E(]lfi>ri(il Cdtn iiK'iif . 4-5 
the ••review" tliat our aiiswei- to Prof. Winslows second (|iieslioii 
might l)e us he states it: ■■Tiie size of the sheet shall l)e iiniforni. 
))Ut shall not i-xeeed a larue ([Uarto page in dimensions; that is. 
the maximum size shall be altout !lxl2 inelies, '' that is not the 
answer which we should give to that (juestion. We only wished 
to enforce the necessity of keei)ing tlie size of the sheets within 
the quarto size of the book. It is apparent to anyone that such 
sheets might be ma<le to fold in the nii(hlle and u})on iiiscrtion in 
tlie volume, on short ••stul)s. "' they might occupy two pages of the 
quarto size. Indeeil, should it be necessary, tlie fashion whicli 
has been followed already many times by the annual repoi'ts of the 
United States (leological Survey C(Kild be res(jrted to. viz. : fold the 
sheet three times, once at the stub, in tiie center of the book, and 
once at the outer margin of each [)age. This \v(juld allow of a 
map nearly four times that of a single quarto page, and yet be 
■within the ([Uarto l)age sullieiently to meet the re([uirements of 
the • -review."' As much of Prof. AVinslows argumentation is 
based on the assumed intlexibility of the size of the map desired, 
it is apparent that it falls to the groun<l when its basis is removed. 
The other answers to the three (piestions [)ropounded liy ]*rof. 
Winslow we do not take any exceptions to. We would add, 
however, to the third answer, a pioviso. viz. : that the mai)s should 
also be published, on the conq>letion of the survey, in uthis fnnn, 
accompanied by very short descrii)ti\e text, thus forming a geo- 
logical atlas of the state, with acconq)anying commentary, uni- 
form, in size and style, with the regular volumes. This is all de- 
rived from the /;'/'//• side of the question. 
In :q)plying his arguments, however. Prof. Winslow oxcrlooks 
an inqjortant minor consideration when he views the (piestiou 
from the una side. As the counties of a state vary often very 
greatly in size, so the scaU's of the st'[)arate maps must vary, and 
some of them would lie so large as to be ludicious and some so 
small as to be useless. Hememl»ering that this argument isbasecl 
on an assumed ligidity in the rule, which does not exist, it might 
also be reinarke<l that, actually, the size of the inliabiti*d counties 
in the various stales, particularly of those that remain to be 
mapped, is pretty ni-arly uniform. The neci'ssities of travel to 
and from the county seats, in the most of the states of the Fnion, 
and the I'ccpiirements of county •lioine rule. " regulate the size of 
the counties in all the ••organized " areas of the Fnion. It is, of 
