Correspondence — Mr. Dugald Bell. 525 



1. " General land glaciation " (admitted). 



2. " Submergence in sea- waters " (?). 



3. " Continued submergence " (!). 



These are the "different sets of conditions" for the "diversified 

 forms " of deposits 2 and 3 ! Of course, Prof. Hull may explain that 

 other conditions, which may vary, are included under "submer- 

 gence"; but if so, he must allow glacialists, " neo-" or otherwise, 

 to say the same (with as much, or they may think, more reason) of 

 " glaciation." 



We shall look at these other conditions immediately. Meantime 

 it seems almost sufficient to remark that Prof. Hull has first of all 

 to settle matters with Dr. Jamieson. That careful observer con- 

 cluded from his study of the materials of these deposits (2 and 3) 

 that both had been transported by northward-moving land-ice. 

 Prof. Hull seems to overlook entirely the essential facts which led 

 Dr. Jamieson to this conclusion. These are : first, the presence in 

 both deposits of stones foreign to the district, and not found even in 

 the Grey Till underneath, but, particularly in No. 3, clearly derived 

 from tracts to the south; secondly, striations on rock-surfaces con- 

 firming this, showing first a local glaciation from the west, followed 

 by a more general oue from the south ; and lastly, the fact that the 

 shelly fragments in No. 2 were largely of Crog species — pre-Glacial 

 forms — which Dr. Jamieson accounted for by inferring that the 

 northward-moving ice had " scoured out " some area of the Crag 

 along the coast, and conveyed the materials to some extent north- 

 ward and inland in its progress. All this Prof. Hull overlooks. 

 The result is striking. A deposit containing fragments of Pliocene 

 or pre-Glacial shells and pieces of "yellow limestone and calcareous 

 shale not now found in situ in Aberdeenshire," is supposed to be 

 due simply to an inter-Glacial submergence ! — after the country had 

 been swept by a " great ice-sheet," in whose moraine profonde no 

 trace of such rocks or organisms can be found ! 



Thus it becomes evident that the other conditions which Prof. Hull 

 adds to submergence, even if granted, will not account for the 

 deposits in question. "Sand and gravel brought down by rivers 

 from the adjoining emergent lands " could not contain fragments 

 of rocks not found there either in situ or in fragments, and of which 

 there is no evidence that they have ever been there. Then Prof. Hull 

 supposes that the " continued submergence " was accompanied by 

 " the recurrence of cold conditions " — rather a violent supposition, 

 for the obvious natural tendency of submergence (in this part of 

 the world, at least) would be in the opposite direction, towards 

 milder conditions of climate.^ But granting the supposition for 

 a moment, it is clear that " glaciers occupj'ing the higher elevations " 

 could not produce a " Ked Clay " totally imlike the waste of the 

 rocks of the district (as Dr. Jamieson has pointed out), nor mingle 

 that clay with foreign materials, such as " stones of a volcanic 

 nature unlike the rocks of Aberdeenshire or the North of Scotland," 



1 See this Magazine for Sept., p. 403. 



