212 H. H. Howorth—The Fauna and Flora of the Loess. 
remains of a fourth doubtful variety, assigned by the explorer to the 
Ass. The remains of Horses we are assured by Dr. Blackmore were 
especially abundant (Flint Chips, pp. 12—380). Here then we have a 
complete mixture of the two series of animals all found together and 
proving they were contemporaneous. The remains of Horses are 
habitually found mixed with those of the Mammoth, the Bison, and 
the different species of Deer, all forest animals. The Lagomys oc- 
curred at Kent’s Hole with all the forest animals above cited, as did 
the Lemming at Brixham, and so we might go on. JI would name one 
more instance only as a typical one, namely, the case of the Franco- 
nian deposits reported upon by Dr. Sandberger. The following is 
his list (Prehistoric Europe, p. 62) :— 
Not yet sufficiently deter- | Arvicola ratticeps. Ursus speleus. 
mined, 8 species, Arvicola gregalis. Bos primigenius. 
Cervus tarandus. Spermophilus altaicus. | Bison priscus. 
Gulo luscus. Alactaga jaculus. | Elephas primigenius. 
Myodes obensis. Arctomys (? bobac). | Rhinoceros tichorhinus. 
»  torgquatus. Hyena spelea. 
This is surely plain enough. It may, and does happen, that in 
certain special localities we have sometimes a deposit containing 
animals belonging to one or other of the classes only, but this would 
naturally occur occasionally and locally. At all events, it seems 
most clear that both classes of animal, the upland and lowland class, 
were perfectly contemporaneous. Dr. Nehring will not dispute that 
the Mammoth could not browse on upland pastures denuded of 
wood or thick shrubs. He will not deny that with the Rhinoceros, 
the Elk, the Red Deer. the Reindeer, and the Bison, the Mammoth 
presupposes the presence of a forest vegetation. This vegetation of 
shady trees and long grass or reeds must have grown very luxuriantly 
in the great Huropean valleys when the vast herds of pachyderms 
found pasturage there. He will not deny that at Cannstadt in the 
Loess of Germany, and at La Celle in France, we have in the tuffs, 
and at Bruhl and Mamers we have in the travertines, ample remains 
of these very forests, which have been minutely examined and 
reported upon by Saporta and others. Since I wrote my early 
papers, Mr. Geikie has published his work on Prehistoric Europe, and _ 
as I find myself completely in agreement with bim on this point, I will 
quote his condensed result of these examinations, rather than repeat 
those I have already printed. Speaking of the plants at La Celle, he 
says, “This very remarkable assemblage of plants tells a tale which 
there is no possibility of misreading. Here we have the clearest 
evidence of a genial, humid, and equable climate having formerly 
characterized Northern France” (op. cit. p. 51). Again, “If the 
winters in Northern France were formerly mild and genial, the 
summers were certainly more humid, and probably not so hot. This 
is proved by the presence of several plants in the tufa of La Celle 
which cannot endure a hot arid climate, but abound in the shady 
woods of Northern France and Germany” (id. p. 52). In regard to 
the flora of the tufas at Cannstadt, Saporta maintains “that it indi- 
cates a climate more equable and humid than at present” (ad. p. 54). 
