The late Professor Brandt, one of the highest zoological authorities in Russia, was of opinion that at the commencement of the Glacial period the great mammals of Northern Siberia either perished or migrated southward. From there they gradually penetrated into European Russia. He believed that before the Glacial period a connection existed between the Aralo-Caspian Sea and the Arctic Ocean, carrying warm water northward.

The gradual disappearance of this marine channel caused a decrease of warmth in Northern Asia, so that large acc.u.mulations of frozen soil and ice were formed, which still more depressed the temperature. This, he suggested, probably took place at the time when the Glacial period commenced in North-western Europe.

It has been urged against these views of Tcherski and Brandt, that the bone beds in the Liakov Islands (New Siberian Islands) rest partly upon a solid layer of ice of nearly seventy feet thick. This ma.s.s of ice, it was thought, must have acc.u.mulated during the Glacial period. As the bones rest upon it, the mammals could only have lived in those islands in more recent times, after the Ice-Age had pa.s.sed away. Nothing, apparently, can be clearer, and yet in the face of this seeming proof one feels, as I have mentioned before, that if such an extraordinary revolution of climate as is implied by this admission had taken place, we should be able to perceive the traces throughout the northern hemisphere. In this dilemma, a suggestion made by Dr. Bunge, who visited the New Siberian Islands recently at the instance of the Imperial Academy of St. Petersburg, helps us out of the difficulty. He found that, as a rule, these so-called fossil glaciers contain seams of mud and sand, and he argued that the ice had formed, and is still forming at the present day, in fissures of the earth. I entirely concur with this view. Neither palaeontology nor the geographical distribution of animals lend any support to the other theory, and I think we may conclude that Brandt's view in the main is probably the correct explanation of the phenomena which we have discussed. Some important facts of distribution are more easily explicable on this a.s.sumption. Why, for instance, should the Siberian fauna of pliocene times have remained in Siberia and not have migrated to Europe at that time? The pliocene mammals of Siberia are mostly of southern origin. Their range increased enormously during the epoch throughout Northern Asia. We should expect them, therefore, to have crossed the Caspian plains, or even the low-lying Ural Mountains, to pour into the neighbouring continent. But Professor Brandt explained how they were prevented from spreading west. An arm of the sea stretched from the Aralo-Caspian to the Arctic Ocean, thus raising an effectual barrier between the two continents. There is some evidence for the belief, as we shall learn presently, that this marine barrier existed also during the early part of the pleistocene epoch. After having greatly expanded during pliocene times, the fauna of Siberia gradually withdrew from the northern regions during the earlier portion of the succeeding epoch. It was only after the marine connection above referred to ceased to exist, or became disconnected, that an entry into Europe was possible.

A fauna, to some extent composed of species now inhabiting the steppes of Eastern Europe and Siberia, poured into the neighbouring continent.

On p. 95 I have given a list of those which reached as far west as the British Islands, but, as I mentioned, many other species came from the east about this time. With regard to the early history of the Siberian mammals, I favour a view somewhat between that of Tcherski and that of Brandt. The outpouring of the fauna into Europe seems to me to indicate that there was a sudden change of climate in Siberia. This was produced, perhaps, by the rupture of the marine connection between the Arctic Ocean and the Aralo-Caspian. Such an event would not only have caused the sudden shrinkage of the area available for food-supply by lowering the temperature in Siberia, it would have acted also as a means in a.s.sisting the fauna to enter a new continent where an inconsiderable number of mammals, already established, were mostly dispossessed of their homes by the advancing eastern host.

Brandt's theory, however, of a marine connection between the Arctic Ocean and the Aralo-Caspian is by no means generally accepted. That the Caspian Sea was at that time greatly larger than it is at present, and joined to the Sea of Aral and the Black Sea, is acknowledged by everybody. That the deposits laid down by this huge inland sea reach as far north as the sh.o.r.es of the river Kama, in Central Russia, is also well known to geologists. But what comes rather as a surprise, is that Professor Karpinski, whom we must take as one of the highest authorities on the geology of Russia, a.s.serts that this Aralo-Caspian Sea was probably joined by a system of lakes or channels to the Arctic Ocean (p.

183). He was by no means the first, though, to put forward such a theory. We have already learned that Professor Brandt held a somewhat similar view, though he believed in something more than a connection by mere channels, and Mr. Koppen, and also the Russian traveller Mr.

