ON THE MAMMOTH AT CRESWELL 95 
the two species of living elephants. This circumstance doubtless 
enabled the Mammoth to grind down and employ for food the 
harder and more ligneous tissues of trees and shrubs, thus (com - 
bined with the nature of its covering) fitting it to live in a cold 
climate, ‘‘a meet companion for the reindeer,” with which its 
remains are frequently associated. The late Mr. Charles Darwin, 
in his ‘‘ Journal of Travels in South America,” shows conclusively 
how completely erroneous is the idea that herbivorous animals of 
large size require a luxuriant vegetation for their support, and 
points out various parts of the world which, though comparatively 
sterile and desert, are remarkable for the number and great size of 
their indigenous quadrupeds. 
That the Mammoth roamed over Derbyshire is sufficiently 
evidenced by the number of its remains found at Creswell. Mr. 
Mello records that each of the four caves—Pin Hole Cave, Robin 
Hood’s Cave, Church Hole, and Mother Grundy’s Parlour— 
yielded remains of this proboscidean. 
In various parts of England, including Creswell, detached milk 
teeth of the Mammoth have been found; but a specimen exhibit- 
ing, as the one discovered by me, in the Pin Hole Cave, does—a 
portion of the jaw containing the ante-penultimate and penultimate 
milk molars, set in their natural position—is a great rarity. Sir 
Richard Owen, to whom I submitted the specimen, and who 
kindly described it in a joint paper with myself, before the 
Geological Society, pronounced it to be the first one he had seen. 
It is said that the late Dr. Falconer had in his possession milk 
teeth of the Mammoth zy situ, obtained from the gravels of 
Barnwell, near Cambridge ; but if this be correct, it is certain that 
no trace of the specimen can now be found. There is a specimen 
similar to the one discovered by me, at Creswell, in the Bright 
Collection, at the British Museum, but it is not known from what 
part of the world it was derived; it is moreover labelled, and is 
believed by many to belong, not to Elephas primigenius, but to 
Elephas antiquus. As the difference between the teeth of these 
two species is one of the relative abundance and width of the 
folds of enamel, there is doubtless considerable difficulty in 
