292 JOSEPH PEESTWICH^ F.PwS., F.G.8., ON A POSSIBLE 



have rolled these things together, without sorting them, or 

 rounding them ? We see how the pipes in the chalk are filled in. 

 1 have seen a rabbit and a trout caught in the same fissure in the 

 mountain limestone — the most unlikely creatures to have lived 

 together. These creatures were carried down stream and so got 

 into one of the potholes or open caves. 



I think we can hardly limit ourselves to the alternative explana- 

 tions of the " Head " suggested on p. 267, and while I'ecognizing that 

 there is a widespread superficial deposit having many characters 

 in common, cannot admit that " all the phases of the rubble-drift 

 are such as show a common origin," p. 280. If we find in one place, 

 in the rubble-drift of the surface or in the fissures, the older group 

 of mammals, and in another place the newer group, we must refer 

 the two deposits to different ages. If we find the two groups in 

 the same deposit, we must infer that the fossils of the older deposit; 

 have been washed out into the newer. It was pointed out that in 

 one particular case all the animals were driven into a cul de sac 

 and died, but how was it that those whose remains are the most 

 numerous were the best swimmers — the hippopotami ? 



While asking for further information on some of the points 

 discussed, I must express my great satisfaction in following 

 Professor Prestwich's advocacy of a great post-glacial submergence, 

 though we may not refer it to exactly the same part of the period, 

 and further, in finding that he contends for earth-movements of 

 considerable magnitude continued down to very recent times. 



Professor E. Hull, LL.D., F.R.S.- — 1 join with all here in their 

 great regret that the author of the paper was not able to be present. 

 I cannot, however, expect Professor Rupert Jones to give replies 

 to all the objections that have been made. I entirely concur in 

 the view of Professor Hughes, that there has been a great sub- 

 mergence in very recent geological times. I thought, until I 

 had the gratification of hearing a former colleague of mine express 

 his faith in an interglacial submergence, that I stood alone in that 

 belief. But that interglacial submergence which is shown so well 

 in the soil, and gravel, and rocks of the British Isles, going up to 

 a height of 1200 feet on the flanks of the Welsh and Irish moun- 

 tains, is not the submergence to which the author of this Paper 

 alludes or refers. It is entirely'' a more recent submergence, and 

 it is very startling in this year, 1894, to have Dr. Buckland's 

 lieliquice Diluviance unearthed from its tomb and brought up again 



