Dawkins — On the Age of the Mammoth. 319 



the matrix impacted in the fang interstices, with No. 3. The fresh 

 ivory fracture yiehis the same sepia discoloration ; and when burnt 

 it gives a strong odour of ammonia (burnt blanket), proving abund- 

 ance of gelatine. I regard this specimen also as of E. primigenius. . . 



"Although presenting the ferruginous matrix of the 'Elephant- 

 bed,' this specimen, like the former, is inferred to have been yielded 

 by one of the superior gravels." 



The date 1861 on Mr. Prestwich's specimen proves that this note 

 was written after that year. Dr. Falconer's opinion then clearly was 

 adverse to the Forest Bed age of these two molars of the Mam- 

 moth which were not found in situ but merely on the beach, and 

 which therefore do not offer clear and satisfactory evidence of the 

 deposit from which they were derived. 



The remains of the Mammoth in the wonderful collection made by 

 the Kev. John Gunn offer still more unsatisfactory evidence of the 

 Pre-glacial age of the animal. The only case of its occurrence 

 quoted by Dr. Falconer is as follows (page 175) : — 



" In the collection of the Eev. John Grunn, of Irstead, there is a 

 pelvis probably of E. primigenius, which was found at Mundesley in 

 the Elephant-bed under the Paston hill, close to the large os in- 

 nominatum of E. meridionalis already referred to. It is much 

 smaller than the corresponding bone of E. meridionalis. A com- 

 parison of the two exhibits well the gigantic proportions of the 

 latter. The right ilium of E. primigenius, where fractured, seems to 

 be highly infiltrated with iron." 



It is by no means certain that this pelvis actually belonged to the 

 Mammoth; it might be ascribed with equal justice to the Elephas 

 antiquus, which is very abundant in that locality. A molar in the 

 same collection, referred by Dr. Falconer to an old type of the 

 Mammoth, is merely a beach-specimen, with fragments of matrix 

 corresponding exactly with that upon the Mammoth's tusk dredged 

 up off Yarmouth. There is, then, no evidence to be derived from 

 the Kev. J. Gunn's collection as to the Mammoth having dwelt in 

 Pre-glacial Britain. His opinion, indeed, which is of the highest 

 value, is that all the Mammoth remains are derived from a higher 

 deposit; that they have never been found in situ in Pre-glacial beds ; 

 and that he utterly discredits their asserted occurrence in them.^ 



The only remaining evidence to be discussed is that afforded by a 

 last upper true molar " of the Pre-glacial variety" from the Norwich 

 coast in the Woodwardian Museum at Cambridge, which Dr. Falconer 

 describes as follows, page 170 : — 



" The Woodwardian Museum also contains a superb specimen of 



^ " My dear Sir, — I have never found a Mammoth tooth in situ in Pre-glacial 

 beds. There is in my collection what Dr. Falconer regarded as an old type of the 

 Elephas primigenius^ but it was a beach specimen, and the matrix upon it decidedly 

 corresponds with that upon a Mammoth tusk dredged up oflf Yarmouth. I have 

 obtained a Mammoth tooth from a Post-glacial bed near Bacton, and such specimens 

 might be expected to fall upon the beach from beds above the Pre-glacial. The 

 Tichorhine Rhinoceros has not been found in the Norfolk Pre-glacial beds, and / 

 utterly discredit the finding of the Mammoth in them." — Extract from letter of the 

 Eev. J. Gunn to the writer of this notice, dated May 2, 1868. 



