90 Correspondence—Dr. H. Hicks. 
other science. Well attested facts and sound logic, combined if 
possible with literary courtesy, these are what, I am sure, your 
readers wish, and whoever brings them to your mill and helps to 
establish truth or sweep away error will be welcomed. 
I trust I have avoided saying anything of which Mr. Jukes-Browne 
can complain, for I have profited a good deal from what he has 
written elsewhere. I have no wish to exchange sharp words. 
Ax.tEY Hovuss, LytrHam, NEAR Preston. Henry. H. Howorrs. 
December 10th, 1892.1 
THE MAMMOTH AND THE GLACIAL DRIFT. 
Srr,—The tone which Mr. Jukes-Browne has thought it advisable 
to adopt in his attacks on Sir Henry Howorth, in recent Numbers of 
the Gronocican Magazin, does not, I hope, commend itself generally 
even to the official mind, still less will it to those who, like myself, 
believe that it always has been and will still be to the advantage of 
geological science that it should be cultivated by others than those 
who have been made geologists by Act of Parliament, or who have 
adopted it as a profession. , 
Pending the appearance of the “man who has acquired an insight 
into the subject by long experience and by approved practical work 
in the field,” (he does not say by whom or by what authority the work 
is to be approved) who will some day settle the question “beyond 
dispute.” I should like to ask Mr. Jukes-Browne by what rule of 
evidence could he expect Sir Henry Howorth to accept “as final” the 
Imaginary case he cites, viz. ‘““Gravels with Mammoth bones resting 
on Boulder-clay.” Surely in the first place he should point out a 
typical case, so that an opportunity may be given for critically 
examining the evidence. But let it be granted that he could point 
out such a case, how is it to be proved that the remains, which are 
those of land animals, are to be considered as of contemporaneous 
age with the gravels, and not as having been derived either from an 
earlier deposit, or directly from an older land surface? The only 
evidence that could be conclusive would be the finding of Mammoth 
remains, in an undisturbed state, on an old land surface with undoubted 
glacial deposits below it: such a surface as that on which the Endsieigh 
Street remains were found, but not having, as there, only pre-glacial 
beds below but some typical glacial deposits instead. 
I have already pointed out that Mammoth remains were found by 
me in caverns in the Vale of Clwyd, under undoubted glacial deposits. 
I have this year obtained a fragment of a tibia of a Mammoth from 
the Lower Glacial Gravel at Finchley in a section where a great 
thickness of Chalky Boulder-clay, containing the well-known derived 
fossils, reposed on the gravel. The Endsleigh Street evidence, in 
my Opinion, is equally conclusive in showing that the Mammoth 
‘lived there early in the Glacial period. The foregoing and similar 
cases which have been recorded can only prove that the Mammoth 
lived in this country, or in the districts in which the remains were 
found, during a part of or before the Glacial period. 
Henpon, Dec. 8, 1892.1 Henry Hicks. 
1 Publication delayed by special request of Correspondents.—Hpir. Grou. Mae. 
