^{page 414 note 2} For a list of British Fossil Mammalia, etc., see paper by H. Woodward, entitled “Man and the Mammoth; being an account of the animals found associated with early man in prehistoric times.” GEOL. MAG., 1869, Vol. VI., p. 58.—EDIT.

^{page 414 note 1} “Journal of the Geological Society of Dublin,” vol. i., p. 228.

^{page 414 note 2} “Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy,” vol. vii., p. 193.

^{page 414 note 3} “Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy,” vol. iv., p. 416.

^{page 415 note 1} “Proceedings of the the Royal Irish Academy,” vol. v., App., 54, vii.

^{page 415 note 2} “Journal of the Royal Dublin Society,” vol. ii., p. 451.

^{page 415 note 3} On applying to Mr. Going for further information on this subject, I received the following letter, whioh he has kindly permitted me to print:— “Violet Hill Broadford, June 20, 1864.

“SIR,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 17th inst., and will feel happy at affording you all the information I can relative to the finding of the animal remains you allude to in this locality.

“Some years since, my men, in draining a small boggy hollow, found a quantity of bones under the bog, in the blue clay. The bones were evidently those of some animal much larger than any dog, being stronger in proportion to their length, and exactly similar, as far as I and some friends could judge, to the skeleton of a large bear. The skull was about twelve inches long, but the nose part was broken off, and very much resembled the shape of a Badger's skull, but about the size of a large Bear's. Most. unfortunately, I regret to state, these bones were not preserved. The skull was kept for some time, but has been lost; but for which I should have much pleasure in sending it for your examination. Near the place where these bones were found, in a few days after, two large tusks, about eight or nine inches long each, were also turned up, with several teeth also, besides some bones and skulls of other animals, which were found in a bog, in a wood, when raising some large black oak trees, several feet under the surface. The latter skulls resemble the first alluded to, but were of smaller size. I regret very much now that I have not preserved them, with the exception of an Elk's head ana antler, which I have heard stated is the largest found in this county, but not in the same place in which other remains were discovered. All those alluded to were clearly belonging to extinct animals.—I have the honour to remain, Sir, your obedient servant, “R. H. Scott, Esq.” “W. QUIN GOING.

^{page 416 note 1} Explanation to Sheet 133 of the Map of the “Geological Survey of Ireland,” p. 34.

^{page 416 note 2} With reference to this identification, I have to subjoin the following letter, received since from Mr. Jukes:— “Dublin May 10, 1864.

^{page 416 note 3} “MY DEAR MR. SCOTT,—I took over to London the other day; the teeth which were found in Coole Park, and which Mr. Blyth informed me were those of a young brown Bear, and asked Professor Huxley to give me an opinion upon them. He examined them, and said they belonged to a young pig. So this case of the occurrence of Ursus arctos in Ireland fails.—Yours very truly, “J B. JUKES.”

^{page 417 note 1} Boate, “Natural History of Ireland,” p. 128. See also Phil. Trans, vol. xxix.

^{page 417 note 2} “Journal of the Royal Dublin Society,” vol. ii., p. 251.

^{page 417 note 3} “Journal of the Geological Society of Dublin,” vol. iii., p. 70.

^{page 418 note 1} “Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy,” vol. viii, p. 472.

^{page 418 note 2} With reference to this, Dr. Carte has received the following letters from Mr. Robert Patterson, of Belfast, which he has permitted me to print:— “Belfast, February 10, 1864.

“MY DEAR SIR,—As my friend, Mr. Hyndman, knew better than myself about the elk's horn in the Museum, I sent him your letter, and enclose his reply.

“Dr. Carte.”

“Yours very sincerely, ROBERT PATTERSON.

“February 9, 1864.

“‘MY DEAR SIR,—I have examined the elk's horn in the Museum, and I think the freshness of it, and the perfection of the points or tangs, forbid the supposition that it could ever have remained any lengthened time in the bog. Besides the paint upon it, mentioned by Thompson, there is a round hole bored through the broad plate of the horn, showing that at some period it had been put up as an ornament in some person's hall. It must have got into its position in the bog Dy some accident.

“‘Robert Patterson, Esq.’”

“‘Yours very truly, GEORGE C. HYNDMAN.

This opinion of Mr. Hyndman has derived additional confirmation from a communication which I have received from a friend of mine, Mr. Bernard R. Ross, F.R.G.S., of the Hudson's Bay Company's Service, who, on examining the horn, pronounced it to be a North American specimen, and of no great antiquity.

^{page 419 note 1} “Journal of the Geological Society of Dublin,” vol. ix., p. 339.

^{page 419 note 2} “Proceedings of the Geological and Polytechnic Society of the “West Riding of Yorkshire,” vol. iii., p. 400.

^{page 419 note 3} Unfortunately, this specimen appears to have been mislaid, and cannot now be found.

^{page 419 note 4} Journal Geol. Soc. Dublin, vol. x. p. 127.

^{page 420 note 1} Journal Geol. Soc. Dublin, vol. iii. p. 18.

^{page 421 note 1} We gladly publish Archdeacon Pratt's reply to M. Delsunay, which appears, by some error on the part of the author, to have been inadvertently sent, in the first instance, to the Philosophical Magazine, in which it appeared in July last.—EDIT.

GEOL. MAG.

^{page 421 note 2} Translated in the GEOLOGICAL MAGAZINE, November, 1868, Vol. V., p. 507.