UE LA BECHE ON THIS SUBJECT, 
117 
no reason why these pieces could not have been 
derived from the cliff at the time the sea rested 
there, or why in very modern days they could not 
slip “ by the force of gravity, assisted by meteoric 
causes” over the ancient beach. But, allowing 
even that this circumstance occurred at the time of 
the “ great weathering,” or that it affords a relative 
date for the origin of the beach, which it certainly 
does not , I feel emboldened to observe that accord¬ 
ing to Mr. De la Beche’s own most cautious method 
of induction, the vast assemblage of fragments of 
limerock at Oreston caves, on the Hoe, and else¬ 
where, could not have received those positions by 
a cause less considerable than a body of agitated 
water, such indeed as would annihilate existing 
tribes of beings, and per force hurl them, together 
with fragments of rock which the element had se¬ 
vered or dislodged, into caves and hollows of the 
earth. I therefore entirely differ from this learned 
author in his inference “ that the beach was raised 
during (he should have added by mere logic —or 
prior to) the existence of these animals—hyaenas, 
rhinoceroses, &c.”—and there is not only in this 
portion of his work deficient proof of his own 
shewing, to this effect, but likewise deficient proba¬ 
bility from other reasonings,—for, if he would wish to 
connect together the elevation of this beach with 
the existence of the above named animals on our 
land, I remind those who have faith implicit on the 
entire contents of his book, that while the shells in 
this said beach are admitted to be identically the 
same species as those now in our sea, the cave 
animals of our district are not (neither does Mr. 
De la Beclie think they are) related to existing 
species further than through analogy ; and it is well 
known, that this difference alone would be sufficient 
with many geologists to excite a strong suspicion, 
if not a confirmed opinion of the latter animals 
