342 REPORT OF NATIONAL MUSEUM, 1904. 



EI. D. Rogers-Hitchcock controversy referred to elsewhere (p. 314), 

 that in his report for 1838 Rogers described in considerable detail 

 "the extraordinary phenomenon of inversion" presented throughout 

 the. long - reach of North Mountains, whereby tin 1 entire series from 

 formations II to VEII, inclusive, were found to lie conformably one 

 upon the other, but in a reversed stratigraphical position; that is, the 

 oldest above and the youngest at the bottom. No attempt, however, 

 was made to account for the same. 



In the report for 1839 the Tertiary marl south of the James River 

 was described in detail and its Eocene and Miocene subdivisions recog- 

 nized. In that for 1840 was given a list of the fossils found in the 

 Miocene marls, and attention called to the discovery of a " remarkable 

 stratum varying from 12 to 25 feet in thickness, composed almost 

 entirely of microscopic fossils (Diatoms), and lying between the 

 Eocene and Miocene, but referred to neither." This, the first discov- 

 ery of its kind in the United States, was referred to as an "infusory 

 stratum." The coarse "middle secondary ,1 conglomerates of Vir- 

 ginia, corresponding to the Potomac marble (Triassic) of Maryland, 

 he regarded as having been deposited by strong currents coming from 

 the southeast which laid down their load in a long, narrow trough 

 extending from southwest to the northeast; such "being deposited in 

 successive layers, commencing at its southeastern margin, would nat- 

 urally assume the attitude of strata dipping toward the northwest." 



When one considers the condition of the country at the time Rogers 

 did his work — the lack of facilities for transportation, the entire lack 

 of maps sufficiently accurate for purposes of plotting, the deep mantle 

 of residuary material that nearl} r everywhere obscured the more solid 

 rocks, and that there were no railroad cuts or other artificial exposures, 

 such as exist to-day — one can but admire its accuracy. It is not yet 

 too late to express regrets that the parsimony of the legislature should 

 have stood in the way of the preparation of a final report. 



W. B. Rogers undoubtedly derived a portion of his enthusiasm for 

 geology from his brother Henry. The first manifestations of this 

 mental trend appeared while professor of natural philosophy and 

 chemistry at William and Mary College in 1833, when he set on foot 

 inquiries relative to the greensand marl of Virginia. His first pub- 

 lication, as given in his biography, however, related to artesian w T ells 

 and appeared in the Farmer's Register of Richmond (1834-35). 



The poverty of his resources in 1835, while hopefully agitating the 

 establishment of a State geological survey for Virginia, can not be bet- 

 ter illustrated than by noting the request sent to his brother Henry, in 

 Philadelphia, for the chemicals and apparatus mentioned below to be 



a In 1843 Tnomey announced the discovery of an infusorial stratum at Petersburg, 

 in Virginia. This he referred to the lower portion of the Miocene. 



