D. Bell — The Great Ice Age and Submergence. 323 



503 feet above the sea, and indicating a submergence of at least that 

 amount " prior to the accumulation of the overlying Boulder-clay." 

 Dr. Geikie continues — " Doubt having been expressed as to whether 

 the shelly clay was really in situ, a committee appointed by the 

 British Association duly investigated the beds. . . . The majority 

 of the committee .... are of opinion that the shell-bed is in situ. 

 .... The minority .... incline to the view that the shelly clay 

 is not in situ, but has been dragged or pushed into its present 

 position by a mer de glace .... from the basin of Loch Ness." It 

 is admitted that "the stones in the overlying Boulder-clay, and 

 the trend of the glaciation of the neighbourhood, indicate an 

 ice-movement from south-west." ^ 



Dr. Geikie, not content with merely stating the facts, takes side 

 strongly with the majority on this question, and indulges in some 

 mild pleasantry at the '"remarkable performance" which the 

 minority ascribe to the glacier-ice. Well, it is very much a choice 

 of difficulties ; but we shall perhaps see immediately that more 

 remarkable performances are required by Dr. Geikie's explanations 

 of the phenomena, and on his own showing, not only for the ice, but 

 also for the sea and for the solid land ! 



We are told that the minority " appear to have adopted this 

 peculiar explanation of the evidence because the}^ cannot find else- 

 where any proofs of a submergence of the land during Glacial times" 

 [^'.e. to anything like the same extent, or beyond " 100 feet or there- 

 abouts"]. "They think that if Scotland had ever been depressed 

 to the extent of 500 feet, the sea would have left abundant evidence 

 of its former presence." Precisely ; and in this Dr. Geikie might 

 have been expected to agree with them. Referring to the "Till " of 

 Northern Europe, he writes — " No evidence of marine action in the 

 formation of the stony clay is forthcoming — not a trace of any sea- 

 beach has been detected. And yet, if these claj's had been laid down 

 in the sea .... surely such evidence as I have indicated ought to 

 be met with."^ Why, then, is he so severe upon the minority for 

 thinking that if Scotland had been submerged to the extent of 

 500 feet " the sea would have left abundant evidence of its former 

 presence " ? 



And why is the minority's explanation " peculiar " ? It cannot be 

 so in itself, as the numex"ous instances of shells and shelly clay 

 imbedded in "Till," to which reference is made in this volume, 

 abundantly show. Besides, it is distinctly adopted by the author 

 himself to account for deposits of "marine drift" at an elevation of 

 1400 feet in North Wales. ■^ The uplifting of these deposits to such 

 a height by the ice is surely a much more "remarkable performance" 

 than the transport of those at Clava to only 500 feet. Indeed, it is 

 not easy to see on what principle, having admitted the transport by 

 ice of marine remains to a height of 1400 feet, one can make a stand 

 against admitting their transport by the same agency to a height of 

 500 feet. In this case, surely the greater includes the less, and 



1 " Great Ice Age," pp. 139-141. 



2 p. 433. a pp. 160, 281, 371. 



