£26 
Dr Fleming on the Geological Deluge. 
of the remains of the land animals stand opposed to the geolo- 
gical deluge as it has been interpreted ; for these belonged to in- 
dividuals, which, according to Professor Buckland, <c lived and 
died in the regions where their remains are now found, and were 
ing sea. In my second paper, I intimated my acquaintance with his two first 
examples, and I added six others, with which he might have been acquainted. 
Yet my opinion remains unchanged ; and I misstate no facts, while I preserve 
a distinction in geology (which my opponent will soon find it necessary to 
adopt) between Lacustrine and Marine diluvium. In the appendix to his pa- 
per he recurs to the same subject, and considers, that the facts I advance in 
my second, are in u direct contradiction ” to the opinions advanced in the first. 
Here he labours under ignoratio elenchi, which a reperusal of my two.papers 
would readily remove. If I allow him to use my terms with his different signi- 
fication , I have too much respect for his logical ' powers to anticipate a failure 
in his object. But if the terms I use be taken in the sense In which I have 
defined them, the charge of u contradiction” will be found without proof. 
Professor Buckland, rising, as it were, in his demands, having fancied that 
I had contradicted myself, announces the cause of my misfortune and the ex- 
tent of my guilt — “ Not being aware of facts which so materially affect his ar- 
gument, at the time of his writing the paper in question ; at any rate, it 
would have more candid to acknowledge Ms error , than to leave to me the task 
of pointing it out, and applying it to my advantage in the matter at issue be- 
tween us.” Is it probable that I could have been ignorant of eight facts at the 
time of writing my first paper, which I give in detail in the continuation , or 
second paper ; or that I would record these eight facts in the second paper, 
which contradicted my statements in the first, without offering any explana- 
tion ? Low, indeed, must be my^rank in the intellectual scale,' in the opinion 
of my opponent, if* he be disposed to reply in the affirmative. But I can pro- 
duce evidence that it was not possible 1 could be ignorant of some of the facts 
at least, stated in my second at the time .1 wrote the first paper, nor for eigh- 
teen years previous. The first of the eight examples of marine diluvium 
in Scotland which I quote, is from a j published paper of my own , and to which 
there is a particular reference, on a bed of sea-shells, on the south banks of- 
the estuary of the Forth.- This bed, as stated in my second paper, I examined 
in 1808, read an account of it to the Wernerian Society in 1811, and publish- 
ed this account in the Annals of Philosophy for August 1814. I may even go 
farther, and say, that it is not probable that Professor Buckland was ignorant 
of this demonstration of my previous acquaintance with these reputed contra- 
dictory facts. He quotes Captain Laskey’s paper on the marine shells of the 
Paisley Canal, from the Annals of Philosophy for February 1814, and my pa- 
per refen’ed to appeared in the some work, in the number for August of the 
same year; The Wernerian Memoirs, which he also quotes, contain a similar 
reference. But the most convincing proof of all (oh the supposition that he: 
read the paper he attempted to criticise) is the fact of this example of marine 
diluvium being the first of the facts I adduce in illustration of the history of 
