944 PROFESSOR J. PRESTWICK ON THE EVIDENCES OF A SUBMERGENCE 
stated objections which must, I think, be considered fatal.* 2nd, that suggested by 
Dr. Falconer, who supposed that “the wild animals above enumerated, during a long 
series of ages, lived and died upon the rock. Their bones lay scattered about the 
surface, and in the vast majority of instances crumbled into dust, and disappeared 
under the influence of exposure to the sun and other atmospheric agencies, as con¬ 
stantly happens under similar circumstances at the present day. But a certain 
proportion of them were strewed in hollows along the line of natural drainage when 
heavy rains fell; the latter, for the time converted into torrents, swept the bones 
with mud, shells, and other surface-materials, into the fissures that intercepted their 
course; there the extraneous objects were arrested by the irregularity of the passages, 
and subsequently solidified into a conglomerate mass by long continued calcareous 
in filtration. ”t 
Although this last explanation gets rid of some of the difficulties attached to the 
first, it gives rise to others which seem insujoerable. In the first place, it is 
improbable that all the various wild animals, of which the list is given above, 
could have at any time, or habitually lived together on the rock. The crags and 
caves may have been the resort of Hycenas and other predaceous animals, but the 
Deer, and other ruminants, the remains of which were numerous, could never have 
lived in the neighbourhood of these Carnivora. They would naturally have frequented 
the surrounding plains and forests, where they could have found food, shelter, and 
water, rather than scrags—dry and in great part barren. It is true that the pre¬ 
daceous animals might have carried there some portions of their prey, but had they 
done so, either the bones would have been devoured, or such as remained must 
inevitably have shown marks of the animals’ teeth. 
In the second place, no animal remains left on the surface could possibly have 
escaped destruction in the proximity of ground frequented by Hysenas and other 
Carnivora ; or, supposing any bones had escaped, they would have deca^^ed under 
ordinary atmospheric agencies, and exhibited more or less weathering ; had they also 
been washed down by streams and amongst rocks, they would have been rolled and 
worn. But there is no evidence of weathering or wear, nor is it shown that the 
fissures are connected with old watercourses. The bones have clear and sharp 
fractured edges. Only in two instances it is mentioned that the bones present 
the appearance of being weathered and sun-cracked, and this seems to refer to those 
found with human remains and works of art, and not to the older breccia. 
For these reasons I think this explanation cannot be accepted, and would again 
revert to the hypothesis of a submergence of the land. This affords a vera causa for 
the association of animals otherwise so little likely to be found together. It could 
only have l)een, as in the cases I have before named, a great and common danger, 
such as that of the gradual encroachment of the sea on the land, that could have so 
* Ante, p. 937, and ‘ Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc.,’ vol. 38, p. 336. 
+ ‘ Palasontolog’ical Memoirs,’ vol. 3, p. 537. 
