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 latitudes 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, Köppen, 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 passed 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."