414 H. H. Howorth—A Great Post-Gilacial Flood. 
in the midst of erratic gravel derived from great distances” (Phillips, 
Geology, vol. i. p. 279). 
Again, he says, “ Many parts of England are almost totally free 
from the accumulation of proper diluvium ;—as the Yorkshire Coal- 
field, the Wealden denudation, large tracts in North Wales, the 
vicinity of Bath, etc. But these districts contain abundance of local 
gravel deposits, which sometimes appear to be quite as ancient as the 
diluvium” (id. p. 280). A very remarkable fact, to which attention 
has more than once been drawn, is the limited area in Britain in 
which the ossiferous gravels occur. Mr. Geikie condenses the facts 
from Mr. J. Evans most tersely. Speaking of the implement-bearing 
gravels, he says, ‘‘ They occur in the valleys of the Ouse, the Wave- 
ney, the Thames, the Avon, and their numerous tributaries, and at 
various places along the Southern coast of England. North of the 
Ouse, and west of the valley of the Axe, no river gravels have yielded 
any paleeolithic implements.” The distribution of the implements 
is largely conterminous with that of the animals associated with the 
Mammoth, and beyond the district named they occur very sporadi- 
cally. How is this? 
‘“‘ How,” says Mr. Geikie, ‘‘are we to explain this anomalous dis- 
tribution? It cannot be said that the mammalia may never have 
occupied the midland and northern districts. The fact that their 
bones occur frequently in caves that lie far north of the limits 
reached by the paleeolithic beds, shows that the animals were by no 
means confined to a narrow area in the South-east of England, and 
the occurrence of the Hippopotamus near Leeds is further proof in 
the same direction. If the climate was suited to the mammals that 
swarmed in the South—to elephants, rhinoceroses, and hippopotami, 
to lions, hyzenas, and tigers,—it surely could not have been other than 
genial in the North of England and Scotland. Yet in neither region 
do any of these animals occur in the superficial or unquestionable 
Post-Glacial river gravels.” This is most true and very well put. 
Mr. Geikie goes on to answer his question by supposing that the 
line of demarcation marks the area submerged during his “ great 
submergence” and thus explains how the ossiferous gravels have 
disappeared from the area outside the limits above mentioned. This 
is assuredly a very improbable suggestion. We have shown in the 
previous paper that not even the marine drifts of Wales supply any 
proofs of a prolonged submergence, a fortiori the barren gravels of 
Central and Northern England. Again, how can we postulate a 
submergence of North Wales to the extent of at least 2000 feet, 
which should be involving a subsidence contemporary with a 
quiescent condition in the valleys and uplands of South-eastern 
Britain. Such a contingency is surely most remote and would 
require very close proof, whereas there is no proof at all. The fact 
of shreds and sporadic pieces of the ossiferous gravels occurring 
in Yorkshire and elsewhere is tolerable proof that the mass of the 
deposit has been denuded; while the further fact that the palzo- 
lithic gravels of the south, as Mr. Geikie himself says, are remark- 
able for their great thickness and for being distributed independently 
