Wellington PkilosojMcal Society. 535 



FoTJKTH Meeting, llth Sejjtembcr, 1881. 

 Dr. Hector, President, in the Chair. 



1. Discussion on Mr. Travers's paper " On the Great Flood of February, 

 1868," read at the previous meeting. 



The President explained, for the information of those who had not been present when 

 the paper was read, that the chief points brought forward by the author were, that the 

 flood referred to was of such magnitude as had probably never occurred previously in the 

 particular locality, and had been so destructive as to alter the surface features of the 

 country, thereby leaving a permanent record of its severity. 



Mr. Chapman agreed that the flood in question was exceptional, but there was not 

 sufficient evidence brought forward to prove that such had not previously occurred— in- 

 deed, he believed there had been quite as severe floods in the south and west, but not doing 

 such damage, probably because the rivers in those localities were better adapted to carry 

 off such heavy rains. Such a flood as the author described would on the West Coast have 

 been unimportant. 



Mr. Maxwell gave instances of exceptional floods, which had been due to the occur- 

 rence of great land-slips, and, from his knowledge of the locality and the enormous masses 

 of driftwood reported, he thought that the extraordinary effects produced by this flood 

 had been produced by heavy land-slips, blocking up the rivers temporarily, rather than 

 the exceptional amount of rainfall. In the construction of public works, it would never 

 do to provide against exceptional extremes, but only average extremes ; such a rainfall as 

 13in. in twenty-four hours could only be local, and it would not pay to construct works to 

 provide in all parts of the country against the effects of such rainfall. 



Mr. Marchant had surveyed that block of country, and believed that the destruction 

 of the timber had a baneful effect in increasing the rapidity with which the storm water 

 ran off the mountatns. He instanced the case of the Eimutaka and Tararua ranges, and 

 stated that if the clearing of the forests was continued, the result would be the scouring 

 out of all the valuable lands in the Hutt and Wairarapa valleys. 5ush reserves were now 

 being made to avert this disastrous result. 



Mr. Cox took exception to the geological reasoning in the paper, and thought that the 

 proofs of this flood being of an unexampled character were not sufficient. He argued 

 that the formation of secondary cones in lateral streams, on which Mr. Travers chiefly 

 relied for support of his argument, was in reality no proof, as it was only when these 

 lateral streams had cut sufficiently deep through the main terrace to be dammed back by 

 the floods in the main river, that they would have any tendency to cut fresh outlets for 

 themselves, and thus form fresh cones. It thus came to be a question of years, and not 

 thousands of years, since the conditions were favourable for the formation of fresh cones, 

 and in reality, before this was brought about, these lateral creeks might have carried far 

 greater volumes of water in flood-time, and yet left no trace of their having done so. 



Mr. Bull was in the Ashley district at the time of the flood, and gave an account of 

 its enormous spread, destroying farms by covering them over many square miles with a 

 thick deposit of shingle. The Maoris had told him that there had been a similar flood 

 about 50 years before, but there was no evidence of the deposit of drift-wood or shingle to 

 anything like the same extent. The storm was preceded by remarkable water-spouts and 

 whuiwinds which he described. 



Mr. Travers, junr., mentioned the floods in the Motueka district in 1876, which were 

 caused by land-slips damming the rivers, so that the hill-sides were cleared of timber, and 

 the driftwood thickly covered the sea in Blind Bay. 



