HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

LIBRARY

OF THE

MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY
mt) CV

> ad 2
-A +1
\

GIFT OF

JUN

Pleistocene Deposits
of

South Carolina

With an Especial Attempt at Ascertaining what must have been the Environ-
mental Conditions under which the Pleistocene Mollusca

of the State lived.

BY

GRIFFITH THOMPSON PUGH

A THESIS

Submitted to the Faculty of Vanderbilt University for the Degree of Doctor
of Philosophy.

NASHVILLE, TENN.
~"t 1905

‘a vy Ken

airs ; R Ph
j } r yi
iby iyi
Wa ;
' se ee
r : v
in OY ar ¢
r ya) f j '
&
% )
+ { i
. ; f j
i) f j

vy f ;

1 {9 i
oe |

i J 1
i '
Ay

i]
at P
pe
af
a { gt i

} it
| i
1 i
i if if
'
a | iT
Piss
if
¥ i ¥

iy! ae

, tk ie ig il
i Pa Wa i i 7 oy i ‘

He win nnn

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION:
Interest Attaching to Pleistocene .
Field Work .
Scope’ of. Paper: -
Acknowledgments

CHAPTER I.

HIsTorRICAL REVIEW.

General Statements Concerning Early Workers .

Work of Vanuxem, Catesby, and Bartram .
Work of Conrad and Lyell .

Ruffin, Various Divisions of the Coastal Plain '

Tuomey, Divisions into Cretaceous, Eocene,
Post-Pliocene ‘ ;
F. S. Holmes, Work on the Bleistocene ;

Pliocene and

The Phosphate Problem and Shepherd, Holmes had Shaler

Recent Workers and their Work .

CHAPTER I:

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE
OF THE COASTAL PLAIN.

General Remarks

Maine

New Hampshire aha Mis deneliuserts
Rhode Island and Connecticut .
New York

New Jersey .

Pennsylvania and Delaware:
Maryland

Virginia . :
North and South eros :
Georgia and Florida

PLEISTOCENE

Page

ie)
II
II
I2

13
17
19
19

20
22
22
23
23
24
25
25
27
28
29

4

CHAPTER Tit.

GEOGRAPHIC AND STRATIGRAPHIC RELATIONS OF THE
PLEISTOCENE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

Page
ihe Potomac~ .). 2) ts, Ts” Baw eee). eee ein Pe) ee
he, Marinesretaceous 7") {'}e iil el) EGR) ee Fee
Whe Wlocene. and Miocene™.” "20 0si0-2) Vets os iy a) eee
The Pliocene sae i Ae Gee
Fossiliferous pice th Deeceouon a Bee . Gees
Argument Concerning Beds Underlying Pleistocene . . . 37
Non-tossiliterous Pleistocene. 2. 39° 4) sesqm yi ieee

CHAPTER TV:

TABLES OF SOUTH CAROLINA PLEISTOCENE FOSSILS,
WITH DATA FOR AN ATTEMPT AT INTERPRETING
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH
Sucu Fossits Live.

i. explanation ofthe Tables. +4: “0 [ey \\:) 0s.) | Sas
2. Tables nus i>) | Cae

3.) Lasts of Hlsuiedars Fossils fren Giter Sete
a: Plorida, “2 «. eee Se
b. Cornfield Harker Meriandie Thee ok oe, ee
c. Sankoty Head, Massachusetts . . 3)
4. Discussions of and Conclusions from the Tablese
General” Remarks: <2) 2202.9 40. 2 es
Goncernine Depth... .. |... Gl) ie ee ns
Concerning Shore and Bottom Gonpinans oR ie, nat, Fee ee
Concerning Geographical Range. . . op Lo am
General Conclusions from the Study of the Tables “tt basiioe

Bibliography.

INTRODUCTION

The Pleistocene Period is of especial interest, as it corresponds to
one of those periods commonly looked upon as marking a break in
the geological record left man by fossils in the sedimentary rocks of
the earth. There is evidence to believe that there was a long period
of time between the last of the determined Paleozoic formations and
the first of the Mesozoic, and another long period between the last
of the Mesozoic and the first of the Cenozoic. Of these periods only
a partial record, in way of a few widely scattered deposits, has been
left. They are generally looked upon by geologists as periods of
great and rapid changes in life-forms. LeConte and others put
themselves on record as believing these periods of lost record, or at
least the first of them, to have been periods of considerable glacia-
tion, when, whatever deposits there were, were put down as drift
or some other product of glaciation in such condition as to be com-
pletely obliterated in the long periods which have since elapsed.
The Pleistocene, being evidently a period which was ushered in by
the advance of the ice from the north upon more southernly latitudes,
may throw some light upon these other periods of supposed glaci-
ation. And as the Pleistocene can be studied to some extent from its
fossiliferous deposits, one sees that the information gained from a
study of the Pleistocene may be of some value in interpreting the
probable conditions that existed during the periods of lost record
between the Permian and the Triassic, and between the Cretaceous
and the Eocene. So the Pleistocene has this interest in addition to
those inherent in itself. In this paper, however, there will be no
further mention of this particular phase of interest, but a study of
such phases as concern the Pleistocene more directly.

Though deficient in those qualities which come by reason of respect
and veneration for age, the Pleistocene is of very great interest as
furnishing the link that connects the present life with the life of the
recent geologic past. It exhibits the process by which ocean bed
has been converted into dry land. It gives evidence of the descent
of living forms from fossil forms, since its fossil forms have very
many of their characters, even to the marking and colors of their
shells, almost as well preserved as those of their descendants living

6

along the coast today. It is the period when, in the course of evolu-
tion, were ushered in those animals which were to be the contempo-
raries of man, 95 per cent. of Pleistocene forms, according to Lyell,
being also recent.

With these thoughts in mind, the task of working on the Pleisto-
cene formation in South Carolina has been entered upon gladly,
though with many misgivings as to the writer’s ability to deal with
the problem as its importance demands. Of all the Coastal Plain
region from Texas to New England, that portion in South Carolina
has been, perhaps, least investigated. The true succession and
extent of beds have, in many cases, not been fully determined. The
extreme thinness of the Miocene, Pliocene and Pleistocene beds,
and consequently the greater likelihood of their being entirely re-
moved in places during periods of erosion, together with the almost
universally low altitude of the surface with reference to the sea and
the consequent absence of good sections or even many natural
exposures of any kind more than a few feet deep, has made it very
difficult to trace the succession and extent of these formations. For
instance, the patches of Miocene in South Carolina that have been
left from erosion indicate that this formation could not have been
more than 150 or 200 feet at best, whereas in Texas to the south-
west it is more than 2,500 feet thick, and to the north of the State
it also gradually becomes thicker. In the region of North and South
Carolina there seems to have been a region or belt of elevation or of
minimum subsidence, perhaps since Triassic time. This relative ele-
vation has caused a thinning of the successive beds since that time
in this region. The tracing of the extent and succession of these
formations has been engaged in by a good many investigators, from
the time Lyell visited the State, in 1841-42, and before on up to the
present, or to within the last two or three years, when Dr. L. C. Glenn
of Vanderbilt University made some investigations concerning these
formations in preparing a paper on “Artesian Well Prospects in
South Carolina.” The work done by these men will be briefly
reviewed in this paper under the heading, “A Historic Review of the
Work Done in the Region.”

In preparation for writing this paper, the writer found it neces-
sary to do some work in the field, collecting fossils and making
observations of the localities where the fossils were found. During
the summer of 1904, some time was spent along the coast of South
Carolina in collecting Pliocene and Pleistocene fossils from well-
known localities, and noting the country around such localities as

7

well as the succession of strata in the intermediate section where
the marl bed is exposed. Some recent shells were also collected
along the beach. No new exposures were sought out, for time was
limited, and, too, such was not necessary for the investigation to be
carried on. In most localities the observations of others were con-
firmed as to thickness and position of fossiliferous beds and other
beds above and below. But at Young Island, the famous Simmons
Bluff of geologic literature, the bluff was found somewhat
changed from what it was when Tuomey, Holmes, Burns and others
made collections there. The “storm of 1893” wrought some changes
here as elsewhere along the coast, removing an area of about ten
acres just along the bluff, as Mr. Geraty, the postmaster and one of
the largest truck farmers there, a man of good memory, informed
me. This, however, was far from being a disadvantage, as it gave
a greater area of exposure and consequently greater facility for col-
lecting. As this was the writer’s first experience in collecting fossils,
with the exception of collecting under different conditions from the
Silurian beds about Nashville, Tenn., one can well imagine the
delight with which the broad exposure of fossil shells was beheld,
and with what eagerness shovel and sieve were brought into play.
The exposure extends outward from the foot of the bluff a distance
of thirty or forty yards at low tide. The length of the exposed bed
along the margin of Wadmalaw Sound is a half-mile or more. Also
at White Point Creek (Price’s Creek) such great changes had taken
place that the Pleistocene fossil bed located by Tuomey as on the
right bank of the creek, a half-mile from the point where the old
Kingston country road crosses the creek and plainly within view of
the ocean beach, could not be found at all, though four or five hours,
with the help of Mr. Sessions and his two boys of that neighborhood,
were spent in the effort to locate it. Exposures were looked for
everywhere within proper limits, and numerous small holes three or
four feet deep were made over an area a half-mile long and several
rods wide, extending from a quarter of a mile of the old Kingston
road almost to the beach, but the shells sought for were not found.
The supposition is that the bed had been so deeply covered with sand
by the storm of 1893, or some other, that the holes made did not
reach down to it, or else that the bed itself had been swept away and
destroyed. Storm-driven waves may easily accomplish this in case
of a bed of limited area as this, from Tuomey’s description, seems to
have been. In the proper place in this paper will be given descrip-
tions of the various localities from which Pleistocene shells have been
collected.

8

Though a limited discussion of the Pleistocene of the whole At-
lantic Coast from Maine to Florida will be given, and a discussion
of the succession, relation and extent of the Coastal Plain formations
in South Carolina will be attempted, the main object of this paper
is to attempt an investigation of what must have been the environ-
mental conditions under which the marine mollusca lived during the
Pleistocene Period in the neighborhood of South Carolina. Tem-
perature, depth, shore, bottom, current and other conditions that then
existed will be sought for by comparison with such conditions today,
upon the basis that a species now favoring a particular habitat, if
then in existence, favored the same kind of habitat. Since 95 per
cent. of Pleistocene species are regarded as recent, as commonly
accepted, one easily sees that if exact knowledge were at hand con-
cerning the habitats of living species a fairly just interpretation of
Pleistocene conditions could be arrived at. In connection with this
problem tables have been made of all South Carolina Pleistocene
mollusca so far as the writer could gather the information, the work
of Holmes and Dall being drawn upon to make the tables as full
as possible. So far as the writer is aware this is the first attempt
made at just this problem for the Pleistocene, and he feels that his
effort is very imperfect, but trusts that the labor may be of some
service, however slight.

The material collected during the summer was sorted and classified
during the fall and winter at Vanderbilt University. Dr. Dall’s
work in the Proceedings of the Wagner Free Institute of Sciences
was followed in naming the different species found. There are
some species, however, which are not given by Dall; these have been
named as Holmes named them in his “Post Pliocene Fossils of South
Carolina.” Just here it must be stated that during the year 1903-04
a class in Paleontology at Vanderbilt University, of which the writer
was a member, worked up a lot of shells from the Stono River beds.
This Stono River material has been used in making out the tables.
In addition, material from Cornfield Harbor, St. Mary’s County,
Maryland, has been ready at hand and used for purposes of com-
parison. A list of the Cornfield Harbor fossils, increased by a few
additional forms from Conrad’s list from that same locality, will be
given. So also will be given lists of Pleistocene fossils from the
Florida beds, and from the beds of Sankoty Head, Massachusetts,
and attention called to the similarities or differences of these fauna
from the different localities.

Inasmuch as no one formation can be treated independently of

9

those just above it or just below, the Pliocene of South Carolina has
also been studied to a limited extent in its relation to the Pleistocene.
Though material was collected from the Waccamaw beds, time has
failed in which to work it up, and the work done by Johnson on
these deposits has been largely relied upon in this part of the paper.
Tuomey and Holmes, in their “Pliocene Fossils of South Carolina,”
have classed as Pliocene not only the well-determined Pliocene of the
Waccamaw, but also the Miocene about Darlington, Sumter and
elsewhere. Their otherwise excellent volume is, by reason of this
confusion, well nigh useless for the purpose here intended. Only
those species distinctly mentioned as coming from the Waccamaw
beds can be depended upon in arriving at any safe conclusion. The
tables already mentioned will also show the relation which the
Pleistocene fossils bear to the Pliocene and to the Miocene, though
no attempt will be made to prepare separate lists of the Pliocene and
Miocene fossils of the State.

In order to bring the scope of the paper more clearly before the
mind, it is well to recapitulate, having regard to the sequence that
has been followed in the discussion of the various phases of the
subject. Following this introduction, the paper begins with a dis-
cussion of the work of the early investigators in the region and a
historical review of the work done from that time to the present.
This is followed by a chapter on the geographic distribution of the
Pleistocene or Columbia formation along the Atlantic Coast from
Maine to Florida. Then comes a more particular discussion of the
Pleistocene of South Carolina, together with descriptions of Pleisto-
cene fossil localities with sections, wherever possible, showing strati-
graphic relations. After this come the tables, giving the Pleistocene
species found in South Carolina with localities; other ages in addi-
tion to the Pleistocene in which they have been found, and the rela-
tive scarcity or abundance as Pleistocene fossils ; the depth range and
shore and bottom conditions of the living representatives of the Pleis-
tocene fossils, also their extreme northern and southern geograph-
ical ranges. Just after this a discussion of the tables and conclusions
from the information there gained are given. The bibliography
at the end is not intended to be exhaustive, but embraces only the
more important articles that have been published on the subject.
Especially is this true in regard to the publications concerning the
Pleistocene of the whole Atlantic Coast; only a very few of these
are given.

