414 OSBORX AND REEDS PREHISTORY OR MAN IN EUROPE 



(2) Paleogeographic : epirogenic movements — that is, continental elevation 



(marine regression) and subsidence (marine transgression). 



(3) Sealevel changes: eustatic movements — that is, negative (marine regres- 



sion) ; positive (marine transgression), Suess (1885.1), Schuchert 

 (1910.1), de Lamothe (1899.1, 1901.1, 1911.1, 1916.1, 1918.1), Gignoux 

 (1913.1), Daly (1920.1,.2), Deperet (1918-1921). 



(4) Paleometeorologic : atmospheric (for example, Chamberlin, 1907) and 



climatic change, due to 1 and 2. 



(5) Glacial and interglacial phenomena, Geikie (1894.1, 1914.1), Penck and 



Bruckner (1909.1), Leverett (1910.1), and others, correlated with 1 to 6. 



(6) River terraces: erosions and deposits, correlated with 1 to 3. 



(7) Other continental geologic deposits: fluviatile sands, moraines, clay 



laminae (for example, De Geer, 1910-1921), loess, correlated with 1 to 5. 



(8) Paleobotanic : terrestrial and aquatic flora, correlated with 1 to 6. 



(9) Paleontologic : invertebrate fauna in marine shorelines (Deperet), fluvi- 



atile and continental deposits, correlated with 1 to 7. 



(10) Paleontologic: vertehrate fauna and migrations, terrestrial and fluviatile, 



correlated with 1 to 8. 



(11) Archeologic : succession of human industries in stone and bone, corre- 



lated with 1 to 9. 



(12) Anthropologic: evolution and migration of human races, correlated with 



1 to 10. 



As Quaternary time was passing these twelve or more bases of sub- 

 division were constantly interrelated; consequently each makes its con- 

 tribution to chronology. It becomes evident that the time is not far 

 distant when we shall enjoy a complete correlation not only of contem- 

 porary events in western Europe, but of those of Xorth America as well. 

 This correlation will spring from a synthesis of all phenomena and will 

 be entirely consistent with all the facts derived from each series of 

 phenomena. Meanwhile we require as a working basis one 'primary 

 standard of division. Between 1901 and 1918 that of Penck and 

 Briickner prevailed. The object of the present review is to set forth the 

 new primary standard proposed by Deperet (1918-1921) and to show its 

 points of agreement and difference with that of Penck. 



1. GLACIAL CORRELATIONS OF GEIKIE, PENCK AND BRUCKNER, AND 



DEPERET 



We may open with a tabular summary of the conclusions of James 

 Geikie (1894.1, 1914.1) compared with those of Penck and Bruckner 

 (1909.1) and the most recent conclusions of Deperet (1918.1-.5, 1919.1, 

 1920.1 V 2, 1921.1). 



The significance of this summary will be made clear in the concluding 

 analysis of Deperet's work on page 470 of the present paper. 



