Whilst I am writing, you will, I hope, pardon my allusion to another remark in your work, which I think must apply to myself. In p 373 you say “If one account which has been published can be trusted, we have direct evidence of glacial action in the South-eastern corner of Australia”—²

I think here you refer to a passage in one of my Reports to the Government of N.S.W. dated Eden 6 Mar 1852. and published in the Parl^y. Bl. Books. If so, I would now refer to p 167. in my little book, lately published, a copy of wh. is at the Geol. Soc^ys library, entitled “Researches in the Southern Gold Fields of N.S.W”—³ On that page is a note respecting rocks polished by wallabies.

Till I saw those rocks, I had always firmly believed, that the polish at Jincabillee, Rock Flat and Aston Ck, was the result of snow: and even now I am of opinion such is the case. But I have no doubt whatever about the Bolivia granite. I enclose you a minute slice of the surface, that you may examine it, and a stereo scopic view of the locality.

In the same little book is a chapter on Climate & Vegetation in the Australian Alps (p 221–234) in which you will find mention of distinct rocas perchés.⁴ I saw several of these which I am quite sure of. And in a coom on the Snowy Plain (not far from the Gangarlin River) I came upon an assemblage of rounded blocks of Granite which so much resembled a moraine, that I have no doubt of that either. Furthermore, in Norfolk Island, the surface is partly covered by transported blocks of greenstone. This evidence, therefore, of ice in two ways may I think be admitted.

I have also speculated on the possibility of auriferous deposits being in some instances glacial—i.e. deposited after the rocks had been subjected to the action of ice and snow. At the head of the Encumbene River (where the recent Kiandra gold workings are established p 117 &c) there are heaps of what the diggers call “made ground” i.e accumulations of detritus collected either by water of the rivers or of floods or in some other way since the gold was disintegrated from the rocks. And in these heaps are patches of shale or clay, containing impressions of plants which I believe to be of Miocene age. Now if you see what I say elsewhere, on p 86, p 94, p 105, you will think with me, that there were in ancient times more ⁠⟨⁠evi⁠⟩⁠dences of the abode and action ⁠⟨⁠of⁠⟩⁠ ice than we now perceive.⁵

I make no apology for thus addressing you—because, as you will observe, my object is on your own behalf.—

We have living here, an old ship-mate of yours Conrad Martens, who has sometimes named you to me. He is now looking old. He was my first church-warden here in 1846.—⁶

You will probably recollect a paper of mine in the Tasmanian Journal on Showers of Dust—you commented on it I think before the Geol. Soc^y.⁷ I now know that the pumice which is also mentioned forms, in places along the coast, beds beyond and above high water mark: and must, therefore, be considered as belonging to Raised Beaches. So that the Pumice period is [illeg].

I have filled my paper with an almost unreadable scrawl—but I write against time. Pray believe me to be, | My dear Sir, | Yours very truly | W. B Clarke