No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
It frequently happens that in questioning the occurrence of remains in any deposit, we have to point out that they may have been derivative from older beds, or, on the other hand, may have been introduced at some later date into that in which they are actually found. In such cases various hypothetical explanations are offered with a view to proving that sources of error still remain, which must be investigated before the unexpected association of remains can be accepted as a fact. Such difficulties frequently meet us in investigating the contents of caves, beds of gravel and sand, etc., more frequently in connexion with the history of the newer formations, and especially in criticizing the evidence for the association of human relics with the remains of extinct forms of life. It becomes of importance therefore to place on record any well-authenticated case in which objects in the same deposit and in the same state of preservation can be shown to belong to totally different times.
1 Seealso 1838, Brodie, Rev. P. B. Notice of the Occurrence of Land and Freshwater Shells with Bones of some Extinct Animals in the Gravel near Cambridge, with Notes by the Rev. Prof. Sedgwick. Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc. vol. viii. 1844, p. 138.—Seeley, H. G. A Sketch of the Gravels and Drift of the Fenland. Quart. Joura. Gtol. Soc. vol. xxii. p. 470.—Dewick, Ed. S. The Land and Freshwater Shells of Barnwell, from a list prepared by Mr. Dewick from the specimens in his own collection. Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxii. p. 477.