REVIEWS 219 
It should be noted, also, that the locality where the implement was 
found is near the west side of the trough of the river, whose entire 
width is here fully one mile. This is just one of those positions, 
therefore, in which we might look for a diminution both in the original 
height of the terrace and in the coarseness of its material, since all rivers 
in building up a flood-plain deposit the coarser material near the main 
current, and consequently build up the plain higher there than on the 
margins. I see therefore no reason to be shaken in my conviction that 
the terrace at Brilliant is approximately as old as that of the 130-foot 
terrace at Beaver, but it is a question to which I trust specific attention 
will be given by others. G. FREDERICK WRIGHT. 
OBERLIN, Ohio, February 15, 1896. 
Place is cheerfully given to the foregoing as it is helpful in bringing 
out more precisely and amply the question of the age of the terrace at 
Brilliant. It is also helpful in making additionally clear the fact, 
urged in the review, that the age of the terrace is an open question of 
interpretation rather than a firm conclusion based upon substantial 
demonstration. ‘The brief statement of the review was unquestionably 
inadequate, but its defects were, we think, less favorable to the grounds 
of doubt urged by the reviewer than to the grounds of belief enter- 
tained by the author, as will perhaps appear from further consideration 
of the case. 
A rigorous discussion of the question would necessarily be lengthy 
and would require data as yet undetermined, but a few of the more 
obvious considerations necessary to a safe interpretation may be briefly 
indicated. 
The view entertained by Professor Wright that the glacial filling 
would naturally be highest at the mouths of the main streams which 
came down from the edge of the ice is not an improbable one, though 
not necessarily the only one. The conception involves a series of 
sudden rises in the river bottom at the mouths of the tributaries followed 
by declines below them; in the present case, a rise to 130 feet at the 
mouth of the Beaver River; a decline down stream to some unknown 
level below 80 feet; another rise to 110 feet at the mouth of the Mus- 
kingum River, a second decline, and again a rise to 120 feet near the 
mouth of the Little Miami. The case is really more complicated than 
this, because it involves the deposits of the Scioto, Great Miami and 
minor streams, but this is immaterial for present purposes. 
