44 The America/n Geologist. Jan. 1801 
and jagged surfaces the bluff or Loess-like formation was laid 
down. These buttes tell more than the amount of erosion to 
which the land has been subjected. They register the volume of 
material removed by the rivers. 
We shall expect to find pronounced unconformity between this 
Tertiary limestone and the superincumbent formation. We shall 
not be disappointed. The foregoing diagrammatic section, fig. 2, 
will aid in presenting this nonsequcnce of deposition. 
As before stated the conclusion is evident that subsequent to 
the deposition of this Tertiary material there was pronounced 
erosion. During this time much was removed from the exposed 
surfaces. At a later time unconformably upon this the bluff or 
Loess like formation was laid down. To mark this great erosion 
only isolated buttes remain. But these are enough. They con- 
vey-more strongly than words the record of geologic history in 
Nebraska. In conclusion 1 may say that here is a fertile field for 
investigation. The limestone buttes afford a good datum plane. 
V\ "hat then is the age of the later material ? 
Geological Laboratory, University of Nebraska. 
GEOLOGICAL TESTS APPLIED TO ARCHAEOLOGI- 
CAL RELICS. 
Stephen D. Pkkt, Mendon, 111. 
At the last meeting of the A. A. A. S. held at Indianapolis, 
a paper on the subject of " Paleolithics " was read by Mr. W. H. 
Holmes, and afterwards discussed by different members of sec- 
tion ''II." This discussion seems to have excited considerable 
attention, and the daily papers commented upon it in their way. 
They give the idea that the distinction between "paleolithics"' 
and " neolithics " has been abandoned. It may be w'ell to state 
that so far as certain archaeologists in America are concerned, 
this position which Mr. Holmes has taken, and which seems to 
have so surprised the public, is by no means a new one, though 
it has been maintained with considerable modesty, being an open 
question. While we acknowledge that there was a classification 
of the relics among the French archaeologists which would put so 
called ■• paleolithic " relics in one class, and the "neolithics" in 