Io

In making acknowledgments for kindnesses shown me while en-
gaged in this piece of work, I wish first of all to speak of the help,
in way of encouragement and suggestions, that my instructor, Dr.
L. C. Glenn, has at all times most cheerfully given me. He has
given me the use of his own geological library, and where a book
needed could be obtained neither from his library nor from that of
the University, he borrowed it for me from elsewhere. His own
collections of fossils and those of the University have been at my
disposal in making out lists and in preparing tables. In the discus-
sion of the Geographic and Stratigraphic relations of the Pleistocene
of the State, his observations and investigations have been of great
value.

My thanks are due the University for financial assistance while
collecting fossils, and are most heartily given. I wish also to ac- |
knowledge the kindness of Dr. W. H. Dall, of Washington, in
promptly identifying certain species sent him.

I. HISTORICAL REVIEW.

The Atlantic Coastal Plain of the United States has been an object
of interest and study to geologists since the time the pioneers of
American geology, Mitchell and McClure, first discriminated the
region and aroused in others the desire to investigate its problems.
It was due to investigations in this region and to efforts at inter-
preting the records of the ancient life in its strata that Conrad,
Tuomey, the Rogers brothers, Holmes and many others, in the
middle of the century just passed, gained their renown. Later Hil-
gard in the Gulf region, Cook in New Jersey, and others in the
region between and in New York and New England studied the
succession of strata as revealed by the fossil forms embedded in
them, and so impressed their ideas of classification and nomenclature
that these are still largely adhered to. In recent years McGee, Salis-
bury, Chamberlain, Dall, Shattuck and others have wrought in this
field so perseveringly and so thoroughly that it may be said that no
section of our country has been more thoroughly investigated than
has the Costal Plain.

North Carolina has the honor of being the first State of the Union
to authorize, at its own expense, a survey of its territory “with the
desire of developing its resources and enlarging the boundaries of
human knowledge.” South Carolina was the next to fall in line in
this commendable work. Whatever may have been its shortcomings
since, the State made a good start. By order of its legislature, Mr.

II

Lardner Vanuxem, in 1826, made a report on a geological and min-
eralogical survey of the State. A collection of minerals from
different parts of the State was placed in the Museum of South
Carolina College. Vanuxem wrote a paper on the Tertiary and Creta-
ceous formations of South Carolina, and this appeared in the Journal
of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. He was the first
to note the occurrence of the Pleistocene at Charleston, collecting
some of the fossils of this age from a well there and taking them
to Philadelphia. But before 1826, even as far back as 1731, Catesby
wrote something of geological interest, calling attention to the en-
croachment of the sea upon the land. This was a matter of concern
at that time and attracted the attention of many, especially those of
a scientific turn of mind. Closely akin with this question was an-
other, the subsidence of the coast. Bartram, in his “Travels,” was
the first to point out evidences of subsidence—the submerged stumps
of trees, common along the coast. Lyell and others noticed these
submerged stumps and came to the same conclusion, that these
stumps show a vertical submergence of the land. This mention of
the work of Catesby and Bartram has been made simply to show
that, very early in the history of the State, men were making contri-
butions, though slight, to its geology.

In 1832 Conrad determined the existence of the Miocene in the
State. This determination rested upon some fossils collected at a
point just below the junction of the Wateree and Congaree rivers.
He also attributed certain deposits on Cooper River to the Tertiary.

Lyell, the leading geologist of his time, in 1841-42 gave a few
days’ investigation to the strata of the Cretaceous and Tertiary
formations of the State. He went down the Savannah River from
Augusta, examining the exposed beds as he went. He also investi-
gated the region from the mouth of Cooper River northwest to
the Santee, where that stream is joined by the old canal, a distance
of forty miles, and then on up the Santee to Half-Way Swamp.
Along the Cooper and on the Santee, he traced the white limestone
of the Eocene formation, and at Stout’s Creek he found this to dis-
appear under a newer formation, the Buhrstone. The results of his
investigations are mentioned in a general way in his “Travels in
North America,” and more particularly in his “Observations on the
White Limestone and other Eocene or Older Tertiary Formations
of Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia.” He referred to the post-
Pliocene, the marine shells of eastern South Carolina, which “differ
in no way from those of the adjoining coast,” and are contained in

I2

deposits of sand and clay, “put down when the land stood lower than
today, while the temperature was little different from that of today.”

After Vanuxem’s report of 1826, nothing more was done by the
State in the way of a survey until 1842. In that year, by authority
of the Legislature, Mr. Edmund Ruffin, of Virginia, was employed
to make an agricultural survey of the State. He conducted the work
with great ability, and his report is valuable not only as an agricul-
tural report, but also as a source of geological knowledge, especially
the discussion of the marl beds. He relied largely on characteristic
fossils in determining the age of the different marl beds investi-
gated. These marl beds were grouped into four classes: (1) The
Peedee bed, containing Belemnites Americana and Exogyra costata,
and lying in the region bordering on the Great Peedee and some of
its tributaries, as Black River, in a continuous area in Marion, Wil-
liamsburg and Georgetown counties. This formation was evidently
regarded by him as Cretaceous. (2) The next oldest formation of
marl, the Great Carolinian bed, so called by him because of a differ-
ence of opinion as to its age, Vanuxem, Conrad and Morton consid-
ering it Upper Cretaceous and Lyell including it in the Eocene. The
following observations were made in regard to this bed: That, though
the character of the bed changes from place to place, still for the
most part this marl is of a dingy yellowish white color, or pale buff
of different shades; that the dip of the surface is generally from
north to south, and does not differ greatly from the general slope
of the country; that it extends from just east of the Santee to the
Savannah and beyond, its northwestern limit being a line almost
parallel to the line of falls of the rivers and about twenty-five or
thirty miles below, and that eastwardly it stretches to and beneath
the ocean and is overlaid in places by younger beds. (3) The Mio-
cene marls, occurring in extensive patches lying upon and immedi-
ately in contact with the older Pedee marls on the west side of Peedee
River and extending into Darlington and Florence counties, being
exposed along Swift and Black creeks. He also notes an isolated
patch of Miocene marl on Goose Creek a few miles above its junction
with Cooper River and about twelve miles from Charleston.
(4) Post-Pliocene marl beds, which lie between high and low tide
wherever yet (at that time) observed, probably with the exception
of that under and near Charleston. This formation generally pre-
sents but a thin bed, about three feet thick, containing the shells of
such animals as now live in and mostly if not entirely belong to the
neighboring ocean waters. Beds of post-Pliocene fossils were found

13

along several tidal creeks emptying into the South Edisto, at Distant
Island, about four miles south of the town of Beaufort, at Lady’s
Island, three miles east of Beaufort, and at Doctor’s Swamp, on
John’s Island, where was found a bed five miles in length. Under-
lying Charleston, he observes, at a depth of about fifteen feet, is a
bed of these shells, reached by the “fire wells,” and exposed in
several places around the city, as at Haddrell’s Point, and at several
of the bluffs on Ashley and Cooper rivers. Ruffin also states that
some of these beds are several miles back from the shore line, and
are often overlaid by still later deposits of marsh soil several feet
thick and sometimes by fine sandy earth. The list of post-Pliocene
fossils prepared by Prof. L. R. Gibbes, of Charleston College, is of
fossils from the bed underneath and near Charleston, and is as fol-
lows: Natica duplicata, Nassa obsoleta, Nassa vibex, Cerithium
dislocatum, Pyrula carica, Oliva Sayana, Oliva mutica, Ovula acicu-
laris Fissurella alternata, Ostrea Virginica, Pinna seminuda, Arca
imcongrua, Arca pexata, Arca ponderosa, Cardium maculatum,
Donax variabilis, Tellina alternata, Lucina divaricata, Venus mer-
cenaria, Cytherea concentrica, Mactra lateralis, Lutraria canaliculata,
Balanus ovularis (?), Scutellum quinqueforme (?).

After one year’s service Mr. Ruffin resigned, and was succeeded by
Mr. Toumey. In 1844 it was found advisable not to attempt an
agricultural survey distinct from matters geological. Tuomey was,
therefore, asked to make a report upon both the agriculture and the
geology of the State. As the work progressed it became more and
more largely geological, and the final report of 1848 is titled “Geo-
logical Survey of South Carolina.’ From the requirements of the
case, the report had to be partly commercial, but it is of much value
for its scientific weight. It is by far the best thing on South Caro-
lina Geology; in fact, the only thing of any extent. All sections of
the country are treated. The coastal plain of the State is here, for
the first time, systematically described with an attempt at scien-
tifically classifying the beds. The extent of the Cretaceous, Eocene,
Pliocene, and Pleistocene formations is traced and lists of fossils
from each given. Tuomey was greatly assisted in this work by col-
lections of fossils made by college professors, lawyers, physicians,
preachers and others of Charleston and the localities around. It
seemed almost a fad among cultured people to collect fossils in those
days. Several of the number were intelligent collectors, and their
observations were also of value to Tuomey in preparing his treatise.
Such men as Dr. R. W. Gibbes, Dr. Edmund Ravenal, Prof. L. R.

14

Gibbes, Dr. Hume, of the Military Academy, and Dr. Burden, of
John’s Island, were no mean helpers, and contributed largely to the
success of the work. In regard to the assistance given by Prof. F. S.
Holmes, Tuomey’s own words are: “It would be impossible, if it
were necessary, for me to separate my own labors from those of
F. S. Holmes, Esq., both on the Ashley and in the post-Pliocene of
the State. His fine and valuable collections of fossils were placed
at my disposal, and I have used them without reserve. It is chiefly
through his labors that the Ashley has already become noted for its
organic remains.” Tuomey assigned the Coastal Plain formations to
four classes or ages: Cretaceous, Eocene, Pliocene and post-Plio-
cene. We are at once struck by the absence of the Miocene from
this enumeration. He regarded the Miocene, now clearly established
about Darlington and Sumter, as Pliocene, and so put both Miocene
and Pliocene as Pliocene. In his map to show extent of formations
he uses the word Miocene for all that extent of territory which he
has carefully designated Pliocene in the treatise, but this is clearly
a misprint.

The Cretaceous was traced, by means of characteristic fossils,
throughout the region described by Ruffin under the “Peedee Marl,”
and in addition was found exposed in patches farther to the west in
Darlington and Florence counties along Lynches Creek to the mouth
of Sparrow Swamp, and farther to the east it was found on Little
Peedee River just where it is joined by Lumber River, and on the
Waccamaw, in Horry County, from three or four miles below Con-
way to within eight or ten miles of the North Carolina line. His
supposition was that the Cretaceous underlay that whole section of
country from its most western exposure at Sparrow Swamp on out
to and beneath the ocean. The Eocene was divided in this survey
into three groups: (1) The Buhrstone formation underlying the
calcareous beds described by Lyell and by Ruffin. The Buhrstone
was described as being 400 feet thick, its upper portion containing
silicified shells, being largely exposed up to the line drawn from
Columbia in a direction a little south of west by Lexington Court-
house and Aiken, on to Augusta, and its southern exposure running
in an irregular line across from Stout’s Creek on the Santee to the
Lower, Three Runs on the Savannah. (2) The Santee beds, the thick
beds of white limestone, marl and greensand, whose northern or
western exposures coincide with the line just given for the southern
limit of the Buhrstone. (3) The Ashley and Cooper beds, the newest
Eocene beds in the State, overlying the Santee beds just mentioned,

15

these two series of beds having a combined thickness of about 600
feet. His three divisions of the Eocene correspond to Ruffin’s “Great
Carolinian Bed.”

Tuomey’s Pliocene deposits are irregularly scattered over the
State, and it must be borne in mind that his Pliocene includes both
the Miocene and the Pliocene as now distinguished. First will be con-
sidered that part of his Pliocene which is known to be Miocene. He
found it in patches resting on the Eocene at Goose Creek, then about
Sumter, Darlington, and Florence, especially on Lynches River,
Black Creek, and Swift Creek. On the Peedee he also found ex-
posures of what he called Pliocene. Though this region has not been
thoroughly investigated, the supposition now is that this too is Mio-
cene. Now will be taken up what has clearly been shown to be
Pliocene. On the Waccamaw the Pliocene was found exposed from
a few miles above Conway on up to or very nearly to the North
Carolina line. He gives two sections of the river bank which are,
in the main, characteristic of the entire length of the formation ex-
posed along the Waccamaw :

(1) The section three or four miles below Nixonville at the old
William Nixon Place:

Yellow sand, showing false stratification and very

undulating oni the Surfaces. ).50 25.4 84). a ee 230 tarqorfeet
clon nocenestmanls sys): Satie silva Mey Lats Cause Satan malt feet
Beds of Cretaceous forts: Sib ats bel wet Ee) Ot LEER

(2) Section on Tilly’s Lake at Uicsnvilles
Overlyine loose sandiand iclay ui...) 8 4. 3a owen 30) feet
Phocene marl. aes tay aver ihiGaautaeine:. way) bron eet
Cretaceous forination: Panes postin aay tian aeolian Biteek

It may be well to state just here that Tohasbn found the Pliocene
along the Lake at Conway for some distance up the stream, and
also found it lower down the Waccamaw than did Tuomey. Lists
of fossils from the several Pliocene localities were given and all
summed up in the tables here reproduced:

Number of species. Species recent. Percent.

Brachtopedae i. e's sets ec ele) fe)

Gasiropodatrsnes) sive so «0 ZO 39 50
Lamellibranchiata..... .. ;.109 47 43
WiGIPCAIA emia ss noes oa S I 50

otal peta ae sag) 5 2) 4 ok OO 87 46

16

Upon this percentage he rests his proof that these beds are Plio-
cene, this being about the percentage of the fossil shells that are also
recent, claimed by Lyell and other English geologists as necessary
to constitute the Pliocene.

