92) 
~ 
‘4 
glacial period, it appears to me to be little more than an assumption. If 
there has ever been a mass of ice—a sea of ice—13,000 feet thick formed 
from water, it would have required many thousands of feet of water for its 
production, and as all water forms ice at the surface first, and 
thickens gradually downwards, the degree of cold sufficient to have 
formed such an immense thickness must have been very intense. But much 
of the ice of the glacier period was not confined to the ocean, it is said to 
have swept the whole surface of Europe. Now, where did these mighty 
masses come from? If from the sea, how did they reach the upper mountain 
valleys, such as those of the Alps and the Jura? If formed as the glaciers 
in those places are now, namely, by the pressure of the snow in the upper 
parts of the mountain valleys, where did all the snow come from? Snow is 
very light, and much more expanded than ice, so a much greater thickness 
of snow must have fallen than the thickness of the glacier formed out of it. 
What a prodigious fall of snow that must have been which resulted in the 
formation of a glacier 8,000 feet thick. Here, then, it appears to me that 
much more information is needed before one can accept the conclusions of 
some geolovists as to the extent and duration of the so-called great ice age. 
On the whole, I think we cannot fairly base any’ conclusion as to the 
antiquity of man on the data that have yet been furnished. 
The meeting was then adjourned. 
REMARKS ON Mr. MACKINTOSH’S PAPER 
BY PROFESSOR T. RUPERT JONES, F-.R.S. 
I have carefully read Mr. Mackintosh’s paper, and, taking his data as 
established, I do not find any adverse criticism to offer; quite otherwise, 
his statements and arguments are very clearly put. 
I may remark that the results of the Rev. Osmond Fisher’s calculations as 
to the time when the “ Recent Period” (equivalent, I presume, to the end 
of the last glacial period) began, coincide generally with Mr. Mackintosh’s 
views. That is, Mr. Mackintosh looks back 6,000 years, and the Rev. O. 
Fisher to about 8,000 years for the same, or nearly the same, period. 
See my reference to the Rey. O. Fisher’s calculations, and other correlative 
matters, in the Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, vol. viii., 1884, 
No. VI., p. 352. 
