that we had before our eyes the human type corresponding to the epoch we are considering; but, we again ask, what arguments could be based on a few fragments of one single skull? These reservations having been laid down, let us see what some of our great anatomical reasoners have thought about the Engis skull. The representation which we here give (fig. 37) of the Engis skull was taken from the cast in the Museum of Saint-Germain, and we may perceive from it that the skull is not complete; the entire base of the skull is wanting, and all the bones of the face have disappeared. Consequently it is impossible either to measure the facial angle or to take account of the development of the lower jaw. [Illustration: Fig. 37.--Portion of a Skull of an Individual belonging to the Epoch of the Great Bear and the Mammoth, found in the Cave of Engis.] We shall not, therefore, surprise any of our readers when we state that the opinions on this subject differ in the most extraordinary degree. In the eyes of Professor Huxley, the English anatomist, this skull offers no indication of degradation; it presents "a good average," and it might just as well be the head of a philosopher as the head of an uncivilised savage. To others--for instance, to Carl Vogt--it indicates an altogether rudimentary degree of intellect. Thus Hippocrates-Huxley says _yes_, Galen-Vogt says _no_, and Celsus-Lyell says neither _yes_ nor _no_. This causes us but little surprise, but it induces us not to waste more time in discussing a question altogether in the dark, that is, upon altogether incomplete data. [Illustration: Fig. 38.--Portion of the so-called Neanderthal Skull.] We will now turn our attention to another skull, equally celebrated, which was found in 1857 by Dr. Fuhlrott, near Dusseldorf, in a deep ravine known by the name of Neanderthal. This skull (fig. 38) was discovered in the midst of a small cave under a layer of mud about 5 feet in thickness. The entire skeleton was doubtless buried on the same spot, but the workmen engaged in clearing out the cave must have inadvertently scattered a great portion of the bones, for the largest only could be collected. It is well to call attention to the fact that no animal remains were found near these bones; there is, therefore, no certain proof that the latter can be assigned to the epoch of the great bear: they might, in fact, be either more recent or more modern. Most geologists are, however, of opinion that they ought to be referred to the above-named early date. The Neanderthal skull, of which we possess even a smaller portion than of the preceding, differs from the Engis skull. It is characterised by an extraordinary development of the frontal sinuses; that is, by an enormous projection of the superciliary ridges, behind which the frontal bone presents a considerable depression. The cranium is very thick, and of an elongated elliptical shape; the forehead is narrow and low.