PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. 535 



European Glacial and Intekglaoial Staqbs (Professor J. Geikie). 



XI. Upper Turbarian = Sixth Glacial Period ' 



X. Upper Forestiaii = Fifth Interglacial Period • 



IX. Lower Turbarian = Fifth Glacial Epoch 



VIII. Lower Forestian = Fourth Interglacial Epoch 



VI I. Mecklenburgian = Fourth Glacial Epoch 



VI. Neudeckian = Third Interglacial Epoch 



V. Polandian = Third Glacial Epoch 



IV. Helvetian = Second Interglacial Epoch 



III. Saxonian = Second Glacial Epoch 



II. Norfolkian = First Interglacial Epoch 



I. Scanian = First Glacial Epoch. 



But although, as already mentioned, the Interglacial hypothesis in its simpler 

 form has many supporters in this country, I do not think that the above scheme 

 in its entirety has yet found any adherents among British glacialists. Usually, 

 when ieds supposed to be of interglacial aga have been described by other 

 workers, it has been implied that only a single interval of milder conditions was 

 in mind; and even in the exceptional cases where several diflerent boulder- 

 clays separated by sand and gravel have been held to represent as many different 

 epochs of glaciation, it is rare that any attempt has been made, except by Pro- 

 fessor Geikie himself, to classify the supposed events in accordance with the 

 scheme. I suppo.se that most field-workers have felt, like myself, that while some 

 part of the classification might possibly be sustained, this finished arrangement 

 of the admittedly imperfect evidence was too artificial to be accepted with con- 

 fidence, and that it was inadvisable to allow one's self to be hampered, in aa 

 inherently difficult task, with further difficulties that, after all, might, like ' the 

 word Bear-baiting,' be 'carnal and of man's creating.' 



On the other hand, partly, no doubt, from the persuasive manner in which its 

 author has presented his case and his courteous readiness to meet objections, but 

 still more from the vast extent of the field drawn upon for _ the argument, 

 the scheme has aroused less active criticism than it has, in ray opinion, deserved. 

 The critic has shrunk from the magnitude of the task of testing it in all its parts, 

 while to pick out the local flaws in any particular part has seemed invidious. 



In taking this scheme as the basis of my examination into the evidence,_I am 

 aware that the local limitations which I have set myself will be held to impair the 

 validity of my conclusions. But as there is at present in every glaciated country 

 the same confusion of opinion on the Interglacial problem as i_u our ovsm, and 

 the same discussion upon the fundamental value of the evidence, it appears to me 

 that we can find strong justification for considering our own problem on its 

 separate merits. And the necessity for a re-sifting of the British evidence is the 

 more urgent since it is frequently taken for granted in the discussions abroad that 

 there is a well-established glacial sequence in Britain, which can be called in to 

 support the argument for other lands. 



The hiterglaoial Problem in Other Countries, 



It will serve to illustrate the condition of the problem in other countries if I 

 refer briefly to some of the literature which happens to have come under my 

 notice, though I can rarely claim sufficient knowledge of the foreign work to 

 discuss its value. 



Norway. — In Norway there appears to be no direct evidence for interglacial 

 epochs, though the existence of one such epoch is supposed to be indicated by a 

 change in the direction of ice-flow, and by the presence of an arctic flora at the 

 base of the Danish peat-mosses which is absent in Norway. By Dr. A. M. Hansen* 

 the superficial deposits are classed as follows : — preglacial : proteroglacial : inter- 

 glacial : deuteroglacial : and postglacial, 



' ' Period' in original; oj?. cit. ; probably misprints for 'Epoch.' 

 2 A. M. Hansen, 'The Glacial Succession in Norway,' Jpurn. Oeol.,\6\. ii (1894), 

 pp. 123-144. 



