370 Reviews—Dr. Rh. F. Scharff's European Animals. 
the Pleistocene, there is no stringent necessity for applying to 
Pleistocene migrations in order to explain its presence with us in that 
period. We have our doubts as to the soundness of the doctrine asserted 
by the author that a steppe fauna marched wholesale with flying 
colours into Central and Western Europe during post-Glacial times and 
marched back again. Several of the eastern steppe mammals—the 
bobak one of them—certainly extended formerly more to the west 
than they do at present; others of the supposed invaders prove one 
after the other, on closer examination, to be specifically distinct from 
eastern forms. The marmot found in a cave of Northern Germany 
(Gera) is closely related to the bobak, but still differs more from the 
latter than does e.g. the Turkestan marmot (4. dichrous, Bichn., 
nec Anders.). It is the same with the susliks. The most diffuse of 
our Pleistocene susliks is quite generally identified with the Cvtellus 
rufescens of the Ural Mountains, but it is likewise a distinct species. 
The hopelessness of the undertaking to map out the islands and 
continents of a former epoch or of former epochs by the existing 
distribution of animals, to the exclusion of paleontological evidence, 
cannot be better illustrated than by the following passage: ‘‘ If the 
opinion, expressed by several authorities, as to the extreme antiquity 
ot the fauna of these islands [Sardinia and Corsica] should be 
substantiated, we could establish thereby the age of the European 
fauna as a whole. We should be able to discover the precise age of 
some of the animals inhabiting the British Islands. For in Sardinia 
and Corsica there occur such species as the field-mouse (Mus sylvaticus), 
which has a very wide European range and extends as far north as 
Iceland” ( p. 215). From the context we gather that by ‘‘ extreme 
antiquity’’ the Miocene is meant, for the author had just quoted 
Kobelt’s contention ‘‘ that these islands | Sardinia and Corsica ] became 
separated from the continent in Miocene times, and that they were 
never since connected with it.”” He also refers to another malacologist’s 
(Simroth’s) suggestion of an immigration (in Corsica) in Miocene times. 
The author therefore implies that Jus sylvaticus may be a Miocene 
species! Jus sy/vaticus occurs in fact in both islands, together with 
other mammals, which, with the exception of the Moufilon, are not 
represented in the Pleistocene deposits. The Pleistocene Mammalia 
of these islands, which the author does not discuss, point towards 
a continental connection in the Tertiary and their isolation at the 
end of that period. To explain the presence of the recent mammals 
we are therefore offered the following alternative. We must either 
adopt Dr. Scharfi’s suggestion that the recent Mammalian species, 
in spite of their absence from Pleistocene deposits, and in spite of 
their absolute identity with continental species, including small details 
in the coloration of their skin, already inhabited these islands in 
Tertiary times and have preserved their specific identity ever since. 
Or else we must accept the conclusion which has recently been 
arrived at, viz., that with the exception of the moufiion all the 
extant Mammalia of Corsica and Sardinia have been introduced by 
man, either intentionally or unintentionally. We think there can 
only be one opinion. 
We have limited our criticisms almost exclusively to the role 
assigned by the author to the existing fauna, because that is the 
