intention to proceed to Limerick in a few days, and I was anxious
to look over some notes I had taken, and which I left there, of
the circumstances connected with the discovery of the fossil
remains which the Royal Dublin Society have received. As I have,
however, been obliged to postpone my departure for several days,
I can no longer defer offering my best thanks for the kind manner
in which you have received the conjectures which I formed upon a
subject to which my attention was directed, by having fortunately
been present before the bones were disturbed from the situation in
which they had lain during a period which I apprehend it would not
be easy to define. I am sensible that any consideration which may
have been attached to my observations should be attributed to the
interest which the subject itself is calculated to excite, rather
than to any ability of mine to do it justice. The opinion which
I took the liberty of communicating to you was formed after some
consideration, and although I had not the most remote idea of its
being worthy of any attention, I can have no objection to your
making any use of it which you may conceive expedient. There is, I
conceive, much interesting material for speculation, resulting from
the discovery of these fossil remains, and the first that naturally
occurs is the manner in which the animals were destroyed, and
the bones so singularly preserved. I stated, in the hasty sketch
which I gave you of my theory upon this point, that I apprehended
they must have been destroyed by some overwhelming deluge, that
they were probably drowned upon the hills where they had taken
refuge, as the waters rose, and that, as they subsided, they were
drawn from thence into the valley in which they were found; that
the agitation of the waters had occasioned such a dispersion of
the bones, when the ligaments dissolved, as would account for
their having been scattered in the way in which they were found,
and that the deposite of shell marl, with which I supposed the
water to have been turbid, had so completely protected them from
atmospheric influence as to prevent their subsequent decomposition.
To enable you to form some estimate of the reasonableness of this
supposition, it is necessary that I should endeavour to explain the
situation, &c. of the valley and the adjoining hills. The valley
in which the remains were found contains about twenty plantation
acres, and the soil consists of a stratum of peat about a foot
thick, immediately under this a stratum of shell-marl, varying
from 1½ to 2½ feet in thickness; in this many of the shells retain
their original colour and figure, and are not marine; under the
marl there is a bed of light blue clay; through this one of my
workmen drove an iron rod, in several places, twelve feet deep,
without meeting opposition. Most of the bones and heads, eight in
number, were found in the marl; many of them, however, appeared to
rest on the clay, and to be merely covered by the marl. The remains
were disposed in such a manner as to prevent the possibility of
ascertaining the exact component parts of each skeleton; in some
places portions were found removed many yards from others, and in
no instance were two bones found lying close to each other. Their
position also was singular; in one place two heads were found, with
the antlers entwined in each other, and immediately under them a
large blade-bone; in another, a very large head was discovered, and
although a most diligent search was made, no part of the skeleton
found; within some hundred yards, in another, the jaw-bones were
found, and not the head. The conclusion which, I conceive, may
fairly be deduced from such a position of the various parts of
the animals is, that there must have been some powerful agent
employed in dispersing them after their death; and as I consider
it impossible that their own gravity could have been sufficient to
sink them through the various strata, I conceive these must have
originated subsequently to the dispersion of the bones. I also
think, that, if they had been exposed for any time to atmospheric
influence, they never could have been preserved in their present
extraordinary perfection.
“The hills immediately adjoining this valley are composed of
limestone, with a covering of rich mould of various degrees of
thickness. One of them, whose base is about thirty acres, rises
directly from the edge of the valley, with sides very precipitous,
and in one place perfectly perpendicular, of naked limestone. In
every part of this hill the superficies comprises as much stone as
mould; on the side nearly opposite, the hill is equally high, but
the sides not so steep, and the covering of mould thicker; on the
other sides the ground only rises in some degree (twenty or thirty
feet perhaps), and consists of a thin mould, and immediately under
a _very hard_ limestone gravel. Indeed, except where limestone
forms the substratum, this is the character of all the soil in the
vicinity except the Corkasses, which are evidently alluvial. I am
fully aware, that, assuming the destruction of the animals to have
been occasioned by a flood, they would naturally have retreated
from the water to the hills, and that, as they probably met their
fate there, their remains should have been discovered on the summit
of the hills, and not in the valley, particularly as one of them
is perfectly flat on the top, which contains six or seven acres. I
apprehend that the remains of many of them were deposited on the
tops of the hills; but as they have _now_ only a slight covering
of mould, not sufficient to cover a small dog, they were formerly
perfectly bare; and as they were thus devoid of the means of
protecting the remains from the atmosphere, whatever was left there
soon became decomposed, and resolved into portions of the mould,
which is now to be found on the hills. This remark I conceive also
to be applicable to the soil with the substratum of limestone
gravel, which affords quite as little material for preserving the
bones as the hills do.
