Maryland Geological Survey 35 



materially advanced. Finch objects to the use of the term " alluvial " 

 for these formations and states that they are " contemporaneous with the 

 newer Secondary and Tertiary formations " of France, England, and 

 other countries. 



The credit for the first definite recognition of the Cretaceous deposits 

 of the Atlantic Coastal Plain must be ascribed to Lardner Vanuxem. 

 The results of his observations were placed in the hands of his friend, 

 S. G. Morton, for publication in the Journal of the Academy of Natural 

 Sciences of Philadelphia, where they appeared in 1829. His views were 

 more briefly stated under his own signature in the American Journal of 

 Science later the same year. During the same year, as well as in the 

 year immediately succeeding the publication of Vanuxem's articles, 

 several contributions were made by S. G. Morton, both in the Journal 

 of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia and the American 

 Journal of Science on the organic remains of the Cretaceous deposits 

 of various portions of the country to which he gave the name of " Fer- 

 ruginous Sand Formation." Several forms from the Chesapeake and 

 Delaware Canal were described. The results of his investigations were 

 finally combined in 1834 in an important work entitled, " Synopsis of 

 the Organic Eemains of the Cretaceous Group of the United States." 

 The year following, Morton proposed a division of the Cretaceous of 

 the United States into three groups, and this view was further stated 

 in 1842. The uppermost of these groups, however, is now generally 

 regarded as of Tertiary age. 



In 1834 the first State Geological Survey of Maryland was organized 

 under the direction of J. T. Ducatel as State Geologist, and in his report 

 for the year 1835 he makes the first definite statement of the occurrence 

 of Upper Cretaceous marine deposits in Maryland by referring to the 

 presence of " Jersey marl " in Cecil and Kent counties, although he 

 brings forward no paleontological evidence in support of his claim. He 

 further adds in regard to the wider distribution of the Cretaceous that 

 " we should be cautious not to arrive at general conclusions too hastily." 



In his report for 1836 Ducatel says: " It will be recollected that at the 



