Sir,
With regard to “glacierization,” referred to in the Journal of Glaciology, I am still strongly in favour of the retention of this word, and I do not at all agree with Flint that it “seems unnecessary,” or that “glacier-covered” is more desirable. There are so many usages where precision in the significance of “glaciation” and “glacierisation” (my preferred spelling, co-incident with that of Wright and Priestley!) is highly important, and a case has only lately cropped up in an examination paper here, where the effects of ice-cover (glaciation) were confused with that of the broader aspects of ice-inundation (without erosive effects). The effect of Flint’s suggestion will only be a tendency towards confused thinking and description, and an all-too-loose general usage of the term “glaciation.”
