E. H. Hoivorth — A Great Post-Glacial Flood. 17 



tlirough. infinite ages by winds. The land shells are distributed 

 through the whole thickness of the Loess ; and their state of 

 preservation is so perfect that they must have lived on the spot 

 where we now find them. They certainly admit of no other 

 explanation than that here hinted at, of the formation of the soil in 

 which they are imbedded. The bones of land animals and chiefly 

 the roots of plants, which are all preserved in their natural and 

 original position, give corroborative evidence" (Journ. Geol. Soc. 

 vol. xxvii. p. 377 note). 



The main position of Eichthofen is indorsed by Professor Eamsay, 

 who, in speaking on Mr. Kingsmill's paper, is reported to have said 

 that he " thought the phenomena (of the Loess) were rather in 

 accordance with a long exposure of the land to subaerial influences 

 than with the Loess having been of marine origin. Even in 

 England, in those parts which had long been free from marine 

 action, beds of brick-earth had been formed. He also instanced the 

 plains of Picardjr as exhibiting a vast extent of such subaerial beds " 

 (Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxvii. p. 383). 



This theory has one advantage over the others, that it is not 

 immediately answered by an appeal to the contents and structure of 

 the Loess ; but its plausibility disappears on a closer acquaintance. 

 As the Pere David urges, we ought to meet elsewhere, in districts 

 which have not been denuded, with deposits of a similar character, 

 if this be the remains of the old land surface ; but subaerial deposits 

 composed as this is are nowhere, so far as we know, being formed 

 now. But there is a more fatal objection, stated very clearly by Mr. 

 Kingsmill, who says, " Its chemical composition, consisting as it does, 

 mainly, of silicates of alumina and of fine silica, in the condition of 

 impalpable sand, does not correspond with that of the inoi'ganic 

 elements of plants growing on its surface. Granting, however, that 

 the earthy carbonates and a portion of the silica could be derived 

 from such a source, whence could the plants themselves derive these 

 elements, but in turn from the soil on which they grew '? Lime, 

 potassa, magnesia, iron, and silica, might, then, so long as the plant 

 had access to the subjacent formations, or was supplied by springs 

 from below, have been deposited in a superficial layer ; silica might 

 even, as has been suggested, have been conveyed by the medium of 

 dust storms ; but whence could the silicate of alumina be derived ? 

 A superficial layer not altogether dissimilar might, as suggested, be 

 formed so long as the plants had access to subjacent rocks. Once, 

 however, removed from contact with them, these inorganic elements 

 of the plants could only be supplied from the rock itself. Eivers 

 are inadmissible, as their action would have been to disintegrtite, 

 not to build up ; springs, from the peculiarities of the formation, 

 cannot rise to its surface. There is finally no known means by 

 which these inorganic matters could have been supplied from the 

 atmosphere. The layer formed by one generation of plants would 

 in efi^ect have been absorbed by the next without any addition 

 being possible " (Journ. Geol. Soc. vol. xxvii. pp. 380-1). Baron 

 Eichthofen's position would be plausible if it weie beyond question 



DECADE II. — VOL. IX. — NO. I. 2 