The post-Pliocene was, in this survey of Toumey’s, treated more
fully than ever before in the State, and perhaps more fully than this
formation had been treated anywhere else along the Coastal Plain.
The work of Ruffin was reviewed and several additional localities
added to the list of exposures. “It is composed of beds of sand, clay
and mud, containing fossils, the whole amounting to about sixty feet
in thickness, overlapping the Pliocene beds of Horry and George-
town, and on the rest of the coast those of the Eocene.”’ The section
of one of the wells that cuts through the post-Pliocene at Charleston
shows:

Sand below which water is found..........: .. .. n= -« 5. tQsOmeer
Oimek sand and jelay, retains ‘of trees. ..2%. )-)snOmieen
Samduandismall shells-. ig 24 sess 5 :ted oy lecse eee
(Gravelvandyoyster shells <2. 2 race: isle tee, oly ce brs tere eee
Mudand @onch shells... 2... .. bbe a shies lhchgee teteah mene
Fine close clay with young oyster eile. ee ee eee
Pluff clay with scales of mica, sand to Becene el 2 1: 20 eter

The following general observations were made: That though
the fossiliferous bed in this section is eight feet thick, it is rarely
more than four feet thick in its exposures along the coast; that this
is typical of all sections along the coast, the fossiliferous bed being
everywhere overlaid by heavy beds of sand, closely similar to those
being formed along the coast at present; that the fossiliferous forma-
tion extends back from the coast about ten miles, thinning out at an
elevation a few feet above tide; that its boundary is irregular; that
this bed underlies the whole coast, and is seen wherever the streams
remove the beds by which it is covered. He found the formation
exposed on Price’s Creek (now called White Point Creek) in Horry
County about a half-mile from the beach and elevated five feet above
tide. The shells here were principally Venus mercenaria, Ostrea
Virginica and Arca incongrua. Also in several other places in Horry
County and in Georgetown County exposures were found. At
Laurel Hill bluff the fossil bed was observed eight feet above tide,
and in digging Winyah Canal post-Pliocene shells were met with,
showing that the surface sands are underlaid by it. The nature of
the formation here was found to be very much like that of the bed

17

underlying Charleston. From this region the formation was traced
along through Charleston County by several exposures. On the
Santee at Mazyck’s Ferry, the bed corresponds to the stiff blue clay
penetrated in the wells at Charleston. It was found on the Ashley
near Bee’s Ferry, about a quarter of a mile from the river and five
feet above tide. It was also investigated on the shores of several
inlets just below Charleston and on down to Beaufort; on Stono
River; on Abapoola Creek, and elsewhere on John’s Island; on
Wadmalaw Sound at Simmons Bluff; and at several places around
Beaufort. Taking all these exposures from White Point to Beaufort
into consideration, Tuomey was evidently right in saying that the
fossiliferous beds of the post-Pliocene underlay the sands of the
whole South Carolina coast and extended inland eight or ten miles.

In addition to the discussion of these four formations, the alluvium
deposits and the changes along the coast were discussed. Tuomey
did not assent to the opinion that the coast region is gradually sub-
siding, but rather thought these appearances of subsidence were
due to the encroachment of the sea upon the land.

The plates of fossil forms which were to make a part of this vol-
ume were so badly used by the printers that it was decided to dis-
pense with them. This defect in the volume, according to Professor
Holmes, was the object of common regret to the members of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, which held
its meeting of 1850 at Charleston. At the urgent solicitation of
such scientists as Agassiz, Gould and Bache, Tuomey and Holmes
undertook a separate publication of these plates, together with
descriptions of the fossils figured. The result is their ‘‘Pliocene
Fossils of South Carolina,” issued at Charleston in 1857.

In the meantime Professor Holmes had been at work on the
geology of Charleston and the immediate region around the city.
His work was mainly on the Pleistocene formation. On Ashley
River, on Wadmalaw Sound at Simmons Bluff, on Stono River, on
Abapoola Creek, and Doctor’s Swamp and elsewhere on John’s
Island, and at other localities, he had made collections of fossils of
this formation. As a result of this study we have several papers
along from 1849 to 1860, and in 1860 his “Post-Pliocene Fossils of
South Carolina.” Holmes did not attempt so much to trace the
extent of formations or to correlate beds; his work was rather that of
a paleontologist and serves as a foundation for the man who would
endeavor to establish geological correlation and succession and ex-
tent of beds. In addition to the usual molluscan fossils, there were

2—P. D.

18

remains of many vertebrata found, especially on Ashley River, about
forty species. Professor Agassiz, who visited the region with Holmes,
described it as “the greatest cemetery he ever saw.” In a paper
before the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
March, 1850, Holmes described at some length this very interesting
locality. In depressions in the Eocene marls, says he, which are
exposed for several miles along the Ashley up stream from a
point about a mile below old Ashley Ferry, mingled with detritus
and molluscan fossils, were found the remains of many vertebrate
animals. They were also found in the bed of loose gravelly sand
and among the fragments of Eocene marl which are largely robbed
of their lime and have their interstices filled in with blue mud and in
places with peat, the whole being somewhat in a bed just above and
partly mixed in with the sand. At just what age these beds con-
taining the vertebrate remains were deposited, he did not attempt to
say further than that they had been deposited since the Eocene, and
that the Miocene and Pliocene were generally thought to be absent
from this region, and that then the beds must be post-Pliocene or Re-
cent. In his post-Pliocene text he unhestitatingly pronounces these
beds to be post-Pliocene, and enters descriptions and cuts of the ver-
tebrate fossils found in them. In this part of the work Professor
Joseph Leidy, of Philadelphia, rendered valuable service. He was
greatly interested in the Ashley River vertebrate remains, visited
Holmes and made collections for himself. He differed with Holmes
in some particulars, regarding some of the forms which Holmes re-
garded post-Pliocene as recent. He wrote descriptions of the fossil
vertebrata, and these make up a considerable part of the volume.
Holmes did not attempt to trace the non-fossiliferous Pleistocene
back from the coast, but neither did Ruffin nor Toumey. In fact,
Toumey says that owing to the blending of the strata it is almost
impossible to distinguish the arenaceous beds of the different Ter-
tiary formations. “The sandy beds of the Buhrstone are inter-
mingled with those of the Pliocene, which pass into the superin-
cumbent beds of the post-Pliocene, and the latter are in turn blended
with the moving sands of the coast.”

From 1856 on through a few years, Mr. O. M. Lieber, State
geologist, made his annual reports on the survey of South Carolina.
For the most part these reports treat of the Piedmont portion of the
State and are largely of an economic nature. He does, however, in
the report for 1856 touch upon Pleistocene formations. He, too,
had his tilt at the great question of the subsidence of the coast, and

1g

in an article published in the American Journal of Science in 1859,
he treats changes along the coast and puts himself on record as a
believer that the coast is subsiding.

About 1870 the phosphate industry of the State had grown to
such proportions as to make the question of the origin of the phos-
phoric acid, of the extent of the beds, of the varying richness and
probability of continuance a matter of investigation for geologists.
DE Ui) @4 Shepherd, Prot. N: S:)Shater, and’ Prof, F.S. Holmes
were among the number to turn their attention to these phosphate
deposits. The fragments of Eocene (as then considered) marl,
worn and robbed of their lime and giving a “naphthous odor” when
rubbed together, that Tuomey and Holmes, and perhaps others,
had noticed along the Ashley as early as 1850, were found to be
rich phosphate. The question as to how they were enriched links
them to the Pleistocene, for it is generally thought now that the
phosphoric acid has been supplied from the offal and bones of the
vertebrate animals whose fossils Holmes claims for the Pleistocene.
Be that as it may, Shaler studied the geology of the Carolina coast
region, and in his article in the United States Coast Survey, Report
of 1870, he contributed something to the knowledge of South Caro-
lina Pleistocene. In general, he observed: That the two or three
tiers of islands along the coast from Winyah Bay southward are
separated from one another and from the mainland by tide-water
creeks that are for the most part parallel to the shore line, and that
therefore the stream channels are not the result of glacier scourings,
as is the case along the coast of Maine; that the origin of these
stream channels, since no sign of aerial erosion could be found, must
be attributed to the work of tidal currents before this region was up-
lifted the last time or just as it was being uplifted; that according
to Professor Agassiz, the Florida mole had not been built in early
Pleistocene times, and that therefore the Gulf Stream came in much
closer to the shore then than now, and its power as a scouring agent
was more vigorous; that there is no real subsidence of the coast,
the seeming subsidence being due to the land being undermined by
the waves and to the decay of considerable thicknesses of vegetable
matter, bringing about a settling down of the overlying sands.

There remains of this historic review only to mention briefly the
work done in the region within the last quarter of a century, such
work being used as a basis for another division of this paper. In
1881 Professor Leidy discussed “Vertebrate Remains, Chiefly from
South Carolina.” In 1882 we have the report of the Committee on

20

the Artesian Well of Charleston, which is remarkably full of scien-
tific knowledge, especial pains having been taken to notice everything
that came up and from what depth. In 1883 and 1884 the “Agri-
cultural Reports” of the State were made by Major Harry Ham-
mond; they are of not much worth geologically, being almost
altogether agricultural. In 1888 “Three Formations of the Atlantic
Slope,” by W. J. McGee, was published in the American Journal of
Science. This treatise does not deal directly with these formations
in South Carolina. In 1890 McGee, in his “Appomattox Forma-
tion,’ touched slightly on what he considered the continuation of
this formation into the State. In 1891, in his “Lafayette Formation,”
he gave several pages to South Carolina. In the same year J. A.
Holmes, whose knowledge of the geology of the State is extensive,
gave an account of the mineralogical, geological and agriculturai
surveys of the State in the Elisha Mitchell Science Society Journal.
In 1892, in the second part of the third volume of the Transactions
of the Wagner Free Institute of Science, Dr. Dall discusses the
marine Pliocene beds of the Carolinas, telling of the work of C. W.
Johnson on the Waccamaw, and giving a list of Pliocene fossils from
the Waccamaw beds. In the same year Dr. Dall, with the help of
G. D. Harris, prepared an extensive description of the Neocene of
North America, Bulletin No. 84 of the United States Geological
Survey ; in this the South Carolina formations are treated with some
degree of fullness. In 1896 N. H. Darton, in “Artesian Well Pros-
pects in the Atlantic Coastal Plain,” Bulletin No. 138, U. S. G. S.,
and in ‘Notes on Relations of the Coastal Plain Region in South
Carolina,” Bulletin, Geological Society of America, gave what is
still believed, in the main, to be the true order of beds in the parts
of the State that he investigated. In 1905 L. C. Glenn, in “Under-
ground Waters of the United States—South Carolina,” Water Sup-
ply and Irrigation Paper No. 114, U. S. G. S., gives a few pages to
the discussion of the succession and extent of the Coastal Plain series
of the State.

Il. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE PLEIS-
TOCENE OF THE COASTAL PLAIN.

The Pleistocene formation of the Atlantic coast is generally de-
scribed as extending from the terminal moraine in north-central New
Jersey through Maryland and Virginia and the South Atlantic and
Gulf States on to the Mexican border line and beyond. It every-
where unconformably overlies the earlier formations and in places

21

overlaps upon the crystalline area of the Piedmont Plateau, espe-
cially along stream channels cut in these rocks. It is divisible
throughout this stretch of country into two general divisions: (1)
That just along the present shore line, extending back a few miles
only, composed of sands, clays and loams fairly well stratified and
containing fossils, in most cases overlaid by recent sands and coarser
material. (2) That extending from the old Pleistocene shore line and
in some cases, from up the stream channels some distance down to
within a few miles of the present shore line, to where it intergrades
into the fossiliferous Pleistocene. The beds of this second division,
consisting of sand, gravel and (in the northern part) bowlders, mixed
with finer sands, clays and loams, are not so well stratified as are the
beds of the other division, and contain no marine invertebrate fossils.
It is of much greater area than the first division, and is the surface
formation throughout much of the Coastal Plain region. In the north-
ern half of this stretch of country, the non-fossiliferous portion of the
Pleistocene or the Columbia seems to be capable of a ready division .
into two or more formations. This is especially true in New Jersey and
Maryland, where it has been studied more thoroughly than else-
where. Also in Virginia divisions have been made. In the southern
part, especially in South Carolina, no suitable basis for subdivisions
has as yet been found.

Outside of this broad continual mantle of Pleistocene or Columbia
sands, there are disconnected areas of it to the nortly of New Jersey,
along the coast of New York and New England and on the neighbor-
ing islands, and indeed on up to Labrador and Greenland. It is well
to note here that the Pleistocene is generally considered to-have been
ushered in with the first great advance of the ice-sheet from the
North into more southernly latitudes—with the Glacial Epoch, in a
word. Therefore, in this northern part of the formation, the deposits
consist largely of the product of glacial action; clay, sand and bowl-
ders, arranged in the way peculiar to glacial action or to the influence
of glacial action. Of course, where the deposits have been subma-
rine, the material may have been reworked and changed from strictly
glacial deposits. The Pleistocene deposits about Lake Champlain
and along the St. Lawrence and elsewhere along the coast north of
Maine may, in this discussion, be set aside and the tracing begin with
Maine and extend only to Florida. This includes the Pleistocene that
is closely related to this formation in South Carolina. It seems best
to treat the Pleistocene by States.

22

MAINE.

