﻿140 
  8. 
  Powers 
  — 
  The 
  Butler 
  Salt 
  Dome. 
  

  

  He 
  finds 
  that 
  the 
  Brenham 
  dome 
  9 
  was 
  raised 
  600 
  to 
  900 
  

   feet 
  between 
  Cook 
  Mountain, 
  Eocene, 
  and 
  Lagarto, 
  Plio- 
  

   cene, 
  time 
  and 
  that 
  the 
  beds 
  of 
  the 
  latter 
  age 
  are 
  only 
  

   slightly 
  disturbed. 
  

  

  The 
  coastal 
  domes 
  appear 
  to 
  have 
  had 
  a 
  different 
  

   history 
  than 
  the 
  interior 
  dome 
  and 
  appear 
  not 
  to 
  be 
  con- 
  

   nected 
  in 
  any 
  way 
  with 
  them. 
  They 
  are 
  believed 
  to 
  have 
  

   arisen 
  later 
  than 
  those 
  to 
  the 
  north 
  10 
  and 
  the 
  time 
  of 
  

   uplift 
  was 
  probably 
  post-Lafayette, 
  pre-Port 
  Hudson. 
  11 
  

  

  Emphasis 
  is 
  placed 
  on 
  the 
  structural 
  location 
  of 
  Rou- 
  

   manian 
  salt 
  domes 
  in 
  synclinoria 
  by 
  Professor 
  Mrazec. 
  12 
  

   This 
  limitation 
  may 
  be 
  traced 
  in 
  the 
  domes 
  of 
  North 
  and 
  

   Central 
  America. 
  The 
  east 
  Texas 
  domes 
  are 
  known 
  to 
  

   be 
  in 
  a 
  deep 
  synclinal 
  area 
  on 
  the 
  west 
  side 
  of 
  the 
  Sabine 
  

   uplift, 
  the 
  north 
  Louisiana 
  domes 
  are 
  possibly 
  in 
  a 
  less 
  

   pronounced 
  synclinal 
  area 
  on 
  the 
  east 
  side 
  of 
  the 
  same 
  

   uplift. 
  The 
  coastal 
  domes 
  and 
  those 
  of 
  the 
  Isthmus 
  of 
  

   Tehuantepec 
  are 
  in 
  areas 
  of 
  deep 
  subsidence. 
  

  

  Theories 
  of 
  many 
  kinds, 
  few 
  of 
  which 
  are 
  based 
  on 
  an 
  

   intensive 
  study 
  of 
  well 
  records 
  and 
  cuttings 
  and 
  of 
  salt 
  

   mines 
  in 
  salt 
  domes, 
  have 
  been 
  presented 
  for 
  the 
  origin 
  

   of 
  salt 
  domes. 
  It 
  is 
  to 
  be 
  hoped 
  that 
  a 
  careful, 
  detailed 
  

   digest 
  and 
  analysis 
  of 
  the 
  hosts 
  of 
  unpublished 
  informa- 
  

   tion 
  about 
  salt 
  domes 
  will 
  soon 
  be 
  forthcoming. 
  

  

  Two 
  theories 
  which 
  meet 
  with 
  greatest 
  favor 
  at 
  pres- 
  

   ent 
  are 
  the 
  volcanic 
  and 
  the 
  tectonic. 
  The 
  former 
  does 
  

   not 
  explain 
  several 
  difficulties, 
  two 
  of 
  which 
  are 
  as 
  fol- 
  

   lows. 
  First, 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  known 
  vulcanism 
  near 
  the 
  

   domes 
  seems 
  confined 
  to 
  the 
  Upper 
  Cretaceous 
  at 
  about 
  

   the 
  time 
  of 
  the 
  deposition 
  of 
  the 
  Taylor 
  marl, 
  except 
  for 
  

   the 
  very 
  doubtful 
  "one 
  small 
  igneous 
  plug 
  of 
  late 
  Ter- 
  

   tiary 
  or 
  Quatenary 
  age" 
  which 
  "has 
  recently 
  been 
  dis- 
  

   covered 
  between 
  the 
  coastal 
  domes 
  and 
  those 
  in 
  northern 
  

  

  U. 
  S. 
  Geol. 
  Surv., 
  Bull. 
  661 
  G, 
  p. 
  263. 
  

  

  10 
  Alexander 
  Deussen, 
  The 
  Humble 
  oil 
  field, 
  Bull. 
  Southwestern 
  (Amer.) 
  

   Ass. 
  Petroleum 
  Geologists, 
  vol. 
  1, 
  p. 
  75, 
  1917. 
  

  

  11 
  E. 
  T. 
  Dumble, 
  Origin 
  of 
  the 
  Texas 
  Domes, 
  Amer. 
  Inst. 
  Min. 
  Engrs., 
  

   Bull. 
  143, 
  p. 
  1635, 
  1918. 
  William 
  Kennedy 
  dates 
  these 
  domes 
  as 
  Upper 
  

   Miocene 
  or 
  Lower 
  Pliocene, 
  Coastal 
  salt 
  domes, 
  Bull. 
  Southwestern 
  Ass. 
  

   Petrol. 
  Geol., 
  vol. 
  1, 
  p. 
  51, 
  1917. 
  

  

  12 
  L. 
  Mrazec, 
  and 
  W. 
  Teisseyre, 
  Apercu 
  geolgique 
  sur 
  les 
  formations 
  sali- 
  

   Bucarest, 
  1910; 
  L. 
  Mrazec, 
  Les 
  plis 
  a 
  noyaux 
  de 
  percement, 
  Bull, 
  Soc. 
  Sci. 
  

   feres 
  et 
  les 
  gisements 
  de 
  sel 
  en 
  Eoumaine, 
  Mon. 
  des 
  interets 
  pet. 
  Eou., 
  Nos. 
  

   43-51, 
  January-June, 
  1902; 
  L. 
  Mrazec, 
  L 
  'Industrie 
  du 
  Petrole 
  en 
  Eoumanie,. 
  

   Bucarest, 
  1910; 
  L. 
  Mrazec, 
  Les 
  plis 
  a 
  noyaux 
  de 
  percement, 
  Bull. 
  Soc. 
  Sci. 
  

   Bucarest, 
  1906. 
  

  

  