Perry.] 50 [February 28, 
of ice. He also speaks of the ‘‘universal glacier.” This expression, 
however, is in various ways so limited by him that it is clearly evi- 
dent that he refers to a body of ice mantling nearly, if not quite, all 
the boreal part of North America, and not to such a view of the uni- 
versality of glacial agency as has been propounded by Prof. Agassiz. 
Such is, substantially, our author’s estimate of the region which he 
supposes was shrouded in ice during the so-called glacial period. 
Whether so much surface was then covered by an icy garment, or 
whether, indeed, there were any glaciers in this neighborhood at that 
time, is another question which must be answered according to the 
testimony. While, however, some are still indisposed to believe that 
vast fields of ice were spread over this portion of the continent; 
while the view of an almost universal glaciation of the earth during © 
the period in question has not as yet been widely adopted; while 
there is no time in this place to discuss the facts appealed to in its 
support, it is very interesting to observe the progress that has been 
made in the reception of what has been called the “glacial theory.” 
Thirty years ago it had only just begun to be thought of, and when 
first suggested it seemed to many incredible; in some quarters it was 
scouted as wild and visionary. It, however, gradually gained ground; 
from time to time it was expanded and enlarged in its scope; by de- 
grees its bearings came to be better seen, while it was so ably pre- 
sented and vindicated that it is now widely recognized, and is 
gaining acceptance wholly, or in part, with the great majority of ge- 
ologists. Meanwhile the iceberg theory, which years ago was almost 
universally adopted, is now held by far fewer than formerly, and in 
a very restricted sense even by such as will endeavor to sustain it. 
Which of the two suggested solutions of the problem is right? 
whether both may not be wrong? or whether each have not some- 
what of truth and somewhat of error ? and if so, which is the better 
able to explain all the facts concerned? are queries which can only 
receive an adequate answer as the evidence comes before us. Mean- 
while Prof. Dana’s view of the matter is very explicit. Referring to 
the results effected during the glacial period, he says even on the ti- 
tle page of his pamphlet “that icebergs had no part in the matter, 
and the supposed iceberg sea over New England no existence.” 
This language is decided, and shows conclusively, that, in respect to 
all this region, the author stands firmly and squarely on the glacier 
hypothesis. As to the validity or invalidity of his position, we shall 
be better prepared to judge when we look at the facts involved, and 
