POSTSCRIPT. 
As I have ventured in this work to controvert the opinions ex¬ 
pressed by M. Cuvier in his first edition, on points of high import¬ 
ance, in relation to the chronology of the animal remains contained 
in the caves, fissures, and diluvian gravel; I am much gratified that 
the recent publication of the fourth volume of his second edition 
enables me to subjoin the testimony of that illustrious naturalist to 
the correctness of my views on the points in question, and to add the 
flattering sanction of his full approbation of the description I have 
published of the cave at Kirkdale, and of the important inferences I 
have founded upon its phenomena. 
At page 224, discussing the date of the osseous breccia of 
Gibraltar, and on the coast of the Mediterranean, which he had before 
considered to be more recent than the bones in the caves and diluvian 
gravel, M. Cuvier says, « Je reviens done a l’idee que je n’avois ose 
embrasser autrefois ; celle que ces depots des breches osseuses ont ete 
formes aux depens de la population contemporaire des rhinoceros et 
des elephans fossiles.” 
And again at page 486, “ les breches osseuses paroissent aujour- 
