28 Dugald Bell — The " Qreat Submergence" 



reasons whicli appear to us to have weight against the " great 

 submergence" on the one hand, and in favour of the "ice-transport 

 theory" on the other. This is all the more necessary, as, although 

 these reasons have been before Mr. Smith for a considerable time, 

 and were repeated when he read his paper to the Glasgow Society 

 in February last, he wholly ignores them, and publishes his paper 

 now as if it had been received by the members without any words 

 of objection, or any worth noticing. 



Mr. Smith's "interpretation" of the section is simply the "old 

 familiar" one of submergence, with some accommodating "currents" 

 of his own, to which we shall afterwards refer. He evidently does not 

 " stickle " at the degree of submergence, for he requires, at one stage 

 at least, " dee-p ivater without currents " at Clava, which we take to 

 imply not only a submergence of fully 500 feet to that point, but 

 not less than 500 or 600 feet more, or, say, over 1000 feet in all. 

 This is a pretty " large order " in the way of a submergence ; but 

 Mr, Smith seems to think nothing of it, and hints that he has still 

 larger " orders " on hand for several places in Ayrshire ! 



(1) Now, the first and most obvious remark about such a sub- 

 mergence (or even one of 500 feet) is, that if the sea had reached 

 the level supposed, or anything approaching to it, so recently as in 

 Glacial times, it should have left traces of itself in innumerable 

 localities all over the country. The sea leaves marks of various 

 kinds — wave-worn cliffs, well-marked beaches, beds of shingle, 

 sandbanks, clay-beds, besides organisms of many species, the relics 

 of which are capable of being preserved, more or less perfectly, 

 for very lengthened periods. When some of these evidences are 

 wanting, others are sure to be found, if the sea has really been 

 there. 



This is true, not only of the maximum elevation, but also of 

 every intermediate elevation down to the present sea-level. Both 

 during the progress of the depression, and again dui'ing the progress 

 of the re-elevation, such marks and traces of the sea as we have 

 spoken of would be left, and would have a chance — a double 

 chance, so to speak — of being preserved. They should, therefore, 

 be common on our hills and among our glens, in all parts of the 

 country, at the present day. 



But, strange to say, whenever we go much above the present 

 sea-level, such marks of the sea and such traces of undoubted 

 marine deposits in situ, are everywhere "conspicuous by their 

 absence." This is a great difBculty, even for a moderate submer- 

 gence; but it seems insuperable in regard to a "great submergence." 

 The greater the submergence, the wider the area, of course, on 

 which the marks of the sea would be left. It becomes impossible, 

 then, to explain the absence of all such traces, not only at the 

 high level it is supposed to have reached, but at all lower levels 

 at which, in its gradual progress and retreat, the sea must have 

 remained for some time — probably at some of them for a long time 

 — down to the latest well-marked beach above the present shore- 

 line. 