Kessler, agreed with him. So much was Professor Boyd Dawkins impressed with their arguments at the time, that he wrote (_c_, p. 148): "Before the lowering of the temperature in Central Europe, the sea had already rolled through the low country of Russia, from the Caspian to the White Sea and the Baltic, and formed a barrier to western migration to the Arctic mammals of Asia."

In one particular Professor Dawkins's views differ from those of almost all the previous writers. His connection between the Caspian and the Arctic Ocean is placed to the west of the Ural Mountains, while it had always been a.s.sumed by the Russian writers to have lain on the eastern or Asiatic side of that mountain range. Thus, when Tcherski in recent years announced that the tract on this eastern side of the mountains was covered by freshwater deposits, his discovery seemed once for all to settle the problem of the arctic marine connection in the negative. As Professor Dawkins's theory has, however, received much additional affirmative evidence by current faunal researches, a connection between the Caspian (or Aralo-Caspian) and the Arctic Ocean (White Sea) may have actually existed within recent geological times.

What _relict lakes_ are, has already been explained (p. 176), and their fauna will again be referred to in a subsequent chapter. I might perhaps be allowed to repeat that such lakes are supposed to have been flooded by, or to have been in close connection with, the sea at some former period. Many of the Swedish lakes are spoken of as relict lakes (Reliktenseen), because they contain a number of marine species of animals which have now become adapted to live in fresh water, but all of whose nearest relatives inhabit the sea. One of these, the schizopod crustacean _Mysis relicta_,--a shrimp-like creature,--which was formerly believed to inhabit also the Caspian, is of particular interest. More recently, the occurrence of this _Mysis_ in the Caspian was denied, but though this denial has been confirmed by Professor Sars in his memoir on the crustaceans of the great Russian inland sea, he has been enabled to add two new species of _Mysis_ to the list of those already known to science. These are _M. caspia_ and _M. micropthalma_, and both are closely related to the arctic marine _Mysis oculata_. According to Professor Sars, the genus _Mysis_ as a whole may be regarded as arctic in character. The occurrence of these two species, therefore, in his opinion, points to a recent connection of the Caspian with the Glacial Sea.

A large number of other crustaceans have been described by the same author from the Caspian. Of the order c.u.macea, which is exclusively marine, ten species are mentioned, but none of these seems to range beyond the Caspian. Among the smaller species of crustaceans, a minute pelagic copepod (_Limnocala.n.u.s grimaldii_) also inhabits the Baltic and the Arctic Ocean. The marine isopod _Idotea entomon_, related to the common wood-louse, has a similar distribution.

Genuine Arctic species of Fishes do not seem to occur in the Caspian, though some, viz., _Clupea caspia_, _Atherina pontica_, _Clupionella Grimmi_, and _Syngnathus bucculentus_, are almost certainly the descendants of marine forms.

The Seal of the Caspian (_Phoca caspica_) is closely allied to the Arctic Seal, and its presence alone in that sea indicates that at no very distant date--at any rate since pliocene times--a closer connection with the Arctic Ocean existed than at present.

I am sure it will be readily granted that there is zoological evidence for the belief of such a connection or union between the two great seas.

However, it may be urged that owing to the presence of an ice-sheet in Northern Europe during the Glacial period, such a connection must either have been pre-glacial or have existed after that period. But the connection must have occurred at a time when the Caspian extended far to the north--when indeed the so-called post-tertiary Caspian deposits were laid down (Fig. 17). Since the boulder-clay which covers the plain of Northern Russia is a.s.sumed to be the ground-moraine of the great northern ice-sheet, we might expect to find that the Caspian deposits were not contemporaneous with it. Curiously enough, it has been shown by Mr. Sjogren that all observations have pointed to the fact that these two deposits do not overlie one another, but occur side by side, and are therefore contemporaneous. This seems to warrant our belief, that while the boulder-clay was being laid down in Northern Europe, the Aralo-Caspian Sea had some communication with the White Sea.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Fig. 17.--Map of European Russia (after Karpinski). The faintly dotted parts indicate the areas covered by boulder-clay, the strongly dotted ones those exhibiting Aralo-Caspian and other post-pliocene deposits.]

