374 Dr. W. T. Blanford—Age of the Himalayas. 



The citation of my remarks as to the post-Siwalik elevation of the 

 Tibetan plateau, however, is a fair hit, and shows how thoroughly 

 Mr. Howorth has collected the testimony in favour of his views, 

 though he appears to have overlooked the footnote (on p. 586) 

 appended to the words quoted, and, to some extent, qualifying the 

 opinion recorded, as it called attention to the greater area ouce 

 occupied by Himalayan ice. The explanation, however, of my 

 having published what I now think was probably an incorrect view 

 in. 1879, is that at that time I had only the evidence concerning the 

 fossil fauna of Hundes that was obtained by Falconer and Strachey. 

 When Lydekker, in 1881, found that one of the best-preserved 

 Hundes fossils was a skull of Pantholops, an Antelope confined to 

 the Tibetan plateau, and only living at high elevations, the whole 

 evidence was materially changed. The question now is, whether it 

 is more likely that Pantholops inhabited a low level or an unknown 

 Ehinoceros a high one. Of course, where Yaks can find food, there 

 is no reason why a Ehinoceros should not obtain subsistence. 



I must again call attention to the fact that far from attempting to 

 go into the whole evidence as to the elevation of the Himalayas, I 

 merely selected two items, one to prove the insufficiency of the 

 evidence brought forward by Mr. Howorth, the other to show the ' 

 facts which he had overlooked, both items belonging to one, and, in 

 my opinion, by no means the most important part of the geological 

 evidence. Merely to show how wide the question is, I should like 

 for once to "forsake the happy hunting grounds of Geology for those 

 of Zoology," and to call attention to a fact which to my mind is 

 sufficient by itself to disprove a subrecent origin of the Tibetan 

 highlands. 



Throughout the great region generally known as Palsearctic, there 

 is no tract of country of the same extent that contains as many 

 peculiar forms of animal life as Tibet. Amongst Mammals alone 

 thei'e are the genera Pantholops, Nectogale and Eupetaurus, and pro- 

 bably ^luropvs and Budorcas, together with the Yak, two kinds of 

 wild Sheep, a Gazelle, two Hares, several Lagomys, at least three 

 Marmots, and several Voles. I must say that it is to me incredible 

 that this peculiarly specialized fauna can have been differentiated 

 since Pleistocene times, and very improbable that it can have 

 entii'ely developed since the Pliocene period. So high a degree of 

 specialization points to a long continuance of the peculiar conditions 

 that still prevail. 



Of the two. statements of mine that are traversed by Mr. Howorth, 

 one is of course a matter of opinion ; upon the other it will I think 

 be found that my information was correct. Mr. Howorth says that 

 Mr. Lydekker formerly classed the Hundes fossils as Pliocene, but 

 subsequently adopted the opinion, which he still holds, that the beds 

 are post-Tertiary. Mr. Lydekker's assignment of a Pleistocene age 

 to the beds in question dates from 1881 (Rec. G.S.I, vol. xiv. p. 158) ; 

 but in 1886 (Cat. Foss. Mam. Brit. Mus. vol. iii. p. 158) and in 1887 

 (Rec. G.S.I, vol. XX. p. 54) he has stated that he is now inclined to 

 regard the beds as Newer Pliocene. 



