THE NATURALISTS' COMPANION. 
91 
size the elephant. It has a longer 
neck, however, and consequently 
no trunk, and the tusks are replaced 
by three pairs of horns. Scores of 
other animals equally strange meet 
our gaze, together with the rhinoc- 
eras, elephant, camel, horse, wolf, 
and other modern animals. 
Fossil fish and mollusk are every¬ 
where scattered around ; and the 
abundant fossil flora prove that an 
exuberant vegetation once existed 
on these now barren wastes. The 
leaves of many trees common to 
our latitude and those of the torrid 
zone — fig, cinnamon and palm — 
have been found. It is probable 
that this now desolate region was 
once a vast tropical swamp, and 
that the numerous fauna made this 
their favorite feeding ground. Many 
of these animals, venturing too far 
in order to reach some tempting 
morsel became mired and, unable 
to extricate themselves, perished — 
their fossil remains alone testifying 
to their primeval greatness. 
How do you lilce the typographical 
appearance of this ninnber ? 
Six kinds of microbes have l)een de¬ 
tected by 31. Lustig in the fluids of 
horses atliicted with influenza. 
Be sure that you get a pack of tliose 
dandy cards for sale l)y Shepherd of 
this j)lace. They are great. 
For want of space we have been 
obliged to omit the article on the win- 
tei- birds of Prince Edward Island. It 
Avill ])e continued in the next number. 
d. H. Paul, London, England, has 
our thanks for a coipv of the ‘'Young 
Naturalist,” which is very interesting, 
indeed. From the advertisements it 
contains we infer the curiosity business 
must b(' booming on totlu'r sid(' of the 
])U(ldle. 
'fliis department is condiK.-ted by Joseph 
VV iGOLESWORTH, Wilmiiigtoii, Del., to 
whom all articles pertaining to the Subject 
should be addressed. 
WHO HLTLT THE MOFXDS ? 
f’hc above question has baffled 
the minds of men for years, and to¬ 
day it can no more be satisfactorily 
answered than when the mounds 
were first discovered. A Western 
collector once endeavored to prove 
to us that, because the relics found 
upon the surface were similar to 
those found in the mounds, they 
were made by the same race. By 
this he meant to say that the In¬ 
dians built the mounds. In Scot¬ 
land and northern tlngland many 
stone axes, arrow-heads and other 
relics are found like those in Amer¬ 
ica. Now, because the relics found 
in the two places are similar, does 
that go to show that they were all 
made by the same race } If the 
Indians built the mounds, why did 
they not build them in the Eastern 
States as well as the West, for sur¬ 
face relics are as numerous in the 
one place as the other. Take, for 
instance, a stone axe or arrow-head 
found in Delaware and compare it 
with those found in Ohio and no 
difference in the workmanship can 
be found ; yet mounds are very 
numerous in the latter place, and 
none whatever in the former. 1 
I think this alone breaks down the 
idea that, because the relics found 
in the field resembles those found 
in the mounds, they were made by 
the same race. Also, when the 
Jesuit priests first discovered the 
mounds in the valley of the Missis- 
sip[)i the\' asked the Indians \\-ho 
