702 \V. J. MILLER PRE-CAMBRIAN FOLDING IN NORTH AMERICA 



northern ^ew York than anyone else ought to make my conclusion worth 

 something. 



In his third point Dr. Eueclemann defends his conclusion regarding 

 uniformity of direction of pre-Cambrian folding by saying that the con- 

 clusion is based upon evidence gathered from an extensive literature on 

 pre-Cambrian geology. My answer is that for years I have been study- 

 ing this same literature; that I have very recently reviewed hundreds of 

 pieces of this literature, and that I find the evidence pointing to a con- 

 clusion different from that of Dr. Euedemann. Like him, all I ask is 

 that the evidence and conclusions which I present shall be given "a fair 

 and unbiased trial" by students of the pre-Cambrian. 



Dr. Euedemann's statement falls wide of the mark, as my paper plainly 

 shows, when he says that I judge his paper, dealing with a worldwide 

 order of magnitude, "from the study of a very limited area in the Adi- 

 rondacks alone." 



Finally, I do not agree with Dr. Euedemann that he has carefully 

 separated cases of pre-Cambrian and post-Cambrian folding, as brought 

 out in various parts of my paper. 



If, as Professor Coleman states, the pre-Cambrian structures of north- 

 ern Ontario mainly run from north 50 to 80 degrees east, they certainly 

 are not even approximately parallel to the edge of the Canadian Shield 

 in that general region. Furthermore, on the basis of Coleman's own 

 work, the pre-Cambrian structure of northern Labrador is conspicuously 

 out of harmony with Dr. Euedemann's trend-lines. 



Miss Fuller's observations in a local portion of the Front Eange of 

 Colorado do harmonize with Euedemann's conclusion, as my map shows; 

 but the pre-Cambrian structural trend is there exceptional for much of 

 the Eocky Mountain region of the United States, even that part of the 

 region just to the north, in Wyoming. 



