water from floating ice with a force sufficient to split the underlying lump of sandstone, but not sufficient to crush it.") which I had undermined on the summit of Ashley Heath, 720 (?) feet above the sea, rested on clean blocks of the underlying red sandstone. I was also greatly interested by your long discussion on the Loss (514/4. For an account of the Loss of German geologists--"a fine-grained, more or less homogeneous, consistent, non-plastic loam, consisting of an intimate admixture of clay and carbonate of lime," see J. Geikie, loc. cit., page 144 et seq.); but I do not feel satisfied that all has been made out about it. I saw much brick-earth near Southampton in some manner connected with the angular gravel, but had not strength enough to make out relations. It might be worth your while to bear in mind the possibility of fine sediment washed over and interstratified with thick beds of frozen snow, and therefore ultimately dropped irrespective of the present contour of the country. I remember as a boy that it was said that the floods of the Severn were more muddy when the floods were caused by melting snow than from the heaviest rains; but why this should be I cannot see. Another subject has interested me much--viz. the sliding and travelling of angular debris. Ever since seeing the "streams of stones" at the Falkland Islands (514/5. "Geological Observations on South America" (1846), page 19 et seq.), I have felt uneasy in my mind on this subject. I wish Mr. Kerr's notion could be fully elucidated about frozen snow. Some one ought to observe the movements of the fields of snow which supply the glaciers in Switzerland. Yours is a grand book, and I thank you heartily for the instruction and pleasure which it has given me. For heaven's sake forgive the untidiness of this whole note. LETTER 515. TO JOHN LUBBOCK [Lord Avebury]. Down, November 6th, 1881. If I had written your Address (515/1. Address delivered by Lord Avebury as President of the British Association at York in 1881. Dr. Hicks is mentioned as having classed the pre-Cambrian strata in "four great groups of immense thickness and implying a great lapse of time" and giving no evidence of life. Hicks' third formation was named by him the Arvonian ("Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc." Volume XXXVII., 1881, Proc., page 55.) (but this requires a fearful stretch of imagination on my part) I should not alter what I had said about Hicks. You have the support of the President [of the] Geological Society (515/2. Robert Etheridge.), and I think that Hicks is more likely to be right than X. The latter seems to me to belong to the class of objectors general. If Hicks should be hereafter proved to be wrong about this third formation, it would signify very little to you.