animals present, but at least one living species was known.
We find more proofs of his presence, but whether they are
sufficient to convince us that man really lived during that
epoch is to be seen.

Prof. Whitney has brought to the attention of the scientific
world what he considers ample evidence of the presence of
Pliocene man in California. We reserve this for discussion in
another place. We will only remark, at present, that the
evidence in this case is regarded as sufficient by some of the
best of American Scholars.<57> We simply mention them here, so
that they may be borne in mind when we see what evidence Europe
has to offer on this point. In 1863, M. Desnoyers, of France,
discovered, in a stratum which he considered Pliocene, some
bones of elephants and other animals cut and scratched in such a
manner that he considered the cuts to be the work of man.
As showing how cautious geologists are of accepting such
conclusions, we mention this case. There was found in the same
bed the remains of an extinct beaver. The question was at once
raised, whether rodents by gnawing these bones could not have
produced the cuts in question. Sir Charles Lyell, by actual
experiments in the Zoological Gardens in London, soon showed
that this was probably the fact.<58> Yet Sir John Lubbock thinks
it quite likely some of them were of human origin.<59>
Subsequently, however, M. Bourgeois discovered in the same bed
worked flints, about the human origin of which there seems to be
no doubt;<60> but a more careful study of the formation in which
they occur has raised questions as to its age. Though usually
held to be Pliocene, some careful observers consider it to be of
a later age. Geologists can not be accused of rashly accepting