“It is material that I should observe, that of eight heads which
we found, none were without antlers; the variety in character also
was such as to induce me to imagine, that possibly the females were
not devoid of these appendages. Unfortunately, however, from the
difficulty of raising them, being saturated with water, and as soft
as wet brown paper, only three were at all perfect.
“Having now disposed of these antediluvians, a question naturally
arises, how it happens that the fossil remains of no other animals
were found, when the same fate probably overwhelmed every existing
creature? Could deer have been the only living beings at that
period? Was Ireland part of a great continent when this catastrophe
occurred, and were these unfortunates the first emigrants to our
Isle from that great centre from whence the globe was supplied with
occupants, and did they perish before other animals less influenced
by enterprise, and less endowed with physical strength, could have
followed their example? These problems I confess myself unable to
solve, and shall not presume to obtrude my many reveries upon this
and other points, which have originated in the discovery of a few
bones, upon those who I know are so much better competent to form a
sound opinion. I shall, I hope, be able to send the antlers, which
are very fine, on the 15th of this month.
“If you have a desire to make any use of this letter, I can only
say I have no objection. I remain, dear Sir, with feelings of great
respect,
“Yours most truly,
“WILLIAM W. MAUNSELL.”
Of this skeleton, the most perfect hitherto found, the following
interesting description is given by Mr Hart, in his memoir.
“This magnificent skeleton is perfect in every single bone of the
framework which contributes to form a part of its general outline:
the spine, the chest, the pelvis, and the extremities, are all
complete in this respect; and, when surmounted by the head, and
beautifully expanded antlers, which extend out to a distance of
nearly six feet on either side, forms a splendid display of the
reliques of the former grandeur of the animal kingdom, and carries
back the imagination to a period when whole herds of this noble
animal wandered at large over the face of the country.
To proceed with a description of the several parts of this specimen
in detail, I shall commence with the horns, which give the animal
its chief characteristic feature.
_The horns._--That the description of these may be the more
intelligible, I will first explain the terms which I mean to apply
to their several parts. Each horn consists of the socket or root,
the burr or coronary circle, the beam or shaft, the palm and the
antlers.
The socket or root is the part of the horn which grows out of
the frontal bone, and which is never shed; it is smooth, of a
brown colour, an inch and half in length, and eleven inches three
quarters in circumference; in the animal’s lifetime it was covered
by the skin. The coronary or bead-like circle, or burr, is a ring
of small, hard, whitish prominences, resembling a string of pearls,
which encircles the junction of the socket with the part of the
horn which falls annually from the heads of all deer.
The beam or shaft extends outwards, with a curvature whose
concavity looks downwards, and backwards. This part is nearly
cylindrical at its root, and its length equals about one-fourth of
that of the whole horn; its outer end is spread out and flattened
on its upper surface, and is continuous with the palm, which
expands outwards in a fan-like form, the outer extremity of which
measures two feet ten inches across, being its broadest part.
Where the beam joins the palm the horn undergoes a kind of twist,
the effect of which on the palm is, to place its edges above and
below, and its surfaces anterior and posterior; the anterior
surface is convex, and looks outwards; the posterior is concave,
and its surface looks towards that of the opposite palm. Such is
the position of the horns, when the head is so placed that the
zygomatic arch is parallel to the horizon, as it would be during
progression, or whilst the animal stands in an easy posture.
The antlers are the long pointed processes which project from
the horns, two of which grow from the beam anteriorly; the first
comes off immediately from the root, and is directed downwards,
overhanging the orbit; this is called the brow antler, which, in
this specimen, is divided into two points at its extremity[419].
