SOME RIVERS OF CONNECTICUT. 38 1 



follow courses re -adjusted in one cycle and revived in a later 

 uplift. 



We can assert with the more confidence that such was the 

 history of the upper Housatonic, because we find in other states, 

 in regions whose history has been the same, similar examples of 

 "conformably superimposed" and "revived" streams. The Mus- 

 conetcong and Pequest, highland rivers of New Jersey, are 

 streams "revived" from mature old age to vigorous youth 

 and "conformably superimposed" upon saddles of gneiss be- 

 tween two limestone valleys.^ 



Unconformable rivers. In considering the course of the lower 

 Housatonic we meet with some difficulty at the outset. In 

 the southern part of the town of New Milford the river leaves 

 the limestone belt which continues with some slight interruptions 

 to the Hudson, and swings sharply into the crystalline plateau 

 in a southeasterly course until it is joined by the Naugatuck, 

 when their united waters flow south for a few miles to the sound. 

 The course of the lower Connecticut is even more surprising. 

 At Middletown it leaves the broad open Triassic sandstone low- 

 land, and through a gorge enters the plateau, which has an 

 average elevation of 600 to 700 feet. In this plateau of crystal- 

 lines the river has sunk its valley nearly to sea -level. The 

 slopes are steep compared to the lines in the sandstone lowland, 

 and the contrast between the two parts of the river is one of 

 the striking features of Connecticut scenery. Several theories 

 may be framed to account for the curious behavior of these two 

 rivers, but none of them are free from all difficulty. 



As a consequent river. The lower Connecticut has been 

 thought^ to be a revived river, whose course was consequent upon 

 the post -Triassic tilting and faulting. The faulted monocline 

 seems to have had the shape of a half -boat, ends to the north 

 and south, and one gunwale rising toward the west, the combined 

 effect of the tilting and faulting being to swing the river to the 

 southeast, where the keel of the boat was lowest. The proba- 



' Davis, W. M., "Geographic Development of Northern New Jersey," p. 397-8. 

 "Davis, W. M., Amer. Jour, of Sci., 3d Ser. vol. xxxvii., 1889, p. 432. 



