In support of his conclusions, Prof. Geikie cites some striking facts which are not so widely known as they should be. For example, Swedish geologists have found evidences that there was an ice sheet antedating that which deposited the "lower diluvium," and that during this earlier glaciation the direction of ice movement in southern Sweden was from the south-east to the north-west. The ground moraine deposited by this ice sheet is overlain by the "lower diluvium" which was produced by an ice movement from the north north-east to the south south-west, or nearly at right angles to the first. Again, near Moscow, there exist interglacial beds whose plant remains indicate a climate milder and more humid than that of the present time. These interglacial beds, it will be observed, occur in the region of the "lower diluvium" quite beyond the margin of the ice which produced the "upper diluvium" of Germany and Scandinavia. During this interglacial interval, Prof. Geikie maintains that no part of Russia could have been covered with ice. If, then, within the limits of the area covered by the "lower diluvium," and not by the "upper," distinct beds of glacial drift are separated by such beds as those cited, there can be no question but that such separation marks two distinct glacial epochs. If there was an earlier glaciation when the movement of the ice in Sweden was at right angles to that during which the lower part of the "lower diluvium" was produced, this also would seem to be good evidence of three ice epochs prior to the "upper diluvium." The epoch of the "upper diluvium" would then constitute the fourth glacial epoch, and this is the interpretation of Prof. Geikie. Outside the area of the European continental ice sheet, facts are adduced in striking confirmation of the multiple ice epoch theory. These facts are found in Switzerland, where evidences of multiple glaciation have been recognized, and in the Pyrenees where evidences of three separate ice epochs have been found. In France, evidences of an interglacial interval have been found in the region of the Puy de Dôme of such duration as to allow the excavation of valleys to a depth of 900 feet. The length of time which would be required for such stupendous erosion must certainly be regarded as sufficient to allow the preceding and succeeding glaciations to be considered as belonging to two distinct epochs. Another point of great significance and interest which Prof. Geikie's essay brings out, is the correlation in Britain between epochs of glaciation and epochs of subsidence on the one hand, and between interglacial intervals and epochs of elevation on the other. If Prof. Geikie's interpretation be well founded, and so far as we are able to judge from the facts presented this is the case, his conclusions would seem to be fatal to the hypothesis that glacial climate was produced by northern elevation.