MONTHLY NOTICE. 



307 



MONTHLY NOTICE. 



October 1st. 1842. 



The glacial theory " has^ after a lengthened discussion, 

 sunk gradually into the study of glaciers;" for everywhere 

 we find examinations being conducted as to the nature of ice 

 and its present effects ; — if this opinion is not true to the 

 letter, it most decidedly is, in so far as it concerns the preva- 

 lent knowledge of the subject. 



It might, however, be argued, in contradiction of our re- 

 marks, that in order to substantiate the theory, the facts 

 must first be observed and carefully recorded ; and for this 

 opposition we are naturally prepared, and with what truth in 

 our defence, the following comments will prove. 



When Professor Agassiz first hinted at the effects of gla- 

 cial action, he brought before the pubhc an elaborate theory 

 as to the extent of their agency in the transformation of the 

 superficial soil by abrasion, transportation, and subsequent 

 diluvial subsidence ; he produced arguments tending to de- 

 monstrate the existence of numerous important centres of 

 action (vide Geologist, vol. i, p. 13), and we should have 

 thought would have continued enlightening the public as to 

 this subject until the theory was substantiated or disproved, 

 or at least until his observations had elicited some decided 

 opinion, which might guide the pubhc on this point, and 

 guard them against the reception of his " extended glacial 

 theory," without a minute criticism on their part previous 

 to so doing. Yet, without first having effected this purpose, 

 we find the " extended glacial theory ^' mentioned (as decid- 

 ed) in all essays on the subject ; in fact. Professor Agassiz 

 has gone so far as to lead the pubUc to suppose his views 

 altogether correct, and has, therefore, given cause to the 

 prevalent adoption of his general ideas, disapproved as they 

 are by almost all the leading geologists of the day, who 



VOL. I. NO. X. Y 



