Dr Fleming on the Geological Deluge , $11 
are so different in appearance from each other, 44 that one is al- 
most tempted to suspect, that their ancestors and ours had es- 
caped from the last grand catastrophe at two different sides.” In 
reference to the Negroes, he states a similar opinion with less 
hesitation : 44 The circumstances of their character clearly evince, 
that they also have escaped from the last grand catastrophe, 
perhaps by another route than the races of the Caucasian and 
Altaic chains, from whom, perhaps, they may have been long 
separated before the epoch of that catastrophe.” On the suppo- 
sition that the different races of men were derived from a com- 
mon stock, an idea sanctioned by revelation, supported by the 
truths of zoology, and tacitly admitted by our author, it seems 
difficult to discover any proof of their separation having been an- 
tediluvian. According to Moses, all that escaped of the hu- 
man race, w r ere eight individuals of the family of Noah. Here, 
then, we have the character of the geological deluge, in reference 
to the human race, as interpreted by Baron Cuvier, standing op- 
posed to the history of the deluge as given by Moses, and that, 
too, in its most important feature. 
2. The geological deluge, as interpreted by Baron Cuvier and 
Professor Buckland, occasioned the destruction of all the indivi- 
duals of many species of quadrupeds. As examples of those 
which have thus suffered extinction, may be quoted, the fossil ele- 
phant, fossil hippopotamus, fossil rhinoceros, fossil bear, and fos- 
sil hyaena, besides many others. These have been, somewhat pre- 
sumptuously, termed antediluvian animals * In the history 
* In my first paper, in No. xxii. of this Journal, I have stated that the 
relics of these ancient animals occur in postdiluvian strata. The learned Pro- 
fessor, in his “ Reply,” first declares, “ That, could the above cases be esta- 
blished, they would be decisive in favour of the theory maintained by Dr Fle- 
ming and shortly after adds, that, “ Even admitting all these facts, still 
every atom of the evidence contained in my Reliquiae Diluvianae would re- 
main unaffected by the discovery.” I attempt not to reconcile such apparent 
contradictions. Perhaps it may be judged reasonable to allow an adversary, 
when hard pushed, to shift his position, even though it put the pursuer to 
more trouble. With reference to the Rhinoceros horn from Forfar, about 
which Professor Buckland is unnecessarily prolix, I may state, that I relied 
on the authority of Professor Jameson, in the Wern. Mem. iv. p. 582. ; and 
having seen the horn labelled, as from Forfar, in the Edinburgh Museum, 
of which he is Regius Keeper, I still consider the statement of Professor 
Jameson to be substantially true, and the one given by my opponent as quite 
