If the sluggish drainage accompanied the maximum ice invasion, while the vigorous accompanied a lesser, the evidence of the swift streams might be found far north of the southern limit of the earlier drift. The farther north of the outer border of the older drift the gravel representing the vigorous drainage of the later and minor ice-sheet occurs, the further the ice must have retreated before the change from the one type of drainage to the other was effected. On the other hand, the farther north of the limit of the later ice advance the sluggish drainage accompanying the earlier ice-sheet may be traced, the farther must the ice have receded before the changes resulting in vigorous drainage occurred. Under certain relations, the retreat of the ice might be shown to have been great enough, before the orographic movements which altered the nature of the drainage, to constitute in our judgment, a re-advance a distinct ice epoch. If for example throughout the course of a long river whose basin was largely covered with ice, there be evidence that sluggish drainage obtained during the maximum ice advance, and during all stages of the ice retreat until the basin was free from ice, and if there be evidence of a vigorous glacial drainage in the same valley at a later time, with no gradations between the two types, we have proof positive of at least a great recession, and of a considerable elevation of the land after the ice had receded beyond the limits of the drainage basin and before it again reached it in its re-advance. We hold that these phases of glacial drainage deposits may be so related to each other, to the valleys in which they occur, and to more or less distinct bodies of glacier drift, as to prove so great a recession of ice between the diverse phases of drainage deposition, as to constitute the second advance a distinct ice epoch. The absence of evidence that the land stood at different elevations during different parts of the period of drift deposition, does not in any way militate against the theory of recurrent and distinct ice epochs. A constant attitude of the land is the thing to be assumed, until positive evidence to the contrary is adduced. (12) _Vigor and Sluggishness of Ice Action._ If it can be shown that during one epoch of glaciation, we will say the epoch of maximum ice extension, the ice action was relatively sluggish, while during a later and minor advance its action was vigorous, the difference of action might be regarded as presumptive evidence of distinct ice epochs. Evidence of the two phases of ice action here referred to are difficult of definition, but they have been independently noted by more than one glacialist. It is true that a forward oscillation of the ice edge might be more forceful than an earlier forward movement which might have reached a greater extension. In itself, therefore, this line of evidence can not be regarded as possessing great value.