GLACIAL LAKE MAUMEE. 347 



average crest of the highest beach. It seems probable, therefore, that the highest beach rises 

 in this interval from 7S3 or 7S4 feet to 790 feet, the distance being about 75 miles and the 

 rate of rise, therefore, about 0.1 foot to the mile. The same gentle rise of the highest beach 

 probably occurs between the head of the outlet near Fort Wayne and some point northeast 

 of Bryan, Ohio, but accurate data for its determination are not now at hand. Again, from 

 the vicinity of Fairfield, Mich., to Birmingham the beach appears to rise between 5 and 10 feet, 

 the distance being about 65 miles. But in this last area there may be some complication. 



The long, gentle slopes of the Maumee beaches, 0.1 foot or less to the mile, may represent 

 the effect of ice attraction at a distance from the front. It is an extremely small deformation, 

 but it seems more nearly what one would expect from a relatively small, thin ice lobe, like 

 that related to Lake Maumee at the stages in question, than the larger deformation of 1 foot 

 to the mile in the case worked out by Woodward. 



Near Findlay and near Cleveland and at perhaps two or three other localities the beaches 

 seem to record a relatively short, steep rise of the water plane at the immediate front of 

 the ice. The long, gentle slopes of the beaches described here seem to represent the effect of 

 ice attraction at a distance and stand in obvious contrast to the other effect. Considered as 

 results of ice attraction, both of these phenomena seem normal in their distribution with regard 

 to the ice sheet and with regard to each other. 



It would seem utterly hopeless to look for such small effects of deformation as the long, 

 gentle slopes described above in areas where other causes of deformation have operated. Only 

 in the so-called area of horizontal^, where other causes of deformation seem not to have 

 operated, or to have been of a still smaller order of magnitude, could such slight deformations 

 be recognized. 



In the area of horizontality all the shore lines below the Maumee beaches, except two of 

 the Arkona beaches which converge slightly southward, appear to be perfectly horizontal; that 

 is to say, their variations of altitude appear to be so small that they fall well within the limits 

 of variation which attend the formation of all beaches on account of the varying height of the 

 deposits from point to point along the shore. This fact has in it something of the quality of 

 confirmation of the supposition that it was ice attraction which produced the two peculiar 

 deformations of the Maumee beaches described above, for the ice front was not near by when 

 those later beaches were formed at lower levels, and the ice attraction can hardly be considered 

 as an appreciable disturbing factor. The first and second Arkona beaches appear to merge 

 southward in one, only two ridges occurring in Ohio. (See p. 372.) The cause of this relation 

 is obscure and seems hardly referable to ice attraction. 



Some doubt, however, remains as to whether the two classes of deformation ascribed to ice 

 attraction are, in fact, represented in an unmixed way in the phenomena described. Certain 

 other factors, such as strong winds, may have operated to raise or lower the water of the lake 

 and with it the zone of wave action. The deformations that produced the long, gentle slopes 

 were not much greater than the disturbances of lake level observed in recent years on Lake 

 Erie. The wind effects, however, are not distributed like the deformations, for it is of record 

 that a heavy northeaster has raised the lake at Toledo about as much as a heavy southwester 

 has at Buffalo. 



The main part of the large deformation of the old shore lines farther north is ascribed by 

 most students to resilience following depression by the weight of the ice sheet. But when the 

 ice sheet of the Wisconsin invasion was at its maximum it reached 50 to 100 miles beyond the 

 southern shores of Lakes Maumee and Chicago and covered all of the area of horizontality, so 

 far as its limits are indicated by the beaches. 



Though this area was not subjected to the maximum ice weighting, it was nevertheless 

 subjected to very considerable pressure — enough to lead one to expect at least some small 

 resilience on its removal. But the distribution and relations of the small deformations observed 

 within the area of horizontality do not appear to be in accord with such a cause. Furthermore, 

 if there has been even a very slight deformation due to ice weighting and resilience it could 

 hardly fail to complicate and obscure in greater or less degree the deformation due to ice attrac- 



