io6 The American Geologist. August, looi 
.\n extended excursion was therefore made in Xew Jersey 
in the autumn of 1900, l)ut satisfactory correlations were found 
impossible. The difficulty encountered did not arise from the 
lack of contemporaneous deposits but from the fundamentally 
different classification ado])ted l)y the New Jersey Survey. 
The author found that with the exception of the Lafayette, the 
terraces were all present and as strikingly developed in New 
Jersey as in Maryland, and that they were disting-uishable not 
only in the region of Bridgeton but across the entire Coastal 
Plain to South Amboy. The Maryland classification then, if 
applied to Delaware and New Jersey, would still indicate Tal- 
bot, Wicomico and Sunderland, each developed in a distinct 
terrace and bearing the same mutual relations which they do 
further south. 
The author was unable to detect any evidence of such a de- 
formation as that described for the Pensauken, but on the con- 
trary the levels at which the various terraces appear were found 
to agree very closely with those occurring in Maryland. 
It was further observed that wide areas composed of re- 
worked marl, falling within the Wicomico formation and build- 
ing part of its conspicuous terrace, were left unmapped, except 
where they developed a gravelly phase, when this material was 
entered as Pensauken. 
Whenever the Jamesburg formation was examined it was 
the belief of the author that the phenomena could be better ex- 
plained by hypothecating changes in the force and direction of 
the shore ctirrents than by an appeal to a sudden subsidence of 
the entire region of more than 200 feet near the close of the 
Pleistocene, and as sudden an elevation afterward. The 
author, from his study of the region from the Potomac to the 
Raritan, is convinced that the Jamesburg materials described 
are present in each of the Pleistocene formations and evidently 
represent special physical conditions, not an independent for- 
mation. 
Without going into more details it is evident that the cor- 
relation which the author has employed in Maryland is funda- 
mentally different from that employed by professor Salisbury 
in New Jersey. A comparison of the two systems of classifica- 
tion would o'ive the following- results : 
