Sir H. H. Howorth—The True Horizon of the Mammoth. 163 
occur at the surface. Does this prove that the mountain limestone 
is more recent than the so-called glacial beds? The fact is we can 
follow the Mammoth beds from Europe right across Asia, and when 
we cross Behring’s Straits we find them again under precisely the 
same conditions in Alaska, and we can follow them in detached 
fragments right down to Ohio and further, and whether we find the 
bones in the North of Russia, in Siberia, in Alaska, or in the Salt 
Swamps of Ohio, their contemporaneity seems established. What we 
want evidence of is, not the distance at which a Mastodon skeleton 
has been found from the surface, that is immaterial, but- whether 
it lies upon érue drift or not. 
I do not dispute that occasional molars of Mammoth, etc., occur 
in the Drift. Every casual student has found many kinds of early 
fossils in that formation, which are merely boulders. What we need 
is not the production of samples of these bone-boulders or of 
detached logs of wood, but as Dr. Hicks says, evidence of an actual 
land-surface with Mammoth remains in it, planted over and not 
under the Drift. 
That Man and the Mammoth have occurred together in caverns is 
a perfectly elementary fact. They have similarly occurred in the 
loess ; but what has this to do with the question. That paleolithic 
man was pre-Glacial in the sense in which the word is generally 
used, that is to say, that he lived before the widespread distribution of 
the Drift? I have no doubt about myself. May I ask Mr. Stirrup, 
however, to explain what he means by saying that the Lehm és 
uniformly spread over the ancient or glacial alluviums and that it 
certainly belongs to the closing phases of the Ice-Age. I should like to see 
some evidence of this besides a mere obiter dictum. To my mind if 
there is a deposit anywhere which is a flood deposit and not a glacial 
deposit it is that curious calcareous loam which in China, in the 
United States, and in Central Europe is called Loess or Lehm; 
which in South America is called Pampas mud; and which in 
Russia is called Chernozem. That it contains scattered bones and 
shells of land mollusks is true enough. It is no less true, as it 
seems to me, that it was deposited after and not before the Mammoth 
age, and that the Mammoth and the human bones and the land- 
shells in it were derived from the pre-existing land-surface. 
I have now examined every argument and every fact adduced by 
Mr. Stirrup except his references to Falsan and Favre. These you 
will allow me to criticize on another occasion. Apart from them it 
would seem that the case for the foreign existence of a post-Glacial 
Mammoth, as presented by Mr. Stirrup, fails as completely as the 
English case, presented by Mr. Jukes-Browne, does. 
On such a critical matter as the true horizon of the Mammoth on 
which so much strong and dogmatic language has been used by those 
who champion its post-Glacial survival, it is surely not unreason- 
able to ask for the production of a single case which will bear 
examination and criticism to support the contention. Geology is, 
or ought to be, an inductive science and not a survival of mediaval 
scholasticism. 
