Submergence in the Narragansett Bay. — Fuller. 319 
crushing, or thrust faulting in the beds laid down against the 
face of the ice being almost unknown, and indicating that in 
practically every instance the ice was perfectly stationary. 
Occasional blocks were undoubtedly broken off, as is testified 
by the rock fragments dropped from them into the finely 
stratified material over which they floated, but the conditions 
along the front of such a stagnant ice sheet were certainly un- 
favorable to any considerable discharge of floating ice. 
Even where barriers of floating ice form in our narrow 
rivers they seldom last but a few days. Certainly an ice bar- 
rier of this type in the lower Narragansett bay would have 
been too transitory to have withstood the force of the enor- 
mous body of water pressing against it from behind for a 
period long enough for the deposition of a large sand-plain, 
however rapid this may be. 
Siumnary. — In the foregoing pages the aim has Ijeen to 
follow to the logical end the resvilts which must, of necessity, 
follow the disbarment of the submergence theory and the 
acceptance of the theory of glacial floods as an explanation 
of the altitude held by the waters of the Narragansett bay 
region during the final retreat of the ice. Evidences of a 
Champlain submergence along Long Island sound of at least 
fifteen feet are indisputable, and the actual amount was prob- 
ably somewhat greater. The difficulty, however, of correlat- 
ing this submergence as to exact time with the deposition 
of the Narragansett sand-plains detracts considerably from 
the value of arguments from such general evidence. 
The level of the sea remaining substantially as at present, 
as is assumed by the advocates of the glacial floods, no con- 
siderable increase in the hight of the waters of the bay could 
take place unless more than sixty glacial streams of the size 
of the Barrington stream entered the bay simultaneously. 
The united volumes of these streams would be equal to six 
times the volumes of discharge of the Mississippi river. But 
the actual rise to be explained is at least fifty feet. This 
would necessitate, as has been shown, the discharge into the 
bay of a flood amounting to over 19,500,000 culjic feet per 
second, an amount requiring the ablation of at least 3.49 cubic 
feet of ice, and probably of 14.1 cubic feet per day, for every 
square foot of its drainage area. Such a torrent would have a 
