48 THE PHYSICAL FEATURES OF CECIL COUNTY 



it where it had been depressed. Consequently the three formations 

 near the Piedmont were developed in separate terraces lying one 

 above the other, the Lafayette at the top, with the earlier Columbia 

 in the middle and the later Columbia at the bottom, while in the 

 eastern submerged portion the formations were not developed in 

 terraces, but in a continual series, with an erosive break between the 

 Lafayette and the earlier Columbia. In this region the sequence ran, 

 beginning at the top, later Columbia, earlier Columbia, and Lafayette. 



Professor E. D. Salisbury has been engaged for the last ten years 

 in the investigation, of a similar series of deposits in New Jersey. 

 His interpretation of the surflcial deposits in that state has led him to 

 divide them, beginning with the oldest, into the Bridgeton, Pensauken 

 and Cape May formations and a high level loam. It has been found, 

 however, that the classification adopted by the New Jersey Surveys 

 up to May, 1901, could not be applied to the surflcial deposits as 

 interpreted in Maryland. 



In May, 1901, the writer published a paper on " The Pleistocene 

 Problem of the North Atlantic Coastal Plain." In this com- 

 munication, the work of previous investigators was summarized 

 and compared, and the conclusions which the author had reached in 

 his study of the Columbia deposits of Maryland were given at some 

 length. As these conclusions are discussed below, they will not be 

 reviewed in this place, other than to say that the Columbia was 

 divided, beginning with the oldest, into the Sunderland, Wicomico 

 and Talbot formations, which were described as developed in terraces 

 lying one above the other and separated by well-pronounced scarp 

 lines. Several months after this paper had been published, another 

 contribution on the same subject by Professor P. D. Salisbury ap- 

 peared in the Peport of the State Geologist of New Jersey for 1900. 

 This paper carries the date of November, 1900, but embodied in 

 its text are certain formational names applied to the classification of 

 the Columbia deposits in Maryland which were not published before 

 May, 1901, and one of them not even suggested before that date; it 

 would therefore seem that an error must have crept into the dating 

 of Professor Salisbury's paper. 



