96 The American Geologist. Ansust, looi 
the whole as rensauken, for he further says: "Indeed, on any 
interpretation, the original continuity of the Pensauken across 
this belt seems certain, for occasional small remnants of it are 
still found." 
In the report for 1896, professor Salisbury no longer re- 
g^ards the Pensauken as being equivalent to the Lafayette, but 
places it in early glacial time. On the Mt. Pleasant hills he 
states the Pensauken formation, probably lies as high as 178 
feet, and sug-gests that these gravels may be a landward deposit 
of Pensauken streams. 
He also places in the Beacon Hill formation the topograph- 
ically higher member of those gravels found in the vicinity of 
Glassboro which, in the previous year, he had regarded as Pen- 
sauken. He also publishes a map and a section where this 
change in classification is recorded. The southward dip of the 
Pensauken is reaffirmed and the statement is made that the base 
of the Pensauken formation at times extends down below tide. 
In the report for 1897, professor Salisburv^ publishes a map 
in which he again changes his classification in southern New 
Jersey. TSie high gravels occurring in the vicinity of Glassboro, 
which he had first mapped in 1895 as Pensauken, and later in 
1896, as Beacon Hill, he now places in three distinct formations, 
namely: Miocene, Beacon Hill, and Bridgeton ; the Beacon Hill 
being younger than the Miocene, and the Bridgeton younger 
than the Beacon Hill but older than the Pensauken. In this 
connection he says:. "The dififerentiation of the Bridgeton for- 
mation has been long in mind, though data for its sharp de- 
finition have been wanting. Even now they cannot be said to 
be altogether satisfactory. In some places the formation seems 
not ~to be clearly separable from the Beacoti Hill formation 
which preceded, while in others it is not easdy distinguished 
from the Pensauken which follows. In other places, on the 
other hand, it is distinctly separable from the Pensauken, and in 
still others from the Beacon Hill. The only question, there- 
fore, concerns the integrity of the formation as a whole, and 
the data at hand do not demonstrate that that part of the forma- 
tion which seems to be closely allied to the Beacon Hill forma- 
tion is not really a part of that formation, and that that 
part which is with difficulty separated from the Pen- 
sauken, is not really Pensauken. On the other hand, 
