HEIGHT OF NEW BOGOSLOF 307 



and Cantwell photographed several of the noteworthy fea- 

 tures, and Lieutenant Cantwell and Dr. Yemans made 

 various notes, which are embodied in the reports I had 

 the honor to forward to the Department." 



These reports contain reference to certain photographs 

 and sketches additional to those published, and to a chart 

 of the islands which likewise failed to appear in the 

 printed document. Through the courtesy of Captain 

 Shoemaker, Chief of the U. S. Revenue-Marine Service, 

 the archives of the Revenue-Marine were searched and 

 the missing sketches, including Cantwell's original manu- 

 script chart (fig. 1 6), were found and placed at my dis- 

 posal. Lieutenant Doty, who some time since resigned 

 from the service, has had the great kindness to loan me 

 his original negatives. It is hardly necessary to call at- 

 tention to the importance of these records of conditions 

 long since past and gone. Cantwell's chart and sketch 

 ' A ' (fig. 1 8), and some of Lieutenant Doty's photographs 

 (figs. 4, 17, and three full page plates) are here repro- 

 duced. 1 From them, and the reports of the ' Corwin,' 

 the condition of the islands in May, 1884, may be summa- 

 rized as follows : 



The height of the new volcano was 500 feet or a little 

 less. Its upper third was cleft by a ' great fissure,' some- 

 times spoken of as ' the crater,' extending in a NE and 

 sw direction and dividing the summit into two unequal 

 parts, the northwestern of which was much the larger and 

 higher. The eastern part was estimated to comprise only 

 about a fifth of the mass, and its height was given as 403 

 feet. The summit of the larger peak was so obscured by 

 clouds of steam that it could not be measured, but it was 

 estimated to rise about 75 feet above the smaller one, or 



1 It should be put on record that the data on the originals show that the points 

 of the compass printed under the photographs of Bogoslof in the reports on 

 the ' Cruise of the Corwin ' for 1884 and 1885, are almost without exception 

 erroneous. 