The other antler, which comes off from the beam, we may call the
sur-antler: in this specimen it consists of a broad plate or palm,
concave on its upper surface, horizontal in its direction, and
forked into two points anteriorly,--an appearance which I have not
observed in any other specimen of upwards of forty which I have
seen, nor do I find it marked in any of the plates of those bones
extant.
There is one antler given off posteriorly from the junction of the
beam with the palm: it runs directly backwards parallel to the
corresponding one of the opposite horn. The inferior edge of the
palm beyond this runs outwards and backwards: it is obtuse and
thick, and its length is two feet six inches. From the anterior
and external borders of each palm there come off six long pointed
antlers. None of these are designated by any particular name. The
number of the antlers of both sides taken together is twenty-two.
The surface of the horns is of a lightish colour, resembling that
of the marl in which they were found; they are rough, and marked
with several arborescent grooves, where the ramifications of the
arteries by which they had been nourished during their growing
state were lodged. The horns, with the head attached, weighed
eighty-seven pounds avoirdupois. The distance between their extreme
tips in a right line is nine feet two inches.
_Head._--The forehead is marked by a raised ridge extended between
the roots of the horns; anterior to this, between the orbits and
the root of the nose, the skull is flat; there is a depression on
each side in front of the root of the horn and over the orbit,
capable of lodging the last joint of the thumb, at the bottom of
which is the superciliary hole, large enough to give passage to
an artery proportioned to the size of the horns. Inferior to the
orbit we have the lachrymatory fossa, and the opening left by the
deficiency of bone common to all deer, and remarkable for being
smaller in this than in any other species.
Below the orbits the skull grows suddenly narrower, and the upper
parts of the nasal bones become contracted by a depression on
either side, at the lower part of which is the infra-orbitar hole.
The opening of the nares is oval, being five inches long by three
broad, the greatest breadth being in the centre. From the roots of
the horns to the occipital spine measures three inches and an half;
the occiput descends at a right angle with this, being three inches
deep to the foramen magnum: the greatest breadth of the occiput is
eight inches. The temporal fossæ approach to within two inches of
each other behind the horns.
_Teeth._--They do not differ from those of animals of the
ruminating class. The incisors were not found, having dropped out;
there is no mark of canine teeth; the molares are not much worn
down, and are twenty-four in number.
The skeleton measures, from the end of the nose to the tip of
the tail, ten feet ten inches. The spine consists of twenty-six
vertebræ, viz. seven cervical, thirteen dorsal, and six lumbar. The
size of the cervical vertebræ greatly exceeds that of the other
classes, and the spines of the dorsal rise to a foot in height. The
necessity of these bones being so marked is obvious, considering
the strong cervical ligament, and powerful muscles, required for
supporting and moving a head which, at a moderate calculation, must
have sustained a weight of three quarters of a hundred of solid
bony matter.
The extremities are in proportion to the different parts of the
trunk, and present a conformation favourable to a combination of
great strength with fleetness.
It is not the least remarkable circumstance connected with these
bones, that they are in such a high state of preservation as to
present all the lines and impressions of the parts which had been
attached to them in the recent state. Indeed, if we examine them
as compared with the bones of an animal from which all the softer
parts have been separated by maceration, the only perceptible
differences in their physical properties are, that they are a
little heavier, a degree harder, that their surface is brown, and
that they all, with the exception of the horns, present a polished
appearance, which is owing to the periosteum having been preserved,
and still remaining to cover them, as was discovered when they were
chemically examined.
The existence of fat or adipocire in the shaft of one of the
bones mentioned by Archdeacon Maunsell, and which I saw in his
possession, is a thing for which it is extremely difficult to
account, as it occurred but in one solitary instance, and it did
not appear that this bone was at all differently circumstanced from
the rest. Those which I had an opportunity of examining, by boring
holes in them, were hollow, and contained, for the most part, only
a small quantity of black animal earth.
Mr Stokes found, in a rib of this animal,
Animal matter, 42.87
Phosphates with some Fluates, 43.45
Carb., Lime 9.14
Oxides, 1.02
Silica, 1.14
Water and loss, 2.38
------
100.00
Dr Apjohn of Dublin made the following observations with regard to
the animal matter in the bones:
‘The bone was subjected for two days to the action of dilute
muriatic acid. When examined at the end of this period, it had
become as flexible as a recent bone submitted to the action of
the same solvent. The periosteum was in some parts puffed out by
carbonic acid gas, disengaged from the bone, and appeared to be in
a state of perfect soundness.
