explained by ordinary stream processes. Whether they 

 went to Norway, to Germany, to the Alps, to Spitzbergen, 

 Canada, Greenland or the Himalaya they found similar 

 profiles. This was to be expected, because all such localities 

 have been intensely glaciated. And yet a single intelligent 

 comparison of Norwegian or Alpine profiles with those of a 

 warm temperate or tropical lowland or hilly region would 

 have revealed to them the absolute dissimilarity, in general 

 aspect, of the profiles of the contrasted regions. Thus 

 Davis 1 describes his change of views on this subject after a 

 visit to England, Norway, and the Swiss Alps. Dr. G. K. 

 Gilbert in a letter to the writer, described his own case as 

 follows : " I am also interested in a psychological point 

 you mention. Your sensitiveness to the topographic 

 peculiarities of southern New Zealand was due to previous 

 training in non-glacial regions. I myself had a similar 

 experience except that the sequence of events was inverse. 

 My youth was passed and my early geologic studies were 

 made in a glaciated region. When I afterward studied the 

 mountains of the Great Basin where evidence of glaciation 

 is not ordinarily seen, T was impressed with the topographic 

 types because they differed from those that I was familiar 

 with, and I was led to study the causes of their develop- 

 ment and write an analysis of land sculpture by weathering 

 and streams. 2 I think it quite possible that geologists who 

 frame such curious arguments against the actuality of ice 

 sculpture have never seen anything else, and are therefore 

 not sensitive to the contrasts between the two types of 

 sculpture." Numerous other cases might be cited where 

 the "geological excursion " has helped to convince students 

 of the efficiency of ice as a corrater. 



Nevertheless while avoiding the serious error into which 

 the non-glacialists had fallen through lack of comparative 

 , Q.J.G.S., vol lxv, 1909, p. 301. 



