BY FRITZ NOETLING, M.A., Ph.D., ETC. i6g 



These cracks should be vertical, or at least nearly so, 

 such as shown in the boulders. Thoug"h I searched 

 hard, I could not find a single instance. The fossiliferous 

 inlayers in the moraine were all more or less horizontal 

 and disconnected with the Turritella-sandstone. Further 

 examinations would be required to prove conclusively 

 that the fossiliferous inlayers are later infiltration, and 

 not contemporaneous with the moraine. For the present 

 the evidence goes more in favour of the latter than of 

 the former view. 



The strongest point in favour of a palaeozoic age of 

 the moraine is the seemingly entire absence of boulders 

 •of younger than permian age. We know for certain that 

 the moraine must be of post silurian age, because boul- 

 ders containing silurian fossils have been discovered in 

 it. The absence of permian boulders does, however, not 

 necessarily mean that it must be of pre-permian age, 

 though it is, T admit, a very strong point in favour of 

 this view. AVe know, however, so little about the boul- 

 ders contained in the moraine, that we cannot say with 

 ■certainty that they do occur ; and, further, if they do not 

 occur, we have always to consider the probabilitv that 

 the glacial debris was derived from places where there 

 were no permian strata. 



At present the case stands therefore like this : Unless 

 it be conclusively and without the slightest doubt proved 

 that the fossiliferous inlayers in the glacial drift are sub- 

 sequent infiltrations, we must assume that the moraine 

 •and the Turritella-sandstone belong to one and the same 

 epoch. As no sane geologist would consider the fauna 

 of the Turritella-bed to be of palaeozoic age, and as the 

 assumption of an eocene glacial period would be con- 

 trary to all experience, we must assume that both the 

 moraine and the Turritella-sandstone are of diluvial 

 ^(pleistocene) and post diluvial age. 



