236 The American Geologist. ^p''^- ^^^s 
PROF. SHIMEK'S CRITICISM OF THE AQUEOUS ORIGIN 
OF LOESS. 
By CJ. Fbedbeick Weight, Oberlin, Ohio. 
In criticising the papers of Miss Owen and myself in 
the American Geologist for April, 1904, defending the 
aqueous origin of the loess in the Missouri valley, Prof. 
Shimek makes several statements which are likely to be 
misleading, unless our own position is more clearly stated. 
At the outset it should be said in general that we are not 
maintaining the entire absence of eolian agency in distrib- 
uting the loess, ^^'e may be allowed to appeal to the 
agency of wind to account for various abnormal deposits 
which could not be accounted for on the aqueous theory; 
Our only contention is, that the main deposits bear unmis- 
takable evidence of water deposition. 
The most important points in our statement of the case 
which Prof. Shimek challenges are : 
I. "That the bluffs of loess on the west side of the 
Missouri river are scarcely, if any, less than those upon the 
east side." This statement Prof. Shimek challenges, affirm- 
ing that, "as a rule, they are higher, more abrupt, and with 
thicker loess deposits on the east side, and the same is true 
of the Mississippi." Probably Prof. Shimek is correct in 
this. I spoke only from a general impression, which is 
certainly correct, that the loess bluffs upon the west side of 
the ^lissouri river at Omaha, Plattsmouth, Nebraska City, 
Leavenworth, and Kansas City are very extensive, and that 
is sufficient for my argument in the case. The prevailing 
winds in that region are westerly in the ratio of about three 
to one. If this loess had been blown up from the flood- 
plain of the Missouri by winds, the deposits upon the east 
side should be three times those upon the west, which no 
one would contend is the case. 
Prof. Shimek resorts to local "topographic features," 
"meanderings in the river valley," and "inequalities in forest 
and plant distribution during the deposition of the loess," 
to account for the instances where the depositions on the 
west side are greater than those on the east. But such local 
conditions can be much more readily appealed to in explan- 
ation of the larger accumulations upon the eastern side. 
