one　of　the　foot。
  〃This　is　a　brief　enumeration　of　the　remains　of　human　bones　collected　in
  the　cavern　of　Engis；　which　has　preserved　for　us　the　remains　of　three
  individuals；　surrounded　by　those　of　the　Elephant；　of　the　Rhinoceros；
  and　of　Carnivora　of　species　unknown　in　the　present　creation。〃
  From　the　cave　of　Engihoul；　opposite　that　of　Engis；　on　the　right　bank　of
  the　Meuse；　Schmerling　obtained　the　remains　of　three　other　individuals
  of　Man；　among　which　were　only　two　fragments　of　parietal　bones；　but　many
  bones　of　the　extremities。　　In　one　case　a　broken　fragment　of　an　ulna　was
  soldered　to　a　like　fragment　of　a　radius　by　stalagmite；　a　condition
  frequently　observed　among　the　bones　of　the　Cave　Bear　（'Ursus
  spelaeus'）；　found　in　the　Belgian　caverns。
  It　was　in　the　cavern　of　Engis　that　Professor　Schmerling　found；　incrusted
  with　stalagmite　and　joined　to　a　stone；　the　pointed　bone　implement；
  which　he　has　figured　in　Fig。　7　of　his　Plate　XXXVI。；　and　worked　flints
  were　found　by　him　in　all　those　Belgian　caves；　which　contained　an
  abundance　of　fossil　bones。
  A　short　letter　from　M。　Geoffroy　St。　Hilaire；　published　in　the　'Comptes
  Rendus'　of　the　Academy　of　Sciences　of　Paris；　for　July　2nd；　1838；　speaks
  of　a　visit　（and　apparently　a　very　hasty　one）　paid　to　the　collection　of
  Professor　'Schermidt'　（which　is　presumably　a　misprint　for　Schmerling）
  at　Liege。　　The　writer　briefly　criticises　the　drawings　which　illustrate
  Schmerling's　work；　and　affirms　that　the　〃human　cranium　is　a　little
  longer　than　it　is　represented〃　in　Schmerling's　figure。　　The　only　other
  remark　worth　quoting　is　this：〃The　aspect　of　the　human　bones　differs
  little　from　that　of　the　cave　bones；　with　which　we　are　familiar；　and　of
  which　there　is　a　considerable　collection　in　the　same　place。　　With
  respect　to　their　special　forms；　compared　with　those　of　the　varieties　of
  recent　human　crania；　few　'certain'　conclusions　can　be　put　forward；　for
  much　greater　differences　exist　between　the　different　specimens　of
  well…characterized　varieties；　than　between　the　fossil　cranium　of　Liege
  and　that　of　one　of　those　varieties　selected　as　a　term　of　comparison。〃
  Geoffroy　St。　Hilaire's　remarks　are；　it　will　be　observed；　little　but　an
  echo　of　the　philosophic　doubts　of　the　describer　and　discoverer　of　the
  remains。　　As　to　the　critique　upon　Schmerling's　figures；　I　find　that　the
  side　view　given　by　the　latter　is　really　about　3/10ths　of　an　inch
  shorter　than　the　original；　and　that　the　front　view　is　diminished　to
  about　the　same　extent。　　Otherwise　the　representation　is　not；　in　any
  way；　inaccurate；　but　corresponds　very　well　with　the　cast　which　is　in　my
  possession。
  A　piece　of　the　occipital　bone；　which　Schmerling　seems　to　have　missed；
  has　since　been　fitted　on　to　the　rest　of　the　cranium　by　an　accomplished
  anatomist；　Dr。　Spring；　of　Liege；　under　whose　direction　an　excellent
  plaster　cast　was　made　for　Sir　Charles　Lyell。　　It　is　upon　and　from　a
  duplicate　of　that　cast　that　my　own　observations　and　the　accompanying
  figures；　the　outlines　of　which　are　copied　from　very　accurate　Camera
