Hence, therefore, there is no reason, a priori, why they should not contain remains of the same antiquity as the most ancient that are found in the horizontal alluvia. That they do so is rendered probable, by the case of Corsica, just mentioned. If this does not happen more commonly, many reasons are easily assigned, without the necessity of drawing geological and general conclusions, the object of which is as little apparent as they are in themselves groundless. The very rarity of these fissures, or rocks, is a sufficient reason why animal remains could not abound in such situations ; but still more, perhaps, is it a question of zoology than of geology, of the living, not the dead, history of animals. Such places must have been frequented but by a small number of species, from their own limited extent ; while, among these species, the bones alone could be found of such whose propensity it was to retire to places of concealment to die. Lastly, we can perceive no difference whatever, as far as the history of fossil remains is concerned, between these cases and those of the caverns of Bayreuth, though said to be so very different. They are, in every respect, absolutely similar, with the single casual difference, that the open ness of one cavity has admitted the introduction of frag ments, and the seclusion of the other has prevented it. In terminating these remarks, we need only add, that we have thought it a duty to examine these opinions of Cu vier freely, not because we hold him lightly, but the re verse ; it is from authority so justly weighty as his that errors become propagated till they are almost incorrigi ble. We shall conclude this part of the subject with a bare sketch of his account of these organiferous con glomerates.
In Gibraltar, the bones are considered to belong to the antelope, or some analogous animal, and to some small animals of the order of the Glires, which he imagines may be a Lagomys. There are also shells, far more likely to be terrene than aquatic.
Near Montpellier and Cette some of the bones resem ble those of the rabbit, of two different sizes ; others those of a mouse, thought to resemble the Mus arvalis ; others, again, those of some bird of the order Passeres ; besides which, there are the bones of some ruminating animal resembling an antelope, together with vertebrae of a ser pent resembling the common snake, and land shells ; two of these being Helices, and one a Pupa.
In the breccia of Nice were found bones belonging to the horse, and to two species of ruminating animals, to gether with land shells. That of Antibes contains bones that are apparently the same as those of the ruminating animals just mentioned.
In Corsica,Cuvier is of opinion that many of the bones, at least, belong to animals that do not now live in the sur rounding country. We already mentioned the resem blance to the Lagomys alpinus among them, a species be longing to Siberia. Besides these, some of the bones are
thought to resemble those of the water rat and the Mus terrestris.
In Dalmatia, the bones are said to belong to the same ruminating animal as that of Gibraltar, and to the horse ; and in Cerigo they belong to unknown ruminating ani mals. These have been particularly described by Fortis.
There are two different heaps on the desert rock of Gutim, and also at a place called Platt, on the island of Cherso. They also occur in the caves of Germoshall, and at Porto Cicale and Balnavida. He also observed two heaps in the small islands Canidole Picciola and Sansego. Simi lar circumstances occur in most of the Illyric islands, and even in Isola Grossa, in Corfu, and in Cyprus.
The bones of Arragon, formerly mentioned, are found at Cueva Rubia, near Teruel, as also at Romagnano, in the valley of Pantena and of Ronca ; and are those of the ox, ass, and sheep, together with shells. Of those of Vi cenza and Verona we have already sufficiently spoken ; and shall here only add, that Cuvier has totally misappre hended the nature of the Italian alluvia and upper strata, which may be deduced, without much difficulty, from the Conchologia Sub-?ppennina of Brocchi, by merely alter ing his hypothesis.
On the general Principles by which the Fossil Bones are referred to their Genera and Species.
In the case of corals and shells, the hardness of the parts, and the compactness of the forms, are such, that there is seldom any difficulty in distinguishing the genera and species, from the excellent preservation of the parts. In many instances, in fact, the fossil objects are almost as perfect as the living ones. With respect to fishes, the facility is far from being so great, as there is not often much more than the skeleton preserved. Yet, as the or gans of these animals are fewer, and their bodies more compact and less various, it is often sufficiently easy, even from these imperfect remains, to ascertain not only the genera but the species. The difficulties are much greater in the case of quadrupeds or birds. Sometimes the dis tinctions, the specific ones at least, are derived from marks which are inevitably destroyed in the fossil individuals, even though the entire skeletons should be found. Such are the colour, and other superficial characters, which can not be preserved in the earth through such periods of time, and in the midst of the injuries which they must have undergone. But, instead of the skeletons, it is much more common to find scattered bones and fragments ; and sometimes it happens that even of these only a few are discovered, as we observed not long ago. Hence the dif ficulties that stand in the way of these investigations are far greater than those which belong to any other fossils, although they are very far from being insuperable, as the labours of Cuvier have shown.