appendix: review and critique 483 



may easily fall in a single stage of glaciation. This, however, is not 

 Deperet's idea, for he makes the higher terrace fall in the Second Glacia- 

 tion and the lower in the Third. He thus discards Penck's interpreta- 

 tion, that only the Third Glaciation, or Eiss drift, is here represented. 

 His difference is based on altitude alone, regardless of the degree of 

 preservation of moraines. From his study of the moraines of that 

 region, in 1908, Leverett is of the opinion that they exhibit the degree 

 of preservation that characterizes the moraines of the Third, or Eiss, 

 Glaciation at various other points on the border of the Alps, and are 

 much better preserved than those of the Second, or Mindel, Glaciation. 



(4) In the interpretation of the features in Germany, Deperet takes 

 no account of the work of the most experienced glacialists, such as 

 Wahnschaffe, Keilhack, and Gagel, but makes use of data prepared by 

 Geinitz, an extreme monoglacialist. Then, as a result of forced co- 

 ordination, on the basis of altitudes of beaches of the Mediterranean, 

 he erroneously gives the sea of the First Interglacial stage a higher alti- 

 tude in Germany, where it has been shown by Wahnschaffe (1909.1, 

 pages 324, 325) to have had a low altitude. 



(5) On the main proposition, of a similar Glacial succession in the 

 Alps and in northern Europe, Deperet's coordination is likely to stand. 

 The other coordinations are likely to be of value in stimulating a critical 

 investigation of river terraces in relation to marine shorelines, to the 

 glaciations, and to the human prehistory. Taken as a challenge to 

 field workers, they may thus have much value. 



DISCUSSION OF THE EU STATIC THEORY BY PROF. W. M. DAVIS 



In so far as the conclusions of the foregoing paper of Osborn and 

 Eeeds are based on de Lamothe's interpretation of certain Algerian and 

 European terraces by eustatic changes of ocean level which must be 

 world wide, instead of by epirogenic changes m the earth's crust which 

 may be local, Davis believes they are questionable, because de Lamothe 

 did not precede his interpretation by a competent discussion of the evi- 

 dence by which eustatic changes can be distinguished from epirogenic 

 changes. De Lamothe appears to have concluded that, if certain marine 

 terraces on the south side of the Mediterranean run at about constant 

 levels with about constant intervals for a certain distance, and correspond 

 in interval to certain river terraces in Europe, then the level of ocean 

 and not of lands must have been changed. 12 In examining that con- 



12 See his various essays in the Bulletin de la Societe Geologique de France for 1899. 



1901, 1904, 1905, and 1912, particularly an article : . . . "Terrasses des vallees dp 



Tlsser (Algiers), de la Moselle, du Rhine et du Rhone ... 1, 1901, 297-383, espp- 

 cially pages 350, 382. 