The boulder-clay of Northern Continental Europe, as already stated, is now generally recognised to be the product of a huge ice-sheet which invaded the lowlands of Continental Europe from the Scandinavian mountains. Though Alpine glaciers at the present day produce little or no ground moraine, these ancient larger ice-sheets, or "mers de glace,"

are believed to have deposited immense layers of mud containing scratched and polished stones. Many of the latter have been carried great distances from their source of origin. The Scandinavian ice-sheet is supposed to have advanced as far south as the line indicated on the map, after which it gradually retreated. On this point, however, as in almost every detail connected with the Glacial period, geologists are at variance. Professor James Geikie maintains, that there were no less than four Glacial periods, separated from one another by milder inter-glacial phases. On the Continent the view of two Glacial and one inter-glacial period is, I think, more generally adopted. Professor Geikie's four periods seem to me to have originated in a desire to correlate the British pleistocene deposits with the continental ones, and at the same time to retain the old view of the inter-glacial position of the Forest-Bed. The two theories agree in so far as that in both the glacial conditions culminate in a maximum glaciation, followed by a more temperate phase of climate, with consequent retreat of the ice-sheets, and finally by a renewed advance of the glaciers.

We are told that there is not the slightest doubt about it that a marked but gradual decrease of temperature took place all over Europe either during the beginning of the Pleistocene or towards the end of the Pliocene Epoch.

We might reasonably suppose, then, that a similar climatic effect was produced in Siberia, in consequence of which the fauna would have been obliged to retreat from the extreme northern lat.i.tudes southward. No doubt great efforts would have been made by the members of the Siberian fauna--at any rate by those possessing strong power of locomotion--to extend their range in other directions. But we have no evidence that a migration from Siberia came to Eastern Europe at that time. It seems, therefore, as if the barrier referred to by Brandt, Koppen, Boyd Dawkins, and others (p. 222), had existed at this time. This would have effectually prevented an overflow of the fauna from Siberia. Only in deposits later than the lower continental boulder-clay do we find traces of a Siberian migration. The time of maximum glaciation had then pa.s.sed away; the great glacier which was believed to have invaded the lowlands of Northern Europe had again retreated, before the Siberian mammals made their appearance in Germany.

It has been stated above (p. 226) that while the Russian boulder-clay was being laid down, the Aralo-Caspian probably had some communication with the White Sea.

But how can this view be reconciled with the existence of a huge _mer de glace_ in the northern plains of Russia? The existence of the ice-sheet has been conjured up in order to explain the presence of the boulder-clay. But not long ago a very different interpretation of the origin of this clay was given; and one, I may say, which explains the history of the Siberian and the European fauna in a more satisfactory manner than is done by the ice-sheet hypothesis. It is that the boulder-clay is not the product of land-ice, but has been deposited by a sea with floating icebergs. Thus the latter hypothesis does not deny the existence of glaciers, but allows the mud to be deposited on the floor of a turbid sea, instead of beneath an immense _mer de glace_. I need hardly mention that this view, which was formerly universally accepted by geologists, is now scouted by almost every authority, both British and Continental. I should scarcely venture the attempt to revive old memories and stir up again long forgotten controversies, were it not for the fact that many new points have arisen in the course of the above inquiries, which appear to me so very difficult to explain by the land-ice hypothesis, while they are comparatively easy to understand when we adopt the old theory of the marine origin of the boulder-clay.

But a few geologists even at the present day, while believing in the land-ice theory, recognise that the marine hypothesis should have some consideration shown to it. I need only remind glacialists of the work recently published by Professor Bonney. "The singular mixture," he remarks (p. 280), "and apparent crossing of the paths of boulders, as already stated, are less difficult to explain on the hypothesis of distribution by floating ice than on that of transport by land-ice, because, in the former case, though the drift of winds and currents would be generally in one direction, both might be varied at particular seasons. So far as concerns the distribution and thickness of the glacial deposits, there is not much to choose between either hypothesis; but on that of land-ice it is extremely difficult to explain the intercalation of perfectly stratified sands and gravels and of boulder-clay, as well as the not infrequent signs of bedding in the latter."

Now with regard to the land-ice theory, several serious difficulties present themselves in connection with the origin of the European fauna.

In the first place, as the climate renders Northern Siberia almost uninhabitable for mammals at the present day, how much more severe must it have been during the time of the maximum glaciation in Europe. As the then existing fauna was not driven into Europe, where could it possibly have survived? Secondly, how can we reconcile the contemporaneous existence of a great inland sea (the Aralo-Caspian) containing survivals of mild Sarmatic times with an immense glacier almost touching it on its northern sh.o.r.es? How did one of the most characteristic species of that sea, _Dreyssensia polymorpha_, come to make its appearance in the lower boulder-clay of Prussia and then disappear in the upper? And finally, how are we to explain the sudden appearance of a Siberian fauna after the deposition of the lower boulder-clay, except by the removal of a barrier which had prevented their egress from Siberia?

