NATURAL HISTORY AND PHYSIOGRAPHY OF NEW BRUNSWICK. 
319 
this case the part from Gordon Brook up to Nepisiguit Brook was at 
first but a short branch, which later worked back to its present position, 
and became the main stream. Below the Rough Waters comes the head 
of tide, three miles from the mouth of the river. Here the valley 
seems clearly pre-Glacial, but a mile below it becomes typically post- 
Glacial to its mouth, while the old valley may be traced, south of 
Bathurst, across the peninsula to Little River basin. 
The Nepisiguit, then, I submit, is a composite of four rivers, a 
small portion from the Tobique system, a very large part from the 
Upsalquitch system, a part from the Miramichi system, while the 
lower portion is the true original Nepisiguit, which has worked back 
at its head, gradually capturing and making tributary to itself the 
aforementioned parts of the other systems. 
I am well aware that these conclusions rest largely upon very 
scanty data, but I shall have accomplished one of my objects if I 
succeed in calling to these problems the attention of those better 
equipped than I am for their solution. 
34. — On the Heights Above Sea Level of Nictor Lake and 
Neighboring Places. 
In an earlier note of this series (No. 29) and on the map accom- 
panying Note No. 30, the height of Nictor Lake is given as 864 feet. 
This figure is the average of those obtained by Wightman (corrected), 
Chalmers (on the Geological map) and myself. Mr. Chalmers calls my 
attention to the fact that the height of 878 on the Geological map is 
an engraver’s or printer’s error, and that the height as determined by 
him was really 828 feet, as given in his Geological Report (for 1885, 
GG, 17). I had noticed this discrepancy between map and report, but 
as the map with its 878 feet agreed so closely with Wightman’s 
corrected figures, i. e. 777 + 100 = 877, I concluded it was correct, and 
that the figures in the report were a misprint. This unfortunate 
error on the geological map does not, however, vitiate any of the figures 
given in my notes or maps except two, namely, the height of Nictor 
Lake itself, which should read 847 instead of 864, and Mount Gordon 
which should read 1552 instead of 1569. All other heights in that 
vicinity were compared with other datum levels, and hence are inde- 
pendent of the error as to Nictor Lake. 
