Correspondence—Prof. Boyd Dawkins. dol 
that since the previous meeting I had re-examined the district with 
Prof. Hughes and several other excellent observers, and that I had 
obtained such further evidence in confirmation of my views as will 
completely dispose of the most important of the arguments relied 
upon by Prof. Geikie. : 
When the paper is published, I shall be prepared to reply more 
fully to the author’s statements. 
Henry Hicks. 
Henpon, N.W. 
P.S. (June 11th)—I should like to mention that the above letter is in substance 
identical with one sent to ‘‘ Nature” on May 6th, which, however, has not appeared 
in that Journal, yet the abstract of Prof. Geikie’s paper was printed there with 
exceptional prominence. ‘The readers of the GrotogicaL Macazine can draw their 
own conclusions. H. H. 
THE PRE-GLACIAL AGE OF THE MAMMOTH. 
S1r,—In the last of Mr. Howorth’s series of essays on the Traces 
of a Great Post-Glacial Flood, entitled Flora and Fauna of the 
Loess, my evidence as to the age of the Mammoth quoted by my 
fellow-worker, Dr. Nehring, is dealt with as follows :— 
‘Let me quote another sentence from Dr. Nehring’s paper. He 
says, ‘he Mammoth is, as Prof. Boyd Dawkins has already pointed 
out, Pre-Glacial, Glacial, and Post-Glacial; his remains occur not 
only in the Loess, but in the most varied deposits of Europe, as in 
the Forest-bed, in Glacial gravel layers, in clay and loam, in Tuff 
deposits.’ Dr. Nehring is surely not aware of the very thin ice 
upon which he is skating in this passage. Whether the Mammoth is 
found in the Forest-bed or not is assuredly one of the most disputed 
points in English geology. The evidence seems to point most cer- 
tainly to its not occurring in the Forest-bed in situ at all, and that I 
believe to be the matured opinion of those geologists who have the 
best right to decide such a point. In regard to the Mammoth being 
Pre-Glacial, I altogether dispute it according to our present lights. 
The evidence is of the most fragile and unsatisfactory kind, so fragile 
that it is not surprising my gifted friend Professor Dawkins, who is 
quoted by Dr. Nehring, has published more than one opinion on the 
subject. As to the Mammoth being Inter-Glacial, I shall have a 
good deal to say, if my friend Dr. Woodward will permit me to 
continue the series of papers I have been writing in the GEOLOGICAL 
Macazine. At present, I can only say that I believe the Mammoth 
and the Rhinoceros tichorhinus to have been, at all events in Hurope, 
so far as we at present know, entirely Post-Glacial, and I maintain 
that they are the characteristic quadruqeds of the Post-Glacial Ante- 
Neolithic deposits.” —Guox. Mag. Dec. II. Vol. X. p. 278. 
Any one reading the above passage would carry away the idea that 
Iam doubtful as to the Pre-Glacial age of the Mammoth, and that 
Dr. Nehring is in ignorance of the fact that the best judges in this 
country had decided against it. What are the facts? ‘To pass over 
the Scotch caves, Dr. Falconer identified the Mammoth as a mammal 
of the Pre-Glacial Forest-bed more than 20 years ago. This conclu- 
