THE ICE AGE AND ITS WORK.
689
two thousand feet, while on the Jura itself it seems to have been again raised to three thousand feet at its highest point;[1] and he quotes Charpentier's general conclusion:
And then, after quoting the observations of Agassiz on the same phenomena and of those of North America, he gives his own conclusions in the following words:
We may take it, therefore, that the views of Charpentier, Agassiz, and Sir Charles Lyell as to the extent and thickness of the great Rhone glacier are admitted to be correct, or, at least, not to be exaggerated, by the most strenuous opponents of the extreme glacialists. We may, therefore, use this as a fixed datum in our further investigations, and I think it will be found to lead us irresistibly to conclusions which in other cases these writers declare to be inadmissible.—Fortnightly Review.
- ↑ These figures are almost certainly incorrect, as the upper surface of the glacier must have had a considerable downward slope to produce motion. The recent work of M. Falsan, La Période Glaciaire, gives the thickness as about 3,800 feet at the head of the lake and 3,250 feet at Geneva.
- ↑ The Glacial Nightmare and the Flood, p. 208.