‘To a portion of the solution of the bone in the muriatic acid some
infusion of galls was added, which caused a copious precipitate of
a dun colour. This proved to be tannate of gelatine, mixed with a
small portion of the tannate and gallate of iron.
‘The cartilage and gelatine, therefore, so far from being
destroyed, had not been perceptibly altered by time.’”
Until Baron Cuvier published his account of these remains[420], they
were generally believed to have belonged to the same species as the
moose deer or elk of North America, an opinion which appears to have
been first advanced by Dr Thomas Molyneux in 1697[421], and which
depends principally on the exaggerated description of that animal
given by Josselyn in his account of two voyages to New England,
published in 1674, in which he states that it is sometimes twelve
feet high, with horns of two fathoms wide! This was the more readily
believed by the learned Doctor, as it tended to confirm him in a
favourite theory which he seems to have entertained, that Ireland had
once been joined to the New Continent.
But the assertions of Josselyn regarding the size of the American
moose have not been confirmed by the testimony of later travellers,
from whose observations it is now clearly ascertained that the only
large species of deer inhabiting the northern parts of America are
the wapiti or Canadian stag (_Cervus canadensis_), the rein-deer (_C.
Tarandus_), and the moose or elk (_C. Alces_).
The peculiar branching of the brow antlers of the rein-deer, and
the rounded horns of the wapiti[422], are characters sufficient
to prevent us confounding either of these animals with the fossil
species.
The palmate form of the horns of the elk gave greater probability to
the opinion of its specific identity with the fossil animal.
A little attention, however, to a few circumstances, will shew a most
marked difference between them.
First, as to size, the difference is very remarkable, it not being
uncommon to find the fossil horns ten feet between the extreme
tips[423], while the largest elk’s horns never measure four feet.
This measurement in a pair in the Museum of the Royal Dublin Society,
is three feet seven inches: the largest pair seen by Pennant in the
house of the Hudson’s Bay Company, measured thirty-four inches[424].
The horn of the elk has two palms, a lesser one which grows forward
from the front of the beam, where the principal palm begins to
expand. This is called brow antler by Cuvier, but it corresponds in
situation rather to the sur-antler, there being, properly speaking,
no brow antler attached to the root of the beam. The elk has no
posterior antler similar to that of the fossil animal, nor does its
beam take a similar arched direction, but runs more directly outwards.
Cuvier remarks, that the palm of the fossil horn increases in breadth
as it extends outwardly, while that of the elk is broadest next the
beam.
The palm of the elk’s horn is directed more backwards, while the
fossil one extends more in the lateral direction. The antlers of the
elk are shorter and more numerous than those of the fossil animals.
As the horns of the fossil animal exceed in size those of the elk,
so, on the contrary, does the skull of the latter exceed in size
that of the former; the largest heads of the fossil species not
exceeding one foot nine inches in length, while the head of the elk
is frequently two feet. The fossil head is broader in proportion;
its length being to its breadth as two to one; in the elk they are
as three to one, according to Parkinson.[425] The breadth of the
skull between the roots of the horns is but four inches in the fossil
skulls; in that of the elk in the Society’s Museum it is 6½ inches.
Cuvier thinks it probable that the females of the fossil species had
horns[426], an opinion to which I am very much disposed to subscribe,
from having observed that these parts present differences in size and
strength, which appear not to be dependent on differences of age.
For instance, the teeth of the specimen in Trinity College are much
more worn down, and the sutures of the skull are more effaced than
in the specimen described in this paper; yet the horns of the latter
are much more concave, and more expanded, than those of the former;
and on comparing a single horn of each of these specimens together,
that belonging to the Society exceeds the other by nearly a sixth
in the length, and little less than a third in the breadth; it is
not, therefore, unlikely that the animal whose horns were larger and
more curved was a male. Something similar to this is observed in the
rein-deer, both sexes of which have horns, but with this difference,
that they are smaller and less branched in the female. Hence we find
that this animal possessed characters of its own sufficient to prove
it of a species as distinct from the moose or elk as this latter
species is from the rein-deer or any other. Therefore, it is improper
to retain the name of elk or moose deer any longer: perhaps it might
be better called the _Cervus megaceros_, a name merely expressive of
the great size of its horns.
