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 accumulations 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 mass of ice, it was thought, must have accumulated 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 passed 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 palæontology 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 assumption. 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.