loess or loesslike strata. The age of the 
Predmost, or Briinn man, discovered at Predmosti, near Brno 
(Briinn), in Moravia, in 1891, is equally uncertain. Cerny 7 
places the remains in the Third Interglacial Stage, while Wold- 
rich 8 considers them postglacial, as do Osborn, 9 Babor, 10 and 
others. All authors consider the deposit in which the numerous 
human bones were found as loess, yet in 1883 Makowsky 11 re- 
ceived a skull taken by workmen from a sandy portion of what 
he also calls loess, at Husovice near Brno (Briinn). This fact, 
taken in connection with the conclusion reached by the later 
iHenry Fairfield Osborn, Men of the Old Stone Age, 1916. 
2 Loc. cit. 
3 E. Werth, Globns, Vol. XCVI, p. 15, 1909. 
4 Otto Sehoetensack, Der Unterkiefer des Homo heidelbergensis aus den 
Sanden von Mauer bei Heidelberg, 67 pp., 1908. 
5 J. Babor, O. atari lidstva : Priroda a Skola, Vol. VIII, No. 4, 1909. 
6 See E. W. Benecke und E. Cohen, Geognostische Beschreibung der Ura- 
gegend von Heidelberg, p. 532, et seq., 1881. 
7 Fr. Cerny, Pravek II. 
8 Vseobecna Geologie, Vol. Ill, p. 542 ; 1905. 
9 Loc. cit., p. 23, 
10 Loc. cit., p. 1, footnote. 
n Alexander Makowsky, Der Loss von Briinn. Verhandlung. d. nat. Verein 
in Briinn, Vol. XXVI, p. 237 ; 1888. 