  lucida　drawings；　by　my　friend　Mr。　Busk；　reduced　to　one…half　of　the
  natural　size；　are　made。
  As　Professor　Schmerling　observes；　the　base　of　the　skull　is　destroyed；
  and　the　facial　bones　are　entirely　absent；　but　the　roof　of　the　cranium；
  consisting　of　the　frontal；　parietal；　and　the　greater　part　of　the
  occipital　bones；　as　far　as　the　middle　of　the　occipital　foramen；　is
  entire　or　nearly　so。　The　left　temporal　bone　is　wanting。　　Of　the　right
  temporal；　the　parts　in　the　immediate　neighbourhood　of　the　auditory
  foramen；　the　mastoid　process；　and　a　considerable　portion　of　the
  squamous　element　of　the　temporal　are　well　preserved　（Fig。　22）。
  The　lines　of　fracture　which　remain　between　the　coadjusted　pieces　of　the
  skull；　and　are　faithfully　displayed　in　Schmerling's　figure；　are　readily
  traceable　in　the　cast。　　The　sutures　are　also　discernible；　but　the
  complex　disposition　of　their　serrations；　shown　in　the　figure；　is　not
  obvious　in　the　cast。　　Though　the　ridges　which　give　attachment　to　muscles
  are　not　excessively　prominent；　they　are　well　marked；　and　taken　together
  with　the　apparently　well　developed　frontal　sinuses；　and　the　condition
  of　the　sutures；　leave　no　doubt　on　my　mind　that　the　skull　is　that　of　an
  adult；　if　not　middle…aged　man。
  The　extreme　length　of　the　skull　is　7。7　inches。　　Its　extreme　breadth；
  which　corresponds　very　nearly　with　the　interval　between　the　parietal
  protuberances；　is　not　more　than　5。4　inches。　　The　proportion　of　the
  length　to　the　breadth　is　therefore　very　nearly　as　100　to　70。　　If　a　line
  be　drawn　from　the　point　at　which　the　brow　curves　in　towards　the　root　of
  the　nose；　and　which　is　called　the　'glabella'　（'a'）　（Fig。　22）；　to　the
  occipital　protuberance　（'b'）；　and　the　distance　to　the　highest　point　of
  the　arch　of　the　skull　be　measured　perpendicularly　from　this　line；　it
  will　be　found　to　be　4。75　inches。　　Viewed　from　above；　Fig。　23；　A；　the
  forehead　presents　an　evenly　rounded　curve；　and　passes　into　the　contour
  of　the　sides　and　back　of　the　skull；　which　describes　a　tolerably　regular
  elliptical　curve。
  The　front　view　（Fig。　23；　B）　shows　that　the　roof　of　the　skull　was　very
  regularly　and　elegantly　arched　in　the　transverse　direction；　and　that
  the　transverse　diameter　was　a　little　less　below　the　parietal
  protuberances；　than　above　them。　　The　forehead　cannot　be　called　narrow　in
  relation　to　the　rest　of　the　skull；　nor　can　it　be　called　a　retreating
  forehead；　on　the　contrary；　the　antero…posterior　contour　of　the　skull　is
  well　arched；　so　that　the　distance　along　that　contour；　from　the　nasal
  depression　to　the　occipital　protuberance；　measures　about　13。75　inches。
  The　transverse　arc　of　the　skull；　measured　from　one　auditory　foramen　to
  the　other；　across　the　middle　of　the　sagittal　suture；　is　about　13
  inches。　　The　sagittal　suture　itself　is　5。5　inches　long。
  The　supraciliary　prominences　or　brow…ridges　（on　each　side　of　'a'；　Fig。
  22）　are　well；　but　not　excessively；　developed；　and　are　separated　by　a
  median　depression。　　Their　principal　elevation　is　disposed　so　obliquely
  that　I　judge　them　to　be　due　to　large　frontal　sinuses。
  If　a　line　joining　the　glabella　and　the　occipital　protuberance　（'a'；　'b'；
