^{page 205 note 1} “Bidrag till kännedomen om Östersjöns och Bottniska Vikens postglaciala geologi”: Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning, Afhandl., ser. C, No. 180. 8vo; 128 pp., 1 map; 1899 (published March, 1901).Google Scholar

^{page 205 note 2} Holst, N. O., “Har det funnits mer än en istid i Sverige?”: Sver. Geol. Unders., 1895, ser. C, No. 151, see pp. 36–39. German translation by W. Wolff, “Hat es in Schweden mehr als eine Eiszeit gegeben?” pp. 38–42; Berlin, 1899.Google Scholar

^{page 206 note 1} That the aurochs already existed in the province of Kalmar at the beginning of the fir period, i.e. at the beginning of the middle Ancylus epoch, has been proved on a preceding page. But the only Post-Glacial elevation of importance that occurred in southern Sweden before that period was the very one that immediately followed the deposition of the Glacial marine beds.

^{page 206 note 2} It is quite probable that this elevation during the oldest Post-Glacial Period also reached northern Germany. If such was the case, may it not in part have been the reason why the Vistula and Oder during that period did not flow into the Baltic but had their outlet through the Elbe? Cf. F. Wahnschaffe, “Die Ursachen der Oberflächengestaltung des norddeutschen Flachlandes”; Stuttgart, 1891.

It is also very probable that the same upward pressure of the land outside the periphery of the land-ice took place in North America, and that this affords the correct explanation of many phenomena which otherwise appear inexplicable.

^{page 206 note 3} See Gerard De Geer, “Om Skandinaviens geografiska utveckling,” 2. Kartor, pls. 2, 3, 4; Stockholm, 1896. The criticism must, however, be passed on these plates that they do not, as they profess, give the depression-curves for different epochs of the melting of the ice, but that all three show only the same thing, namely, the extent of the depression at the time of the final melting of the ice. According to the plates, the depression during the melting of the ice remained the same for a long period, while, on the contrary, all the facts tend to prove that throughout that time the extent of the depression altered very rapidly.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 1} Högbom, A. G., “Till frågan om den senglaciala hafsgränsen i Norrland”: Geol. Fören. Stockholm Förhandl., 1899, xxi, p. 595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 207 note 2} Högbom, A. G., “Om högsta marina gränsen i norra Sverige”: Geol. Fören. Stockholm Förhandl., 1896, xviii, p. 488.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 1} Jamieson, T. F., “On the History of the last Geological Changes in Scotland”: Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., 1865, xxi, p. 178.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 2} “On the Cause of the Depression and Re-elevation of the Land during the Glacial Period”: Geol. Mag., 1882, Dec. II, vol. IX, pp. 400 and 457.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 1} “Fluviatile Swamps of New England”: Amer. Journ. Sci., 1887, ser. iii, vol. xxxiii. See pp. 220, 221.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 2} “Probable Causes of Glaciation,” Appendix A to G. F. Wright's “The Ice Age in North America”; New York, 1891. See also Amer. Geol., 1890, pp. 327 et sqq.; and Amer. Journ. Sci., 1891, vol. xli, p. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 3} Schenck, A., “Ueber Glacialerscheinungen in Südafrika”: Verhandl. des VIII deutschen Geographentages in Berlin, 1889.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 4} Oldham, R. D., “A Manual of the Geology of India,” Calcutta, 1893. See pp. 157 and 198.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 5} David, T. W. E., “Evidences of Glacial Action in Australia in Permo-Carboniferous Time”: Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., 1896, lii, p. 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 210 note 1} “The High Continental Elevation preceding the Pleistocene Period”: Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., 1890, i, p. 65.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 1} ‘Västra’ (west) in original; correction by the author.

