HISTORICAL REVIEW " 288 



deltas, chiefly because the inner margin of the frontal plain did not 

 everywhere accord in height with the deltas (645-650). We now see that 

 such accordance is not to be expected, as the uplift has a tilt of about 

 1.25 feet per mile in direction parallel to the face of the moraine in that 

 district. He explained the 80-foot terraces by glacial waters, but the 

 lower features were too wide-spread for such explanation, and he wrote 

 as follows: 



"As for the possibility of the 40-foot delta at College Point having been de- 

 posited at sealevel, it should be stated thit similar formations north of the 

 moraine indicate wide-spread waters at about this level. When these have 

 been fully investigated, it may be necessary to admit a submergence to this 

 ej.tent. What is stated here must be takt-n with this reservation in mind" 

 (page 658). 



A glance at the map, plate 10, will show that the features and altitudes 

 which Woodworth notes are all in perfect harmony with the uplifted and 

 tilted marine plain, and that the higher levels represent the theoretic 

 summit. Woodworth recognized the slope of the country. He says, page 

 644: 



"Just as the level of the deposits fall oif on the north side of the moraine 

 to the westward, so does the height of the ontwa.sh plain and, for that matter, 

 that of the moraine itself." 



And on page 646 : ' 



"The line of contact with the moraines gradually rises from west to east, 

 very much as the. elevation of the older Pleistocene increases on the north of 

 the moraine. Everywhere the plain appears to rise continuously to the base 

 of the moraines." 



This important character of the plain is described later, page 393. 



In 1902 E. D. Salisbury published the summation of his extended and 

 critical studies on the Pleistocene of New Jersey, which necessarily had 

 to include Staten Island and the west end of Long Island. In the New 

 York City Folio (23) he described the coastal plain features of Staten 

 Island and western Long Island and found no explanation except marine 

 submergence; but on account of the lack of distinct beaches and marine 

 fossils he did not make positive assertion of submergence. But in the 

 report on the glacial geology of New Jersey (24) he described a multi- 

 tude of features which indicated standing water and distinctly favored 

 the view that New Jersey had been submerged since the ice withdrawal 

 to a depth of 100 feet on the north boundary of the State and about 40 

 feet in the southern part of the State (24, pages 196-213, 508-513). 



The two most elaborate treatises on Long Island geology are by A. C. 

 Veatch and others on the underground water resources, iu 1906 (25), 



