132 
FOURTEENTH REPORT. 
tilting the present continents have been in times past at a much greater 
elevation above the sea-level than they are now.” 
Upon this point it is of interest to compare Chamberlin,* 1009, (page 
OSS) “In the course of geologic history sea-transgressions and sea-with- 
drawals have constituted master features.” “If heterogeneity had 
dominated continental action in the great Tertiary diastrophisms. the 
results should stand clearly forth today. Some continents should show 
recent general emergence, while others should show simultaneous gen- 
eral submergence. The dominant processes today should be those of 
depressional progress on the one hand and those of ascensional progress 
on the other. As a matter of fact all the continents are strikingly alike 
in their general physiographic attitude toward the sea. They are all 
surrounded by a border-belt overflowed by the sea to the nearly uniform 
depth of 100 fathoms. These submerged tracts are all crossed by 
channels, implying a recent emergent state. None of the continents is 
covered widely by recent marine deposits, and yet all show some meas- 
ure of these. Wide recent transgressions in one part do not stand in 
contrast with great elevations in another. Even beyond what theory 
might lead us to expect, when we duly recognize the warpings incidental 
to all adjustments, the recent relations of the continents to the seas con- 
form to one type. The 10,000,000 square miles of continental margin, 
now submerged is distributed around the borders of all the continents 
with a fair degree of equability.” 
We see thus, that there are very great objections to the theory of wide- 
spread epeirogenic movements as the main cause of the facts which we 
have passed in review. The only alternative is some form of marine 
movement and it seems difficult to understand why Professor Suess is 
opposed to this also. After emphasizing at length the importance of bis 
eustatic movements, and after remarking that while the negative marine 
phase is clearly marked in the geological record the positive movement 
is masked, after all this and more, he rejects the idea that a positive 
movement is indicated by the peculiarities of the submerged continental 
margins. He practically admits the difficulty in detecting the positive 
movement, and he says: “If there were any reason to suppose that 
the quantity of water existing on the surface of the planet is not con- 
stant but subject to increase or decrease, as a result of general causes 
whether telluric or cosmic, then the resulting phenomena would fall 
within the category of eustatic movements.” A reasonable inference 
from this is that while the facts cannot be really met by the epeirogenic 
theory, the alternative is so fraught with disturbing consequences that 
a man of Professor Suess’ greatness shrinks from its embrace. The 
temerity then, of one who ventures too elose to the sea to avoid the diffi- 
culties of the vertically moving land is sufficiently apparent. 
In bis able reviews of the epeirogenic theory, Upliarn attributed the 
elevation of the continents to tardy crustal yielding under secular cool- 
ing and contraction. The break down lie laid to the weight of the ice. 
North America, on this hypothesis, was held up by tangential pressure a 
mile, more or less, above normal, and in addition carried the weight 
of the glacial ice. That is surely very tardy yielding indeed. Suppose 
there were a mile of ice, that corresponds in weight to something like 
♦Chamberlin, T. C., “Diastrophism as the Ultimate Basis of Correlation.” Jour, of Geol. vol. xvii, 
1900, pp. 685-693. 
