Of European authorities who have recently favoured the theory of the continuity of the Quaternary Glacial period, as maintained in the volume, it is enough to mention the names of Prestwich,[I] Hughes,[J] Kendall,[K] Lamplugh,[L] and Wallace,[M] of England; Falsan,[N] of France; Holst,[O] of Sweden; Credner[P] and Diener,[Q] of Germany; and Nikitin[R] and Kropotkin,[S] of Russia.[T] Among leading authorities still favouring a succession of Glacial epochs are: Professor James Geikie,[U] of Scotland; Baron de Geer,[V] of Sweden; and Professor Felix Wahnschaffe,[W] of Germany. [Footnote I: Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society for August, 1887.] [Footnote J: American Geologist, vol. viii, p. 241.] [Footnote K: Transactions of the Leeds Geological Association for February 10, 1893.] [Footnote L: Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, August, 1891.] [Footnote M: Fortnightly Review, November, 1893, p. 633; reprinted in The Popular Science Monthly, vol. xliv, p. 790.] [Footnote N: La Période glaciaire (Félix Alcan. Paris, 1889).] [Footnote O: American Geologist, vol. viii, p. 242.] [Footnote P: Ibid., p. 241.] [Footnote Q: Ibid., p. 242.] [Footnote R: Congrès International d'Archéologie, Moscow, 1892.] [Footnote S: Nineteenth Century, January, 1894, p. 151, note.] [Footnote T: The volume The Glacial Geology of Great Britain and Ireland, edited from the unpublished MSS. of the late Henry Carvill Lewis (London, Longmans, Green & Co., 1894), adds much important evidence in favour of the continuity of the Glacial epoch; see especially pp. 187, 460, 461, 466.] [Footnote U: Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, vol. xxxvii, Part I, pp. 127-150.] [Footnote V: American Geologist, vol. viii, p. 246.] [Footnote W: Forschungen zur deutschen Landes und Volkskunde von Dr. A. Kirchhoff. Bd. vi, Heft i.] When the first edition was issued, two years ago, there seemed to be a general acceptance of all the facts detailed in it which directly connected man with the Glacial period both in America and in Europe; and, indeed, I had studiously limited myself to such facts as had been so long and so fully before the public that there would seem to be no necessity for going again into the details of evidence relating to them. It appears, however, that this confidence was ill-founded; for the publication of the book seems to have been the signal for a confident challenge, by Mr. W. H. Holmes, of all the American evidence, with intimations that the European also was very likely equally defective.[X] In particular Mr. Holmes denies the conclusiveness of the evidence of glacial man adduced by Dr. Abbott and others at Trenton, N. J.; Dr. Metz, at Madisonville, Ohio; Mr. Mills, at Newcomerstown, Ohio; and Miss Babbitt, at Little Falls, Minn. [Footnote X: Journal of Geology, vol. i, pp. 15-37, 147-163; American Geologist, vol. xi, pp. 219-240.]