If we a.s.sume that the continental boulder-clay of Russia has been formed in the manner so ably explained by Murchison, de Verneuil, and von Keyserling, viz., by a sea with floating icebergs, the temperature of Siberia might have been higher than at present, and have supported a fauna in more northern lat.i.tudes.

The contemporaneousness of the deposits of this sea with those of the Aralo-Caspian is also rendered more intelligible. If we suppose, moreover, the connection between the Aralo-Caspian and the White Sea (Fig. 12, p. 156) to have existed at this time, we possess an explanation of the method of migration of the Arctic marine species into the Southern and of the Caspian species (_Dreyssensia_) into the Northern Sea.

An inter-glacial phase is believed to have supervened after the deposition of the lower boulder-clay, and it is during this period that the Siberian species first appeared in Central Europe. If we a.s.sume then that the retreat of the Northern Sea (Fig. 13, p. 170) opened up a pa.s.sage for the Siberian fauna, we have in this very fact also an explanation of the extraordinarily large exodus of Asiatic mammals, because the great reduction of the marine area in Northern Europe would have had an important influence in lowering the temperature in Asia.

Only a sudden change of climate in Siberia could have brought about the migration of the vast hordes of Asiatic mammals whose remains we find in Central and Western Europe in deposits of that period.

Throughout this work we are made acquainted with facts which bear out the view that the climate during the greater part of the Glacial period was mild rather than intensely arctic in Europe. That a huge ice-sheet could have covered Northern Europe under such conditions appears to me very doubtful. No one can deny, however, that glaciers must have existed during the Glacial period in all the mountainous regions of Central and Northern Europe, though their existence is not incompatible with a mild climate. Tree-ferns and other tropical vegetation grow at the foot of glaciers in New Zealand. We need not even go so far afield, for in Switzerland grapes ripen and an abundant fauna and flora thrive in close proximity to some of the well-known glaciers.

One matter of importance still remains to be considered before concluding this chapter, viz., the fauna contained in the English geological deposit known as the "Forest-Bed." This interesting deposit is exposed at the base of a range of cliffs on the coast of Norfolk. It is composed of beds of estuarine and marine origin. The tree-stumps formerly believed to be the remains of trees _in situ_ have, after more careful examination, proved to be in all cases drifted specimens. A portion of the "Forest-Bed" no doubt was laid down in close proximity to a large river, and subject to being periodically flooded by it. It is not absolutely certain, therefore, that all the mammals whose remains occur in this deposit lived in England or whether only on the banks of the river farther south. Nevertheless, we may take for granted that some of them did. England was at the time connected with France and Belgium, and for our purpose it matters little whether they had crossed the Channel or inhabited those parts of the Continent through which the great river flowed which sent its alluvial detritus as far as the plains of Norfolk. All we have to remember is that certain mammals, which appear to have originated in Siberia, and of which we have some evidence that they crossed Central Europe in their westward course, had now reached the great river just alluded to, which some geologists believe to have been the Rhine.

I have had occasion to refer to a number of British mammals (p.

202)--some of which are now extinct--which I believe to have migrated across the plains of continental Europe direct from Siberia. There were twenty-six species of these Siberian mammals; and no less than ten of these occur in the Forest-Bed. None appear in any older British deposit.

It is perfectly clear, therefore, that the Forest-Bed must have been laid down after their immigration into Europe. They probably wandered to Western Europe very soon after crossing the eastern boundaries of our continent; the deposits in which they are found are therefore contemporaneous. But we have learned above (p. 208), that the beds in Eastern Europe in which the Siberian mammal-remains are found are more recent than the lower boulder-clay. As already stated, the Forest-Bed must also be more recent than the lower continental boulder-clay, and should be included in the pleistocene series.

