H. H. Howorth — A Great Post-Glacial Flood. 9 



esculenia, and are believed to have belonged to that species, but the 

 evidence is not such as to make one absolutely certain, and therefore 

 a note of interrogation should be placed after the species, Eana 

 esculenta ? 



The iliac bones of the toad present certain peculiarities which 

 distinguish them from those of the frog — for example, the upper 

 edge is rounded in place of being sharply keeled ; and there is in the 

 toad's ilium, an oblique groove just in front of the tubercle found 

 above the acetabulum, and this groove is not seen in the frog. Two 

 or three portions of iliac bones which present these peculiarities of 

 the toad are in consequence referred to this genus, and Bufo must 

 therefore be added to our list. In all probability these bones belong 

 to the common toad, but there is not sufficient evidence to justify the 

 insertion of the species. 



A single femur, but this, fortunately, quite perfect, enables us to 

 add Triton cristatus to the " Forest Bed " list. A comparison of the 

 femurs of our two common species of urodele Amphibia, Triton 

 cristatus and Lissotriton punctata, shows that they are dissimilar in 

 foi-m. This difference is well marked, and may be summed up by 

 saying that in the T. cristatus the shaft is more slender and enlarges 

 more suddenly at the distal extremity, than in the Lissotriton 

 punctata. The fossil agrees with the former, and is therefore 

 referred to the Triton cristatus, Laur. 



List or Aves, Eeptilia, and Amphibia of the "Forest Bed Series." 

 (Those marked with an asterisk * are new to the " Forest Bed Series.") 



*Anser sp. 

 *Anas ? 



Bird hones undetermined. 

 *Tropulonotus natrix, Linn. 

 *Felias Beriis, Lion. 



*B,ana temporaria ? Linn. 



* esculenta ? Linn. 



*Bufo, sp. 



* Triton cristatus, Laur. 



III. — Traces of a Great Post-Glacial Flood. 



I. The Evidence of the Loess. 



By H. H. Howorth, F.S.A. 



IN some papers which I have been allowed to print in the Geo- 

 logical Magazine I have drawn the general conclusion that 

 the Mammoth and his companions were finally overwhelmed by a 

 great diluvial catastrophe. This conclusion I have based chiefly 

 on other than stratigraphical evidence. If it be a reasonable con- 

 clusion, it ought to admit of being supported by such evidence, and 

 we are, in fact, bound to meet the purely geological side of the case. 

 Believing that this may be done with the greatest confidence, and 

 with the most complete advantage to the theory, I now propose to 

 examine this evidence, with all deference, and I hope also with all 

 frankness. There is virtually no dispute about the facts. These 

 are familiar, and admitted, and the main contention is about the 

 inferences to be drawn from them. The following paper will, there- 

 fore, be in the main critical, and an attempt will be made in it to 

 show that the current theories (which are very contradictory) about 



