ARE THERE EVIDENCES OF MAN IN THE DRIFT? 319 



voluntarily, and made many excursions together. For example, 

 Mr. McGee believed that he had made some discoveries in Ala- 

 bama and Mississippi which were inconsistent with conclusions 

 reached by State geologists. Thereupon he conferred with Messrs. 

 Hilgard, formerly of Mississippi, now of the University of Cali- 

 fornia; Smith, of Alabama ; Holmes, of North Carolina ; Safford, 

 of Tennessee; Hill, of Texas; and Ward, paleobotanist of the 

 Geological Survey; and they visited the region together, all 

 having distinct views somewhat differing from one another. 

 They examined the problems concerning which differences of 

 opinion had arisen, and they all united in a common conclusion. 

 Subsequently Messrs. Chamberlin and Salisbury visited the same 

 region in company with Mr. McGee, and came to substantial 

 agreement with the first party. Such instances of harmonious 

 co-operation have occurred again and again in all portions of the 

 glaciated area. The whole body of men engaged in the research 

 worked together for a common purpose, and were unwilling to 

 publish material conclusions until the facts could be submitted 

 to many minds. They worked with a harmony and a patience 

 for dissenting opinion worthy of such a body of scientific men. 

 Mr. Chamberlin, first the Professor of Geology at Beloit College, 

 afterward President of the University of Wisconsin, and now in 

 charge of the geological department of the new University of 

 Chicago, had the largest share in all this work ; he gave more 

 time to it himself and he employed more assistants than any one 

 else ; in fact, he was considered the Nestor of the work. He had 

 long before been the State Geologist of Wisconsin, where glacial 

 formations are highly developed, and had made a special study of 

 the subject, and all the workers in the field deferred largely to 

 his judgment in suggesting methods of research. 



Occasionally some observer failed to make the necessary dis- 

 criminations, and dropped out of the work. Among others whom 

 Prof. Chamberlin enlisted was Prof. G. F. Wright, of Oberlin 

 College, who devoted some summer months to these investiga- 

 tions. Now, some of the observations made by Prof. Wright were 

 of value, but he seemed to fail to distinguish overplacement from 

 glacial formation ; and, after trying him for two or three seasons, 

 his labors were dispensed with. Thereupon Prof. Wright com- 

 menced the preparation of a popular work upon the history of 

 the Ice period. When this came to the knowledge of Prof. Cham- 

 berlin, he demurred. Still, Prof. Wright continued his work, and 

 ultimately published his book. On its appearance it was found 

 that he had ignored the conclusions of his co-workers — had prac- 

 tically denied the accuracy of their observations — and had pub- 

 lished a work on the history of the Ice period which they believed 

 to be erroneous and misleading. But they let the subject pass 



