766 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



Mass., as early as 1876, when his first paper was read before the 

 Boston Society of Natural History. Largely through him the 

 late Prof. H. Carvill Lewis was brought into the work, and our 

 author's studies on the Muir Glacier in Alaska gave us most of 

 our early knowledge of a region previously almost a terra incog- 

 nita to science. 



Qualifications thus won by hard work in the field secure for 

 the author, Prof. Wright, no mean place among glacial geologists, 

 and entitle him to at least respectful attention. It is therefore 

 somewhat surprising to note the storm of criticism and even abuse 

 with which the work has been assailed by certain geologists. 



Far be it from us to deprecate criticism, even if severe. Equally 

 far is it from the desire of the author. But we feel justified in 

 the name of science in entering a protest, and a strong one, against 

 the style and manner of the articles which have appeared in con- 

 demnation of the work and in denunciation of the writer. 



In thus protesting against so unusual and apparently con- 

 certed an attack we do not wish in any way to defend the author 

 from so much criticism as is just and courteous. The book is far 

 from perfect. We can not acquit the writer of apparent haste in 

 its completion. Besides inaccurate expressions there are in some 

 places insufficient statements of the divergences of opinion. 

 Many of these have been already pointed out, and have received 

 all the blame that is due, and in no measured terms. The title, 

 for instance, should have run, The Glacial Era and Man, for of 

 its ten chapters only one is closely connected with human his- 

 tory. It is scarcely correct to write of the great interlobate 

 moraines as medial (page 100). We presume that our author 

 means that their material was carried on the ice during its flow. 

 This was in great part true, but they did not exist as medial 

 moraines at any time, and were only formed at the melting end of 

 the ice-sheet. Nor do we think that any evidence worth consider- 

 ation can be adduced in support of the supposition of a great 

 southern subsidence to explain the origin of the loess in the Mis- 

 sissippi Valley. We think that Prof. Wright should have recog- 

 nized the fact that northern drift had been reported from Ken- 

 tucky many years before his visit (page 212), and the expression 

 " I have traced the limit of southern bowlders for thousands of 

 miles across the country " is certainly unfortunate. It is, perhaps, 

 literally true in the sense intended, but it is liable to misconstruc- 

 tion, and has been misconstrued. We might also object to his 

 use of the word " preglacial." In this, however, he has many 

 companions among geological writers. 



We may further add that his explanation of the relation of 

 the neve to the glacier has been assailed with justice, and is quite 

 indefensible. There is, however, little occasion here to expose 



