﻿418 
  J. 
  Barrel! 
  — 
  The 
  Piedmont 
  Terraces 
  

  

  the 
  higher 
  mountainous 
  areas 
  is 
  correctly 
  interpreted 
  as 
  

   fixing 
  the 
  position 
  of 
  the 
  Cretaceous 
  shore-line, 
  then 
  the 
  

   Becket 
  and 
  Canaan 
  terraces 
  would 
  have 
  essentially 
  the 
  

   positions 
  indicated 
  on 
  the 
  profile. 
  

  

  It 
  should 
  be 
  noted 
  that 
  Professor 
  Barrell, 
  in 
  his 
  early 
  

   studies, 
  recognized 
  two 
  peneplanes 
  in 
  the 
  region 
  covered 
  

   by 
  the 
  oldest 
  terraces 
  to 
  which 
  he 
  assigned 
  a 
  subaerial 
  

   origin. 
  They 
  lie 
  at 
  lower 
  elevations 
  than 
  the 
  restored 
  

   marine 
  terraces 
  and, 
  it 
  may 
  be 
  said, 
  appear 
  to 
  be 
  parts 
  of 
  

   what 
  has 
  long 
  been 
  considered 
  a 
  single 
  erosion 
  surface 
  — 
  

   the 
  uplifted 
  and 
  dissected 
  "Cretaceous" 
  peneplain. 
  

   The 
  profile 
  gives 
  evidence 
  of 
  such 
  a 
  surface, 
  but 
  hills 
  

   which 
  rise 
  distinctly 
  higher 
  should 
  be 
  considered 
  eroded 
  

   remnants 
  of 
  the 
  Cretaceous 
  marine 
  peneplanes. 
  If 
  this 
  

   upland 
  is 
  rightly 
  considered 
  as 
  indicating 
  peneplanation, 
  

   and 
  the 
  concensus 
  of 
  opinion 
  is 
  that 
  it 
  does, 
  then 
  the 
  

   interesting 
  question 
  arises, 
  under 
  Professor 
  Barrell 
  's 
  

   interpretation 
  of 
  the 
  physiographic 
  history, 
  as 
  to 
  the 
  

   time 
  of 
  planation. 
  Discussion 
  of 
  this 
  point 
  logically 
  

   falls 
  in 
  the 
  next 
  section 
  (History), 
  but 
  it 
  may-also 
  be 
  con- 
  

   veniently 
  considered 
  here 
  in 
  connection 
  with 
  the 
  general 
  

   profile 
  of 
  the 
  terraces. 
  

  

  Professor 
  Barrell 
  considered 
  that 
  the 
  Eocene 
  was 
  a 
  

   "long 
  period 
  of 
  subaerial 
  erosion" 
  and 
  the 
  same 
  may 
  be 
  

   said 
  for 
  the 
  Miocene. 
  During 
  both 
  these 
  epochs 
  the 
  

   shore-line 
  was 
  supposed 
  to 
  be 
  located 
  not 
  far 
  from 
  the 
  

   present 
  shore 
  of 
  Long 
  Island 
  Sound 
  and 
  consequently 
  it 
  

   may 
  be 
  concluded 
  that 
  the 
  region 
  under 
  discussion 
  was 
  

   considerably 
  elevated 
  during 
  both 
  epochs 
  as 
  the 
  result 
  of 
  

   uplift 
  combined 
  with 
  the 
  tilting 
  movement 
  which 
  was 
  in 
  

   progress. 
  Further, 
  it 
  must 
  be 
  granted 
  that 
  there 
  was 
  

   sufficient 
  time 
  during 
  both 
  epochs 
  for 
  erosion 
  to 
  reduce 
  

   the 
  land 
  to 
  low 
  relief 
  if 
  the 
  existing 
  surfaces 
  correctly 
  

   indicate 
  former 
  peneplanation. 
  On 
  the 
  other 
  hand, 
  it 
  

   may 
  be 
  supposed 
  that 
  peneplanation 
  could 
  not 
  have 
  

   occurred 
  in 
  the 
  Oligocene 
  because 
  the 
  position 
  of 
  the 
  

   shore-line 
  far 
  inland 
  from 
  the 
  present 
  coast 
  would 
  indi- 
  

   cate 
  a 
  low 
  elevation 
  above 
  sea-level 
  for 
  the 
  region 
  and 
  a 
  

   correspondingly 
  slight 
  degradation; 
  nor 
  in 
  the 
  Pliocene 
  

   and 
  Pleistocene, 
  for 
  then 
  the 
  land 
  was 
  being 
  uplifted 
  and 
  

   erosion 
  confined 
  largely 
  to 
  valley 
  cutting. 
  

  

  It 
  appears, 
  therefore, 
  that 
  if 
  two 
  peneplains 
  are 
  to 
  be 
  

   recognized 
  the 
  older 
  may 
  be 
  given 
  an 
  Eocene 
  age, 
  the 
  

   younger 
  a 
  Miocene; 
  or 
  if 
  but 
  one 
  peneplain 
  was 
  devel- 
  

  

  