551 



Section C— GEOLOGY. 



President of tjie Sectiox — Professor James Geikie, LL.D., F.R.SS. L. & E., 



F.G.S. 



THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11. 

 The President delivered the following Address : — 



The President of this Section must often have some difficulty in selecting a suhject 

 for his address. It is no long'er possible to give an interesting and in.structive 

 summary of the work done by the devotees of our science during even one year. So 

 numerous have the students of geological science become, so fertile are the fields 

 they cultivate, so abundant the harvests they reap, that one in my present posi- 

 tion may well despair of being able to take stock ot the numerous additions to our 

 knowledge which have accumulated within the last twelve months. Neither is 

 there any burning question which at this time your president need feel called upon 

 to discuss. True, there are controversies that are likely to remain unsettled for 

 years to come — there are still not a few matters upon which we must agree to 

 differ — we do not yet see eye to eye in all things geological. But experience has 

 shown that as years advance truth is gradually evolved, and old controversies 

 die out ; and so doubtless it will continue to be. The day when controversies shall 

 cease, however, is yet, I hope, far in the future ; for should that dull and unhappy 

 time ever arrive, it is quite certain that mineralogists, petrologists, palajontologists, 

 and geologists shall have died out of the world. Following the example of many 

 of my predecessors, I shall confine my remarks to certain questions in which I have 

 been specially interested. And in doing so I shall endeavour to steer clear, as far 

 as I can, of controversial matters. My purpose, then, is to give an outline of some 

 of the results obtained during the last few years by continental workers in the 

 domain of glacial geology. 



Those who are not geologists will probably smile when they hear one declare 

 that wielders of the hammer are extremely conservative — that they are slow to 

 accept novel views, and very tenacious of opinions which have once found favour 

 in their eyes. Nevertheless, such is the case ; and well for us that it is so. How- 

 ever captivating, however imposing, however strongly supported by evidence a new 

 view may appear to be, we do well to criticise, to sift the evidence, and to call for 

 more facts and e.\periment.s, if such are possible, until the proofs become so strong 

 as to approach as near a demonstration as geologists can in moat cases expect such 

 proofs to go. The history of our science, and indeed of most sciences, affords 

 abundant illustration of what I say. How many long years were the views of 

 Bubaerial erosion, as taught by Ihitton and Playfair, canvassed and controverted 

 before they became accepted ! And even after their general soundness had been 

 established, how often have we heard nominal disciples of these fathers of physical 

 geology refuse to go so far as to admit that the river-valleys of our i.«lands have 

 been excavated by epigene agents ! If, as a rule, it takes some time for a novel 

 ■view to gain acceptance, it is equally true that views which have long been held 

 are only with difficulty discarded. Between the new and the old there is a con- 

 stant struggle for existence, and if the latter should happen to survive, it is only in 

 a modified form. I have often thought that a history of the evolution of geological 