  Fig。　22）　be　made　horizontal；　no　part　of　the　occipital　region　projects
  more　than　1/10th　of　an　inch　behind　the　posterior　extremity　of　that
  line；　and　the　upper　edge　of　the　auditory　foramen　（'c'）　is　almost　in
  contact　with　a　line　drawn　parallel　with　this　upon　the　outer　surface　of
  the　skull。
  A　transverse　line　drawn　from　one　auditory　foramen　to　the　other
  traverses；　as　usual；　the　forepart　of　the　occipital　foramen。　　The
  capacity　of　the　interior　of　this　fragmentary　skull　has　not　been
  ascertained。
  The　history　of　the　Human　remains　from　the　cavern　in　the　Neanderthal　may
  best　be　given　in　the　words　of　their　original　describer；　Dr
  Schaaffhausen*；　as　translated　by　Mr。　Busk。
  ＇footnote＇　*ON　THE　CRANIA　OF　THE　MOST　ANCIENT　RACES　OF　MAN。
  By　Professor　D。　Schaaffhausen；　of　Bonn。　　（From　Muller's
  'Archiv'。；　1858；　pp。　453。）　　With　Remarks；　and　original
  Figures；　taken　from　a　Cast　of　the　Neanderthal　Cranium。　　By
  George　Busk；　F。R。S。；　etc。　'Natural　History　Review'。　　April；
  1861。
  〃In　the　early　part　of　the　year　1857；　a　human　skeleton　was　discovered　in
  a　limestone　cave　in　the　Neanderthal；　near　Hochdal；　between　Dusseldorf
  and　Elberfeld。　　Of　this；　however；　I　was　unable　to　procure　more　than　a
  plaster　cast　of　the　cranium；　taken　at　Elberfeld；　from　which　I　drew　up
  an　account　of　its　remarkable　conformation；　which　was；　in　the　first
  instance；　read　on　the　4th　of　February；　1857；　at　the　meeting　of　the
  Lower　Rhine　Medical　and　Natural　History　Society；　at　Bonn。*
  ＇footnote＇　*'Verhandl。　d。　Naturhist。'　Vereins　der　preuss。
  Rheinlande　und　Westphalens。；　xiv。　　Bonn；　1857。
  Subsequently　Dr。　Fuhlrott；　to　whom　science　is　indebted　for　the
  preservation　of　these　bones；　which　were　not　at　first　regarded　as　human；
  and　into　whose　possession　they　afterwards　came；　brought　the　cranium
  from　Elberfeld　to　Bonn；　and　entrusted　it　to　me　for　more　accurate
  anatomical　examination。　　At　the　General　Meeting　of　the　Natural　History
  Society　of　Prussian　Rhineland　and　Westphalia；　at　Bonn；　on　the　2nd　of
  June；　1857；*　Dr　Fuhlrott　himself　gave　a　full　account　of　the　locality；
  and　of　the　circumstances　under　which　the　discovery　was　made。
  ＇footnote＇　*'Ib。　Correspondenzblatt。　　No。　2。
  He　was　of　opinion　that　the　bones　might　be　regarded　as　fossil；　and　in
  coming　to　this　conclusion；　he　laid　especial　stress　upon　the　existence
  of　dendritic　deposits；　with　which　their　surface　was　covered；　and　which
  were　first　noticed　upon　them　by　Professor　Meyer。　　To　this　communication
  I　appended　a　brief　report　on　the　results　of　my　anatomical　examination　of
  the　bones。　　The　conclusions　at　which　I　arrived　were：1st。　　That　the
  extraordinary　form　of　the　skull　was　due　to　a　natural　conformation
  hitherto　not　known　to　exist；　even　in　the　most　barbarous　races。　　2nd。
  That　these　remarkable　human　remains　belonged　to　a　period　antecedent　to
  the　time　of　the　Celts　and　Germans；　and　were　in　all　probability　derived
  from　one　of　the　wild　races　of　North…western　Europe；　spoken　of　by　Latin
  writers；　and　which　were　encountered　as　autochthones　by　the　German
  immigrants。　　And　3rdly。　　That　it　w