According to Packard,? there are two distinct horizons of the
Pleistocene in Maine as is indicated by life-forms. The older is
found along the coast at about high-tide mark at the bottom of the
bowlder clay. The younger occupies the coast region from the shore
line to fifty miles or more inland, and ranging from 25 to 300 feet in
altitude. J. D. Dana, in his “Manual of Geology,” fourth edition,
page 983, makes the statement that the Pleistocene exists along the
coast of Maine, and extends back from the shore line some miles at
different elevations up to 225 feet. From the places he cites, the
Pleistocene localities seem to be in two belts; one just along the
shore line, and the other back at a distance of fifty miles almost
parallel with the shore line. The following Pleistocene fossils have
been reported from these localities: Leda penula, Leda tenuisulcata,
Leda minuta, Yoldia glacilis,Pecten Groenlandicus, Pecten islandicus,
Cardium islandicus, Astarte Banksti, Astarte elliptica, Astarte cas-
tanea, Thracia Conradi, Macoma fragilis, Macoma sabulosa, Saxicava
arctica, Mactra ovalis, Mya truncata, Mya arenaria, Pholas crispata,
Natica clausa, Lunatia Groenlandica, Lunatia heros. The strata
containing these shells of undoubted Pleistocene Age are for the most
part composed of clay, in which there is a generous intermixture of
bowlders.

. NEW HAMPSHBRE.

According to Dall and Harris, in Bulletin No. 84, United States
Geological Survey, there is in the southeastern part of Portsmouth a
deposit of blue plastic clay, containing Nucula, Macoma and a few
recent forms, which is doubtless of the same age as the Pleistocene
just described as occurring on the coast of Maine.

MASSACHUSETTS.

There are several exposures of fossiliferous Pleistocene beds along
the coast of Massachusetts and on the neighboring islands. Later in
this paper there is given a partial list of Pleistocene fossils found at
Sankoty Head on the Island of Nantucket. The strata here consist
of clay at the base, of thirty-three feet of sand, gravel and clay con-

1“Results of Observations on the Drift Phenomena of Labrador and the
Atlantic Coast Southward” (Am. Jour. Sci. 2d ser., Vol. XLI, pp. 30-32) ;
“Observations on the Glacial Phenomena of Labrador and Maine, etc.” (Am.
Jour. Sci., 2d ser., Vol. XLIV, pp. 117, 118).

23

taining fossils, forty-two feet of sand and gravel without fossils, one
foot of peat, and at the top of the section six feet of dune sand. The
species of shells in the beds, according to Verrill,’ indicate a warmer
climate by 15° F. for the deposition of the lower bed than for that of
the upper; 70°-75° F. for the lower and 55°-60° F. for the upper—
one a warmer climate than now prevails, the other a colder. On
Martha’s Vineyard almost all the superficial deposits are of Glacial
or Recent age, the pre-Glacial outcropping only at Gay Head and
Chilmark Cliffs. On the island of Naxshon, northwest of Martha’s /
Vineyard, almost all the surface formations are of such a nature as
to denote glacial action, if not in the deposition at least in the wear-
ing and rearranging of material already deposited during some pre-
ceding period. Shaler is disposed to consider “‘these sands more
nearly related to the deposits of the Glacial Age than to those of the
preceding series.”

RHODE ISLAND AND CONNECTICUT.

Here and there along the shores of these two States, especially of
Rhode Island, have been found exposures of the Pleistocene forma-
tion, containing characteristic fossils. In the neighborhood of New
Haven, on Long Island Sound, the Pleistocene terrace from an eleva-
tion of about twenty feet slopes evenly toward the Sound. Not much
has been written on the extent of the Pleistocene in these two
States.

NEW YORK.

Staten Island, Long Island and Gardiner’s Island bear in their sur-
face formations evidences of glacial action. The old terminal mo-
raine extends across Long Island. The sands and gravels of Gardi-
ner’s Island, according to Sanderson Smith?, contain twenty-five
species of fossil forms, of which all but two now inhabit the waters
South of Cape Cod. They indicate that the climate under which they
lived was colder than that which now prevails on the same coast. In
all this region from New York to Maine, the Pleistocene deposits
are so intermingled with the drift and so covered by it that they have
not been worked out so satisfactorily as otherwise might have been
the case.

1“QOn the Post-Pliocene Fossils of Sankoty Head, Nantucket Island” (Am.
Jour. Sci., 3d ser., Vol. X, pp. 364-75).

2“Notice of a Post-Pliocene Deposit on Gardiner’s Island, Suffolk County,
New York” (New York Lyceum Nat. Hist., Annals, Vol. VIII, pp. 149-151).

24

NEW JERSEY.

Beginning with New Jersey south of the terminal moraine, how-
ever, there is better opportunity to study the formations of the Pleis- .
tocene Age than in the country to the north. This State has been
worked and reworked by able geologists. The most thorough work,
especially for the Pleistocene, has been done by Professor Salisbury,
working through a number of years with one or more assistants.
The Pleistocene has been traced and mapped, and described as con-
stituting a large part of the surficial deposits of the State in that por-
tion lying to the east and south of a northeast-southwest line running
from near the mouth of the Raritan River on to Trenton on the Dela-
ware, with a few isolated patches lying to the northwest of this. The
Pleistocene here has been divided into two or more divisions, the
ground for which, in the absence of fossils, has been based upon dif-
ferences in the physical constituents of the several formations com-
bined with the topographical relations. The Bridgeton formation,
earliest Pleistocene, rests unconformably upon the Beacon Hill for-
mation (which is either very late Miocene or else Lafayette or Plio-
cene) and older formations. The material is heterogeneous, consist-
ing of bowlders, large and small, of gravel, coarse sand and fine, the
coarse sand and gravel predominating. The material has evidently
been derived by glacial and stream action from the older Beacon
Hill, the Miocene, the Triassic, the crystalline schists, and from cer-
tain Paleozoic formations varying with the locality. This formation
extends in patches across the middle portion of that part of the State
occupied surficially by the Pleistocene. The Pensauken, Middle
Pleistocene, extends in remnants across the State in northeast-south-
west direction in two belts—one along the trough from Raritan Bay
to Trenton and Salem, and then down the Delaware River ; the other
in the eastern part of the State, almost paralleling the shore line and
extending back only a few miles from the shore. The Cape May
formation, late Pleistocene, covers the border of the State along the
Atlantic from Raritan Bay to Cape May; then along Delaware
Bay and River to Trenton, everywhere extending back several
miles from the shore line, and up stream valleys in some cases
twenty-five or thirty miles. It is most abundantly developed in the
southern part of the State—in Cape May, Cumberland and Salem
counties. The material of the Cape May formation consists of
gravel, sand and loam, and indicates, from its slight elevation (forty
or fifty feet) and from the absence of bowlders, that it was deposited
under less vigorous stream action than were the Pensauken and

25

Bridgeton. Indeed, it seems that the successive Pleistocene submer-
gences of this State became slighter and the glacial influence less
pronounced as the Recent period was approached.

PENNSYLVANIA AND DELAWARE.

The extreme eastern border of Pennsylvania along the Delaware,
south of Trenton, has surficial deposits of Pleistocene corresponding
to the Pensauken and Cape May of New Jersey, just across the
river. Delaware, lying between New Jersey and Pennsylvania on
the one hand and Maryland on the other, is largely covered with the
Pleistocene. The divisions of the Pleistocene in Maryland corre-
spond to those in New Jersey; and the Delaware Pleistocene, though
almost no recent work has been done on it, is undoubtedly capable
of being divided in the same way.

MARYLAND.

The Pleistocene in Maryland consists of a mantle of unconsoli-
dated loams, sands and gravels, covering most of the earlier deposits
of the lowland and lapping well up on the Piedmont Plateau in
places. McGee, Darton, Shattuck and others have worked on the
relationships between the different phases of the Pleistocene and
earlier formations. The Columbia or Pleistocene has been divided
variously by the different workers in the field. One division makes
a fluvial and an interfluvial phase, together with a littoral or low-
level deposit. The fluvial consists of deltas deposited under water by
those streams in whose valleys they now occur when the land stood
lower than it does today. It is subject to further division, the lower
member being composed of sand, gravel and huge bowlders, the
upper of clay and loam. The material as a whole is coarser near the
mouths of gorges, where the streams leave the Piedmont Plateau,
than in the more remote parts of the deltas. The interfluvial phase
possesses no regular stratification, but is an indiscriminate mixture of
clay, sand and gravel, water fashioned but not fluvial, which mantles
the divides. The low-level deposit, just along the shore and in some
cases extending up the rivers, contains in some of its exposures fos-
sils of mollusca and other forms. Another division, that of Darton,
separates the Columbia into an earlier and a later Columbia. The
Columbia. rests unconformably upon the Lafayette or Pliocene.
These three formations, the Lafayette and the two members of the
Columbia, are found in the upper part of the stream channels which

26

they occupy in the following order: At the top, Lafayette; then, on
a middle terrace, the earlier Columbia, and farther down the later
Columbia. This indicates clearly that the successive submergences
were slighter and slighter. Along the coast and back from the
stream channels these formations are not developed in terraces so
plainly, but in a more continued series with an erosion break be-
tween the Lafayette and the earlier Columbia.

The latest division of the surficial deposits of the Pleistocene in
Maryland is threefold: Sunderland, Wicomico and Talbot. The
Sunderland is considerably developed in Prince George’s, Charles,
St. Mary’s and Calvert counties, lying against the Piedmont or
lapping around the edges of the Lafayette. The material composing
it consists of gravel, sand and loam, containing occasional bowlders.
The base of the Sunderland is about 90 feet above tide, and in places
reaches 170 feet above tide. . The Wicomico consists structurally of
material very much like that of the Sunderland, but the proportion
of sand and loam is larger. The base of this formation is about
forty to fifty feet above tide level in southern Maryland, but higher
in altitude to the north. The Talbot formation is a terrace of vary-
ing width, lapping around the edges of the Wicomico, attaining a
height of thirty to fifty feet. Any sort of material that enters into
the composition of the other terraces may be found in the Talbot,
but the percentage of loam is greater, and it also contains lenses of
greenish-blue clay, in which are embedded plant remains. The Corn-
field Harbor clays, carrying remains of marine and brackish-water
animals, and also similar deposits five miles south of Cedar Point
are referred to the Talbot formation. This is an instance of the grad-
ing over of the Columbia sands of the region back from the coast
into the littoral or low-level Pleistocene. The base of the Talbot
terrace is irregular, lying above tide at some places and below at
others, but the top where it borders the sea cliff is usually limited
by the forty-five or fifty foot contour. Large areas of Wicomico and
Talbot have been mapped on the “western shore” of Maryland, but
it is on the “eastern shore” that they attain their most marked de-
velopment.

The following, according to Shattuck’, may have been the order
and extent of the later Coastal Plain formations in Maryland: Mio-
cene elevation and erosion; subsidence and deposition of Lafayette ;

1“The Pleistocene Problem of the Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain” (Am.
Geol., Vol. XXVIII, pp. 87-107, 1901).

27

elevation and extensive erosion; subsidence and deposition of the
Sunderland around the edges of the Lafayette; elevation and erosion ;
subsidence and deposition of the Wicomico terrace about the margin
of the Sunderland; elevation and erosion; subsidence and deposition
of the Talbot about the margin of the Wicomico; elevation and par-
tial erosion of the Talbot; subsidence and deposition of the Recent
terrace about the edges of the Talbot.

This division of the Pleistocene in Maryland has. been entered into
rather more fully than may seem necessary for the immediate pur-
pose, but is put here because of the fact that it is to be referred to in
treating the South Carolina Pleistocene. The same may be said for
the discussion of the surface formations of New Jersey.

In Maryland it seems that the later Columbia comprises both the
Talbot and the Wicomico, while the earlier Columbia finds its equiv-
alent in the Sunderland. The indications are that the successive sub-
sidences were greater in the northern part of the formation than in
the southern. The materials deposited contain larger bowlders in the
northern than in the southern part. The successive submergences
seem to have been less as the Recent period was approached. This
conclusion fits in well with the observations made in New Jersey.

VIRGINIA.

The division of the Pleistocene or Columbia into fluvial and
interfluvial phases in this State is very similar to the same division
in Maryland, and need not be given again in detail. However, the
indications are that the successive Pleistocene submergences were not
so deep as they were farther north. The interfluvial phase is beginning
to be the prominent one, and farther south the fluvial phase is almost
lost sight of altogether, and the interfluvial is the all-important one.
The material here, though in the main the same as that in Maryland,
contains relatively much smaller bowlders in the basal member, and
farther south the bowlders disappear. As yet no fossiliferous Pleisto-
cene beds have been reported from Virginia, but we are not to con-
clude that there are none along the Virginia coast. The supposition
is that they are there, either unexposed or exposed in some little-fre-
quented localities. The Columbia here, as elsewhere along the mid-
dle Atlantic coast, extends well inland to the inner edge of the
Coastal Plain region, and together with the Lafayette is almost
everywhere the surficial formation. Erosion has in places carried
it away, and left the Pliocene or Miocene or other older formation
exposed. It is everywhere a mere superficial capping, varying in

28

thickness from ten to thirty feet. Virginia seems to be the region of
change for this formation. In the region to the west and north of
Washington, the earlier Columbia is at high altitudes, and the later
lies on the low terraces in the deeper portions of the depressions, but
to the east and south the later Columbia lies in regular succession on
the earlier. As we go farther south from Virginia; the later Colum-
bia advances more upon the earlier, and in South Carolina, where it
is almost impossible to make any division at all, perhaps it is that
the later has entirely overlapped the earlier.

NORTH CAROLINA.

In this State the interfluvial phase of the Columbia has almost
eclipsed the fluvial in extent and in importance. The Pleistocene
formation here is so closely similar in occurrence and in composition
to the same formation in South Carolina that it need not be spoken
of at length. About 1840 Conrad wrote a description of a Pleisto-
cene locality on Neuse River, and gave a list of the fossils found
there’, thirty-four in number. But upon further investigation this
locality has been classed as Pliocene within late years. However,
there are some fossiliferous Pleistocene beds along the coast of North
Carolina. As in South Carolina, these beds are confined to a belt
along the shore extending inland only a few miles.

SOUTH CAROLINA.

Inasmuch as a separate discussion of the Pleistocene of this State
is to be given in this paper, nothing further need be said concerning
itguere:

GEORGIA.