That the Forest-Bed is an inter-glacial deposit has been urged long ago by various writers. Professor Geikie regards it as stratigraphically contemporaneous with the peat and freshwater beds below the lower diluvium of Western and Middle Germany, and as having been laid down during the first Inter-glacial Epoch of the great Ice-Age. The fact that no boulder-clay underlies the Forest-Bed seems rather a strong argument against the view of its being an inter-glacial deposit. It lies directly on what is known as the Newer Pliocene Crags. If the Forest-Bed is included in the pleistocene series, as I suggested it should, the crags, or a portion of them, would therefore be equivalent as regards time of deposition to the lower continental boulder-clay. And again, if the lower continental boulder-clay is contemporaneous with the Newer Crags, the latter should also be cla.s.sed with the pleistocene strata. I can scarcely hope that geologists will be ready to admit such a sweeping change of nomenclature without a protest. I venture, therefore, to explain more fully my reasons for adhering to these unorthodox views.

Let us look once more at the map which I constructed (Fig. 12, p. 156) to elucidate the migration of the Arctic terrestrial species to the British Islands. It will be noticed that one continuous ocean extends from the east coast of England across Holland, Northern Germany, and Russia to the White Sea. At the same time Greenland and Northern Scandinavia, Scotland and Southern Scandinavia, are united by a narrow strip of land, and so are England and France. The waters of the Atlantic and this North European Sea do not therefore intermingle at any point, the two seas being absolutely independent of one another.

Such I a.s.sume to have been the geographical condition of Northern Europe during the deposition of the Red Crag. Arctic mollusca were then brought to the east coast of England, and boulders were scattered through the beds laid down on that coast by icebergs which had been cast off by Scandinavian glaciers on reaching the sea. Bedded clays which have yielded arctic sh.e.l.ls lie beneath the lower continental boulder-clay on the Baltic coast-lands and on the coast of the White Sea. According to Professor Geikie, marine clays on the same geological horizon reach an elevation of some 230 feet. "It would seem, then," he says, "that before the deposition of the lower boulder-clay of those regions the Baltic Sea had open communication with the German Ocean" (p.

442). All these clays are evidently deposits of the same sea. But apart from the fact that the Red Crag and these Baltic deposits are the oldest of the upper Tertiary beds containing arctic sh.e.l.ls, there is no evidence that they are contemporaneous.

Overlying the same Baltic deposits comes the lower boulder-clay, reaching a thickness of several hundred feet in some parts of Germany.

It presents, like the upper clay, frequent interstratification with well-bedded deposits of sand and gravel. The scarcity of marine mollusca, the occurrence of striated surfaces, and the occasional presence of so-called giants' kettles, appear to favour the view, which at present is generally adopted by both British and Continental geologists, that the boulder-clay owes its origin to land-ice. I have stated on several occasions that the view of the marine origin of the boulder-clay agrees best with the known facts of distribution, and with the history of the European fauna (pp. 80-86, and p. 129). It may be urged that if the lower boulder-clay were contemporaneous with the British Crags which succeeded the Red Crag, how can we explain the fact that these crags contain plenty of sh.e.l.ls, while in the lower continental boulder-clay there are scarcely any?

But as yet our knowledge of the conditions of life of the marine mollusca and of their distribution is extremely scanty. We are apt to imagine that the bottom of the sea is covered by a more or less uniform thick layer of sh.e.l.ls; but whenever a careful survey of the nature of the deposits now forming there has been made, such is by no means found to be the case. Some of the best results obtained by that useful body, the Liverpool Marine Biological Committee, have been precisely in this direction. A most interesting account has been published by Professor Herdman and Mr. Lomas on the floor deposits of the Irish Sea, in which the authors state (p. 217), that "a place may be swarming with life and yet leave no trace of anything capable of being preserved in the fossil state, whereas in other places, barren of living things, banks of drifted and dead sh.e.l.ls may be found, and remain as a permanent deposit on the ocean floor."

Owing to the fact of the peculiar geographical position of Scandinavia at this time--an isthmus of land with a high mountain range lying between the warm Atlantic and the cold Arctic Sea--the snowfall must have been excessive, and large glaciers were evidently forming. These produced icebergs as soon as the lower parts had advanced to the Baltic coast-land and deposited their detritus in the sea. Immense ma.s.ses of mud and stones were thus cast to the bottom of the sea, and under these circ.u.mstances no delicate mollusca or other marine life probably could have developed within a considerable distance from the sh.o.r.e. To judge from the direction pursued by the majority of the boulders from their source of origin, the prevailing current during the deposition of the lower boulder-clay was from north-west to south-east. It is possible that little marine life, except free-swimming forms, would have been able to live within the Russian area of this sea. But the free-swimming larvae of molluscs and other surface species were not prevented from pa.s.sing from the White Sea south-westward, and in sheltered localities where little or no mud deposition was going on, these no doubt might have developed into adults on the sea-floor. It is quite conceivable, therefore, that in one portion of the North European Sea, which was fully exposed to the destructive influences of the iceberg action, the fauna was scanty or totally absent, while in another part there lived a fairly abundant one. The unfossiliferous state of the lower continental boulder-clay does not, therefore, offer any serious difficulty to the supposition that some of the so-called Newer Pliocene Crags of the east coast of England were laid down at the same time by the same sea.

