93 
Mr. Reddie. — I wished to be brief, or I might have gone further in 
citing authorities to refute Mr. Pattison’s dicta , and I will now do so. 
I shall now quote briefly from what Professor Huxley has said, ex cathedra , 
in the Geological Society as its president. He says, “These seemingly 
sudden appearances of new genera and species, which we ascribe to a new 
creation, may be the simple results of migration.” This is surely plain 
enough. Of course Mr. Hamilton and Professor Huxley do not differ from 
Mr. Pattison as regards any geological facts ; but both of them are eminent 
authorities on geology, and both, it will be observed, reject the “ successive 
creation theory,” as to which Mr. Pattison has been so positive. (Hear.) 
Mr. Mitchell. — I have only to reply to one or two things. First, with 
regard to the Nile deposit, I do feel that there can be no mean rate 
discovered ; and that even if we could discover a mean rate now, we could 
not be sure that that was the rate that was going on 100 years before. 
With regard to the suggestion of Mr. Warington for obtaining a mean rate, 
I think he must have lost sight of one fact that was stated by Sir Gardiner 
Wilkinson, and that was, that in one year, not upon the plain of Memphis, 
but on the extreme verge, and near the desert, and upon masses of rock, 
where he knew there had been no previous deposit, he found a dried deposit 
of mud three-eighths of an inch thick. If you were to get any data at all, it 
would not be much better than the data obtained from that source ; and yet 
it does not follow that because it was three-eighths of an inch thick in one 
year it was the same thickness in another year. Therefore I think little more 
can be said, either with regard to the Nile, the Mississippi, or what has been 
well proved with regard to the Ganges, — no chronology can be obtained from 
the mud of any of these rivers. Mr. Warington’s criticism about the chalk 
w'as not unanticipated. I had guarded myself very carefully. I said, “ The 
possible increase of foraminifera is only practically diminished by their 
supply of food, and the rate at which their enemies can devour them.” 
Their supply of food depends upon what happens to exist in the water at the 
time, and it is only now that we are getting some knowledge of the amount 
of water in the sea. the depths of the ocean, and other phenomena. There 
was a theory that the deepest parts of the ocean were no deeper than 
the highest mountains on the land, but that is a fallacy that has since been 
exploded. Deep-sea soundings had not been made then, but as soon as they 
were made it was found that there are depths of eight or nine miles. 
(A voice : “ Where ? That is the question.”) I think you will find that there 
are doubts with regard to some of the measurements, but there can be no 
doubt that there have been measurements of depths of seven or eight miles. 
(A voice : “ Sounded ? ”) The depth of seven miles has been sounded since 
care was taken to get rid of those errors that originally occurred. With 
regard to the statement brought forward by Mr. Reddie in reference to ocean 
currents, I may say that the soundings were made on board ship. They 
used to employ a heavy shot and a very thin line, but the shot was found to 
present too great a surface, and it met with opposing currents of sufficient 
strength to carry it away, so that more line was run out than was necessary 
