244 PROCEEDINGS COTTESWOLD CLUB 1909 
measure of the depth of my own convictions, which for 
many years have been steadily becoming more confirmed. 
But for this I should regard any expression of dissent as 
presumptuous indeed. 
The view of Professor Davis, briefly stated, is that 
river-channels originally formed in straight lines; which 
he calls “simple consequent streams,” or “ original con- 
sequent streams.” From them tributaries branch off; 
these he calls “subsequent” streams ; they “ grow head- 
ward,” and by working their way backwards, ultimately 
attain to and “capture” other “ consequents,” so divert- 
ing the water in them to their own channels. The 
direction of a part of each captured stream below the 
point of capture is reversed ; this, flowing backwards as an 
“obsequent” stream, joins the “subsequent” stream 
which diverted it. 
We read that a network of streams results from this 
process—I am not now quoting from Professor Davis. 
This seems to imply that a zefwork of streams is the 
ultimate result in the development of a river-system. 
It is not so. Lloyd’s excellent map of the Severn, Wye 
and Usk Fisheries, giving the streams only, is so minute 
in detail as to look like a network. Really it is a ramifi- 
cation, or, more strictly speaking, a convergence of lines 
leading to, not branching from, a series of points along a 
continuous line. This map is rare; it is specially inter- 
esting to me because it belonged to our late Treasurer, 
Mr A. S. Helps, and has been kindly given to me by his 
sister. 
As I believe, we cannot have a right conception of 
the development of rivers unless we keep our minds free 
from all idea of original lines of streams or of any prin- 
cipal line as the initial condition. In my view, a river- 
system is evolved not zxéo, but from a network of streams, 
formed in the drainage area before any definite line of 
