Now, much of this appears to us no less gratuitous than complicated and unnecessary ; nor do we think that any geologist can, or ought to explain any one of these cases, without an accurate examination of the very deposits themselves, and of every thing in the geography of the countries in question, that may be connected with them. It is perfectly possible, that all these presumed sea shells, which have never been examined, may be the shells of rivers and lakes of Asia. The fishes and their remains may be the same. There is nothing, either, to prevent any of these presumed marine deposits of clay and sand from having been the deposits of lakes or of rivers. These are points on which every thing hangs in questions of this nature; and from mistaking which so many egregious errors have been introduced, not only into this, but into other departments of geology.
We may further suggest, that there is not one of these inundations, where inundations are required to produce the effects, that may not have been among those of the rivers of this country, notoriously subject to such events. These will account, without any aid from the sea, for the upsetting and disturbance of previously deposited allu via, for the dispersion and fracture of bones, for irregular intermixtures of river shells with the remains of land animals; and, in short, for every phenomenon for which the agency of the sea has been called in. In the same way, the inundation of a great river, (and those of the Siberian rivers are enormous both for their extent and depth,) would explain not only the congregations of ani mals, but their death and their submergence under alluvia; above which other alluvia might have been, and doubtless are at this day, equally deposited, without any inter ference of the sea, or imaginary deluges, catastrophes, and revolutions. We shall have occasion immediately to men tion a remarkable circumstance that occurred here in Scotland ; namely, the transportation of 2000 animals in the space of one night, from the hills of Selkirk and Duni fries•shires, into the Solway Firth, where they were all deposited in a state of integrity, and over a very small space. 1-lad these been covered with sand and clay at that moment, or shortly after, as they would have been had the rivers run through a country less rocky and for a longer period, in a state of augmented force, future ages might have discovered a colony of skeletons oil which they might possibly have reasoned as M. De Luc has done respecting those of Siberia. We can see no reason why the Jenisei, the Covima, the Lena, or the Anabara, might not in the same manner carry clown herds of animals, and deposit them in colonies, were it necessary, in the ad joining plains, or in the Icy Sea.
M. De Luc proceeds to quote other instances in sup port of his view, from the vicinity of London, of Roches te•, of Canstadt near Stutgard, and other places. We do not find it necessary to examine these cases, as we think that they are not of any particular moment, although brought in support of favourite hypothesis. In the same manner, he imagines, that the remains of elephants found near Geneva must have belonged to animals that inhabit ed the Alps when they were islands in the ocean; a notion surely quite unnecessary, could it even be shown to be probable.
On the same system, he goes on to say, that the reason why these remains are found in valleys is, because the sea, as it washed over the mountains during these great catas trophes, deposited all the loose materials in these situa tions; while, if any had by chance remained in these ele vated places, they must have been destroyed from the consequences of greater exposure. Even though such elevated grounds had not been inundated, these animals must have perished, as he thinks, in consequence of loss of food, and of changes in the temperature of the atmos phere. Nevertheless, such bones are found, according to Pallas, on the hills near the river Alei, between the Irtish and the Ohy, as well as in some parts of the Alps.
He attempts, lastly, following the system of succesive revolutions terminated by a final and general one, to ex plain the relative ages of the several deposits of this na ture; a proceeding from which Cuvier has prudently ab stained. We shall, however, follow him no farther; be cause, if the doubts which we have already suggested rela ting to our own and his very insufficient acquaintance with the facts are well founded, this attempt is fruitless. The more intricate arc the results that demand explanation, the more necessary is it to take care that we are properly furnished with accurate knowledge.
It is proper now to examine another argument which has been adduced in favour of the transportation of the bones of land or marine animals that are found in the al luvial soils. This is the joint presence of petrified marine remains, and of those which may be more strictly called alluvial remains. Of this there are two distinct cases, and they each admit of a separate explanation, without having recourse to the theory of transportation. It is not at all sur prising that they should be found thus intermixed, or rather, in many cases, it is a matter of necessity. The fallacy of the argument has arisen from confounding two things in themselves most distinct, and that merely from the circumstance of casual contiguity.