a “peculiar significance” (Short) attached to this side of the tablet.  In Short’s engraving, while the front side corresponds closely with the same view given by Squier and Davis, there is a notable difference observable on the reverse side.  For the formless depression of the Squier and Davis cut not only occupies a somewhat different position in relation to the top and sides of the tablet, but, as will be seen by reference to the figure, it assumes a distinct form, having in some mysterious way been metamorphosed into a figure which oddly enough suggests the manatee.  It does not appear that the attention of archaeologists has ever been directed to the fact that such a resemblance exists; nor indeed is the resemblance sufficiently close to justify calling it a veritable manatee.  But with the aid of a little imagination it may in a rude way suggest that animal, its earless head and the flipper being the most striking, in fact the only, point of likeness.  Conceding that the figure as given by Short affords a rude hint of the manatee, the question is how to account for its presence on this the latest representation of the tablet which, according to Short, Mr. Guest, its owner, pronounces “the first correct representations of the stone.”  The cast of this tablet in the Smithsonian Institution agrees more closely with Short’s representation in respect to the details mentioned than with that given in the “Ancient Monuments.”  Nevertheless, if this cast be accepted as the faithful copy of the original it has been supposed to be, the engraving in Short’s volume is subject to criticism.  In the cast the outline of the figure, while better defined than Squier and Davis represent it to be, is still very indefinite, the outline not only being broken into, but being in places, especially toward the head, indistinguishable from the surface of the tablet into which it insensibly grades.  In the view as found in Short there is none of this irregularity and indefiniteness of outline, the figure being perfect and standing out clearly as though just from the sculptor’s hand.  As perhaps on the whole the nearest approach to the form of a manatee appearing on any object claimed to have originated at the hands of the Mound-Builders, and from the fact that artists have interpreted its outline so differently, this figure, given by the latest commentators on the Cincinnati tablet, is interesting, and has seemed worthy of mention.  As, however, the authenticity of the tablet itself is not above suspicion, but, on the contrary, is believed by many archaeologists to admit of grave doubts, the subject need not be pursued further here.

[Illustration:  Fig. 13.—­Cincinnati Tablet. (Back.) From Short.]

TOUCAN.

The a priori probability that the toucan was known to the Mound-Builders is, of course, much less than that the manatee was, since no species of toucan occurs farther north than Southern Mexico.  Its distant habitat also militates against the idea that the Mound-Builders could have acquired a knowledge of the bird from intercourse with southern tribes, or that they received the supposed toucan pipes by way of trade.  Without discussing the several theories to which the toucan pipes have given rise, let us first examine the evidence offered as to the presence in the mounds of sculptures of the toucan.