392 The American Geologist. December, isw 
raneous these changes of level might be considered as marking a single 
episode in the epeirogenic movements of the region and their bearing on 
water-level might be dismissed as pointing to no detlnite conclusion. 
The, it seems to me, satisfactory evidence of the repetition of like 
changes of level accompanying similar glacio-aqueous conditions points 
clearly to the nature of the oscillations of water-level in Glacial Narra- 
gansett bay. 
If these two cases may be accepted as the basis of a statement re- 
garding this water-level, it would seem that times of high water were 
times of maximum sand plain construction; that immediately following 
these episodes and before the marginal ice entirely disappeared, the 
water-level fell away 50 ft. or more. 
These changes of level are analogous to those of our large inland riv 
ers. and come under the head of flood changes. Ice dams in Glacial 
Narragansett bay apjjear incapable of affording an explanation. Only 
so far as floating ice may have served to form barriers by gorging in 
narrow passages in the lower bay can ice help in explaining the drain- 
age features of these two sand-plain stages. I find myself driven in. 
consequence of these phenomena to adopt a view similar to that which 
the elder Dana set forth in regard to the upper limit of river border 
formations, "There is no direct relation to the level of the ocean. They 
were made by flooded rivers or lakes; and the hight of the flood- waters 
determined their level'' (Man. GeoL, third ed., 1880, p. 551). The diffi- 
culties in the way of accounting for the pitch of the upper surface of 
the waters in this glacial bay seem now almost insuperable in this view, 
but I believe additional examination of the adjoining region will throw 
light upon this problem. J. B. Woodworth. 
Cambridge, Mass., Oct. 12th, 1896. 
Report of the State Geologist of New York for 1893 — A Cor- 
rection. In the l.Sth Annual Report of the State Geologist of New- 
York for 1893, Prof. James Hall concludes the introduction to the study 
of the Brachiopoda. In glancing through its interesting pages one or 
two errors of citation are noted to which it is desired to call attention. 
On page 824 the genus OrtJiorhyachula is described and O. linneyi Net- 
telroth is cited as the type. This is not Nettelroth's species at all, but 
was originally described by Mr. U. P. James in 1881 as Orthis (9) linneyi 
iPaleontologii^t, No. 5. June 10, 1881, p. 11). At a later date, 1889, Mr. 
Henry Nettelroth described Orthis linneyi as a new species (Kentucky 
Fossil Shells. 1889, p. 11). It is a little curious that this should have 
occurred for Mr. James and Mr. Nettelroth were correspondents and 
the former sent his publications to the latter. It may be accounted 
for, perhaps, by the fact that the final revision of the "Kentucky Fossil 
Shells" was done by other hands than those of the author. \ The error 
in citation by Prof. Hall would have been more excusable if the four 
pages of errata at the end of Mr.Nettelroth's volume had not been printed. 
They must have been overlooked by Prof. Hall or Prof. Clarke. On the 
first page the error is pointed out and the correct reference to the tu'st 
description of O. linneyi is given. 
