9.25 
Dr Fleming on the Geological Deluge. 
a sudden and transient flood, which, in its first rush, transported 
44 Norwegian pebbles” to the plains of England ; and, by the im- 
petuosity of its retiring waters, scooped out the Solway Frith, the 
English Channel, and the Lake of Geneva. On the other hand, 
a lake at a high level, bursting its barrier, and carrying the wreck 
into a lake at a lower level, would give origin to stratified gravel, 
sand and clay, such, for example, as may be seen in the neighbour- 
hood of Edinburgh, and on the south bank of the estuary of 
the Tay ; and which lower lakes have in their turn been drained. 
The last character which I shall notice belonging to those beds 
of loam and gravel supposed to have been formed by the deluge, 
is the presence, exclusively, of the remains of land animals . 
This fact is supported by the testimony of Professor Buckland, 
in his 44 Inaugural Lecture/'’ and 44 Reliquiae Diluvianae ;” by 
Mr Greenough in his 44 Geology ;” and by Mr Conybeare in the 
44 Geology of England and Wales.” This character yields a 
demonstration, that the water, which in its fury produced or 
transported this gravel, passed over apportion of the Earth’s sur- 
face, on which dwelt land animals, and that a flood from the sea 
had not been concerned in the phenomena in question. To the 
matter confusedly brought together by this flood or floods of 
fresh water , I have, in my second paper on the 44 Modern 
Strata,” given the name of Lacustrine Diluvium. Had a sud- 
den, universal and transient deluge been the agent concerned in 
its formation, then should we have looked for the remains of the 
animals of the sea , mingled in sad disorder with those of the 
land and the lakes; or rather fishes, shells and zoophytes, where 
we now find the wreck of land animals *. Even the peculiarities 
* In my first paper I had enumerated five characters of lacustrine diluvium, 
indicating, that a universal flood had no share in its formation. Four of these 
characters are admitted, directly or indirectly, in the “ Reply.” But the fifth 
(“ the absence of marine exuviae,”) is brought forward against me as an exam- 
ple of 44 misstated facts :” and it is added, that if I had ever seen or heard of 
three examples, which are quoted, of the presence of marine remains, I never 
would have advanced such an argument. One of these examples is unfortu- 
nate, as the learned Professor seems to confound three different formations, — 
the crag, or upper, marine formation ; distinguished from those of the modern 
epoch , by the species of shells, but especially the zoophytes, which it contains : 
■ — the Lacustrine Diluvium , containing the remains of land animals : — and Ma- 
rine Diluvium , containing the relics of existing marine shells of the neighbour- 
