1905] CGRRESPONDENCE. - : 73 
The Editor OTTAWA NATURALIST. 
. Sir,—My attention has just been drawn to an article in the 
last number of THe NaTura.isT by R. Chalmers, LL.D., on ‘‘The 
Glaciation of Mount Orford.” This article is in the form of a 
reply to our recent paper by Professor C. H. Hitchcock, Dart- 
mouth College, Hanover, N.H., on ‘‘ The Glaciation of the Green 
Mountain Range” (Report of the State Geologist of Vermont, 
1903-4, Burlington, Vt.), and to a brief note on the subject of 
Mount Orford by the present writer (Canadian Record of Science, 
July, 1900). Unfortunately, it is the writers, rather than the 
subject, that receive the greater share of attention in this article. 
Yet a few words of explanation may help to remove any misappre- 
hension regarding the latter. 
In the annual report of the Geological Survey of Canada Dr. 
Chalmers advanced the view that Mount Orford and other hills in 
south-eastern Quzbec were not glaciated above an altitude of 
eighteen hundred feet. In 1898 Professor Hitchcock reported to 
the American Association for the Advancement of Science that 
glacial markings and drift were found by him at the summit of 
Mount Orford in the previous season. 
On the appearance of Dr. Chalmers’ report, early in 1900, 
the writer, quite unaware of Professor Hitchcock’s investigation, 
wrote the short paper above referred to, expressing the opinion 
that the mountain had been glaciated to the top, and that, conse- 
quently, the extreme height reached by the ice in south-eastern 
Quebec is not yet known. When in manuscript, this note was 
sent to the late Dr. G. M. Dawson, then Director of the Geolog- 
ical Survey, with the request that it should be also submitted to 
Dr. Chalmers. Dr. Dawson’s reply was to the effect that, the 
writer’s view being probably the correct one, there was ne objec- 
tion to its publication. Accordingly, after again visiting the sum- 
mit of the mountain, the article was published in July, 1900. It 
is, therefore, only after five years that Dr. Chalmers first ex- 
presses his dissent, and that, apparently, without having in the 
meantime re-visited the field. It is still more inexplicable that 
his criticism should now be so largely a personal one. 
Dr. Chalmers’ ground for discrediting the evidences of the 
