E. E. Eoworth—The Loess. 345 



siderable array of evidence to show closed the Mammoth period 

 and formed that notable gap which is universally acknowledged 

 by archteologists between Palceolithic man from Neolithic man, the 

 loams were largely redistributed and rearranged, remanies as the 

 French call it, while at the same time there was an outpouring of 

 a considerable amount of subterranean mud in certain districts, 

 which was mixed with the subaerial surface deposits, and with the 

 debris of animals and plants then living on the surface, and thus 

 constituted the Loess. The Loess, therefore, in this view, is a 

 subaerial deposit sophisticated and altered by a flood of calcareous 

 mud or water charged with mud, and distributed as we find it by 

 an impelling wave of water. It will be seen, therefore, that the 

 question between us is not as to whether the deposit is subaqueous 

 or subaerial, but whether the particular subaerial theory of Baron 

 Eichtbofen and the peculiar atmospheric agencies appealed to by 

 him are competent to explain the constitution of the Loess and its 

 distribution ; and if not, whether the subterranean origin of a large 

 portion of it is possible, and whether its distribution by a flood of 

 waters is not an hypothesis which more completely explains the facts. 



Baron Eichthofen complains that I did not quote directly from his 

 book. That most valuable book, which I looked through some time 

 ago with mingled admiration and envy, was certainly not by my side. 

 I have not a copy of it, nor is there, unfortunately, a copy of it 

 available for reference in these parts ; but I appeal with every con- 

 fidence to your readers, who may examine the Baron's restatement 

 of his case, whether I either mis-stated or misunderstood it. It will 

 be conceded by those who do so examine it that every point of any 

 importance he now urges was perfectly present to me when I wrote, 

 and was, as I think, fairly met. On the other hand, it seems very 

 clear that Baron Eichthofen has only read one paper out of a 

 considerable series which I have contributed to your pages, all of 

 tliem aiming at one conclusion, all of them supporting one thesis, 

 and whose force, if the}'- have any, depends on their cumulative 

 character. Perhaps, if he does me the great favour of replying to 

 this communication, he will first look over the papers which pre- 

 ceded and have succeeded that dealing with the Loess. 



The first point to which I would call attention is that we are 

 completely at issue about the kind of surroundings which the debris 

 of the Loess fauna show must have existed when that fauna was 

 living. Baron Eichthofen says, " The genera and mostly the species 

 of mammals found in the Loess, or their next relatives, are known 

 to abound at present in steppes and on grassy plains." Is this so ? 

 The Mammoth, it has been well said, would starve in a few days on 

 the richest Craven pasture. The Elephant and his nearest relatives 

 cannot browse upon the herbage of steppes or grassy plains. Its 

 natural habitat is the forest, its natural food — the succulent 

 branches of trees, and we actually know, as is most familiar to 

 Baron Eichthofen, that both the Mammoth and the Rhinoceros ticho- 

 rhinus did live upon the softer portions of trees, for remains of their 

 food have been preserved and examined. These are the characteristic 



