I92I. No. II. THE STRANDFLAT AND ISOSTASV. 9 



down tlirough the combined force of atmospheric weathering and marine 

 abrasion". 



A.'s views as regards the formation of these coast platforms are 

 obvionslv irlentical with the views of the formation of the Norwegian 

 strandfiat held by the present writer [1904] and by Hogbom [1914] and 

 are expressed almost in the same words. It is, however, hard to see why 

 A. assumes that the joint action of marine denudation and atmospheric 

 weathering, so effective in this special region, and during so short a t'me 

 as the last glacial period, should have had practically no effect during the 

 same period, not to speak of the much longer preceding glacial periods, 

 along the rest of the Norwegian coast, where he assumes that there was 

 also a border lying "outside the inland ice". We may naturally ask, what 

 have these agencies, so effective on \'æroi, Rost, and Træna, been doing 

 in other regions during all that time with climatic conditions favourable 

 for erosion? Is it concei^al)]e that they should have left no traces of their 

 activity? 



As far as I can see, no answer to this question can be found in A.'s 

 paper. He assures us that A'ærøi Røst, and Træna are very like each other, 

 and are "markedly different from the rest of the coast region of Norway" 

 without explaining what this marked difference chiefly is. If it is an 

 exceptional evenness of the strand flat, this might seem to be sufficiently 

 explained by the fact, also pointed out by A., that these islands were pro- 

 bably not covered by ice, or have at least not been much attacked by ice 

 erosion, during the last glacial period, while other regions of the strand- 

 flat have l)een more or less eroded by glaciers. And what is then to be 

 said about other parts of the Norwegian strandfiat, which are also very 

 level — c. g. on Sandoi, south of the mouth of Sogne Fjord, or in the 

 regions of Smolen and Froia, Bronoi, Heroi, Donna etc.? 



It is also difficult to see any marked difference between the strandfiat 

 of the Lofoten Islands, Fig. i and 2, and the strandfiat along the coast 

 of the mainland. Fig. 3. 



A.'s views as regards the importance of marine denudation, do not, 

 however, seem to be quite consistent, for mentioning the region of Smolen. 

 west of Trondhjem Fjord, he says that he does not "wish to deny that 

 abrasion has at some time occurred here, but only as a final smoothing 

 process. The inland ice has also been of great importance in the planing 

 of the ground" [19 19, p. 197]. The question is how great the importance 

 of this "final smoothing process" has been? It can hardly have been 

 insignificant if it is chiefly of preglacial age, and has been able to survive 

 the erosion of the glacial periods. But it is very difficult to understand 

 why the marine denudation has only occurred "at some time", if it is due 

 to wave action? One would expect that the waves have always been at 

 work along the coast of Norway, where it was not covered by ice. It also 

 seems liighly improbable that the inland ice has had a planing effect upon 



