BY FRITZ NOETLING, M.A., Ph.D., ETC. 251' 



There is further evidence for a rise of the island all 

 along its coast. These terraces can be seen near Strahan,. 

 the lower being about 50 to 60 feet, the higher about 

 1,300 feet above sea level. All along the north coast, in 

 the neighbourhood of Hobart, in fact everywhere, ter- 

 races occur, indicating a rise. These terraces may have 

 partly been formed during the melting of the ice ; they 

 may also have subsequently been deposited. They are 

 therefore not pre-glacial, but either glacial or post- 

 glacial. My observations in the valley of the Forth 

 prove that during the glacial age Tasmania must have 

 been about 1,500 feet lower than it is now (i). 



This proves that Tasmania must have been much 

 smaller than it is now, and I estimate that part which 

 would be covered under water if the sea were to rise 

 1,200 feet above its present level to be about one-quarter 

 of the total area. Tasmania would have therefore had an 

 area of 18,000 square miles, one-third of which was under 

 ice and snow. At the outside 12,000 square miles were 

 free of ice, but it is probable that this land did not form a 

 compact area, but rather narrow strips between ice and 

 water, on which numerous icebergs floated. During the 

 glacial period Tasmania must have therefore formed an 

 island of about three-quarters of the present area, and 

 there existed no land connection with Australia. 



8. THE DURATION OF THE POST-GLACIAL 



RISE. 



(PL. II., FIG. I.) 



I stated above that we are led to assume that the- 

 total rise can be estimated at 1,500 feet. Assuming 

 the average height of the high terrace to be 1,200 feet — 

 Gregory estimates it at 1,300 feet — we have to suppose 

 that 300 feet more were laid dry. In other words, if we 

 take present Ta.>mania and assume that the sea level' 



(i) If I understand Gregory correctly he estimates the rise- 

 to be 1,300 feet. 



