so good as to be unmistakable, but the reverse is oftener the case;
and in the present instance I can make no more of the carving than
you have done, excepting that if any particular species may have
been in the carver's mind, his execution does not suffice for its
determination.

The views entertained by Dr. Coues as to the resemblances of the
carvings will thus be seen to coincide with those expressed above.
Another prominent ornithologist, Mr. Ridgway, has also given verbal
expression to precisely similar views.

So far, therefore, as the carvings themselves afford evidence to the
naturalist, their general likeness entirely accords with the supposition
that they were not intended to be copies of particular species. Many of
the specimens are in fact just about what might be expected when a
workman, with crude ideas of art expression, sat down with intent to
carve out a bird, for instance, without the desire, even if possessed of
the requisite degree of skill, to impress upon the stone the details
necessary to make it the likeness of a particular species.


GENERALIZATION NOT DESIGNED.

While the resemblances of most of the carvings, as indicated above, must
be admitted to be of a general and not of a special character, it does
not follow that their general type was the result of design.

Such an explanation of their general character and resemblances is,
indeed, entirely inconsistent with certain well-known facts regarding
the mental operations of primitive or semi-civilized man. To the mind of