H. H. Howorth—The Fauna and Flora of the Loess. 209 
Having dealt with the various subsidiary points raised by Dr. 
Nehring, I must now face his main argument, which occupies the 
larger portion of his paper. Here I have this difficulty, that the 
issue is not altogether a straight one. I admit his facts very largely, 
although I quarrel with his inferences; but I contend that, far trom 
supporting Baron Richthofen, these facts make his theory virtually 
untenable. Dr. Nehring would seem to argue as if I held or had 
ever maintained the preposterous view that because the Mammoth 
and the Rhinoceros cannot browse upon short grasses, but need the 
herbage of trees and long grasses or reeds for their food, and 
these need a correspondingly damp climate, and that inasmuch 
as remains of Mammoths and Rhinoceroses are found from the 
Pyrenees to Behring’s Straits, therefore, that there must have been 
unbroken continuous forests over the whole of this area. Such a 
view could hardly be seriously maintained by any one living within 
our seas. For example, we have in Ireland an area apparently well 
suited d priori to the Mammoth, and yet from which remains of the 
Mammoth are virtually absent, its bones having occurred there very 
sporadically. While the Mammoth is virtually absent from Ireland, 
the Megaceros had its focus of distribution there. Such facts, which 
are patent to us all here, make it clear that during the Mammoth epoch 
Ireland was an area where the conditions were unfavourable to the 
Mammoth, and exceedingly favourable to the great Deer. Perhaps 
its forests were too dense for the Mammoth, or perhaps they were 
composed of trees unsuited to its food. But Ireland is a mere type 
at our own doors of what is well known elsewhere; and to show 
I am not merely coining arguments for the nonce, I must be allowed 
to quote two short paragraphs from one of the earlier papers of this 
series :—‘“‘ It was long ago observed that the borders of the Baltic 
are much less fertile in Mammoth remains than those of the North 
Sea, and they do not in fact seem to have occurred in some large 
districts bordering upon it. At all events they are not named by 
Hichwald as occurring in Livonia, nor are they named from Ingria 
or Lithuania” (Grou. Mag. Dee. II. Vol. VIII. p. 204). Scotland and 
Scandinavia present similar areas, while of Germany, I expressly 
said, ‘South Germany, with its mountainous contour was not well 
adapted to the habits of the great pachyderms, and, like the moun- 
tainous district of Siberia, is not so fruitful in Mammoth remains as the 
more level country ” (id. p. 201). Imight have even said, considering 
their scarcity there, that the more southern and hilly zone in Siberia 
virtually produces no Mammoth remains. Such facts at once strike 
the observer, and impress him with the very important conclusion 
which geologists do not always remember, that just as at present 
we have geographical areas in close contact marked by different 
botanical and zoological facies, so it must always have been. These 
botanical and zoological provinces are no doubt largely controlled by 
climatic considerations. It is very elementary to say that such 
climatic provinces may be represented by a cold zone in upland dis- 
tricts, and a warm one in lowland districts. Now, although the 
general assemblage of animals found with the Mammoth from 
DECADE II.—vVOL. X.—NO. V. 14 
