Correspondence—Mr. H. H. Howorth. 083 
‘deposit containing Reindeer, Tichorhine Rhinoceros, and Mammoth 
exists off Yarmouth, which very probably was the source whence 
some of the drifted remains were ultimately derived” (Proc. Geol. 
Soc. 1869, p.210). This is not all. Dr. Falconer—great authority as he 
was on the fossil Klephants—could not claim the minute acquaintance 
with the ‘‘ Forest Bed” possessed by Mr. Gunn, who was especially 
in my view when I referred to those best entitled to give an opinion on 
such a subject. Mr. Gunn persistently denied the presence of the 
Mammoth in the ‘‘ Forest Bed,” and Professor Adams, writing in 
1872, says: ‘This view is still maintained by the Rev. J.Gunn, F.G.S8., 
- who has informed me that his latest experience gave him no cause 
to alter his views on that head” (British Fossil Elephants, p. 72). 
But Mr. Gunn is not alone. Mr. Clement Reid, who has worked so 
well in Eastern England, says, in “ Nature,” vol. xix.: ‘All the 
specimens said to come from the ‘Forest Bed’ have been dredged 
or picked up on the beach, and are of no value whatever. At 
Bacton, on the Norfolk coast, I dug out a jaw and three teeth of the 
Mammoth from a Post-Glacial deposit; if the denudation of the 
cliff had proceeded these teeth would have been found on the beach 
mixed with those of EH. meridionalis. There appears to be one 
specimen, and only one, found in situ in the ‘ Forest Bed,’ which can 
with any probability be referred to H. primigentus; this was found 
some years ago by Mr. Savin, of Cromer. It has not yet been satis- 
factorily determined, but from its peculiarity and the difference of 
opinion about it, it appears certainly not to be the ordinary form.” 
Professor Dawkins says that “the fact of the Mammoth being 
Pre-Glacial was accepted by the late Professor Leith Adams in his 
work on the Mammoth ”’ (Pal. Soc.). This is a most extraordinary 
statement. The following are Professor Adams’s very words :—“The 
evidence of the Mammoth having lived during Pre-Glacial times has 
not been established by the specimens from the coast of Norfolk, at 
all events as far as the instances hitherto recorded are concerned ” 
(British Fossil Hlephants, Pal. Soc. pp. 72 and 738). 
Mr. E. T. Newton, who is also quoted against me, says expressly 
that “the only reliable specimens from the Forest Bed of the Hlephas 
primigenius are in Mr. Savin’s collection, and were obtained near 
Cromer. But it is important to observe that they differ from the typical 
H. primigenius” (Mem. Geol. Surv. p. 106). 
I confess to feeling very much embarrassed when I found Professor 
Dawkins quoting authorities in support of a theory which they re- 
pudiate so plainly. This is eorinn not “ Mr. Howorth’s way of 
disposing of evidence.” 
Mr. Dawkins refers in a ene way to a number of instances 
which have occurred since 1868 which have established in his view 
the Pre-Glacial age of the Mammoth. May I ask for a reference to 
these cases. I have made diligent search for them, but hitherto have 
only found the famous Northwich instance, which had such an extra- 
ordinary effect on my impulsive friend the great Troglodyte. In 
regard to this tooth, Professor Adams, one of the witnesses cited by 
Mr. Dawkins himself, says, ‘The latter piece of evidence is, however, 