Very little has been done upon the geology of the Coastal Plain
of this State. But Couper and McCallie have given brief descriptions
of the region, and McGee, in “Lafayette Formation,” gives a few
pages to Georgia. The Coastal Plain extends over all that part of
Georgia lying south of a line running from Augusta westward across
the State by Columbus and Macon. Here, as elsewhere along the
margin of the region, the different formations advance in varying
degree. The Pleistocene sometimes comes so far inland as to rest
upon the Piedmont crystallines, and at other places upon the Potomac,

1“Observations on a Portion of the Atlantic Tertiary Region, etc.”
(National Inst. Proc., Vol. I, pp. 171-94).

a,

* Cretaceous, Eocene, Miocene or Pliocene. There is here that alter-
nation of “sand hills’ and “red hills’? which is characteristic of North
and South Carolina in their central areas. But farther toward the
sea the Columbia or Pleistocene is the surface formation com-
pletely concealing the Lafayette or Pliocene beneath. The forma-
tion varies in thickness from a few inches to several feet. In the belt
just along the coast, Pleistocene fossils have been found.

FLORIDA.

The greater part of Florida is covered superficially with a thin
capping of white sand, just beneath which is yellow sand. The age
of these sands has not yet been fully determined. Florida is unusu-
ally rich in marine Pleistocene deposits. To use the words of Dall
and Harris concerning these marine deposits: “There are multitudes
of such localities where these beds are visible, mostly at elevations
not very far from present water-level, and indicating a small elevation,
with possibly a smaller subsequent depression, since they were de-
posited on the western side of the peninsula; while on the east there
has been a slow, somewhat intermittent elevation, which has amounted
in the total to not less than twenty feet above the present sea level in
the cases where it is lowest, and possibly as much more in some local-
ities. Without definite proof of the fact, it seems as if there had been
a tilting of the peninsula on its north and south axis in Pleistocene
times.” These Pleistocene localities are especially plentiful along
the western side of the peninsula, in one place overlying the Pliocene
and in another the Miocene. Elsewhere in this paper may be found
a list of the Florida Pleistocene fossils.

Ht. GEOGRAPHIC AND STRATIGRAPHIC RELA-
TIONS OF THE PLEISTOCENE IN SOUTH
CAROLINA.

The order of formations in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina is,
as can be best determined, as follows:

COMA eS ee NM Neai ian Soot shea an Ue menu van ee SEOCOIE
MATAVECLEMPIIN EN venta acai etcetera) sus naiailanan tena gunaca talk I OCENe
NTTOCEME SUN ile eee ee eer ciigon Calatione hat Nate Mne ey ne IMT OCEIe
EGCEH Eee eI hee oii lero ate evs Nia ae eaN setene (i OCT

MHe Cheacetna!. AION.) Aan aae nee ate eke) Reta CEOs
IPOLOMAC. Sua), is . .Cretaceous

The Potomac A ee nee ie esata feider of the Coastal

30

Plain in a belt four or five miles wide, sometimes swelling to a °
width of ten miles, extending from Augusta through Aiken, south of
Lexington, through Columbia and on into North Carolina, through
Camden and Cheraw. The lower strata of the formation differ
markedly from the upper; they consist of coarse sands mainly with
pebbles, sometimes consolidated to a soft sandstone toward the south.
The upper beds are composed of finer sands and clays in the main.
However, there seems to be an intergrading of these two series of
strata, clays occurring in the lower and cross-bedded standstones
in the upper in places. The Potomac, outcropping here and over-
lying the Piedmont crystallines, extends on out beneath the later
formations, and has been reached and bored through or into, in
boring artesian wells at Florence, Darlington, Marion, Charleston
and other places. The beds in these places show a combined thick-
ness of 400 feet or more. Its slope toward the sea is greater than
the surface slope today. It is highly probable that there is a marine
phase of the Potomac into which the true Potomac, as just described,
intergrades. But the fossils reported by Toumey, as occurring in
these beds at the outcrop, are perhaps nothing more than the im-
pressions of mica plates so curved as to appear very much like the
impressions of shells or rather fragments of shells.

The Marine Cretaceous unconformably overlies the Potomac in
the northeastern part of the State. The materials are marls, sands,
and clays with characteristic fossils. The formation seems to thin
out before reaching the Santee and Wateree toward the south, and
is in most places overlaid by some one of the Tertiary formations.
Along the Waccamaw, it is plainly exposed in many places and is
overlaid by the Pliocene. On the Peedee and some of its tributaries
the Cretaceous is also exposed, and in some places overlaid by the
Pliocene and in others by the Miocene. There is probably an ex-
posure or two on Black River, a few miles below Kingstree. The
formation, which is near the surface in Horry, Marion, Darlington,
Florence, Williamsburg, and Georgetown counties, after seeming to
pinch out just east of the Wateree-Santee line, thickens enormously
toward the south, so that at Charleston it occupies the greater part
of the depth between 450 and 1,950 feet in the artesian wells. But
some of this thickness at Charleston and in the southern part of the
State may be the marine phase of the Potomac. The distinction the
writer would make between marine Cretaceous and the marine
phase of the Potomac is simply one in point of time of deposition—
the marine Cretaceous being put down upon the Potomac after an

31

erosion interval, the marine phase of the Potomac being put down
at the same time with the true Potomac. To just which one of these
two formations the beds at Charleston belong, is a question which is
not yet fully determined. Darton seems to consider the greater part
of this thickness as belonging to the marine phase of the Potomac;
but the fossils from it have an appearance very similar to that of the
fossils of the marine Cretaceous of New Jersey, and the probability
is strong that these beds at Charleston, to a considerable depth, are
marine Cretaceous resting upon the Potomac.

South and west of the Santee, the Potomac is overlaid by the
Eocene, which also extends northward overlying the marine Cre-
taceous and becoming thinner and thinner as it stretches northward
until it exists only in widely scattered patches on the irregular sur-
face of the Cretaceous marl and gives out altogether before reaching
the Waccamaw. At Charleston and thereabout, the Eocene rests
upon the marine Cretaceous. In the western part of the Eocene
formation in the State, where it outcrops along the line from Aiken
to within a few miles of Columbia, the lowest beds are composed of
buhrstone and argillaceous beds. This Buhrstone formation, accord-
ing to Darton,’ appears to lose its characteristics in the extreme
eastern part of the State and becomes a marl. According to the
same writer, the thickness of the Eocene members at Charleston is
about 370 feet, and are supposed to extend upward to about 60 feet
from the surface. Now, elsewhere in this chapter, it is pointed out
that the Pliocene has been reported from a depth of 65 feet at
Charleston. If this latter statement be true, then the Eocene must
be somewhat farther down still—maybe very little farther. Besides
the Buhrstone the Eocene beds consist of marls of various kinds,
which have been put into two classes by Toumey and others—viz., the
Santee beds, which are light colored, and the Ashley and Cooper
beds, which are darker in color.

What small, thin patches of Miocene have been left after erosion
are in the northeastern part of the State, in Florence, Sumter, Dar-
lington and Marion counties. It occupies depressions in either the
Eocene or the marine Cretaceous. The beds are rarely more than
thirty feet in thickness, and are generally much thinner. They con-
sist of sands and marls and contain many species of molluscan fos-
sils. Other small areas of it have been found in the southern part

1“Notes on the Relations of Lower Members of the Coastal Plain Series in
South Carolina” (Geol. Soc. Amer., Bull., Vol. VII, pp. 512-18, 1806).

32

of the State, notably on Goose Creek and on the Ashley. The geo-
graphical situation of these remnants of beds indicates that the
Miocene formation was deposited continuously over the lower part
of the Coastal Plain area of the State, but has been so extensively
eroded as to leave only these fragments here and there.

The Pliocene in South Carolina may be looked upon as divided into
a fossiliferous and a non-fossiliferous member. The latter is called
Lafayette, but may prove to be of the same age as the fossiliferous
Pliocene. The fossiliferous beds are well cut into by the Waccamaw
River, and afford many species of fossils, and are seen to contain an
occasional nodule of phosphatic material. The presence here of phos-
phate in well-determined Pliocene deposits, together with the fact
that the Pliocene beds of Florida are highly phosphorated, lead us
also to consider the phosphate beds in the region about Charleston
to be either Pliocene in age or else to have been phosphorated during
this period. These facts, combined with the occurrence of Pliocene
fossils from a depth of sixty-five feet in the artesian wells of Charles-
ton, indicate that the fossiliferous Pliocene may underlie the surface
formation of a large part of the coast of the State. The color of the
sand and clay in which the fossils on the Waccamaw are embedded,
is yellow and in marked contrast to the gray sands above. This fur-
nishes a connecting link between the fossiliferous Pliocene and the
Lafayette farther inland, which is everywhere seen to consist of
“orange-colored” sands and clays. Future detailed work may reveal
an intergrading of the two members. It at any rate seems perfectly
safe, from its occurrence elsewhere, to regard the Lafayette as Plio-
cene. According to McGee’, the Lafayette formation extends across
the State in a broad belt at an elevation varying from 25 to 650 feet
above tide level. In the western part of its extent the Lafayette rests
unconformably upon the Piedmont crystallines in some instances,
and again upon the Potomac. Toward the east it rests unconforma-
bly upon the Miocene, Eocene or Marine Cretaceous. It varies in
thickness from thirty to eighty feet. Though “orange colored” for
the most part, yet there are marked variations in the color of the
sands, clays and loams which compose the formation. Sometimes
the color is a chocolate brown, at other times a brighter red than the
usual orange. The Pliocene is everywhere, except, perhaps, on its
western margin, unconformably overlaid by the Pleistocene; or,
differently expressed, the Lafayette is everywhere unconformably

1“Three Formations of the Middle Atlantic Slope’ (Am. Jour. Sci., 3d
ser., Vol. XL, 1890).

33

overlaid by the Columbia. Where erosion has carried away the gray
or whitish-colored Columbia sands and the alternating orange-colored
sands are exposed, the difference is quite marked and the contrast
rather pleasing than otherwise.

The fossiliferous Pleistocene, as stated elsewhere in this paper, is
exposed in numerous places along the entire coast line of the State,
where streams have cut down and carried away the overlying mate-
rial Nowhere do these exposures occur farther inland than ten
miles from the present shore line. Everywhere the bed is not far
above or far below tide level, though at one place, Laurel Bluff, it
occurs, according to Tuomey, at an elevation of eight feet above tide,
and at Charleston it lies several feet below tide. The following de-
scriptions of localities, together with sections where they could be
obtained, will serve to show this. In making these descriptions, re-
course is had to the literature on the subject, especially where the
country has been so changed by the forces of nature and by man’s
activities—in phosphate mining and otherwise—as to almost, if not
quite, destroy these beds of shells once so well exposed.

I, Price’s Creek (White Point Creek), Horry County.

The exposure here seems to have been a bed of loose sand and
shells, not deeply covered by overlying sands, as is the case in many
other localities. The bed was about six feet thick and was elevated
above tide about five feet. Among the shells found were Venus mer-
cenaria, Ostrea Virginica, Scapharca incongrua, Arca Noae and a
species of Pectunculus.

[I use the past tense here because of the fact that this bed could
not be located last summer, as explained in the introduction to this
paper. |

II. Laurel, Georgetown County, northeastern corner.

A section here of the perpendicular bluff of the Waccamaw gives:

Wellowishy light-colored sand «oe «14/0! < dieie eles ayn « 20 feet
MMU SDAARLEL nO cay etic Dene Wie ately soluncp anptantedeey atevionait ata 6 inches to 1 foot
Fossiliferous bed, sand and broken shells, contain-

mena rea Miacira, RANSIG, ELC ho ss os a seal sha las 8 feet

The top of the bed is eight feet above tide. This is possibly a
Pliocene bed, as some have claimed; but the fact that all the fossils
listed from it have been found elsewhere in the Pleistocene, and also
especially that Donax variabilis, one of the species found, has not
been found as yet earlier than the Pleistocene, justifies one in consid-
ering the bed Pleistocene rather than Pliocene.

3—P. D.

34

III. Winyah Canal, Georgetown County, southern part.

Here, in excavating the canal connecting Winyah Bay with the
north run of the Santee, Pleistocene fossils were exposed. This in-
dicates that the whole country thereabouts is underlaid at a slight
depth beneath the surface by this formation.

IV. Wambraw Creek (?), Charleston County, northern part.

To quote directly from Tuomey: “In Christ Church Parish,
Charleston District, there are several exposures where this bed comes
so near the surface as to be within reach of the plough. The marl
is sufficiently calcareous as to be of great economic value. In one in-
stance I found a bed of calcareous mud, such as is formed by the dis-
integration of corals.” As well as can be learned, this locality is on
Wambraw Creek, or not far from it.

V. Goose Creek, north of Charleston.

The section here, according to Holmes, is:

iellowucands ott fe oti ee sakes «kolo a eeamermetae mae dra tei ate 12 feet
Echt? 0 0y 01s Aaa oo eR ARP ee Sem a, i Stag 0 OE 2 feet
Ferruginous sand, containing bones, etc.... .. .. «ss... 3 inches
elo Sandee te: i iets ob AACS eet at lo) aligdts's? tye mer
Pliocene marl, resting on Eocene white marl............. 12 feet

The fossil bones are in a good state of preservation, especially in
the blue mud. More will be said of these deposits of vertebrate fos-
sils in describing the next locality.

VI. Ashley River.

This locality, famous for the beds of vertebrate fossils which
Holmes, after a careful study for a number of years, considered
Pleistocene, and which are still considered Pleistocene by most geol-
ogists, furnishes about thirty-five or forty species of vetebrate fos-
sils. A section here gives something like this:

Yellow sands with bands of clay: .°.).0.:) 204.024... 4 Feet
Blue mud just above the Miocene marls.. .. .. .. 1 foot to more.

