THE MAMMOTH 
213 
garment capable of resisting the rigours of an arctic winter, its 
adaptation for such a climate would be complete. . . . The 
wonderful and unlooked-for discovery of an entire Mammoth, 
demonstrating the arctic character of its natural clothing, has, 
however, confirmed the deductions which might have been 
legitimately founded upon the localities of its most abundant 
remains, as well as upon the structure of its teeth, viz. that, like 
the Reindeer and Musk Ox of the present day, it was capable of 
existing in high northern latitudes.” ^ 
'Jhe problem of the extinction of the Mammoth is not an easy 
one to solve. We can hardly account for its disappearance by 
calling in geographical changes by which its range became 
restricted, and its food supply diminished, so that in the com- 
petition with other herbivorous animals this primaeval giant 
‘‘went to the wall,” as the saying is. Nor does Lyell’s appeal to 
a change in climate, by which the cold of Siberia became too 
intense even for the Mammoth, seem quite satisfactory, espe- 
cially when we remember how very far north fir trees range 
(p. 211). 
The Mammoth, probably, was endowed with a fairly tough 
constitution. In Siberia it fed on fir trees. In Kentucky it 
fared better, and was surrounded by such vegetation as nov/ 
flourishes in that temperate region. In the valley of the Tiber 
(where also its remains are found), though during the “ Glacial 
period ” the temperature was, doubtless, lower than at present, 
we cannot imagine that an arctic climate prevailed. Thus we 
see that it was capable of flourishing in various and widely 
separated regions where the conditions of climate and food supply 
could hardly have been similar. 
Professor Boyd Dawkins, whose views we are adopting here,^ 
considers that the Mammoth was exterminated by man — a simple 
^ A History of British Fossil Mam?nals and Birds^ by Richard Owen, 
F.R.S., etc. London, 1846. 
^ Popular Science Review y vol, vii. p. 275 (1868), 
