Sir,

The need for distinct and agreed terms to denote the different meanings which you advocate for “glacierization” and “glaciation” is increasing all the time. Indeed, this distinction may be regarded as essential for accurate topographical description of very large areas; especially in the polar regions. The Scott Polar Research Institute has for many years endeavoured to foster the strict use of these two terms, but we also have to admit that the distinction has not caught on as had been hoped. On behalf therefore of the Scott Polar Research Institute I write to give our support to the suggestions made in the recent editorial note in the. Journal of Glaciology (Vol. 2, No. 16, 1954, p. 378), that “ice-covered” or “glacier-covered” should be used by those who do not like “glacierized.”

The distinction between ice-covered and formerly ice-covered land must be kept clear, particularly in titles and chapter headings that stand out of context. It is therefore very desirable that the term “glaciated” be used only for a land surface that has undergone modification, protection, etc., by an ice-cover. There is no objection to saying, for example, that the rock floor under an existing valley glacier is being “glaciated.” It seems more important to agree that “glaciated “does not mean covered with ice at the present time than to press for the adoption of any particular term meaning ice-covered.