In some places there is a varying thickness of sand or of sand and
clay between the blue mud and the Miocene marls. The fossil bones
which are found in these strata are often in a good state of preserva-
tion, especially those in the blue mud. This locality and that on
Goose Creek were especially interesting to the geologists of thirty-
five or forty years ago, when numerous vertebrate fossils could be
picked up; but now that they have been despoiled in working the
phosphate deposits, they have lost some of the interest that they once

35

had. These sections have been given more as a matter of historic
interest than anything else.

VII. Bee’s Ferry, Ashley River.

Here a section shows:

Fine, loose sands. .....:.°.. : see lvacihab Sike 20 feet
Fossiliferous bed, sands and bras el need asl ate 3 feet
Fine laminated clay, resting on blue mud with layers of

sand between laminea, containing Mactra.. .... ... 6inches

The top of the fossiliferous strata is about at high-water mark.
This exposure is about 200 yards long, and from it Tuomey collected
twenty-six species common to the Pleistocene elsewhere in the State.

VIII. Charleston.

A section from the wells in the city shows the following order of
strata:

Loose sand, below which water is found.... .. .. .. .. 5 to6 feet
Quick sand and clay, with occasional remains of trees... 9 feet
Sancvancdrsmallshellse ta... Ncuk ene nim ae ace tein satis erst 1b TOOL
Gravel and‘ oyster shells... 45 <1. ATR ise Feu tee ake ACER
Fine, close clay and young as ayetin sella Sede intake ape Re
hath clay, with scales. of mica's. <.) 062% is edie velo serie as 20 feet

Continuing this from the report of the special committee on the
artesian well, Charleston, we have, after a break:
Pliocene deposit with Tellina, Arca, etc...... from 65to 100 feet
Tertiary, Venus, Tellina, phosphate nodules...from 80to 100 feet
Tertiary, phosphate nodules, oyster shell brec-

Rialees hil ath. ale, Brstnaihe atathegs aid aay ataleens from 350to 430 feet
Cretaceous fossils, varying with depth........ from 600 to 1,955 feet

IX. Stono River.
The section here, according to Dr. Glenn, is:

Sands, mostly loose, light-colored near surface from veg-

etable matter, but in middle and lower parts varying

from light cream color to red. Lh strate . 8to 14 feet
Pleistocene fossils in white or tote gray oe math little

mud and with some loose nodules of phosphate rock.. 3to 4 feet
Nodular phosphate rock overlying Tertiary marls. Shells

well preserved in the beds, which were being removed

to get at the phosphate rock beneath... .. ..........0to 4 feet

36

X. Young Island, Wadmalaw Sound.
A section of the bluff in the lower part of which lies the fossil
bed is:

Loose, yellowish, light-colored sands.. .. .. .. .. ....10toI5 feet
Ferruginous sand with casts of shells, breaking in fairly

MOOG, LHMPS4 4.0.0 aie Loe etn Ne wie se Gt else oles al pee cts 2 NCEE
Red or brownish clay. . ae Pca eitoe ws M2) Reese

Fossiliferous bed, sand ak naviat ‘Colton Gith Tittle mud,
with comminuted shells, fossils in fine preservation.. 3 to 4 feet

The part of the bluff above the fossil-bearing stratum is almost
perpendicular, but the fossil bed slopes gently beneath the tide. The
tide rises to the level of the top of the bed of fossils. If observations
or collections are to be made, they must be made when the tide is
low. Many of the shells here, such as Barnea costata and Labiosa
canaliculata, are found in pretty much the same position they occu-
pied in life, having both valves entire and in correct position. The
shells are remarkably well preserved, having a bright, fresh appear-
ance, oftentimes retaining the polish and color they had the day they
were deposited.

XI. Doctor’s Swamp.

Here the fossil bed, which is of the usual thickness, three or four
feet, is overlaid by a kind of marshy soil surcapped by sand. The
extent of the exposure is considerable, being perhaps five miles in
length.

XII. Lady’s Island and other points around Beaufort.

A section in that neighborhood, which is roughly characteristic of
the fossiliferous Pleistocene in that whole region, is about as fol-
lows, according to Ruffin :

Loose beach sand.. OPP Peale Aisa On ah en . 8 to Io feet to more
Marl similar to iets common hae MieccHe ae
of Virginia, but containing Pleistocene fossils. 3 to 4 feet.

The fossiliferous Pleistocene, as is seen from the situation of the
localities just described, extends along the coast of the State from
northern Horry to southern Beaufort. It is composed here of sand,
clay and mud, with by far the greater percentage of sand in most
localities where examined. The fossil-bearing strata themselves are
rarely ever more than four feet in thickness, though the whole Pleis-
tocene formation may, in many places along the coast, be forty or
fifty to sixty feet in thickness.

37

In Horry and Georgetown counties, it overlies the Pliocene, as has
been fully determined ; and if the report of the Special Committee on
the artesian well at Charleston is to be relied upon, the Pliocene also
underlies the Pleistocene there. From a depth of sixty-five feet were
reported shells of the Pliocene Age. It is well known that, following
the Pliocene submergence and deposition, there was a period of ele-
vation and extensive erosion. Now, it is altogether possible, entirely
probable, that the Pliocene was entirely eroded and carried away in
places, but it is hardly probable that it would be altogether removed
from so extensive a stretch of country as that from southern George-
town to the Georgia line, as some have supposed, as may be assumed
from the statement made: ‘They [the Pleistocene strata] rest in
Horry and Georgetown on the Pliocene and for the remainder of the
coast on the Eocene.” In many places, no doubt, and over extensive
areas, they do rest upon the Eocene; but the fact, if it be a fact, that
the Pliocene exists at a depth beneath Charleston that corresponds to
the thickness of the Pleistocene is an indication that the Pliocene un-
derlies the Pleistocene not only in Horry and Georgetown, but all
along the coast where it has not been entirely removed by erosion.
For if the Pliocene exists beneath Charleston, as has been determined
by materials brought up from wells where a record has been kept, in
all probability it also underlies the Pleistocene in many other locali-
ties. This supposition, and in the nature of the case, it can be no
more than a supposition, can be held to until records from wells
either confirm or contradict it. The likelihood is that it will be con-
firmed ; for we have some additional proof that there are remnants of
other formations between the Eocene and the Pleistocene from Dr.
Dall’s examination of some fossils found in the “land phosphate” of
Ashley River, thought to belong to the Eocene by Holmes and others.
Dall has decided, after carefully examining the fossils found in lumps
of the “land phosphate” which were picked up on Block Island from
the wrecked cargo of a vessel laden with that commodity, that these
phosphatized nodules are not of Eocene Age, as generally supposed,
but of Miocene Age, nearly related to the Chesapeake Miocene. He
found about twenty species of fossils in these nodules of phosphate
picked up at Block Island, not one of which was found to be Eocene,
but all were well-known later or upper Miocene shells. Hence his
conclusion that the phosphatized nodules were of a later formation
than the Eocene; indeed, of the upper Miocene, corresponding to the
Chesapeake Miocene, as has just been mentioned. He adds that the
phosphatizing took place after the formation of the beds, possibly in

38

Pliocene times, as is the case of the phosphate beds of Peace River,
Florida. Again Holmes, in his description of the Goose Creek local-
ity, makes the assertion that the Pleistocene rests upon the Pliocene,
which in turn rests upon the Eocene. This, so far as is known to
the writer, has not been shown to be false. All in all, then, there
seems to be sufficient evidence to warrant the statement that between
the Pleistocene and Eocene south of Georgetown, all along the coast,
there are intervening beds of Pliocene or Miocene, where these lat-
ter beds have not been carried away altogether by erosion, which has
doubtless been the case over considerable areas here and there, where
stream, wave, current or tide activity has been especially vigorous.
This is about what should be expected under normal conditions.
The non-fossiliferous portion of the Pleistocene (and the writer
considers this the same as the Columbia of McGee), which includes
by far the greater amount of the surficial formation of the Coastal
Plain of the State, grades everywhere so gradually and uninterrupt-
edly into the fossiliferous, both in kind and arrangement of materials,
except the fossils of course, that it is impossible to draw any distinct
line between the two. This has usually been called Columbia from
its typical development in the District of Columbia. It has not been
found capable of subdivision into fluvial and interfluvial members
here, as has been the case in Virginia and farther North. Neither
does there exist a basis for such a division as that in Maryland into
Sunderland, Wicomico and Talbot, nor as that in New Jersey into
Bridgeton, Pensauken and Cape May. In New Jersey these divisions
respectfully represent early, middle and late Pleistocene; so likewise
do the divisions in Maryland represent the earlier and later Pleisto-
cene—the Sunderland and Wicomico being considered two divisions
of the earlier Columbia (or Pleistocene), and the Talbot the later.
Doubtless if there were two or more distinct submergences during
Pleistocene times in New Jersey and Maryland, there were also in
South Carolina; but here there are no terraced rivers or shore lines
to show this, and the sands and other materials are so nearly alike
as to be indistinguishable. It may be that the Talbot in Maryland
corresponds to the fossiliferous portion of the Pleistocene in South
Carolina, since to it (the Talbot) have been attributed the fossilifer-
ous beds at Cornfield Harbor and Wailes’ Bluff. The supposition is
that the successive Pleistocene submergences in South Carolina,
though on the whole less marked than those farther north, yet had
their relative depths somewhat reversed. That which took place in
Virginia, the advance of the interfluvial over the fluvial phase, may

39

have been so intensified here as to bring about a complete overlapping
and obscuring of the fluvial by the interfluvial, or of the “high level”
by the “low level,’ as denoted in Maryland. The sands are for the
most part loose, unconsolidated and to distinguish between succes-
sive depositions, without the aid of such phenomena as terraces or
bowlders and other things which help in the interpreting of condi-
tions farther north, is almost an impossibility at the present stage of
investigation into the problem.

As to the areal distribution of the Pleistocene in the State, it may
in a word be said to be the surficial formation over the entire Coastal
Plain of the State. According to J. A. Holmes*, the Coastal Plain
region of the State is covered almost everywhere with a mantle of
loose material—loam, clay and sand, the latter predominating. This
covering of sand, extending from the shore back to the inner margin
of the Coastal Plain and in places overlapping on the crystalline rocks
of the Piedmont Plateau, attains an elevation of 400 to 600 feet, and
belongs either to the Lafayette or to the Columbia formation. After
briefly describing the occurrences of the Cretaceous, the Eocene and
the Lafayette, Holmes says of the Columbia: “Spread out over this
deeply and irregularly eroded surface, resting in places on the
Lafayette or the Eocene or the Cretaceous, or where all these have
been removed, even on the crystalline rocks, lies the mantle of sand
and loam known as Columbia.” He further says: The topography
of this inner margin of the Coastal Plain is as old as the post-Creta-
ceous and post-Eocene erosion intervals. The valleys and stream
channels formed then were nearly filled during the Lafayette deposi-
tion, but were opened up again practically along the same lines dur-
ing the post-Lafayette erosion period. The Columbia deposition
mantled these hills and valleys with a slight covering only, and
erosion since that time has made but little change in the general
topography of the country in this marginal section of the Coastal
Plain. Farther toward the sea the sand becomes finer and has more
loam intermixed with it. Just along the present shore line and back a
short distance the Pleistocene is overlaid by the Recent sands, which
are coarser. It may be well to add that the very slight deposition
formed during the Pleistocene submergence has been in places eroded
from the hills and has left the orange-colored sands of the Lafayette
exposed. This intermixture of the two formations has given the
“sand hills” and “red hills” of the State. In studying the Pleistocene

1“Geology of the Sandhill Country of the Carolinas” (Geol. Soc. Amer.,
Bull., Vol. V, pp. 33-35, 1804).

40

sands, one sees very little or no difference in the material along the
streams and that on the divides between the streams. Furthermore,
there are no pebbles of such size as to warrant the name “bowlder.”
The largest water-worn fragments are less than a foot in diameter.
This, together with the fact noted by Shaler’, that the creeks along
the Coastal margin are more often parallel with the coast line
than perpendicular to it, and, therefore, could not have been the
result of glacier scourings as in Maine, justify the assertion that
glacial influence did not extend in any marked degree so far south
as to South Carolina; indeed, it may be said that glacial influence
here was almost if not quite imperceptible.

IV. TABLES OF SOUTH CAROLINA PLEISTOGENE
FOSSILS, WITH DATA TO ATTEMPT AN INTER-
PRETATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDI-
TIONS UNDER WHICH SUCH
FOSSILS LIVED.

I. EXPLANATION OF TABLES.

These tables have been made to include, as nearly as possible, all
Pleistocene molluscan fossils from South Carolina. Not much atten-
tion has been paid to vertebrate fossils of this age in the State, though
such have been found on Ashley River in great abundance and
elsewhere in some quantity. This is perhaps the largest list of Pleis-
tocene mollusca that has up to this time been published from the
State, including about 180 species, and representing about 110
genera or genera and subgenera combined. Much time and labor has
been spent in ascertaining the various facts regarding each species ;
and, however far astray the writer may go in drawing conclusions
from his tables, he feels confident that the tables represent the facts
in the case so far as they can at present be ascertained.

In regard to the tables, first, after the name of the species comes
the column to show whether or not it is in our own Vanderbilt Uni-
versity Collection; if it is the letter V is found opposite its name.
Next are the columns to show the localities in the State where each
species has been found. Young Island (Simmons Bluff in the litera-
ture) is the most noted locality, though the Stono River beds afford
almost as many species. The localities have been arranged in accord-

1“On the Phosphate Beds of South Carolina” (U. S. Coast Surv., Report
for 1870, pp. 182-89, Washington, 1870).

