THE LANSING DEPOSIT NOT LOESS. 347 



of the upland loess in southwestern Minnesota and in Iowa," 

 and attempts to convey the impression that it is not unusual 

 to find loess mingled with rock - material, and that, therefore, 

 the Lansing deposit might be loess notwithstanding the pre- 

 sence of rock - fragments. The writer's examination of the 

 Minnesota loess has not been sufficiently extensive to warrant 

 a general statement concerning its character, but so far as the 

 loess of Iowa is concerned, there is no similarity between any 

 known part of it and the Lansing deposit. Professor Win- 

 chell's statement is based chiefly upon McGee's description of 

 the loess of Northeastern Iowa, but McGee states explicitly* 

 that the " deposit is approximately homogeneous from summit 

 to base; but below it passes quickly yet by- imperceptible gra- 

 dations into a sheet of sand, gravel, and bowlder -charged 

 clay....," and those who have examined the deposits in the field 

 know that but for occasional difficulty in a thin intermediate 

 portion, the loess and drift are readily distinguished. Even 

 in those sections along the border of the Iowan driftf which 

 show alternating bands of fine sand and loess, the several lay- 

 ers are clearly marked. There is nowhere in it such mingling 

 with rock - debris as occurs in the Lansing deposit. The writer 

 has examined great numbers of loess-sections from Minnesota 

 to Mississippi, and from Nebraska to Indiana, but has not else- 

 where seen such a mixture excepting in very limited masses 

 where the evidences of land-slides were indisputable, or where 

 the environment indicated the very great probability of such 

 land - slides. 



Of the remaining citationst which are intended to sustain 

 the contention that such a heterogeneous mass as that which 

 entombed the Lansing remains may be loess, and which might 

 appear to have a real bearing on the question at issue, only 

 those from the reports of Calvin, Bain and Udden contain 



*P. 436, 1. c. For more complete discussion of McGee's observations 

 see the following article. 

 t vSee the following paper. 

 J See pp. 279-281, 1. c. 



