HT. H. Howorth—The Fauna and Flora of the Loess. 211 
particular species referred to by Dr. Nehring, Hystrix hirsutirostris, 
is surely not found in the Siberian Steppes at all, or only just on 
their borders. It is characteristic of a more southern zone, extending 
from Syria to India, at least so I gather from Mr. Murray’s careful 
work (Distribution of Animals, pp. 248 and 351). 
Let us see then where we have arrived. J do not deny that during 
the deposition of the Loess and its associated deposits there were two 
zones of life all over “the Mammoth area,” an upland zone and a 
lowland zone. Nor do I deny that the Mammoth is less frequently 
found in the former, as in fact it is natural it should be; but this 
upland zone is after all a local disintegrated one compared with its 
neighbour. Hven in the upland tract of Central Germany, as Dr. 
Nehring does not deny, the remains of the Mammoth are of frequent 
occurrence, but he surely somewhat minimizes its occurrence even 
there. I will quote a condensed passage from that admirable store- 
house of well-digested facts, Mr. Geikie’s “‘ Prehistoric Hurope.” He 
says, ‘‘ The Mammoth, Woolly Rhinoceros, Reindeer, Horse, Ox, etc., 
have been recorded from the Loess of many other parts of Central 
Kurope (i.e. other than Thiede and Westeregeln). Prinzinger and 
Czjzek mention Mammoth, Woolly Rhinoceros and Cervus dama 
gigantea, as occurring in the Loess of Upper and Lower Austria ; 
Zeuschner has observed a similar fauna (Mammoth, Rhinoceros, 
and Bos priscus) in some of the valieys of the North Carpathians ; 
according to Dr. Roemer, Mammoth, Woolly Rhinoceros, Bison 
priscus and Urus occur in the Loess of Silesia, and Hauer and Stache 
state that the two pachyderms appear in association with the Rein- 
deer and the Horse in the Loess of Transylvania. The same species, 
along with Ox, characterizes, according to Dr. Littel, the Loess and 
Lehm of Bavaria” (op. cit. p. 150). 
It will be seen, therefore, that even in this upland zone in Central 
Europe the Mammoth was a by no means uncommon animal. Much 
more frequent are his remains in the great alluvial valleys of the 
Danube and the Rhine, and the lesser ones of the Thames, Seine and 
Somme, and the broad flats of Russia and Siberia, while with species 
of Deer, the Urus and the Bison, it also characterizes the Loess of 
China. This being so, I claim to have been strictly right in describ- 
ing the Mammoth, the Rhinoceros, and the accompanying wood 
animals as the characteristic quadrupeds of the Loess. 
From a remark at the end of Dr. Nehring’s paper, I am not quite sure 
whether he considers his Steppe-fauna of Central Europe contempo- 
raneous with the Valley-fauna characterized by the Mammoth, the 
Bison and the Red Deer. That it was so contemporaneous we have 
surely ample evidence. At Fisherton Mr. Blackmore found in’ the 
same deposit of Brick-earth remains of more than 50 specimems 
of Spermophilus (in 18 cases the skeletons being perfect and lying 
curved in the position of hibernation), two species of Lemming and 
an Arvicola; and with these he found inter alia remains of the 
Mammoth and fhinoceros tichorhinus, Bos primigenius and Bison 
priscus, Cervus elaphus, Cervus tarandus of two varieties, and Ovibos 
moschatus, together with at least three varieties of Hquus, and 