41

ance with the number of species found, as nearly as may be. The
fossils listed from Charleston come mainly from the artesian-well
borings. The last column of this series contains space for the listing
of fossils from localities where only a few species have been found,
and is headed simply “Other Places.” After this are columns to
show whether or not the different species lived in other geologic ages
preceding the Pleistocene and what ages, also whether or not they
are still living. In this last particular a blank opposite a name does
not necessarily mean that the species is extinct; it means simply that,
so far as known, the species is not still living. In these columns and
in the preceding the cross mark (X) indicates that the species is
found in that locality or in that age. In the first column for geologic
ages, “Pre-Miocene,” the following initial letters are used: E for
Eocene; O for Oligocene; C for Cretaceous. Then comes a column
to show the relative abundance or scarcity of each species as a Pleis-
tocene fossil, so far as this has been learned. In this column the
following initial letters are employed: VR for very rare; R for
rare; U for uncommon; NU for not uncommon; C for common;
FA for fairly abundant; A for abundant; VA for very abundant.
These terms are intended to show a gradual rise in point of numbers
from very rare, where only one or two or three individuals of the
species have been found in a considerable amount of material gath-
ered from any one locality, on up to very abundant, where almost a
sixth or fifth, sometimes more, of the material may be of a single
species.

Then are given, in appropriate columns, items concerning the en-
vironmental conditions of such Pleistocene species as are still living.
First, a column giving the depth range; in this, following Dall in
Bulletin No. 37 of the United States National Museum, when no
figures are given, it is usually to be understood that the depth is
shallow. The figures are given in fathoms, and written with the less
depth first ; then a dash (-), and the greater depth; for example, 3-24,
means ranging in depth from 3 fathoms to 24 fathoms. These depth
ranges cannot be relied upon without reserve for any one particular
beach or limited locality, for they apply to each species throughout
its entire geographical range. As is well known, a species living in
Massachusetts Bay, say, at a depth of 6-8 fathoms would, on migrat-
ing southward, seek ever-increasing depths in order to find waters as
cold as it had been accustomed to. In the second column is given
the kind of shore or bottom which the species prefers, whether
muddy, sandy, gravelly, shelly, rocky or what not. Where a species

42

seems to live almost equally as well on one kind of shore or bottom
as on another, effort will be made to put its habitats in order of pref-
erence. In case the species prefers brackish water, this will also be
recorded in this column. The third and fourth columns of these en-
vironmental items show the extreme northern and extreme southern
geographical ranges of the different species.

In the tables there will occasionally be found the name of a species
and not very much additional information concerning it, perhaps only
where it has been found as a fossil. This has come about by taking
Holmes’ list to make this list as full as possible. Occasionally a
species, mentioned and described by Holmes, has not been found de-
scribed anywhere else in the literature accessible, and consequently
the columns are left blank opposite such species. This is true of five
of the six species of Fusus that he gives; true, also, of Columbella or-
nata and Volva acicularis. Just after the main tables are found lists
of Pleistocene fossils from localities in other States. These lists
have been placed here for convenience in ready comparison.

In addition to the facts obtained at first hand, the following pub-
lications were used in making out these tables :

“Manuel de Conchyliologie et de Paléontologie Conchyliologique.”
Dr. Paul Fisher, Paris, 1887.

“Einleitung in die Geologie als Historiche Wissenschaft.”’ Johannes
Walther, Jena, 1893.

“Geological Biology.” H.S. Williams, New York, 1895.

“Report upon the Invertebrate Animals of Vineyard Sound and
Adjacent Waters.” A. E. Verrill and S. I. Smith, Washington, 1874.

“Report on the Invertebrata of Massachusetts.” A. A. Gould,
Edited by W. G. Binney, Boston, 1870.

“Structural and Systematic Conchology.” George W. Tryon, Jr.,
Philadelphia, 1882-1884.

“A Preliminary Catalogue of the Shell-bearing Marine Mollusks
and Brachiopods of the Southeastern Coast of the United States.”
W. H. Dall, Bulletin No. 37, U. S. Nat. Museum, 1889.

“American Conchology or Description of the Shells of North
America.” Thomas Say, New Harmony, Ind., 1830.

Dr. W. H. Dall’s work in the Transactions of the Wagner Free
Institute of Sciences, Parts 1-6, Vol. III, Philadelphia, 1890-1903.

Republication of Conrad’s ‘Fossil Shells of the Medial Tertiary of
the United States,” with an Introduction by W. H. Dall. Wagner
Free Institute of Sciences, 1893.

43

Republication of Conrad’s “‘Fossil Shells of the Tertiary Forma-
tions of North America.”” G, D. Harris, Washington, 1893.

“Three Cruises of the Blake.” Alexander Aggassiz, Boston, 1888.

“Natural History of New York, Part V, Mollusca.” J. E. DeKay,
Albany, 1843.

“Report of the North Carolina Geological Survey.” Ebenezer
Emmons, Raleigh, 1858.

“Report on the Survey of South Carolina.” E. Ruffin, Columbia,
1842.

“Geological Survey of South Carolina.” M. Tuomey, Columbia,
1848. .
“Pleistocene Fossils of South Carolina.” F. S. Holmes, Charles-
ton, 1860.

“Post-Pliocene Deposits of Sankoty Head.” Fred. J. H. Merrill,
N. Y. Acad. Sci., Trans., 1895-1896.

“Observations on a Portion of the Atlantic Tertiary Region, etc.”
T. A. Conrad, Nat. Inst., Proc., Vol. I, pp 171-194, 1842.

“A Conchological Manual.” G. B. Sowerby, Jr., London, 1846.

“Marine Invertebrata of Grand Monan, etc.” Wm. Stimpson,
Washington, 1853.

Various Papers by W. H. Dall, in the Proceedings of the United
States Nat. Museum.

2. THE TABLES.

Other Ages
& | South Carolina Pleistocene Localities. than
5 Pleistocene.
3
Fo)
s
2
o
SPECIES. 5
=) a a
Sa ele | 5 d|s
a) a 5 .o) e > d 5 g
Bi a 2 a n le 5 RH feo ; .
Uv = & S mn ba tb a fo) v 8 A
qi oo ° ° 3 3g a — he 3 8] 9 1
Pla) ele oe) 6) 8) 2) sae ene
° P= 2 3° orgy | net
Ale lalslal/slEF/o!1S6 la |Slalea
Mollusca Pelecypoda.
LNUCHIA SHTORIIMA SAVE ceteptats sie cpiccic's else Var ex D0 (2-119.
2} Leda acuta Conrad........... ese tstentie Vir nek ¢ | o Oa xe ex
S| Woldia: Jimatnula Says. sone .sccs- es atate 3.4 24 x
4| Glycymeris Americana Defrance...... x Dil Me.) [iB-<
5| Glycymeris pectinata Gmelin......... Vv x: 2. |) 9.6 xX{|X|xX
GipArcn NOReMINNE Tc cc cciccis's + clateicle cio viele x xX|xX
P| CATCASDEXATA GURY can cae siciviciewisinieiciecsicis Vv: x
S| PATCA PONGETOSA SAY wise ics e1e.o clc.cisis ciese NV i | es x x
9| Barbatia Adamsii Smith..............| V x x
10} Scapharca imcongrua Say...........6. Vv x >.€ x x
11| Scapharea campechensis Dillwyn...... Waa al ek x x
12; Scapharca lienosa Say...........e.00. x x
13} Scapharca transversa Say...... XK} x x
14| Pteria colymbus Bolten... x >. ap. iat. ¢ K/| xX
15] Atrina rigida Dillwyn......... Savers x Dah 8 x
16] Atrina serrata Sowerby.........sccee x x xX | xX
17| Ostrea virginica Gmelin......... Gosnalh AA i 2- eur p.« X/|X|xX
18} Pecten exasperatus Sowerby.......... x x
19|('Pecten gibbus’ Linneés,......\......ccccs 0s Viol xX/X/|X
20| Plicatula gibbosa Lamarck........... Vv x x
2A MoMA WECADEA pDOMDe cer). ceicicle rior seisies x xX|x
22| Anomia simplex Orbigny....... aratoielave Vin | eX | eek | exe X{|xX|x
DSM pbs edulis WANN Cacieleleicsieiainceleieieieis.< x xX|xX
24] Mytilus exustis Linné..............00. x xX|xX
25| Modiolus modiolus Linné............. VAs ba? Saul. x
26| Modiolaria lateralis Say.............0. x xX|/xX
2 Pandora truiniata |Say..'e...<irslcsiekclowss Vv x K | |
28) Crassatellites lunulatus Conrad. Ve | Xs. || EX xX{|xX |X
29| Cyrene caroliniana Bosc....... ne xX x x
30) Cardita floridana Conrad..........00 x x|xX
31} Venericardia tridentata Say.......... WE lh 28 0.) >-G)
82} Chama congregata Conrad............ Vv xX x x
83| Echinochama arcinella Linné......... x x|x
34| Phacoides amiantus Dall............. NG x x x x
35| Phacoides crenulatus Conrad......... x x
36| Phacoides radians Conrad............ Ves DG. S| [to-
87; Phacoides multilineatus Tuom’y&Hms} V xX} xX xX|X
88| Phacoides trisculeatus Conrad........ iVien |e X|X|xX
89| Divaricella quadrisulcata Orbigny....|; V | X | X x x
40| Diplodanta soror C. B. Adams........ A We: Ged Ipe x
41| Diplodanta punctata Say............. x x
42| Diplodanta semiaspera Philippi...... All MF x x
43} Cardium robustum Solander..........| V | X | X DG po. es €
44| Cardium muricatum Linné.. Vv TK) aX x
45| Cardium isocardia Conrad..... Bate x x x Dap. Sp. ¢
46| Cardium serratum Linné.............. x OX ex
47| Cardium Mortoni Conrad............. x DG be. C4 be: §
48) Sportella protexta Conrad............ Vi D.@| ep. 4 bl he. Gl he. ¢
49| Sportella constricta Conrad (7)...... vi] x 0 Wi. GT
50} Aligena elevata Stimpson............. Vv x x
61] Anisodanta carolina Dall............. x x X x
52) Bornia Mazyckii Dall (?)............. x x
53| Macrocallistra nimbosa Solander...... x xX|xX
54| Dosinia discus Reeve...........ssse0 Vio ex xX| xX
55, Chione cancellata Linné.............. Vi, A ea ex x|xX
56) Chione cribraria Conrad.............. x x x De x
Bi) COHIONEy STUB ELOLIIER: 2 cee sinieic's cic sieciciele GN e-C1Ti-@ { Kao ess
58] Venus mercenaria Linné.............. i'n (peo. <a [ie ¢ x Dp: - ¢

Rare or Abundant in Pleistocene.

<> bpp Wiha
pelgicaiscl wd

Aa
qaqqc

Living Representatives.

Depth Range of

Kind of Shore or Bottom
Preferred by Living
Representatives.

Sand, mud.

Mud.

Sandy Bot. and Sh.

Sand, shells, mud.
Sand, mud.

Fine sand, mud.
Fine sand, mud. ~*
Mud bottom.
Mud.

Shelly Shore and Bot.

Mud, sand.

Shells.

Sand, mud.
Sand (?)

Mud, Br. Wtr.
Rocks, gravel.
Rocks, gravel.

Sand, gravel.

Sand.
Sea weeds.

Sand, mud, Est.
Sand.

Sand, mud.

45

Geographical Range of Living Representatives.

Extreme
Northern
Range.

North Carolina.
Rhode Island.
Norway.
Hatteras.
Hatteras.
Hatteras.

Cape Cod.
Hatteras.
Hatteras.
Cape Cod.

Cape Cod.
Hatteras.
Cape Fear.
Hatteras.

Prince Edward Is.

Hatteras.
Hatteras.
Hatteras.
Hatteras.

Nova Scotia,
Arctic Sea.
Charleston.
Arctic Sea.
Maine.
Hatteras.
Hatteras.
South Carolina.
Tampa.
Hatteras.
Hatteras.

Cape Fear.
North Carolina.
Hatteras.
North Carolina,
Cape Lookout.
Hatteras.
Massachusetts.
Tortugas.
Hatteras.
Hatteras.

Cape May.
Hatteras.
Hatteras.
Hatteras.

Nova Scotia.
Cape Lookout.
Cedar Keys.
Maine.

North Carolina.

Hatteras.
New Jersey.
Cape Fear.
Hatteras.
Hatteras.
Nova Scotia.

Extreme
Southern
Range.

Charlotte Hbr.
Sombrero.
North Carolina.
West Indies.
Barbados.
Antilles.

St. Thomas.
Brazil.
Aspinwall
Trinidad.

Key West.
Venezuela.
South America.
Guadaloupe.
Florida Keys.
Guadaloupe.
Brazil.
Barbados.
Trinidad.
Martinique.
Fort Macon, N. C.
Brazil.

North Carolina.
Venezuela.
Gulf of Mexico.
Florida Keys.
Cuba.

Yucatan.

Gulf of Mexico.
Yucatan.
Antilles.
Brazil..

Cuba.

Porto Rico.
Grenada.

Cuba.
Trinidad.
Jamaica.

Rio Janeiro.
St. Thomas.
Cuba.
Trinidad.
Trinidad.
Guadaloupe.
Brazil.

Charlotte Hbr.
Hatteras.

Cuba

Vera Cruz.
West Indies.
Honduras.
Yucatan.
Yucatan.