^{page 211 note 2} Howorth, H. H., “Did the Mammoth live before, during, or after the Deposition of the Drift?”: Geol. Mag., 1892, Dec. III, vol. IX, pp. 250 and 395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar In England the so-called interglacial occurrences of the larger mammals seem to rest only on mistakes or on the estimation of secondary occurrences as primary. Of course they disappear at the same time as the so-called ‘interglacial’ deposits cease to be interpreted as interglacial, and this is already the case with the majority. Thus the ‘middle sand,’ formerly the most important of the interglacial formations, is now very generally regarded as glacial. And, so far as I could discover from conversation with English geologists, the idea of a true ‘interglacial’ period is now almost abandoned by them.Google Scholar

^{page 211 note 3} Dawkins, W. Boyd: “Cave Hunting, etc.”: London, 1874. See p. 362.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 1} See the map to Hudleston's, W. H. paper “On the Eastern Margin of the North Atlantic Basin”: Geol. Mag., 1899, 12 IV, vol. VI, p. 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 212 note 2} “Om Levninger af Grundtvandsdyr paa store Havdyb mellem Jan Mayen og Island”: Vidensk. Meddel. Naturhist. Foren. Köbenhavn, 1900, p. 229.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 3} 8,087 English feet; 2,465 metres.—Translator.

^{page 212 note 4} The same elevation also reached Iceland. See Th. Thoroddsen in Geol. Fören. Stockholm Förhandl., 1900, xxii, p. 546.Google Scholar

^{page 212 note 5} Cf. Hudleston's map cited above.

^{page 213 note 1} During my journey to Greenland in 1880 I saw from the sea south of Ivigtut supposed beaches in a situation exposed to the sea at a great height on the mountain slopes. Time, however, did not permit me to examine them. Numerous similar observations are mentioned in “Meddelelser om Grönland.”

^{page 213 note 2} See Berghaus' “Physikalischer Atlas,” Maps 7/8, 9, and 13; Gotha, 1892

^{page 214 note 1} See “Generalregister” to vols. vi–x of Geol. Fören. Stockholm Förhandl., p. 34.Google Scholar A fault in Jemtland is described by A. Högbom in his paper, “Om förkastnings-breccior vid den Jemtländska silurformationens östra gräns”: Geol. Fören. Stockholm Förhandl., 1886, viii, p. 352.Google Scholar The Palæozoic faults on the Kola peninsula have been described by W. Ramsay, Fennia xvi, No. 1, pp. 2 and xv; No. 4, pp. 7 and 11.Google Scholar

^{page 214 note 2} The same views were expressed by James Hall in the “Palæontology of New York,” iii, pp. 69 et sqq.; Albany, 1859.

^{page 214 note 3} Cf. J. Hall, op. cit., p. 95.

^{page 214 note 4} Geikie, J.: “The Great Ice Age,” 3rd ed., p. 792; London. 1894.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 1} Geer, Gerard De: “Om Skandinaviens geografiska utveckling,” 2. Kartor, pls. 4, 5, and 6; Stockholm, 1896.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 2} The arithmetical progression from 100 to 200 and 280 is not regular. May not this indicate that the last figure is too low, and that the Glacial depression was greater than is shown by the highest Glacial marine coastline?

^{page 215 note 3} “Om högsta marina gränsen i norra Sverige”: Geol. Fören. Stockholm Förhandl., 1896, xviii. See p. 487.Google Scholar

^{page 215 note 4} There is no reference here to the undulatory motion of the land-oscillations, but only to their final result.

^{page 216 note 1} Each successive swing was naturally not only less extensive but shorter than the preceding. From this it may be inferred that the Litorina depression prevailed a shorter time than the Ancylus depression.

^{page 216 note 2} Here, of course, it is only Scandinavia that is alluded to. But the same remarks are largely applicable also to North America, although it is not unlikely that the North American ice-sheet, being much larger than that of Scandinavia, melted later than it. In that case the Post-Glacial epoch must have been shorter in North America than in Europe. Herein may lie the reason why many North American geologists, in their estimates of Post-Glacial time, have arrived in harmony at such low figures as 7,000 to 10,000 years—a far shorter time than that in which the Post-Glacial deposits of Scandinavia were formed.