W. Travers. — Supposed Pleistocene Glaciation of New Zealand. 433 



surface of the South Island since it attained its present elevation above sea 

 level, or indeed since miocene times, the utter absence of such evidences of its 

 existence as those which occur in Scotland, resulting from similar phenomena, 

 is most unaccountable. But whilst I utterly deny Dr. Haast's propositions, 

 I at once admit that the former existence of glaciers of great extent is a 

 necessary assumption in any attempt to account for the phenomena presented 

 to us in the localities mentioned in my former paper. 



I would further ask Dr. Haast, how it is that he has not brought forward 

 any evidence derived from the organic world of "those pleistocene times," in 

 order to establish his propositions? Surely, if the views he has propounded be 

 at all based upon fact, he would have been in a position to go further than the 

 barest assertions in support of them ! Do any of the pleistocene deposits 

 which he has examined afford indications of such a climate as that which must 

 have accompanied the alleged glaciated condition of these islands ? What can 

 he point to in the features of the existing organic life of these islands, from 

 which we can trace the former existence of such a glaciation? 



The careful comparisons which have already been instituted between the 

 existing Mollusca of our seas, and fossil species extending in age from recent 

 up to upper eocene times, has failed to indicate the occurrence of any such 

 glaciation. The number of pleistocene fossils examined was very considerable, 

 and a large proportion of them was obtained in the South Island, in localities 

 in which evidences of such a glaciation would have been found in abundance, 

 if the glaciation itself had ever existed. 



Again, how is it, if the alleged glaciation had attained the dimensions 

 assigned to it by Dr. Haast, or indeed anything approaching such dimensions, 

 or even dimensions equal to those of the greater glacier period of the Swiss 

 Alps, that we do not find evidences of its extension at points beyond those to 

 which that extension is limited in the maps appended to his report? If, as he 

 asserts, the area of the Canterbury plains maintained its present position 

 relatively to sea level, and its present surface conditions, throughout the 

 period of the asserted glaciation, the absence of all evidence of the kind 

 mentioned by Morlot and others in proof of the extension of the Swiss glaciers 

 during the greater glacier period of the European Alps, is most remarkable. 

 During this latter period the great valley of Switzerland was filled with ice, 

 as is attested by the presence of unmistakable remains on the Jura, whilst, on 

 the southern side of the Alps, ample evidence exists, in the form of moraines 

 of truly gigantic dimensions, that contemporary glaciers invaded the plains of 

 the Po. "Although these large glaciers had retreated for a time" (I quote 

 from Sir Charles Lyell) "they advanced again, but on a smaller scale, though 

 still vastly exceeding in size the largest Swiss glaciers of our day." Careful 

 observers like Professor Heer, who is cited by Sir Charles Lyell in reference 



g2 



