re VIEWS III 
says that every stream emerging from the glacial area is marked by the 
lower system of terraces, and some of these enter the Allegheny-Ohio 
valley in that portion which the author admits to have been filled up 
to the high-level terrace plane, and the low terraces could only have 
been formed after the requisite deep excavation. It is also implied in 
the following, which calls for consideration on other grounds: ‘But 
whatever may be the difference of opinion about the age of tnese high- 
level gravels, there is no disagreement about the glacial character and 
relatively late age of the lower terraces along the Ohio River such as 
occur at Steubenville and Brilliant.’ In a loose sense it is true that 
the glacial character of these lower terraces is agreed upon, but this is 
a case in which no looseness is admissible. In a general way it may 
be said that the gravel deposits out of which these terraces have been 
cut were formed by the late glacial waters, but only a portion of them 
are strictly primary and retain the original surface of the deposits. 
Many of them are secondary in greater or less degree. Their upper 
plains were not formed in glacial times, but were fashioned by erosion 
out of the earlier deposits, and were reworked in the process. The 
extent to which the Ohio River then reworked its bed may doubtless 
be judged by what it is doing now. ‘The vertical range of the material 
which it is now working over is several times the depth at which the 
implement was found. It is quite necessary therefore to know whether 
the upper part of the Brilliant terrace is primary or secondary. ‘There 
are terraces on the river above and below it that reach 120 and 130 
feet above low water, while the implement-bearing terrace only reaches 
eighty feet. Here is a difference of a round third of the maximum 
height. If the difference is due to erosion it seriously compromises 
the case, for the date of the fashioning of the terrace might be quite 
late, and the implement might have been introduced in the reworking 
incident to it. The difference may, of course, be in part, or possibly 
altogether, due to original difference in height. But this must be 
demonstrated to make the case good. If it is merely assumed that the 
terrace surface is original, the conclusion dependent on it suffers all 
the uncertainties of the assumption. 
The nature of the implement is discussed in the article, and the 
opinions of several archzeologists respecting it are given. It is pro- 
nounced to be one of a very ancient form which has, however, always 
continued in use. 
The author indicates his views of the environment of the time as 
