IS 



more strikiiii; ami apjiciirs so often mid so stn^ij^ly tliiit we are inile«! oblige«! to 

 divide more sliarply tlic upper from the lower diluvial layers. 



The mode of deposition exjilains also fully the Rival variity whieh we find 

 amonj; the lotrcr diluvial dejKisits even within narrow limits, all of whieh may 

 1)C detenniiiod ;is a mixture of eonglonierates, sands, elayish sands and clays, of 

 which sometimes the one and sometimes the otlier prevail. 



Now the uniformity of tlic iipjiermost layer gives another reason for separat- 

 ing this de|>osit from the rest, and one more may l« derived from a striking 

 cliaracter. the want of any traces of true stratification vithlii it. This want may 

 lie explained in a dilTerent way; hut hy far the most prubahle explanation seems 

 to Itc tliat those uppermost diluvial deposits, though they correspond exactly, 

 lithologically, to the loam, and differ from the true, ' loüg$' of tlie Enrojieans hy 

 not having a snITitiently larijc ainoiint of lime, have liad an ori;.^in analogous to 

 that of the large deposits of lucss fuund l>y Taron von Uiehthofen in Kastern 

 Asia. 



Those loess-deposits had accumulated l>y the action of vi»d, according to 

 tlieoiT of von Richtliofen, and though tliis theory, which jxiint-s out the nnhai-rial 

 clia racier at least of a very great part of the loess, is a very new one, yet it h.'ifl 

 heen di.scus.scd already most copiously and may now Ix; regarded as fully 

 confirmed. 



Far as T am from as.suniing an exclusively sulnerial origin of any loess, and 

 rciidy as 1 am to admit that there arc loess pnrt«, e. g. the lowest strata around 

 the larger iKisins filled by it, which do »o« eyhiliit any signs of eulüxerial origin 

 and are undouhtedly stratified (showing alternate layers of loess and conglomerate«, 

 or of loess containing many loess-shells, an 1 other ]>arts devoiil of them), yet the 

 majority of the loess-deposits remains, and corrolif mites the aliovc-mentioned 

 theory. Slight as the npiur diluvial deposits of Japan are if compired with 

 those of China anil ^Mongolia, it is scarcely pf)ssil>le not to admit an analogous 

 origin, and this assumption moreover is in pi'rfect acconlance with the n(je of the 

 analogous Eurojiean dejiosits which we know to a certainty were formed at the 

 conclusion of the diluvial epoch. 



The want of lime, whieh fas the analysis shows) is not a complete one, is of 

 course much less important than the fact of the analogous mode and jieriod of 

 deposition. 



This want of lime may I« cxplaine<l either by a comparative scarcity of 

 rocks furnishing lime by their detrition and decom|><>siti<in. or by a subse<iuent 

 loss of it which has very often Ik/cii observed in such diluvial deposits as are placed 

 next to the surface and therefore have iK-en exposed for a long time to the action 

 of atmosjiheric water. All the minute researches on the superficial, and alxive 

 all on the sujierficial qnaternaiy sediments confirm this theory most completely, 

 a theory which as far as I know wivs first publi>hed by atierman author Trofcssor 

 Dr G. Kerendt at IVrlin (as well in his jvapers published by the 'Geologische 

 Landes- Anstalt' at Berlin, as in Bome jwpers contained in the periotlical of the 



