254 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXVI. No. 6G0 



tion of the results unquestionably arises from 

 this cause, and this is true of all studies in 

 seismic geography, as is fully set forth in my 

 report. That it has not exercised a controlling 

 influence upon the results, a careful reading of 

 the report should show. Were this not the 

 case, why should New York City, with its 

 population of more than 3,000,000, he repre- 

 sented by nine epicenters, and East Haddam, 

 Conn., by 145? why should Philadelphia have 

 seven epicenters, and Newburyport, Mass., 84? 

 Does it seem likely that in all southeastern 

 New Jersey the little hamlet of Toms River 

 should have been singled out for seismic 

 prominence; in eastern Maryland, Accomac; 

 and in the eastern Carolinas, Snow Hill? 



When Professor Davis says : " Indeed, there 

 is even less reason for thinking that seismo- 

 tectonic lines should be closely related to 

 centers of urban population than that rivers 

 should run by large cities," he is attaching 

 his handle at the wrong end. There is an 

 excellent and most obvious reason why large 

 cities should be located along the course of 

 rivers, and there is an equally potent reason 

 why seismoteetonic lines should generally in- 

 tersect large towns provided seismoteetonic 

 lines are expressed as lineaments. The seis- 

 moteetonic line, like the lineament, and the 

 proverbial horse, should come before the city 

 and the cart, respectively. The relation of 

 seismoteetonic lines to cities has been dis- 

 cussed in my report on page 225. 



doubtless be generally so interpreted by those 

 not familiar with the paper under review. 

 Stripped of some verbiage (baselevels, cycles 

 of erosion, revived erosion, etc., with which the 

 matter has little to do), the diseiission might 

 well have been taken from pages 254^-255 of 

 the paper reviewed, where I had supposed that 

 the matter was presented in a somewhat new 

 light. No possible objection can be raised to 

 Professor Davis's borrowing of this idea and 

 adopting it, but I should not like it to be sup- 

 posed that the view is not also my own. 



The subject of the straightness of fault 

 lines and lineaments has been taken up in my 

 report along the line of Professor Davis's 

 discussion of it (pp. 285-286), as it has also 

 in my earlier papers; and, I venture to think, 

 in a more nearly adequate fashion. Better 

 than any discussion of this subject is a pre- 

 sentation of evidence. Early in the present 

 season I suggested to Mr. W. D. Johnson, of 

 the United States Geological Survey, then as 

 now in the Owen's Valley, California, the 

 great desirability of securing photographs, and 

 if possible maps, of the earthquake faults 

 which were formed there in 1872. In response 

 to this suggestion Mr. Johnson has, with pains- 

 taking labor, prepared detailed maps covering 

 considerable areas of the -faulted region, and 

 these with an unusual generosity he has placed 

 at my disposal for study. These maps will 

 shortly be published and will make, I do not 

 hesitate to say, one of the most important of 



Fig. 1. Map of a zone of dislocation revealed at the surface after the earthquake in the Owens 

 Valley, California, in 1872. Surveyed by Mr. W. D. Johnson, U. S. Geological Survey, in June, 

 1907. Scale, 240 feet equal one inch. The figures indicate throws, and the an'ows the facings of the 

 scarps. 



The second portion of Professor Davis's 

 review, which is headed " Eault Scarps and 

 Fault-line Scarps," from the manner of its 

 presentation would give the impression that it 

 is in opposition to my own view, and it will 



contributions to the science of seismology. 

 The portion of one of these areas which is 

 printed herewith, sets forth the complex na- 

 ture of a zone of displacement; especially, 

 however, its zigzagging course, its sudden 



