AMERICAN GEOLOGY DECADE OF 1860-1869. 



543 



physical cause," and the occurrence of a large percentage of magnesia 

 in the hard parts of some groups of marine invertebrates, as the Milli- 

 pores, cited as a possible explanation of the origin of the rock, in this 

 following a suggestion made by Dana in the report of the Wilkes 

 Exploring Expedition. 



The sheet of clay and bowlders which was found directly overlying; 

 the polished surface of the rocks over so large a part of the State, and 

 which is now known as till and bowlder clay, was described under the 

 name of glacial drift, while the loose bowlders which are indiscrimi- 

 nately scattered over the State, frequently resting on the fine strati- 

 fied clays, were known under the name of "iceberg drift." 



Newberry conceived that, during the latter part of the glacial period, 

 a great inland sea of fresh water filled the basins before occupied by ice, 

 the northern shore of which was formed by the ice wall at the foot of 

 the glacier. The mud which was brought into this lake through the 

 grinding action of the glacier and there de- 

 posited formed the so-called Erie clays". 



For the rocks of the so-called olue lime- 

 stone series of the early geological surveys 

 he adopted the name Cincinnati group, as 

 first applied by Meek and Worthen. The 

 gypsum of the Salina group was regarded as 

 precipitated in continuous sheets and not to 

 have resulted from a change in the ordinary 

 limestones b}^ sulphuric acid, its had been 

 claimed for the gypsum beds of New York. 

 This is the view now commonly accepted. 



It appears that Colonel Whittlesey was 

 an aspirant for the position of State geolo- 

 gist at the time of Newbeny's appointment, 



and to judge from the tone of an article by Newberry published in the 



Cincinnati Commercial, a adopted rather unfair means to throw discredit 



upon the latter's work. In his reply Newberrv was 



The Newberry- L . i 1 1 • 



Whittlesey veiw bitter, stating that whatever may have been his 



Controversy, 1870. J .... . ' 



own qualifications for the work, W hittlesey was too old 

 and in too poor health to do good work, and also that he was not a good 

 geologist; that, further, he held to certain geological heresies which 

 would impair his work; that he believed in the mineral origin of coal, 

 and that the brown hematite ores of the Alleghenies were interstratified 

 with the limestones instead of being mere pockets. He further claimed 

 that Whittlesey was no paleontologist, and without paleontology no 

 man could be a good geologist. As an illustration of his deficiency 

 in this respect, Newberry referred to his (Whittlesey's) paper on the 



Fig. 82.— Charles Whittlesey. 



a March 28, 1870. 



