536 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SAINT LOUIS MEETING 



ago ; it is quite possible that the parallelisms of today may appear 

 equally absurd forty years hence. In any event one can not fail to 

 recognize the skill and ingenuity displayed in the chapters on the alpha- 

 bet and on arkite symbolism, in which a great superstructure rises on 

 the words " bar " and " ark," this petty foundation seeming to expand as 

 the work proceeds, until at length the whole superstructure appears to 

 rest secure. 



Professor Lesley's great work was performed as director of the Second 

 Geological Survey of Pennsylvania. He was head rather than director. 

 An assistant once appointed was left practically to his own devices ; but 

 there was something about the personality of the director that impelled 

 each one to do faithful work, that made the unambitious man ambitious. 

 When the second survey was authorized the conditions were much the 

 same as when Rogers undertook the first survey. There were few 

 trained geologists in the country, and most of those were connected with 

 one or the other of the United States surveys. Professor Lesley had to 

 begin with young men, of whom only three or four had had any experience 

 whatever in field work. He dealt with them generously, considerately, 

 and, remembering his own earl} 7 work, held them in all confidence. At 

 times, indeed, he forgot that they w T ere not men of broad experience, 

 and his criticisms were none too mild. At others, unstrung by con- 

 tinuous application, he misunderstood the text of a report or misinter- 

 preted a letter, and relieved himself in a communication which was a 

 model of terseness and clearness, and which usually provoked a rejoinder 

 approximately clear and terse. But such misunderstandings were of 

 brief duration ; breaches were healed quickly by his whole-souled repa- 

 ration, and temporary ruptures served in the end to knit him and the 

 assistants more closely than before. 



Yet in one direction Professor Lesley never could forget during the 

 early years of the survey that his assistants were inexperienced, and his 

 constant anxiety was to prevent that lack of experience from doing 

 injury either to them or to the state. In those days the time of proof- 

 reading was often a time of perplexity to authors of reports, who fre- 

 quently discovered parenthetical comments or argumentative foot-notes 

 which were not in every case edifying. Lesley had reconnoitered most 

 of the state during the first survey, and in after } 7 ears he had made 

 detailed studies in many disconnected portions, especially in the coal, 

 oil, and iron areas, so that he had well defined opinions respecting almost 

 all localities. When assistants arrived at conclusions contrary to his 

 own he felt compelled to present what he believed to be the more accu- 

 rate conceptions. 



The results of the work in each district were summarized in prefaces to 



