171 
In the article in the Quarterly already cited will he found further evidence 
to this effect and in support of Mr. Scrope’s views. 
But, to resume. Notwithstanding the long-standing difference of opinion 
between Dr. Daubeny and Mr. Scrope as regards the antiquity of these 
extinct volcanic cones, and notwithstanding Sir Charles Lyell’s former caution 
as exhibited in the above citations, he now takes for granted their great age, 
disregards altogether the historic evidence of their recent eruption, and 
merely argues from the quasi facts against the universality of the Deluge. 
In his Antiquity of Man (p. 192) he says : — 
“We behold in many a valley of Auvergne within fifty feet of the present 
channel, a volcanic cone of loose ashes, with a crater at its summit, from 
which powerful currents of basaltic lava have poured, usurping the ancient 
bed of the torrent. By the action of the stream, in the course of ages, vast 
masses of the hard columnar basalt have been removed, pillar after pillar, 
and much vesicular lava, as is the case, for example, of the Puy Rouge, near 
Chalucet, and of the Puy de Tartaret, near Neckers. . . . Had there been 
a single flood fifty or sixty feet in height, since the last eruption occurred, a 
great part of these volcanoes must inevitably have been swept away ” 
In his Principles of Geology, also, chap. 45, he says : — 
“We may be enabled to infer, from the integrity of such conical hills of 
incoherent materials, that no flood can have passed over the cou?itries where 
they are situated since their formation .” 
Now, this is very valuable testimony by Sir Charles Lyell (supposing his 
conclusion to be sound), that no flood of water can possibly have covered these 
volcanic cones since they were originally erupted. His reasoning upon this 
point, however, has been controverted ; for instance by the Rev. James Brodie, 
in his Remarks on the Antiquity and Nature of Man, in Reply to Sir Charles 
Lyell ; * for he thinks these mountain cones of Auvergne might “ have been 
sunk once and again beneath the deep without a single cinder having been 
moved.” (p. 42.) Sir Charles’s and Dr. Daubeny’s conclusions as to the great 
antiquity of the fossil remains there discovered have also been questioned by 
other geologists, on independent grounds. For instance, Mr. J. R. Pattison ? 
F.G.S., in his Examination of Sir Charles LyelVs Antiquity of Man, + thus 
writes : — 
“ The testimony of the fossil man of St. Denise (if credit can be given to 
it, which, from personal inspection, I think is the case) proves merely an 
antiquity equal to that of the cave-remains. The specimen is embedded in 
a breccia which resulted, as M. Aymard concludes ( Congres Scientifique de 
France, 22me Session) from a volcanic eruption of water amidst scoriae at 
the very close of the volcanic period in Velay, after the surface had attained 
nearly its present contour, and whilst extinct and subsisting species of mam- 
mals inhabited Auvergne.” 
I think I need make no further citations to establish the fact that there is 
no unison or agreement among geologists, and never has been, as regards 
* Bond., Hamilton, Adams, & Co., 1864. 
t Bond., Bovell Reeve & Co., 1863. (2nd ed., p. 15.) 
