326 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CALIFORNIA 



highest mountain in the United States, and which in North Amer- 

 ica ?" 



He remarked that but little had been done, outside of California, during 

 the last five years, towards improving our knowledge of the topography of the 

 western part of our continent. Some valuable contributions to the physical 

 geography of the central portion of the eastern edge of the Rocky .Mountains, 

 have been published by Drs. 0. C. Parry and Engelmann in the Transactions 

 of the St. Louis Academy, (1863 and 1866) and several peaks were measured 

 by Dr. Parry ; but of these only two are located on any map, namely: Long's 

 and Pike's. Of these Long's Peak is 13,456 feet, and Pike's, 14,215 ; this latter 

 being the highest summit in the Rocky Mountain range, at least within the bor- 

 ders of our own territory. Of the continuation of the Rocky Mountains north 

 into British Columbia, but little is known. Some peaks are said to be 16,000 

 feet and over in height ; but it is believed that no accurate measurements have 

 been made in that region ; and, further, it is not at all in accordance with what 

 we have learned of the relation of peaks to passes in other mountain chains, to 

 suppose that when the passes are as low as 5,000 feet, the mountains on either 

 hand should rise to an altitude of 16,000 feet. This would be more probable 

 were the high points volcanic cones ; but this they are not supposed to be. 

 Lord Milton and Dr. Cheadle's book, recently published, gives no information as 

 to the height of the peaks near the pass traversed by their party, (the Leather 

 Head Pass) except a statement that one point, far exceeding all others in eleva- 

 tion, was " from 10,000 to 15,000 feet high." 



Professor Whitney referred again to the fact that the height of Mt. St. Elias, 

 as given on the British Admiralty charts, and probably from Sir Edward Belch- 

 er's measurement, namely, 14,970 feet, was still ignored by all compilers of 

 gazetteers and geographies, even down to Ansted's latest work, published in 

 1861. The old figures, 17,854 feet, obtained from an old Spanish document 

 found in Mexico by Humboldt, have been shown to be grossly exaggerated by 

 two separate measurements of more modern times. 



The recent measurement of Mt. Hood by Mr. A. Wood, was mentioned, and 

 several reasons given why little weight should be attached to it. If Mr. Wood's 

 measurement were correct, the height of Mt. Hood must be nearly 4,000 feet 

 greater than that of Mt. Shasta, and so notable a fact would have been clear- 

 ly recognized by explorers, as it always has been that Mt. Shasta itself is 

 nearly that much higher than Lassen's Peak. But, on the other baud, experienced 

 observers have stated that Mt. Hood was not as high as Mt. Shasta, nor as 

 Mt. Adams, or Mt. Rainier, this last-named peak being, according to AVilkes, 

 only 12,300 feet. Again, Mt. Hood was roughly measured by Dr. Vansant, 

 and his result (11,934 feet) gives the height of that mountain as less than that 

 of Mt. Adams, also measured by him with the same instrument, and this instru- 

 ment could hardly have been so rough aud liable to error as the one employed 

 by Mr. Wood. Further, this last-named gentleman gives the limit of forest 

 vegetation on Mt. Hood as 9,000 feet, while our careful observations on Mt. 

 Shasta place it on that mountain, at 8,000 feet. It is certainly contrary to what 



