OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF SUBSIDENCE. 307 
North America. This notion is probably based upon the old 
idea (advanced by L. Agassiz and Le Conte) of the making 
of the Floridian peninsula, in which no movements of either 
elevation or subsidence were supposed to have been involved. 
Since, however, this conception has proved to be a myth, 
there is no further reason, except so far as the case may be 
supported by fact, to adhere to the old views of continental 
(or oceanic) stability in this region. My own observations ‘ 
have conclusively proved a peninsula uplift as late as the 
Post-Pliocene period, and extending as far south as Lake 
Okeechobee. But I am by no means convinced, as I have 
elsewhere stated (in chapter on the Coral-reef Problem) that 
a nearly simultaneous subsidence did not take place in (and 
from) what are now known as the straits of Florida. The 
existence of such a subsidence (Lruch) is considered likely by 
Suess* who has paralleled it with (a supposed) similar occur- 
rence in the eastern basin of the Mediterranean. This view 
of the formation of the deep Gulf-channel, I must confess, 
appears to me far more captivating than that which ascribes 
it to the wash of the Gulf-current.” 
Mr. Heilprin brings forward, also, additional evidence of 
great weight. 
“But I believe direct evidence pointing to (although by 
no means proving) a former connection between the Floridian 
peninsula and the mainland is not wanting. In a paper on 
‘The Value of the “ Nearctic,” as one of the Primary Zodlogi- 
eal regions,’ published in the Proceedings of the Academy of 
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia for 1882, I pointed out cer- 
tam facts in favor of considering the lower portion of the 
peninsula as part of the Neotropical rather than the Nearctic 
realm; more recent zodlogical researches have still further 
1 Antlitz der Erde, vol. i. 
