In referring to the sixty-five species of Land and Freshwater Mollusca which have been described from the continental "Loess," Dr. Kobelt states (p. 166) that this fauna has certainly not a steppe-character. It does not therefore strengthen Professor Nehring's view that Europe during the deposition of the loess had a climate comparable to that of the Siberian steppes. The Glacial period had hardly any effect on the molluscan fauna of Europe. Dr. Kobelt believes in a certain movement of that fauna from the least favourable areas, with a subsequent re-immigration; but even that could not have taken place on a large scale. Nothing like a destruction of the fauna occurred, as far as we know from fossil evidence.
Not a single species of land or freshwater mollusc can be quoted as having migrated to Europe from Siberia in recent geological times. The molluscan fauna of the latter country is so closely connected with that of Europe, that it is quite impossible to elevate it to the rank of a sub-region of the Holarctic Region. Dr. Kobelt insists that Siberia cannot even claim to be placed into a distinct province. According to the same authority, we find no species in the whole Siberian molluscan fauna which we might regard as having immigrated since the close of the Glacial period. Even to attempt the location of the original homes of many of the species which Siberia has in common with Europe, seems hopeless. Such forms as Arion hortensis, which has been obtained in Siberia, and which, as we have seen, must have originated in Western Europe, migrated in pliocene or miocene times, possibly along the shores of the Mediterranean and across Asia Minor. We have evidence, therefore, of an eastward migration among the land and freshwater mollusca in later Tertiary times, but not of a westward one from Siberia.
A very different view is presented to us by the coleopterous fauna of Europe. Many of our European Beetles are Siberian migrants. Let us take, for instance, the Tiger Beetles (Cicindelidæ). There are over forty species of the genus Cicindela in Europe, five of which reach the British Islands. This seems a large number; but there are altogether no less than 600 species of the genus scattered over the greater part of the world, many of them being Asiatic. The genus is certainly not of European origin, for not only are most of the European species confined to the Caucasus and the south-east generally, but no Cicindelidæ whatsoever occur, for example, in Madeira or the Canaries, where we should expect some to have persisted if the genus had originated on our continent. Moreover, of the five tribes into which the large family of Cicindelidæ can be sub-divided, only two range to Europe, and one of them is represented by only a single species on our continent.
Some of the Cicindelas may have come with the Oriental migration. I think this was the case with the only Irish species of the genus, C. campestris. It occurs all over continental Europe and Northern Asia, and varieties of the species are known from Corsica, Sicily, Crete, the Cyclades, Sardinia, Asia Minor, Greece, and Spain. Five species of Cicindela, as I said, are known from England, of which C. silvatica and C. maritima are certainly Siberian migrants, and perhaps C. hybrida too. Neither of the two first species is found in Southern Europe or in Spain, where we should expect them to occur had they originated on our continent. C. silvatica and maritima have no doubt entered Europe from Siberia in recent geological times, probably soon after a way was opened up across the Tchornosjem district of Southern Russia—that is to say, in inter-glacial times. The former spread along the Central European plain as far west as the south-east of England when Great Britain still formed part of France. C. maritima, which preferred the proximity of the sea, migrated along the shores of the Caspian and then across Russia to the shores of the Baltic and North Sea, and has penetrated a little farther north and west in England than its near relative. C. litterata has a very similar distribution and origin, but instead of wandering so far west as the British Islands, it seems to have preferred extending its range southward, and has just reached Northern Italy.
The closely allied Ground-beetles (Carabidæ) furnish us with equally interesting and instructive proofs of a migration from Asia. Over 300 species of Carabus are known to science. The number of species inhabiting Asia and Europe are about equal. But the genus does not extend its range to Southern Asia or to South America or Australia. Very few species enter Africa, and only nine North America, of which three also occur in Siberia. The genus is unknown in Madeira, and only represented by three species in the Canary Islands. To judge from its distribution, it has probably originated in Western Asia. Probably some Carabi of European origin have spread into Asia, but the Asiatic—or we might say the Siberian—origin and subsequent migration westward of a number of well-known forms appears to me evident. Such forms as C. clathratus, C. granulatus, and C. cancellatus are no doubt of European origin, and have only in recent geological times extended their range across Northern Asia, whilst C. marginalis, coming from Siberia, can hardly be said to have invaded Europe, since it has never been met with farther west than the eastern provinces of Prussia.
Among the Carabidæ there are altogether very many examples pointing to a migration from Asia to Europe, but I do not wish here to give a list of all such cases, and only refer to a few of the more remarkable ones. One of the European species of Demetrias (D. unipunctatus), known to English entomologists as a south-eastern form, seems to have arrived with the Siberian migration, whilst the closely allied D. atricapillus, which has been able to reach Ireland, has a wider range and came earlier with the Orientals.
Messrs. Speyer state (p. 68) that almost all those species of Central European Butterflies whose northern limit is deflected southward as we approach the west coast of Europe, inhabit also the Volga country and the adjoining parts of Asia. Many of them are much commoner there than in Central Europe, and it appears probable to the authors of the Geographical Distribution of Butterflies that these species came from the east. Asia and Central Europe have, according to Messrs. Speyer, no fewer than 156 species in common. Mr. Petersen estimates that no less than 91 per cent. of the Arctic-European Butterflies also occur in Siberia. He made a special study of the Arctic Macro-lepidoptera, and came to the conclusion that Central Asia, not having been glaciated in the Ice-Age, offered a possibility of existence to both animals and plants. Here, he thinks, was the principal centre to which Europe owed its re-population in post-glacial times. Mr. Petersen is of opinion (p. 40) that the Arctic-European Lepidoptera are composed of two elements—the pliocene relics which persisted in Europe during the Glacial period, and the new immigrants from Siberia.
No doubt Siberia supplied Europe with a number of species of Butterflies and Moths in recent geological times, but we need not necessarily suppose that these arrived only after the Glacial period. Even the most extreme glacialists admit that large areas on our continent were free from ice at the height of the Ice-Age, Siberia had therefore no particular advantage over Europe in giving an asylum to Butterflies and Moths which were escaping from the rigours of a supposed arctic climate. But we have already learned (p. [80]) that the climate during the Glacial period probably differed but little from that which we enjoy at the present day, and we may assume, therefore, that the Lepidoptera of Siberia migrated during that time or even earlier to Europe.