BONES OF MEN IN FOSSILIFEROUS CAVES. 95 
bourhood of which I have a more particular 
knowledge, no instance of this adopted residence 
has occurred to me by which I might speak on the 
subject from personal investigation, I am here 
enabled to afford the reader some information on 
this curious inquiry, illustrated by the contents of 
the above named cavern at Torquay. 
A dispute has been long in vogue, and still 
lingers among the learned in antiquity, as to the 
equality or disparity in age, of the ordinary fossil 
bones of caverns, and of the human remains and 
works of art occasionally found in the same spots, 
and more or less associated with the former. For 
my own part, I am wholly unable to judge in this 
matter by the aid of history or antiquarian know¬ 
ledge, but, after a perusal of the “ Reliquiae 
Diluvianse,” I came to the persuasion, that no theory 
could be more rational than Dr. Buckland’s, or 
would at all bear comparison therewith. Subsequent 
and frequent consideration of the question has 
always tended to confirm me in my first impression, 
save that I am not thoroughly convinced that our 
fossil bones belon g to the period preceding theMosaic 
Flood, or that this deluge was universal. Not long 
since, I was informed by a very celebrated and 
learned antiquary, who himself supports the idea 
of the coevality of the animal and human remains, 
that Mr. Me. Enery willing and anxious to support 
Dr. Buckland’s ideas, when asked —“ Did you, or 
did you not find human bones in this cave?” 
reluctantly and hesitatingly replied in the affirmative. 
In Natural History, not only is the mode of argu¬ 
ment in great measure peculiar by its rigidity, but 
the autoptical examination of subjects is, (or ought 
to be,) by its extreme scrutiny and discrimination, 
peculiar also. The present case is one decidedly 
illustrative of this assertion, and will serve to shew 
the necessity of a full inquiry into facts before 
