The absence of observable unconformity between sheets of drift would be no proof that there were not distinct and widely separated ice epochs, since the later ice invasion might have so far modified the surface which it transgressed, as to destroy all patent evidences of unconformity. It would have been anticipated that distinct unconformities in the drift would be rare, even if there were distinct ice epochs, for the same reason that weathered zones and forest beds would be rare. But if the drift which lies outside a line supposed to mark the limit of a sheet of drift belonging to a later ice epoch, be not more eroded than that which lies within such line, the absence of greater erosion in the outer drift is positive evidence against the reference of the drift of the two areas to distinct ice epochs, if conditions for erosion in the two areas are equally favorable.
(8) Valleys Excavated Between Successive Depositions of Drift. A closely related, but not identical, point may be found in the extent of the valley excavations which can be proved to have taken place between the deposition of the earlier and later drift. We do not refer to valleys excavated in the drift especially, but to those excavated in other formations as well. If it can be shown, for example, that after the deposition of an earlier drift sheet, and before the deposition of a later, valleys were excavated which extended not merely into the drift itself, but far beneath the drift into the underlying rock, these valleys would be conclusive evidence of a long interval between the deposition of the two bodies of drift. The argument is of especial force when such excavations in the rock beneath the drift can be shown to have taken place at great distances within the margin of the newer drift. For valleys in such situations imply that the ice had receded at least as far to the north as they lie, during the interval between the two drift depositions, and may be so situated as to show that the ice had wholly left the drainage basin where they occur.
The absence of evidences of deep valley excavations in any given region during a supposed interglacial epoch, is no proof that such interval did not exist. The conditions may not have been everywhere favorable for erosion within the limits of any narrowly circumscribed area, and the absence of interglacial valleys would be only negative evidence against an interglacial epoch. The absence of such evidence everywhere would bear against the existence of an interglacial epoch of much duration in such wise as to be more than negative evidence.
(9) Different Directions of Movement. If, after its maximum advance, the ice suffered merely a minor recession and then remained stationary, or nearly so, for a time, the general direction of its movement in a subsequent advance would probably be essentially the same as in the earlier. But if, after its maximum advance, the ice receded to a great distance, and especially if it entirely disappeared, a subsequent ice-sheet might have a very different direction of movement, since its center of accumulation and dispersion might be very different. It is conceivable that this center might shift during the history of a single ice-sheet. In this case there should be a gradual change in the direction of ice movement, not an abrupt one. If, therefore, there be found one sheet of drift made by an ice movement in one direction, overlaid by another sheet of drift deposited by ice moving in a very different direction, with an abrupt transition between them, such drift sheets would be presumptive evidence of distinct ice epochs. An exception would need to be made in the case of drift sheets along the margins of confluent or proximate ice lobes. In such cases, if the one lobe temporarily secured the advantage of the other, drift beds formed by movements from opposite directions might be found in vertical succession, without being evidence of separate ice epochs.
It is no part of the purpose of this essay to point out the difficulties which might arise in the application of this criterion of diverse directions of ice movements. It is possible that gradual changes in the direction of movement might leave records which would seem to indicate abrupt changes instead. This possibility makes care necessary in the application of the criterion, but does not destroy its value. When not itself conclusive, this criterion may be so associated with differential weathering, differential erosion, forest beds, etc., that their combined testimony makes but one conclusion possible.
The absence of evidence of radically diverse directions of movement during the time of deposition of the various sheets of drift, would be no proof that there were not distinct epochs. In the first place, the movements of different epochs might be harmonious—a condition of things more probable than any other if the more common views of the causes of glaciation be correct. In the second place, if the movements were diverse, the deposits might still be so similar that their differentiation, when the one is buried, might not be easily made. In the third place, the later ice might have so far incorporated the older drift material with that which belonged more properly to it, as to have destroyed all definition between them.
(10) The Superposition of Beds of Till of Different Physical Constitution. After the retreat of an ice-sheet, the surface of the country thus discovered would be largely mantled with drift. This drift would serve to protect the underlying rock from disintegration. But where there was little or no drift, the rock surface would be subject to all the disrupting agencies which affect surface rocks. The same would be true of all rock surfaces bared by subaërial erosion after the disappearance of the ice. Under these conditions, if a second sheet of ice invaded the region in question after it had been long exposed, it would find a surface prepared to yield large bowlders. The result would be the deposition of a new sheet of drift containing bowlders much larger than those which would have been proper to an ice-sheet overspreading a surface but recently abandoned. If, therefore, in the upper of two layers of subglacial till, bowlders of great size predominate, as compared with those of a lower homologous layer, they may be indicative of a great interval of time between the deposition of the upper and lower beds of drift. If the home of these bowlders be far north of the limit of the lesser sheet of drift, the distance, as well as the duration, of the ice retreat must have been great, and the reference of the two beds of till to distinct ice epochs would be favored. The case might be so strong as to make no other interpretation possible. Where in itself inconclusive, this criterion would have corroborative significance. In its application, the discrimination of subglacial and superglacial till would be imperative.
The absence of physical dissimilarity between superposed layers of subglacial till would not be proof of the absence of separate glacial epochs. The phenomena constituting the criterion could hardly be expected to be of common occurrence. They would never be obtrusive, and may easily have escaped attention where they exist.[17]
[17] The 10th criterion, in the order here named, was suggested by Mr. McGee in the discussion which followed the reading of the paper at Ottawa.
(11) Varying Altitudes and Attitudes of the Land. Another line of argument has to do with the altitude and attitude of the land during the deposition of various members of the drift complex. If during the deposition of one part of the drift that part of the continent covered by the outer part of the ice was low, the drainage from it would be sluggish. If the deposits of this drainage persist to the present time, we may find in their character evidence of the nature of the drainage, and therefore of the attitude of the land. If at a later time of drift deposition the glacial drainage in the same region was more vigorous, the deposits made by the glacial streams would be correspondingly coarser. In these deposits, if they persist to the present day, we should find conclusive evidence of the swiftness of the streams. If it can be shown that during the deposition of one sheet of drift drainage was sluggish, and that during the deposition of a later body of drift the drainage was vigorous, these facts are evidence of an interval between the two times of drift deposition, sufficiently long to accomplish the corresponding changes in elevation or attitude. Since such changes of altitude and attitude are generally believed to have been accomplished slowly, the interval must be believed to have been of considerable duration.