Corresponde7ice. 361 
presented before professor A. A. Wright's) had interpreted my report 
(in the annual report of New Jersey for 1891) as saying that the Ice 
went south to Trenton and Morrlstown during the ice epoch antedating 
the last. I promptly indicated that I had never intended to convey this 
impression. In my report, I referred to various localities where drift 
which I regarded as glacial occurs outside the moraine. After men- 
tioning these localities, I stated my opinion that the drift there found 
was glacial, and that it antedated the moraine epoch by a long interval 
of time. I then went on to mention other localities where glaciated 
stones and drift occur, not specifying that it was glacial drift. I have 
never at any time felt sure that it was such, and on the very page (107) 
where the localities of glaciated stone are mentioned, I took pains to 
specify that glaciated stones are no proof that the deposits containing 
them are directly glacial. Nevertheless, since the report was inter- 
preted as I did not intend it to be, I am ready to concede that I am at 
fault, for it is a writer's business to write so that he cannot be misunder- 
stood. Of ambiguity, therefore, I am doubtless guilty. 
But when the correction was publicly made, as it was at Rochester in 
August, 1892, immediately after professor G. F. Wright had presented 
his paper, it would seem that the correction might, have been accepted. 
But in the March Geologist professor A. A. Wright says: "Since it 
was pointed out that these different southernmost deposits are all with- 
in 100 feet above tide and have doubtless been transported by water and 
floating ice from the glaciated area, the author quoted has, as I under- 
stand, relinquished any claim that he may seem to have made that an 
ice-sheet ever extended further south than High Bridge and Pattenburg, 
N. J.*' It would be difficult to relinquish a view which I never held. 
Since I only "seem to have made" the claim, professor Wright doubtless 
knew of my disclaimer, which was made before the presentation of his 
paper. It is, therefore, not clear why he should "understand" that I had 
relinquished the claim after the puhUcatlon of his paper, which followed 
the reading by an interval of some months. I was perfectly well aware 
of the altitude at which the deposits in question occur from the begin- 
ning, since I had been on the ground with the topographic maps in hand. 
Furthermore, the fact that the deposits are low has no decisive signifi- 
cance as bearing on their origin. 
Professor Wright also quotes me as referring to "a subdued terminal 
moraine eastward from Trenton," when my words are "The topography 
in this region east of Trenton is very much like that of a 'Subdued ter- 
minal moraine." My statement concerning the topography is strictly 
true. The reader must judge whether the quotation of professor 
Wright fairly represents what I say. More than one writer in the past 
has referred to the moraine-like topography of certain parts of Florida. 
It is to be hoped that they may be spared the fate of being quoted as 
saying that there are moraines there. 
So far as professor Wright's further statements are concerned 1 only 
wish to add that, if I have seen them correctly, the "deposits between 
the moraine and the southern border of the glaciated area" are not "es- 
sentially the same as that of the moraine itself and of the deposits north 
