JUNE 21, 1901.] 
DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE. 
REMARKABLE DISCOVERIES. 
In McClure’s Magazine for June there ap- 
pears. an article, entitled ‘Geology and the 
Deluge: Remarkable Geological Discoveries in 
Central Asia and Southern Russia, showing 
that the Noachian Flood is a Scientific Possi- 
bility,’ by Dr. Frederick G. Wright, , Professor 
of the Harmony of Science and Revelation 
in Oberlin College. : 
The first of these ‘discoveries’ is entitled 
‘No Glacial Period in Asia.’ It is set forth in 
the following words: 
‘For many years I have been collecting facts 
concerning the glacial period in North America 
and Hurope, and in 1900 I went to Siberia to 
determine conditions in that country in the 
same period. As Asia, like North America, 
stretches toward the North Pole and faces a 
great sea on the east, I naturally expected to 
find there evidences of a glacial period similar 
to that in this country. But, contrary to all 
my expectations, I found no sign in Central 
Asia and Southern Siberia of glacial work. On 
the contrary, the geological conditions I found 
were such as are only to be explained by an ex- 
tensive submergence of the region where the 
Scriptures and tradition locate the Flood which 
destroyed the whole human race, excepting 
Noah and his family. The evidences of such a 
deluge are not one, but several, and extend 
from Mongolia to the western borders of 
Russia.’’ 
The state of previous knowledge may be in- 
ferred from the following quotations from well- 
known works, to which others might be added: 
‘Tt is a familiar fact that there are no traces 
of glaciation in Northern Asia, but on the con- 
trary there is the most complete and consistent 
evidence that no such traces are to be found 
either on the flat tundras or on the higher 
ground. Murchison long ago showed that there 
are no marks of ancient glaciation on the Urals, 
which it must be remembered rise in places to 
a height of 1,525 metres, and are in many 
places covered with snow for eight months in 
the year. Repeated visitors have tried in vain 
to find old glacial traces in the Altai Moun- 
tains. Lastly, traveller after traveller across 
Northern Asia speaks of the absence of all 
SCIENCE. 
987 
boulders, rounded rocks, ete., in Siberia from 
one end to the other.’’ [‘The Glacial Night- 
mare and the Flood,’ by Sir Henry Howorth, 
Vol. I., pp. 510, 511, 1893. ] 
““These [certain mountainous and plateau 
tracts], as far as I can learn, are the only re- 
gions in Asia which have yielded certain traces 
of glaciation. (See Plate XIV.) [The plate 
shows no general glaciation in Siberia or Cen- 
tral Asia.] (‘The Great Ice Age,’ by James 
Geikie, third edition, p. 697, 1894.) 
‘East of the Urals in Northern Asia there is 
no evidence of moving ice upon the land dur- 
ing the Glacial period.’”’ -(‘Man and the Gla- 
cial Period,’ by G. Frederick Wright, p. 190, 
1892.) 
The second ‘ discovery’ relates to the general 
prevalence of loess in the region named. This 
is set forth as follows: 
“‘Hvidences of a great sea around Mt. Ararat.— 
On the contrary, throughout this entire region 
we were confronted with the evidence of a 
great subsidence of the land which had taken 
place in recent geological time, and which, in 
date, would correspond roughly with that of 
the glacial period in North America. For sey- 
eral hundred miles, while driving through the 
region south of Lake Balkash and the Aral Sea, 
we were evidently upon a terrace of the fine 
Joam which is called loess, about 2,500 feet 
above sea-level. Indeed, at different eleya- 
tions this loess extends continuously in a broad 
shelf along the base of the mountains, from the 
Irtish River to the Caspian Sea, and is found in 
extensive areas over various portions of the 
Caucasus and Northern Persia around the base 
of Mount Ararat; while the so-called ‘ black 
earth’ of Southern Russia is a deposit of the 
same material, and probably of the same age, 
100 or more feet in thickness. The distribution 
of this loess is the key to the whole situation ”’ 
(p. 185). [The map accompanying the article 
‘showing the country through which Dr. 
Wright traveled, and where he found evi- 
dences, not of glaciers, but of a flood,’ and on 
which the itinerary is marked, indicates that 
Dr. Wright did not visit Mt. Ararat or the 
Biblical lands. | 
The degree of originality of this ‘discovery’ 
of the distribution of the loess may be inferred 
