234 The American Geologist. April, i893 
"The absence of chips above a plane a foot or two superior to- 
that of their bed at the bottom of the notch was, of course, a 
marked circumstance, since the}' should have occurred plentifully 
in the superficial stratum, had the notch chips been, as assumed, 
of the same age with professor Winchell's find."* 
In the light of what I have alreadj' said and expressed in the 
section given, figs. 2 and 3, it would seem unnecessary to comment 
upon these extracts as the misapprehensions embodied in them 
must at once be apparent to the discriminating student; but a few 
points may be briefl}' referred to. The statements in the first par- 
agraph quoted, that the site must have been distant from the 
source of suppl}' of the raw material and that it was, on account 
of its topography, wholly unfitted for shop work are, as I have 
shown, entireh' invalid. In speaking of the agencies that wash 
out and transport the quartzes the author reveals accidentally 
one reason for their occurrence in a bed at the mouth of the 
"notch," for it was through this washing out and through the 
action of gravitation that portions at least of the products of the 
scattered shops on the slopes and terrace margin above were 
carried down to this spot. At the same time this was probably 
the natural location for the main shop, the spot where all masses of 
large size would be broken up and assorted, since it may have 
been the onlj* approximatel}' level ground about the landing at 
the base of the terrace. The argument against a modern origin 
for the quartzes based on peculiarities of distribution, falls through 
when the true conditions are known, these conditions being ex- 
actl}' such as would result from recent occupation of the river 
landing b}' our Indian tribes. 
In the second, third, and fourth paragraphs it is emphatically 
denied, as an essential feature of her case, that flaked quartzes 
occur at an}' point above a horizon some twelve or fifteen feet 
lower than the main terrace level. This, as my careful dissec- 
tions show, figs. 2 and 3, is entirely wrong. The deposit seen at 
this level was not interbedded with the gravels and was not a 
stratum. Apparently Miss Babbitt did not see the gravels in 
place and probably did not approach them within a distance of 
many feet of the level indicated. I have shown that the quartzes 
were not confined to a given level, but occur at all levels, not 
onl}' on the surface but apparently in nearly every square yard 
*Babbitt, Franc E. American Naturalist, Vol. xviii, pp. 599-601. 