This would also explain how the Arctic species come to inhabit the Caspian, as the old Aralo-Caspian Sea could have had some communication (Fig. 12, p. 156) with the North European Sea. And this again offers an explanation of the otherwise mysterious occurrence of the Caspian _Dreyssensia polymorpha_ in the lower continental boulder-clay.

The climatic reasons for the supposition that the boulder-clay is a marine deposit have already been given (p. 66). However, it may be asked what about the glacial flora which has been proved to have existed all over the plains of Northern Europe?--what about the relics of this same flora which still linger on in a few localities to the great delight of the systematic botanist? They have been spoken of as indications of a former Arctic climate in Europe. The presence of an Arctic species such as _Dryas octopetala_ in any of the pleistocene deposits is often looked upon as an absolute proof of a very severe climate having prevailed at the time they were laid down. Professor Geikie tells us that the South of England was clothed with an Arctic flora, when the climate became somewhat less severe than it had been during the climax of the glacial cold (p. 398). Relics of such a flora have been detected at Bovey Tracey, in Devonshire, the Arctic plants found comprising _Betula nana_ and _B. alba_, _Salix cinerea_ and _Arctostaphylos uva-ursi_.

Now three of these four species of plants are still natives in the British Islands, and all are forms which probably came to us with the Arctic migration which I described in Chapter IV. They travelled south with the reindeer, or before it, and may have covered large tracts of country at the time. With the increased struggle for existence on the arrival of the Siberian and Oriental migrants, they have probably been evicted by these more powerful rivals. A discovery of their remains does not necessarily indicate that a great change of climate has taken place since they lived in the country. And certainly these Arctic plants cannot be taken as indicating a low temperature, for it has been shown that Alpine plants are mostly intolerant of very low temperatures.

"Arctic and Alpine species in the Botanical Gardens at Christiania,"

says Professor Blytt (p. 19), "endure the strongest summer heat without injury, while they are often destroyed when not sufficiently covered during the winter." Similar observations have been made in other countries. For this reason they have to be generally wintered in frames in the Botanic Gardens at Kew and Dublin, and are thus exposed to higher temperatures than at present obtain in the British Islands. This fact suggests that the Alpine and Arctic plants really did not originate in countries with cold temperatures. They probably made their first appearance long before the Glacial period--perhaps in early Tertiary times--chiefly in the Arctic Regions, which at that time had a mild climate. They have since become adapted to live in cold countries where they flourish, provided they receive sufficient moisture in the summer, and are protected from severe frost in the winter by a covering of snow.

When we carefully examine the present range of Arctic plants in the British Islands, a curious fact presents itself which no doubt has frequently been noted by botanists, viz., that some of the most characteristically Arctic species, and some which are often quoted by glacialists in support of their theories, flourish at the present moment in very mild situations. I have already referred to the fact that the Mountain Avens (_Dryas octopetala_) abounds in the west of Ireland (County Galway) down to sea-level. Now it is well known that the mean winter temperature of that part of Ireland resembles that of Southern Europe, being no less than 12 F. (=7 Cent.) above freezing point. The plant, of course, is here a native, and not introduced. This instance shows clearly, that as long as more vigorous compet.i.tors are absent, and as long as it is not exposed to severe frost or undue dryness, this and allied species do just as well in a mild climate as in their native Arctic home.

In his interesting essay on the distribution of the Arctic plants in Europe during the Glacial period, Professor Nathorst adduces the fact that all the localities but one, in which remains of such plants have been discovered, lie either within or close to the limits of the maximum extension of the supposed northern ice-sheet, or within those of the former Alpine glaciers. Whether we look upon the boulder-clay as a marine or a terrestrial product, it is quite conceivable that, in many instances, the remains of the Arctic plants may have been carried by ice to great distances from where they grew. The probability, however, is in favour of most of them having lived where their remains are now found.

