20 Smithsonian Exploration in Alaska in 1904 



III. The Field of Search 



I. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY DEPOSITIONS 



All the recorded occurrences of Pleistocene mammal remains in 

 Alaska and adjacent Canadian territory known to the writer are 

 what may be termed, for convenience, scattered depositions. That 

 is, in no case known may we be sure in stating that the remains are 

 found where the animal actually died and was entombed. It is 

 true some of the specimens of bones examined are in such good 

 condition they cannot have travelled far from their original place 

 of deposition. But on the other hand all of the material found 

 is dismembered and the bones scattered, while most of it is water- 

 worn and shows other evidence of having travelled, in some cases 

 considerable distances. These scattered depositions of remains 

 occur as separate bones, teeth, tusks, skulls, horns, etc., throughout 

 both the Pleistocene and recent lacustral and fluvial formations. 

 No original interment, that is, where the approximately complete 

 remains of skeletons occur within reasonable compass, of any Pleis- 

 tocene mammal is known, to the writer, to occur in Alaska or adja- 

 cent territory. But certainly such original or primary deposits 

 must have existed and some of them may be found intact if sufficient 

 search is made for them. 



We may note the occurrence of scattered remains of the mammoth 

 on some of the islands in Bering Sea. The Pribilof group has 

 yielded the most evidence. In 1836 it is said a tooth was found 

 on St. George Island," and a tusk has been reported from St. Paul 

 Island. Stanley-Brown says : " " There are two fragments of 

 paleontologic evidence connected with the islands which, as they 

 have been used by writers, demand a cautionary word. The tusk 

 of a mammoth was found in the sands of Northeast Point on Saint 

 Paul Island, and the tooth of one is reported as coming from the 

 shores of Saint George. As there is not a foot of earth on either 

 island, save that which has resulted from the decomposition of the 

 native rock and the decay of vegetation, the value of such testimony 

 is questionable." 



Dawson " makes reference to these occurrences of mammoth re- 

 mains and appears to favor the view that they are derived from 



'" Dall. Bull. 84, U. S. Geol. Survey, 1892, p. 266 and Seventeenth Ann. Rept. 

 U. S. Geol. Survej^ 1896, p. 858. 

 " Bull. Geol. Soc. America, Vol. 3, 1892, p. 499. 

 "Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, Vol. 50, 1894, P- 6. 



