220 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences^ Arts^ and Letters. 



ence are the less conspicuous character and massiveness of the 

 Ohio range, and the greater prevalence of rssorted and stratified 

 material ; in other words, its features are the same that the Kettle 

 range presents in its more subdued aspects, especially where it is 

 formed in a comparatively smooth country, and is flanked by 

 pebble clays, with level surface, instead of coarse boulder clay, 

 with ridged, or mammillary, contour. I cannot turn aside, here, 

 to define, with sufficient circumspection, the distinction between 

 these clays, further than to indicate my belief that the former are 

 Bub-aqueous, and the latter sub- serial, or, if you please, sub- 

 glacial, deposits.-' 



Where I have seen the Ohio formation, it presents almost pre- 

 cisely the characteristics that are exhibited by the Kettle range 

 in northern Illinois, where it is similarly related to plane topog- 

 raphy and pebble clays, and it is also very similar to the same 

 formation opposite Green Bay, where it is bordered on both sides 

 by red lacustrine clays of later date. Dr. Newberry quite clearly 

 recognizes the parallelism, but perhaps not the identity, of the 

 formations.^ Col. C. Whittlesey, in his article on the "Fresh 

 Water Glacial Drift of the Northwestern States," ^ classes the 

 formations together as identical in character, though he does not 

 seem to have considered them members of a continuous forma- 

 tion, and could not well do so with the prevalent view, which he 

 somewhat emphasizes, that it is peculiarly a sujnmii formation. It 

 very often does occupy the summit of a rock terrane, and it soijie- 

 times forms a watershed by its own massiveness, but it likewise 

 occupies slopes and crosses valleys, as shown in detail in the Wis- 

 consin report. Prof. Andrews of the Ohio survey, in a personal 

 communication, adds his conviction that the Ohio and Wisconsin 

 deposits are parallel formations. It would seem, then, that the 

 only question relates to the continuity of the belts. Unfortunately 

 there intervenes the Wabash valley, the ancient drainage channel 



1 1 have mapped these formatiOEs separately in Eastern Wisconsin. See Atlas accompa- 

 nying Vol. II, Geol. of Wis., 1877, [Plate III, Map of Quaternary formations. See, also, 

 p. 225 of the volume. 



" Geol. Surv. of Ohio, Vol. II, pp. 4, 5, and 43. Dr. Newberry's views as to the origin of 

 the Ohio " Kame" belt are r.t variance with those here presented. 



3 Smithsonian Contributions, 1866. 



