[ 5- 1 



it the true explanation of the phcenomena of which we here 

 treat ; BufFon attributes the formation of fecondary mountains 

 to depofition or fediments from the fea afcer the cxiftence of 

 fifh, I, Epoques, p. 143, in Svo. which he fays invefted the - 

 bafes of mountains without noticing any diftindion of fides, - 

 p. 144 and 170. He thinks thefe fediments were equally con- 

 veyed from both poles towards the ^q-uator, for it is the 

 iEquatorial' regions that he thinks thofe mighty caverns opened 

 towards which the primitive ocean was impetuoufly borne and 

 in which it was ingulphed, p. 181, 182 and 1^3. If fo, fnnilar 

 declivities fliould be formed on the fouthern as on the northern 

 fides of mountains, which is contrary to the obferved fads.. 

 His explanation of the eaftern and we?ftern declivities is de- 

 fedlive and erroneous, for he attibutes the abruptnefs of the 

 w«ftern fides to the erofion of the coafts on that fide (an erofion 

 that exifts only in fancy) and the fmoothnefs of the eaftern 

 to the gradual defertion and retreat of the fea on that fide, 

 p; 184 and 185, a retreat equally fiditious as De Luc has well 

 fliewu. Whereas fince the general motion of the fea is from 

 E. to W. if the erofion were of either fide it Ihould rather be 

 on the eaftern than on the weftern ; befides, if the gentle decli- 

 vities of the earern fides of mountains arofe from the gradual 

 retreat of the fea the petrifadlions of the fecondary mountains 

 thus formed flbculd confiil of fuch fhell, fifli as inhabit fliallow 



G 2 fcas 