Now, it is a remarkable fact, that the single instance in Europe of a deposit of Arctic plants having been found far removed from the maximum extension of the northern ice-sheet is the one quoted above, viz., at Bovey Tracey, in Devonshire. Even up to recent times Arctic plants may have persisted at Bovey Tracey just as they do in Galway under the influence of a mild coast climate. Similar circ.u.mstances may have led to their survival along the sh.o.r.es of the sea which deposited the North European boulder-clay, while they moved northward from the Alps along with the glaciers, which always supplied them with an abundance of moisture. Alpine plants probably became exterminated in the plain of Central Europe at a much earlier period.

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER V.

What has been spoken of in the earlier parts of this book as the eastern migration, refers in a general way to the animals which have come to England from the east. But these are by no means natives of one country alone. We can trace a number of the British mammals to a Siberian origin, and also some birds; among many of the lower vertebrates and invertebrates, however, there are few species which have reached us from Siberia. They may have had their original homes in the Alps, in Eastern Europe, or in Central and Southern Asia, and have joined in their westward course the later, more quickly travelling mammals. Many instances are given from all the more important groups of animals to show how we may proceed in approximately identifying the home of a species.

The periodical invasion into our continent of Pallas's Sandgrouse and other birds, suggests an explanation as to the cause of the great westward migration in former times of the Siberian mammals. Since a considerable amount of fossil evidence is available to show the path of migration pursued by these mammals, other important problems, such as the time of their arrival in Europe and the geographical conditions surrounding them, may perhaps be approximately ascertained, and thus throw much light on the general features of the European fauna. It has been proved by Professor Nehring that the Siberian mammals arrived in Eastern Europe after the deposition of the lower continental boulder-clay. He believes that the climate of Germany at that time had ameliorated so far, after the maximum cold of the Glacial period, that steppes with a Siberian fauna could exist. Other groups, such as the Mollusca, however, do not support Professor Nehring's theory, and in order to arrive at an independent solution of this and the other problems referred to, a short history is given of the Siberian fauna.

Recent geological ages have witnessed the arrival in Southern Europe of mammals now almost confined to the arctic and subarctic regions. In Siberia, on the other hand, many southern species penetrated, apparently about the same time, to the extreme northern limits of that country. The greatest authority on the Siberian fossil fauna, Tcherski, believes that this took place in pliocene times, the gradual retreat occupying the whole of the Glacial period. If this were correct, the retreat from the Arctic Regions would have occurred at the same time when, according to our European authorities, Professors Nehring and Geikie, the much more southern parts of our continent were already uninhabitable. But Siberia could not have supported the large mammals at all at a time when Europe was uninhabitable, as it would be difficult to conceive under what geographical conditions the climate of the latter was arctic and that of the former temperate. If the whole fauna was driven into Southern Asia, how is it that the Siberian invasion of Europe occurred immediately after the deposition of the lower boulder-clay, that is to say, after the earlier part of the Glacial period? The difficulty can be met by the supposition that both Europe and Siberia had a temperate climate at that time. This view is supported by certain evidences, fully described, of a connection between the Caspian and the White Sea, which would have had the effect of influencing the climate. The Siberian fauna would thus have been prevented from spreading westward in Pliocene and early Glacial times. But on the disappearance of the marine connection, a way would have been opened into our continent, which again had an effect on the climate. The latter would have become sensibly colder and thus have reduced the habitable area of the Siberian fauna.

Such geographical conditions would have been incompatible with a great northern _mer de glace_, and the boulder-clay in Northern Europe could not have represented a ground moraine but is a marine deposit. The sea is supposed to have covered the Northern Russian and German plains, and into it icebergs discharged the detritus which had acc.u.mulated on them when they were still Scandinavian glaciers.

As regards the time of the arrival of the Siberian migrants in Europe, the English Forest-Bed gives us an additional clue to its determination.

Since Siberian migrants are unknown from earlier deposits than this, it is reasonable to suppose that they arrived in England about the time when it was laid down. But since they appear in Germany in the inter-glacial beds subsequent to the deposition of the lower boulder-clay, the former are probably contemporaneous with the Forest-Bed. Some of the deposits generally regarded as upper pliocene by British geologists would therefore have to be cla.s.sed with the lower continental boulder-clay as lower pleistocene. In connection with this theory some interesting faunistic data are given which seem to support it.

In conclusion, the former presence of Arctic plants in Central Europe and their bearing on the climatic problems are discussed.