THE SEINE, THE MEUSE, AND THE MOSELLE 
By MTlliam M. Davis 
Professor of Physical Geography in Harvard University 
II 
Dhersion of the upper Moselle from the Meuse . — After this long 
digression let us now return to the case of the Meuse and see 
whether indications can he found that any of its branches have 
been diverted to the basins of the Seine or of the Moselle. The 
first example to he mentioned is found in the neigld^orhood of 
Toul, and for simplicity of description I shall take the liberty 
of changing the names of tlie streams in this region in accord- 
ance with the adjoining diagram, the actual names being given 
in thin-lined letters, the assumed names in heavy-lined letters. 
Tlie case may then l)e brietly stated as follows : The Toul (upper 
Moselle; once tlcnved through a meandering valley and joined 
the Meuse at the little village of Pagny-sur-Meuse. The mean- 
dering valley trenches an u|)land of middle oolite strata, Imt in 
the course of time the Po!npe\'. a branch of the Moselle, pushed 
away the divide at its head, tap))ed the Toul where the city 
of that name now stands, and diverted it from the ^leuse to the 
Moselle. * 
The first fact to note is that the abandoned valley between 
Toul and Pagny swings on large curved meanders, after the 
* My attention was first called to this example bj’ my kind friend, M. Emm. de Mar- 
Kcrie, wtio was so good as to refer me to the writings of several French autliors by 
wliom it had t)een described more or less fully' and to wliose essays I thereupon re- 
ferred either in the original or in some citation. The earliest writer to make mention 
of this change in the course of the Toul seems to have been Boblay’e, (i) who in 1829 
reported that he found pebbles in the valley of the Meuse unlike the rocks of its upper 
Vjasin. but like those of the upper valley of the Toul in the Vosges mountains. Buvig- 
nier (2) gave a fuller account of the same facts in 1852 and came to the same conclu- 
sion. Housson(3) wrote on the same subject in 1804, but I have not seen his article. 
The latest account of the case is by Godron (4) in 1876. .All these authors recognize 
what may be called the geological evidence of the change, that is, the occurrence of 
pebbles from the Toul in the valley of the Meuse ; but as far as I have read, they did 
not give particular care to the geographical features of the case. It is to these, there- 
fore, that special attention is here called. 
(1) -Mem. sur la formation jurassique dans le nord de la France. .Ann .Sci. Nat., 1829. 
(2) Statistique geol. et min. du department de la .Meuse, Paris, 1852. 
(:$) Origine de respO»ce humaine dans les environs de Toul. Pont-a Mousson, 1804. 
(4) Ann. Club \lpin franyais, xiii, 1870, 442-457. 
228 
