368 S. S. Bucliman — River Development. 



of argument, be placed to the west of the Severn, where it would 

 fail in its object. 



Certain remarks of Mr. Strahan now call for notice. He speaks 

 of the " low-lying Oolitic region." But the Oolitic region of 

 the Cotteswolds is from 200 to 300 feet higher than the Chalk 

 of the Chilterns or Berkshire Downs. He speaks of the rivers 

 flowing against the general run of the country. But they do not — 

 they flow with the dip. The general long slope of the country is 

 from the Oolites to the Chalk. 



Further, Mr. Strahan says, "The Chalk escarpment now forms 

 the main water-parting through much of its range across England " 

 (p. 219). But in his map he shows the Chalk escarpment extending 

 from the English Channel to the Wash, about 210 miles; and yet 

 he only shows the coincidence of water-parting and escarpment for 

 some 40 miles. These are not matters of speculation, they are 

 matters of fact. 



In another matter of fact Mr. Strahan has erred. In his map 

 (pi. v) he has placed the Vale of Moreton in the wrong place, on 

 the edge of the Cotteswold escarpment. But that is a good dozen 

 miles too far to the west. It is very convenient for his theory, but 

 then it is wrong in fact, and wrong facts do not seem to be a 

 satisfactory basis for legitimate speculation. As a matter of fact the 

 Vale of Moreton is on the east of the Cotteswolds, not on the west ; 

 it is a good dozen miles to the east of the headwaters of the Thames 

 streams. This is particularly unfortunate for Mr. Strahan's theory. 

 He says that his anticline must have run " along the line of the 

 water-parting. Traces of such an anticline have been detected by 

 Mr. Buckman in the Vale of Moreton." But put the Vale of 

 Moreton in its right place, and these two statements are flatly 

 contradictory. The Vale of Moreton is not along the line of the 

 water-parting, it is to the east of it. And if the anticline of the 

 Vale of Moreton had had any appreciable influence it must have 

 made the Cotteswold streams flow westward, not eastward. 



Is it legitimate to quote my evidence of the Vale of Moreton 

 anticline in this connection ? I think not. The anticline of which 

 I speak in the paper quoted by Mr. Strahan (Q.J.G.S., 1901, vol. Ivii, 

 p. 146) is relatively a very small one, formed in Inferior Oolite 

 times, denuded, and completely covered over again by later Inferior 

 Oolite rocks. No doubt there is the principle " once an anticline, 

 always an anticline " : as I have pointed out (p. 147) evidence of 

 successive movements along the same line of weakness may often 

 be seen. I will allow Mr. Strahan to make what he can of this. 

 He is seeking for an anticline with an axis having a Caledoniaii 

 trend. The Moreton anticline has a Malvernian trend ; it is a feeble 

 continuation of the line of the Pennine range. Therefore, the 

 Moreton anticline has not the direction Mr. Strahan requires : and, 

 as I have shown, it is not in the position that he wants, it is not 

 where he has marked it on his map, and it does not coincide with 

 the water-parting. 



It seems very remarkable that for an anticline such as Mr. Strahan 



