THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF 
76 
from the irregular manner in which the remains are now dispersed, 
and implies no difference in the time or circumstances under which 
they were introduced. 
It remains only to consider what this time and what the circum¬ 
stances were. I have already stated, that there is no evidence like 
that at Kirkdale, to show the animal remains at Oreston to have been 
collected by the hyaenas; no disproportion in the number of the 
teeth to that of the bones ; no destruction of the condyles and softer 
parts, and abundance in excess of fragments of the harder portions; 
no splinters of the marrow bones ; no friction or polish on the convex 
surfaces only of the curved bones; no marks of large teeth; no album 
graecum ; and no dispersion of bones along the horizontal surface 
of a habitable den: but, on the contrary, a deep hole nearly perpen¬ 
dicular, and bones quite perfect, lodged in irregular heaps in the 
lowest pits, and in cavities along the lateral enlargements of this hole, 
and mixed with mud, pebbles, and fragments of limestone, in pre¬ 
cisely the same manner as I shall hereafter show them to be lodged 
and mixed in the caves and fissures of Germany and Gibraltar; and 
as they would have been, supposing they were drifted to their present 
place by the diluvian waters from some lodgment which they had 
before obtained in the upper regions of these extensive and connected 
cavities. That they are of antediluvian origin is evident from the 
presence of the extinct hyaena, tiger, and rhinoceros ; but there still 
remains a difficulty in ascertaining what was the place from which 
they were so drifted; 1. Are they the bones of animals that were 
drowned, and their bodies drifted in entire by the waters which in¬ 
troduced the mud and pebbles ? Or, 2, had they lain some time dead 
