WCP2474

[1]

31 MERCHISTON AVENUE

EDINBURGH

8th Oct. 1893

Dear Sir

By all means copy the map you¹ refer to — which is simply reproduced from the ordnance Survey's map.

I shall have much pleasure in looking over the proof of the article you are writing on the Erosion Theory² & Alpine glaciers. I see a writer in this month's Geol. Mag. sneers at what he calls this "time honoured" notion! I know the lakes [2] of the Engadine well. ^{(These are the lakes the writer refers to)[.]} They do not belong to the class of glacial lake which Ramsay had in mind — such as Como, Maggiori, etc.: but all comparable in every respect to the valley-lakes which are commonly seen in the more recently glaciated track. For example, the chain & valley lakes in N. Finland & N. Sweden. There is evidence to show that similar lakes formerly existed in the Lower Engadine, and in [3] many other alpine-valleys. These are now all silted up. The lakes of upper Engadine exist still because there is comparatively little detritus carried into them: and also because they were occupied by ice up to a comparatively late time.

Their origin is due I believe partly to physical erosion & partly to the irregular distribution of glacial debris: whereby the river-courses in post-glacial times become deflected here and there, so that they do not follow throughout the pregalcial channels.

It seems strange to me [4] that the glacial erosion theory should not have received the assent of all geologists! I find that all the younger generation of geologists who are working in the Alpine Lands at glacial phenomena have accepted the theory either in whole or in part. Of the opponents of the view could only be induced to map out the glacial deposits of any region where lakes occur they would convince themselves of the truth of Ramsay's explanation.

Believe me | yours vey truly | James Geikie³ [signature]