WCP2756

[1]

TELEGRAPH & RAIL,

SHOREHAM, KENT..

L.C. & D.RLY.

DARENT-HULME,

SHOREHAM, SEVENOAKS.

14 June <?>¹

Dear Dr. Wallace,

I know of Mr. Davison's² paper. It is I think very good so far as it supplements Richthofen's³ hypothesis of the Loess of China but inapplicable to the Loess of Europe which I take it is a water deposit & arranged by water action. The position condition [2] & character of the animal remains is against their entombment in snow drifts. But it is too long a chapter for a letter. The Loess of China also belongs to two causes — the winds in on the hills & the river floods in the lower grounds. These should be separated. No one who reads [illeg.], & other accounts of ^the high mountains of China & Thibet can doubt the effectiveness [3] of the wind and snow storms.

Ice & snow & rain were no doubt most powerful agents in glacial and post-glacial times but alone they will not explain the "Head” [3 words illeg.] in the Loess. Whatever the hypothesis, it must embrace not only England but southern Europe & the north coast of Africa. I fear however our look at geological phenomena from different standpoints. You I think hold to the [4] doctrine of Uniformity. I look upon it as applied to geological times as an impossibility. I cannot give any reasons here. You will find them in an article I published in the XIXth Century⁴ of Oct. 1893 and ^recently published in my "Collected Papers on some controverted Questions of Geology" of which you will find copies in the libraries of the Royal & Geographical Societies. It is time that my hypothesis is opposed [5] to all the prevailing geological theories but I consider them to be in accordance with all the ^known geological facts so far as I can judge.

I am however thankful for any criticism that may enable me to correct any weak points in the argument & I am most truly yours, | Joseph Prestwich⁵ [signature]

Please excuse the [6] writing — my hand is not very steady & my sight is not very good.