.MAIJYLAXD GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 27 



shore line of Chesapeake Bay along the Richards Cliff es (Calvert Cliffs) 

 is characteristic, but the cliffs themselves are represented by conventional 

 liillocks which are employed consistently in other portions of the map 

 to represent areas of elevation. The Patuxent Kiver is also defined with 

 surprising accuracy and the surface of the county is dotted over with 

 names of Indian settlements and witli trees of various kinds which were 

 probably meant to indicate different types of forest growth. 



In 1635 the Lord Baltimore map appeared. This map included most of 

 tidewater Maryland, but when compared witli the Smith map of the same 

 region, is far less accurate in detail and very much more crude in execu- 

 tion. Calvert County is well defined and in outlines does not differ 

 markedly from the same region represented by Smith. A hillock shows 

 roughly the position of the Calvert Cliffs and the same methods which 

 were used by Smith are employed to represent forests. 



In 1651, the Farrer map of the environs of Chesapeake Bay and the 

 surrounding country was published. Tliis map, which was drawn by 

 Virginia Farrer, was distorted so as to prove that " in ten dayes march 

 with 50 foote and 30 horsemen from the head of leames Eiver, ouer 

 those hills and through the rich adiacent Vallyes beautified with proffit- 

 able river which necessarily must run into yt peacefull Indian Sea " one 

 might arrive in New Albion or California. In this map, the region now 

 occupied l)y Calvert County was so distorted that the map was practically 

 useless. 



Fiften years later, in 1G66, George Alsop published a map which em- 

 braced the environs of Chesapeake Bay from a point in Virginia a little 

 south of the Potomac Eiver northward to what is now in part Delaware 

 and Pennsylvania. The map was issued in a small pamphlet and was 

 based on personal observation throughout the region represented. Al- 

 though many of the details which wore placed on the map had been 

 obtained by personal exploration, still Alsop was doubtless familiar with 

 the early Smith map and was guided not a little by it. The map is on 

 a larger scale and shows more detail than represented by Smith, yet it 

 adds little to the real knowledge of the region, because of its diagram- 

 matic character and extremely distorted proportions. It is just such a 



