F. H. Bigelow — The Theory of the Solar Corona. 505 



entering the basin should have halted at the immediate shore, 

 and deposited their loads. Besides, the coarse deposits are not 

 of the heterogeneous character typical of morainal accumula- 

 tions, but are stratified and cross-bedded. It has been stated 

 by those who claim that the deposits in question are of glacial 

 origin, that they contain bowlders three to four feet in diame- 

 ter, and therefore such as only ice could have handled and 

 transported My own observations have shown that bowlders 

 either rounded or sub-angular, of the size indicated are not 

 rare. Huge angular masses of rock like those to be seen on 

 nearly every Alpine glacier, however, never occur. Those of 

 my readers who have followed the Appalachian rivers south of 

 the southern margin of the drift, will remember many instances 

 where streams are encumbered with bowlders of even larger 

 size than those mentioned above. These are being swept along 

 by every flood, and did the streams empty into lakes, would be 

 deposited in shore conglomerates. It may be remarked also, 

 that river ice might have assisted in the movement of the 

 Newark bowlders, without supposing the existence of glaciers. 

 After reviewing the voluminous literature relating to the 

 Newark system and personally examining nearly every area 

 occupied by it, I fail to find any evidence to support the hy- 

 pothesis that glaciers assisted in its deposition. That there 

 may have been glaciers on the Appalachians previous to or 

 during the Newark period, is within the bounds of possibility, 

 but as yet there is no evidence in this connection on which to 

 base an opinion ; we can only say that if they were present 

 during the period under discussion, they did not reach the 

 estuaries in which sediments were being deposited. 



Washington, D. C, Feb. 15, 1891. 



Akt. LXI. — A reply to Professor Cipher on " The Theory 

 of the Solar Corona" ; by F. H. Bigelow. 



In the Report of the Washington University Eclipse Party, 

 on the Total Eclipse of the Sun, January 1, 1889, Professor 

 Francis E. Nipher makes a criticism of my paper on the Solar 

 Corona published by the Smithsonian Institution, 1889. The 

 theory which I have proposed is of itself sufficiently technical 

 in a mathematical sense, not to be burdened with an inaccurate 

 or irrelevant criticism, and I therefore wish to make the three 

 following observations on Professor Nipher's Report. 



1. The mathematical non sequitur of the work on pages 22, 

 23 is so obvious as to need no special comment. I am informed 

 that the equation for the line of force which should follow 



