Hid 
290 The Mesozoic Sandstone of the Atlantic Slope. [May, 
the Trias was south-east, in New Jersey north-west, while in Vir- 
ginia and North Carolina the flexed structure was apparent. 
This is more definitely stated on p. 11, where by the aid of a 
diagram it is insisted that the Triassic beds in New Jersey and 
Connecticut are but flanks of a great arch, the upper portions of 
which have been removed by denudation. The lithological 
evidence which the writer has accumulated in favor of this old 
view must be considered of value. Mr. Heinrich enunciates the 
same view, pp. 22 and 23, but on the ground of supposed analogy 
between the James and Hudson rivers, and indeed this structure 
has been accepted, if not with the foundation which Mr. Russell 
now gives to it, by many geologists from the date of the first 
Geological Surveys of New York and Pennsylvania to the present 
time. 
Apropos of the writer’s views of the possible agency of the traps 
as lines of displacement, it is worth observing that the largest and 
strongest dykes are found by Frazer (Report CC, Second Geol. 
Surv. of Penna., p. 325), and Heinrich, to follow planes of cleav- 
age. This fact,as stated in the first part of the above,is proof that 
no large amount of displacement took place, since the strata them- 
selves and other beds of trap parallel with the bedding, which 
pursue one direction, and those cleavage dykes, are as so many 
keys to structure, for xo displacement of beds could take place 
without displacing these. Rogers’ theory of the apparent great 
accumulation of the Mesozoic beds is not quite correctly stated, 
p. 9 (See note on this subject in Frazer’s Position of Am. New 
Red, &c., p. 5). 
The supposition that the conglomerate was derived from the 
accumulation of pebbles at the mouths of rivers, is not borne out 
by observations of this characteristic rock along the western 
border of the Trias in Pennsylvania, for it is uniform in character 
for long distances, and according to Fontaine, the most abundant 
stones in Virginia could not have come from a point further south 
than the Lower Silurian of Pennsylvania. 
The two authors, Prof. Fontaine and Mr. Russell, unite in their 
belief that the Triassic conglomerate is an important landmark in 
the formation, but they ascribe its origin to very different causes. 
Whereas the former imagines it to have been carried to its pres- 
ent position on ice rafts, the latter ascribes it to the deposition of 
numerous river mouths pouring out into the sound in which the 
= rocks of this age were being laid down. 
