NATURAL HISTORY AND PHYSIOGRAPHY OF NEW BRUNSWICK. 233 



too low, and we must apply to them a correction of fully 100 feet.* 

 As the mean of many careful observations he made the surface of 

 Nictor Lake 777 feet above the sea, i. e., with the correction 877 feet. 

 He made Bald Mountain (or Sagamook) 2496 feet, i, e., 2596 with the 

 correction. If to this we add the 112 feet which Carleton surpasses 

 Sagamook or Bald, we have as the height of Carleton 2708 feet, which 

 is very close to the 2715 of Big Bald. 



If one were to take Hind's correction of 123 feet for Wightman's 

 results, instead of the 100 here adopted, it would make Carleton 2731 

 feet, thus surpassing Big Bald considerably. I by no means think, 

 however, that reliance can be placed upon these latter figures, but they 

 at least should make us cautious in forming a judgment as to which is 

 the higher mountain. Big Bald and Carleton must be very near the 

 same height, with the probability in favor of Big Bald. The relative 

 heights could be best settled by a comparison of careful theodolite 

 measurements made from the summit of each upon the summit of the 

 other. 



26. — On a Division of New Brunswick into Physiographic 



Districts. 



CRead May 2nd, 1899.) 

 Whoever attempts a systematic description of any class of facts or 

 phenomena, or treatment of phases of local history, for the whole of 

 New Brunswick, must feel the need for some natural and recognized 



* Wightman's figures are too low, because it was assumed that the levels along the St. 

 John, from Fredericton to Grand Falls, made in 1826 by Foulis, were correct, whereas they 

 are inexplicably erroneous and low. Hind (Geological Report, 1865, 31) has shown that this 

 is the case, and arguing from levels taken by Graham in connection with the survey of the 

 north line in 1842, and from those on the Royal Road, he reasons that Foulis 1 figures are 

 about 123 feet too low. Other measurements by Wightman himself show a discrepancy 

 between head of tide above Fredericton and high tide on Bay Chaleur of 77 feet, which is 

 explained by the report as due to high tide level at Fredericton being 80 feet above high 

 tide level at St. John. This we now know is erroneous, for Duff has shown (this Bulletin, XV» 

 69) that mean tide at Fredericton is only about 14 feet above mean tide at St John, and 

 hence high tide level is about the same at both places. But I think Hind puts the cor- 

 rection for Wightman's error too high, for I think Graham's figure of 419 feet for the river 

 above the fall is. too high. It is higher than the Royal Road levels. Graham, moreover, 

 gives the monument at source of the St. Croix as 538 feet above mean tide at Calais ; later 

 measurements of the surface of Grand Lake (from which there is continuous deadwater to 

 the monument) based I believe on railroad levels, given on the geological map, make it 

 only 499 feet. Probably we would be safe in giving a correction of 100 feet to Wightman's 

 figures, though if we wished to be extra conservative we might restrict it to the correction 

 supplied by Wightman himself in his difference of 77 feet above high tide in Bay Chaleur, 

 plus 3 feet to reduce the latter to mean tide, that is, in all 80 feet. 



