66 DISCUSSIONS IN CLIMATOLOGY. 



It will doubtless be urged that, although the ground 

 under the ice may not be elevated, yet there may be 

 lofty mountain-chains in the interior which might 

 account for the origin of the ice. We have, I think, 

 good grounds for concluding that if there are mountain- 

 ranges in the interior of Greenland (of which there is 

 absolutely no proof, although one or two isolated peaks 

 have been seen), they must be wholly buried under the 

 ice. For, if mountain-masses rise above the icy mantle, 

 there ought to be evidence of this in the form of broken 

 rock, stones, earth, and other moraine matter lying on 

 the inland ice. " But as soon as we leave the imme- 

 diate vicinity of the coast," says Dr. Brown, "no moraine 

 is seen coming over the inland ice : no living creature, 

 animal or plant, except a minute alga." And Baron 

 Nordenskjold in his recent expedition over the inland 

 ice says, "After a journey of about half a kilometre 

 from the ice border no stone was found on the surface, 

 not even one as large as a pin's point." This could not 

 possibly be the case if ranges of mountains rose above 

 the general ice-covering. These mountain-ranges, if 

 they exist, are doubtless covered with snow, and their 

 sides with glaciers; but this would not prevent pieces 

 of broken rock and stones from rolling down upon the 

 inland ice. In fact, it would have the very opposite 

 result; for glaciers would be one of the most effective 

 agents possible in bringing down such material, and it 

 is certain that no avalanche of snow could take place 

 without carrying along with it masses of stones and 

 rubbish. All these materials brought down from the 

 sides of the projecting peaks would be deposited on the 

 surface of the inland ice and carried along with it in 

 its outward motion from the centre of dispersion, and 

 could not fail to be observed did they exist. The 

 fact that no such thing is ever seen is conclusive 



