18 FLORA OF SOUTHERN NEW YORK AND NEW ENGLAND. 



In 1859 Dr. William Stimpson visited Marthas Vineyard, where he collected both 

 animal and plant remains and determined certain of the strata at Gay Head to be 

 Cretaceous in age. a The notice in regard to this excursion, however, is very meager. 



The work of the Geological Survey of New Jersey, which was begun at about 

 this time, contributed a constantly increasing amount of information from year to 

 year, in its annual reports, concerning the Cretaceous deposits in that State, together 

 with occasional references to their probable extensions through Staten Island and 

 Long Island, affording material assistance to those who were engaged in the study 

 of these deposits on the islands mentioned. 



In 1873 a geological map of the United States, prepared by C. H. Hitchcock and 

 W. P. Blake, was issued in connection with the Ninth United States Census. On it 

 the north shore of Long Island was indicated as Cretaceous, and in reply to a criti- 

 cism of this feature by J. D. Dana 5 a paper was read by Professor Hitchcock before 

 the American Association for the Advancement of Science at the Portland, Me., 

 meeting in 1873, in which he says: c " Notwithstanding the evidence is so probable 

 in its favor, it is surprising to observe that mine is the first published map that 

 colors this area correctly." 



This discussion, however, practically ended any further serious controversy in 

 regard to the Cretaceous age of the Long Island strata. Evidence began to accu- 

 mulate which could no longer be ignored or controverted, and writers became more 

 conservative in expressing contrary opinions or conclusions. Specimens of dicoty- 

 ledonous leaves were found at several widely separated localities on Long Island, 

 and although their exact geological age was not at first determined their significance 

 was appreciated. 



The earliest record in this connection is probably to be found in the Proceedings 

 of the New York Lyceum of Natural History/* in the account of the meeting of 

 January 9, 1871, where the following brief paragraph occurs: 



The president, Dr. J. S. Newberry, exhibited a piece of red sandstone, containing impressions of leaves 

 found in excavating the foundation for the gas office in Williamsburg [now included in the eastern district of 

 Brooklyn]. This, he said, was a specimen of remarkable interest. In its lithological characters this rock 

 closely resembles the Triassic sandstone so much used in New York for architectural purposes; but it con- 

 tained numbers of very beautifully preserved impressions of angiospermous leaves. No plants of this kind were 

 known to exist during the Trias or before the Cretaceous; but we know of no such Cretaceous or Tertiary 

 sandstone on the North American continent. The mass from which this specimen was taken was a bowlder 

 and the associated transported blocks were granite, porphyry, greenstone, dolomite, etc., plainly referable to 

 well-known localities north of New York. But no such sandstone as this was known, and it became a matter 

 of extreme interest to ascertain what was its origin. 



Subsequently further material was brought to light, and at the meeting of March 

 23, 1874, as recorded in the Proceedings (ser. 2, No. 4, pp. 126, 127), it was reported 

 upon as follows: 



The president [Dr. J. S. Newberry] described a sandstone containing angiospermous leaves very similar 

 in aspect to those of the Raritan and of the Lower Cretaceous in the far West, which occurs in bowlders at 

 Lloyds Neck, Long Island. This is undoubtedly the same rock with that of the Williamsburg gas house, as 

 he was satisfied from comparison. It is totally unlike anything known in this vicinity, and unfortunately 

 has not yet been found in situ. Whenever it is, some interesting light will be thrown on this whole question. 

 But its presence under these circumstances points to its existence in place at some locality not far away. 



a Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 29, 1860, p. 145. c Proc. Am. Assn. Adv. Sci., vol. 22, pt. 2, 1874, pp. 131, 132. 



h Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 6, 1873, p. 66. d Ser. 1, pp. 149, 150. 