That this animal shed its head furniture periodically, is proved
by the occasional occurrence of detached horns having the smooth
convex surface below the burr, similar to what is observed on the
cast horns of all deer. Specimens of this are to be seen in the
Museum of Trinity College, and I possess one myself, of which I have
had a drawing made. As every other species of deer shed their horns
annually, there is no reason for supposing that that process occurred
at longer intervals in this.
It is a popular opinion with the Indians that the elk is subject to
epilepsy, with which he is frequently seized when pursued, and thus
rendered an easy prey to the hunters. Many naturalists affect to
disbelieve this account, without, however, assigning any sufficient
reason. But if it be considered, that, during the growth of the
horns, there must be a great increased determination of blood to
those parts, which are supplied by the frontal artery, a branch from
the internal carotid, it is quite conformable to well established
pathological principles, to suppose, that, after the horns are
perfected, and have ceased to receive any more blood, that fluid may
be determined to those internal branches of the carotid which supply
the brain, and establish a predisposition to such derangements of
its circulation as would produce epilepsy, or even apoplexy: if such
an effect were produced in consequence of the size of the horns in
the elk, it is reasonable to suppose that it prevailed in a greater
degree in the fossil animal whose horns were so much larger.
What could have been the use of these immense horns? It is quite
evident that they would prevent the animal making any progress
through a thickly wooded country, and that the long, tapering,
pointed antlers were totally unfit for lopping off the branches of
trees, a use to which the elk sometimes applies his horns[427], and
for which they seem well calculated, by having their antlers short
and strong, and set along the edge of the palm, somewhat resembling
the teeth of a saw in their arrangement. It would rather appear,
then, that they were given the animal as weapons for its protection,
a purpose for which they seem to have been admirably designed; for
their lateral expansion is such, that should occasion require the
animal to use them in his defence, their extreme tips would easily
reach beyond the remotest parts of his body; and if we consider the
powerful muscles for moving the head, whose attachments occupied
the extensive surfaces of the cervical vertebræ, with the length of
the lever afforded by the horns themselves, we can easily conceive
how he could wield them with a force and velocity which would deal
destruction to any enemy having the hardihood to venture within their
range.
From the formidable appearance of these horns, then, we must suppose
that their possessor was obnoxious to the aggressions of some
carnivorous animals of ferocious habits; and such we know to have
abounded in Ireland, as the wolf, and the celebrated Irish wolf dog.
Nor would it be surprising if limestone caves should be discovered
in this country, containing the remains of beasts of prey and their
victims, similar to the hyænas’ dens of Kirkdale, and other places,
respecting which such interesting researches have been lately laid
before the public by the geologists of this country and the Continent.
The absence of all record, or even tradition, respecting this
animal[428], naturally leads one to inquire whether man inhabited
this country during its existence? I think there is presumptive
evidence in the affirmative of this question, afforded by the
following circumstances. A head of this animal described by Professor
Goldfuss of Bonn, was discovered in Germany in the same drain with
several urns and stone hatchets; and in the 7th volume of the
Archæologia Britannica, is a letter of the Countess of Moira, giving
an account of a human body found in gravel, under eleven feet of peat
soaked in the bog water: it was in good preservation, and completely
clothed in antique garments of hair, which her ladyship thinks might
have been that of our fossil animal. But more conclusive evidence
on this question is derived from the appearance exhibited by a rib,
presented by Archdeacon Maunsell to the Royal Dublin Society, in
which I discovered an oval opening near its lower edge, the long
diameter of which is parallel to the length of the rib, its margin
is depressed on the outer, and raised on the inner surface, round
which there is an irregular effusion of callus. This opening had
been evidently produced by a sharp pointed instrument, which did not
penetrate so deep as to cause the animal’s death, but which remained
fixed in the opening for some length of time afterward; in fact it
was such an effect as would be produced by the head of an arrow
remaining in a wound after the shaft was broken off[429].
It is not improbable, therefore, that the chace of this gigantic
animal once supplied the inhabitants of this country with food and
clothing.