Brown 2very interesting. We here see beds of sand, clay, and limestone, containing sea-shells andsharks' teeth, passing above into an indurated marl, and from that into the red clayey earthof the Pampas, with its calcareous concretions and the bones of terrestrial animals.” (126)He consequently deduces that:“This vertical section clearly tells us, of a large bay of pure salt-water, graduallyencroached on, and at last becoming the bed of a muddy estuary, into which floatingcarcasses swept.” (126)At this site he finds a large section of an ancient armadillo-like case, a mastodon's molar tooth,and a multitude of rotten bones that were "as soft as clay" (126).But more importantly, he happens on the tooth of a horse, and on the grounds of itsgeological position, concludes that a “horse […] lived as a contemporary with the various greatmonsters that formerly inhabited South America” (126). By juxtaposing this and a Mastodon'stooth, found in such close proximity, and condition, Darwin ponders thus:“No sensible difference in their state of decay could be perceived; they were both tender and partially stained red. If the horse did not coexist with the Toxodon, the tooth must bysome accident, not very easily understood, have been embedded within the last threecenturies, with the remains of those animals, which ages since perished, when the Pampaswas covered by the waters of the sea. Now, I may ask, will any one credit that two teethof nearly equal size, buried in the same substance close together, after a period of so vastan inequality, could exist in the same condition of decay? We must conclude otherwise.”(127)Darwin concludes that horses must have been contemporaneous with the Mastodons—horsessimilar enough to the horses that he was familiar with to have indistinguishable teeth.