CONOOFrWNHeH

46

: Other Ages
& | South Carolina Pleistocene Localities. than
3 Pleistocene.
=
= —_—______
=
a
®
SPECIES. 5
~ wd Ss
14 ec Wrenn fete fare 5 gig
Bl at al ous Sl cs fo ine
o a Aas 5 7) : ze 5 8 g :
Se Rae steteo |b seal |) tes te | (Aa eS eco ae
= op ° S S a sg £ a 3 5 8 a=
Pl ea1s)]31/31/818| 2) 3 te tele
2 ° » om | cet
Silmrlaelalal/olEFlsoié lalslale
Mollusca Pelecypoda.—Con. |
59; Venus mercenaria var. notata Say.... x ».€ aie. Upp <
60| Venus campechiensis Gmelin.......... iV aXe hex Xi] RA EK
61] Petricola pholadiformis Lamarck..... fo ine: | 2-€ x
62| Petricola dactylus Sowerby........... Ex x
63] Petricola typica Jomas.............s-- Vo ih ex Rp.
64] Tellina alternata Say..............-05 Vi x 3G Mh 2.4 xX
65| Tellina lintea Comnrad..............-- Vi | aexe x:
66} Tellina Sayi Deshays.........sccccees Vi p.¢ ».¢ B:4||Po:¢
67| Tellidora cristata Recluz.............- Vi XR aX d.€ xX
68| Strigilla flexuosa Say Vv x >.« OX eee
69] Macoma tenta Say..........cecccccece Vv IX ol xX
70| Macoma constricta Bruguiére......... x B Alio-¢
71| Macoma balthica Linné............... x x
72| Semele proficua Pulteney............- VA |e | D.€ D: Ne.€
73| Semele bellastriata Orbigny.......... Vi es: Pa -
74) Semele transversa Say.......eeccccees x
75| Abra aequalis Say..........scccccvees Wo Dah | o.al |:
76| Abra angulata Holmes............... Vi x >€ >< x Bix
7| Cumingea tellinoides Conrad......... Vy ex x:
78|| Donax: ‘variabilis "Says oc. <.c.<<1100<cccces aX: x
WO} DONAX LOSSOL SAY sis ©.clelcieicreieie siviviesleiaicle ee | fie. 2 Xo] eo
80) Ensis directus Comrad.............--- Vi D4 x: EB. lxet | ele
Si nsis: MIMOr Dalle cas .c'-iciieicieiniciewinseieie Wea) ken d.6
RV Solen: -VaTIGis Sadie oc win’ wleleis sielclelclsioisicie x XK
83) Tagelus gibbus Spengler............-- Wir) ox Xe x x B.G)i baile.
84| Mactra fragilis Gmelin............... x el xX
85| Spisula similis Say..........sscccesees Vv Kn Pex
86} Spisula soidissima Dillwyn........... Vv; x dg
87| Mulinia lateralis Say..............+0. V x x x x EX: ean leeks
88} Mulinia lateralis Say var. b........... iV; x i) XX
89} Mulinia Milesii Holmes (?)........... x x xe
90} Rangia cuneata Gray...........seeee x eX
91) Labiosa canaliculata Say............. Vv x x
92) Labiosa lineata Say..............000. x D Aip.¢
93} Mesodesma concentrica Holmes....... x | x x
94] Mya arenaria Linné..............000 x x x D.
95| Paramya subovata Conrad............ x X|xX |X
96| Corbula contracta Say............ee+- Nl |. Ge Oe >.) D- x ex
97| Pholas campechiensis Gmelin......... x x ae
98} Barnea costata Linné............-++-- Vii x x|x
99| Barnea truncata Say......... x x
100! Martesia cuneiformis Say Vv NG dt 18.4 x x
101} Gastrochaena cuneiformis Spengler...| V | X x x |x
102} Xylotria palmilata Leach............. x x:
103| Cyclinella tenuis Recluz...........+++ Vv x y ALE

3
cH Ha
8 3
8 =
2 g
a) 2
Ay a
E fe
: a Kind of Shore or Bottom
= g Preferred by Living
q . A
oS 1. Representatives.
ue} of
8 ©
a op
< 8
a fan]
5 é
= Q
3S o
[a Qa
R 1-12 Sand, mud shores.
Cc 1-12 Sand, mud Sh. and Bot.
NU Mud, clay.
R 464 Sand, shells.
R
A
R 0-80
Cc
NU
C 0-30
R 2-87 Mud.
VR Sand, mud Est.
VR Gravel, sand, mud.
Cc
VR
VR
NU
Cc
z 0-50 Gravel, sand, mud.
NU
NU Fine sand flats.
NU Fine sand flats.
R Sand.
R Muddy Est.
R
R
R 0-10 Sand.
VA Mud, sand flats.
VA
R
VA Mud, Est., Br. Wtr.
A
R
R
R 0-40 Sand Bch. and mud Inl.
R 12-31
NU 3-63 Gravel, shells,
NU Mud, sand.
NU Mud, sand.
R
R 0-12
NU 0-25 Shell bottom.
R Boring in wood.
VR 0-2 Sand.

47

Geographical Range of Living Representatives.

Extreme Extreme

Northern Southern

Range. Range.
Cape Cod. Georgia. 59
Chesapeake Bay. Cuba. 60
Prince Edward Is. St. Thomas. 61
Maine. South Carolina. 62
Cape of Florida. Antilles. 63
Hatteras. Haiti. 64
Hatteras. Jamaica. 65
North Carolina. Yucatan. 66
North Carolina. Trinidad. 67
Hatteras. Antilles. 68
Cape Cod. Rio Janeiro. 69
New Jersey. Brazil. 70
Arctic Sea. Georgia. 71
Virginia. Guadaloupe. 72
Hatteras. Brazil. 73
74
Hatteras. Gulf of Mexico. 75
North Carolina. 76
Prince Edward Is. Guadaloupe. 77
Hatteras. St. Thomas. 78
New Jersey. Florida Keys. 79
Labrador. Florida. 80
Cape May. Florida, Texas. 81
Rhode Island. Georgia. 82
Cape Cod. Brazil. 83
Hatteras. Brazil. 84
85
Labrador. West Indies. 86
Masachusetts Bay. Florida Straits. 87
88
89
Gulf of Mexico. West Florida. 90
New Jersey. Brazil. 91
New Jersey. Brazil. 92
93
Nova Scotia. South Carolina. 94
Beaufort, N. C. Florida. 95
Cape Cod. Jamaica. 96
Hatteras. Brazil. 97
Cape Cod. Brazil. : 98
Massachusetts. South Carolina. 99
Connecticut. Trinidad. 100
Cape Fear. Guadaloupe. 101
South Carolina. 102
Cedar Keys, Fla. Brazil. 108

a

OMIA wwe

Other Perio-

£ | South Carolina Pleistocene Localities. ods than

a Pleistocene.

3

=

=

z

ov

SPECIES. 2

Y ad :

7 eee E e eg Al Goes

“aime ei ods ees Blog |e

3 Bide aineialiges -|B@1s]s] 8 3| ¢

Slele lel el ele | 2) Siete

os = ° s ° a oS = fe = o/s5/a

PS) Se Se ee ie a cori

alelezie2iel2)21 8 | 2s

Aljrl|nlaljalo|;F oOo] o/s lajeaje

Mollusca Gastropoda.
Tornatina canaliculata Say........... Vial box DOM] ie Gn a- Di le. 8
PIANOMDIA: ACNUUE) SRY). 5\s ciseiec cis <' a.cic'a's x x|}x
Volva acicularis H. & A. Adams...... 1) fe: >. x
Melampus bidentatus Say............. x: x
Terebra dislocata Say........scsecsees Vinal exon ek X |) Bee ae es
Terebra COnCava Say....ccsccccccccces Vil) 3 x |x
Terebra protexta Conrad.............. Vi Wik X|xX/X
Mangilia cerina Kurtz & Stimpson....) V | X | X x x
Cancellaria reticulata Linné.......... x x x
Oliva litterata Lamarck.............0 Vi i Xe ee P. Gl.) (><
OIUIVEN SMU ICR A SAY cics.5'icieiccc c 01e'sjoicicle SV fe a X{|xX/X
Marginella limatula Conrad........... NT ee Say 2-60), °2- 60 Hi. € xX|X
Marginella apicina Menke............. Vien sale x| xX
Mitra wandoensis Holmes............. >. );x|xX
Fasciolaria distans Lamarck LTA | Fie? GP tee 3. € ?|x
Fasciolaria gigantea Kiener..... Aes) VEU 2 al p6 x x|xX
Fasciolaria tulipa Linné.............. Vii) & x >. Ip.
Fulgur pyrum Dillwyn...........+.e.. VA |p 26 X|/xX|xX
Fulgur carica Linné.............s00% Vo | x rx x|X
Fulgur perversum Linné.............+ Vi al eX xX|xX/}X
Fulgur canaliculata Say............6. x x|x
Musus: minor HOMES! J: ciccicieisisiviee vie x
Musus' Contis TOMES! 2 22/2. sjejo «0.0 ere)o10le >.@ [le-6
Fusus bullata Holmes........0...ss006 x
Fusus filiformis Holmes............... x
Fusus rudis Holmes............. x
Tritonidia cancellaria Conrad Nee |e: Se- x
Tritonidia tincta Conrad............. iV) ee x
Nassatrivitata (Conrad). 2.2... «0\o-s x x |X
IN AADAC TIC MES Ae cla ticdss cle oicveiers erate sieiete AV aa |e x
Tlynassa obsoleta Conrad............. Ar PD-Sales.8 ?)|x
Columbella ornata Ravenel........... (| [ie So. g x
ANACHISMAVATA SAV cise icicieie/s 0 cisreis0 eielere oie NF) Sd eae x
ARE YTIS PIUNATAU SAY ce atic sisfeleis clctrisisicie.sle Vail) Xe (VOX x x
Murex pomum Gmelin.........0...+0- v xX x X|X|xX
Eupleura caudata Say........csccccoee Vea eo ex xX|xX
Urosalpinx cinereus Say.............- AV.) Xe hex x
SCala MANS ULALA SAY no sislelei\c<visisiciee sie Vi ee x x
Seala, Savana, Dalle tnccienjsiseisiacieiaje's e010 V 2.G Ah 3-4 x 5. >.5
Scala multistiata Say............seee. x x
Cala olineata Saye sc cseieiesi siete cierto Neal pre: tao-€ x
Eulima conoidea Kurtz & Stimpson..| V | X | X Cg fee Gu PP
Pyramidella crenulata Holmes........ NA hee GeO: € B.S Re.
Turbonilla interrupta Totten......... NVA) ee eX: x| XxX x X/|xX/X
Turbonilla nivea Stimpson............ Ge: e (e- 0 > €r| (i-¢ 0. h>.S
Turbonilla reticulata C. B. Adams...| V | X | X >. 4 Bp. @ ip. 40 2-¢
Turbonilla speira Ravenel...........- fal bee. Goi iy 2. € x
Turbonilla protracta Dall............. x D. Gl >. Gil <<
(?) Turbonilla pupoides Orbigny..... xX xX|X
Turbonilla ‘virgata Dall... .ssecccss a" >.< BG (1. @i\ >:
Odontostomia impressa Say.........+. x PG We: «
Odontostomia seminuda C. B. Adams.| V | X | X >. ST le. § .@ (i. |.
PyPila PAD YTALA SAY so locie-2 o:6i0:s)0ie1eialoins 34 x|}X
Strombus pugilis Linné............... x x aK: [iva 2
Seila Adamsii H. C. Lea.........0.0.. v x Kl] |
Bittium cerithidioides Dall........... x x |x| x
Serpulorbis decussata Gmelin......... x X|}xX |X
I

49

Geographical Range of Living Representatives.

Kind of Shore or Bottom
Preferred by Living

Rare or Abundant in Pleistocene.

es)

q

an

ZoGn Ase COSe2 SCURRNes Aaaer esor

G

te > RO
epee:

q

Zn AZnwZzOa
qa Gq

Clas bd

i
ry
is)

Living Representatives.

oa Representatives.

3 Extreme Extreme
oO Northern Southern
5 Range. Range.
a=}

aI

~~

for)

vo

=)

0-63 Muddy Shore and Bot. Cape Cod. Florida Keys.
Stagnant Water. Massachusetts. Florida.
Swamps, Br. Water. Massachusetts Bay. Gulf of Mexico.

Maryland. Venezuela.
Hatteras, Georgia.

2-50 Weedy Bot. Hatteras. Texas.

3-10 Mud. Cape Cod. Fernandina.

5-30 Hatteras. Guadaloupe.

0-2 (?) Sandy beaches. Hatteras. West Indies.

North Carolina. Trinidad.

25-100 | Sand and gravel. Hatteras. South Carolina.

Hatteras. Jamaica.

12-60 Gravel. Hatteras. Gulf of Mexico.

0-54 North Carolina. Florida, Texas.

0-10 Hatteras. Carthagena.

0-10 Hatteras. St. Thomas.

0-50 Sand. Hatteras. Gulf of Mexico.

0-10 Rocks, Gravel, sand. Cape Cod. Gulf of Mexico.

0-3 Hatteras. Gulf of Mexico.

Cape Cod. Gulf of Mexico.
Jupiter Inlet. Darien.
Hatteras. Vera Cruz.
0-40 Sandy Sh. and Bot. Nova Scotia. St. Augustine.
North Carolina. Barbados.

0-10 Mud, Br. Water. Nova Scotia. Tampa.

0-10 Rocks, shells. Massachusetts Bay. Florida Keys.

0-12 Rock, shell, weeds. Prince Edward Is. Florida Keys.

North Carolina. Antilles.

1-3 Muddy shore. Cape Cod. Florida Keys.
0-10 Rocks, shells. Nova Scotia. St. Augustine.
Sand, mud. Connecticut. Texas.

5-40 Virginia. Key West.
Shelly. Cape Cod. South Carolina.
Shelly and muddy. Cape Cod. Charlotte Harbor.

-8 Muddy Bot. Hatteras. West Indies,

0-2 Muddy flats. Hatteras. St. Thomas.

2-107 Shelly Bot. Nova Scotia. Barbados.

10-40 Muddy Bot. Maine. South Carolina,

0-60 North Carolina. Jamaica.

15-63 North Carolina. Santo Domingo.

Jamaica, Cuba.

12-80 North Carolina. Florida.

Massachusetts Bay. St. Augustine.
2-10 Shells, gravel. Prince Edward Is. Florida Keys.

North Carolina. West Indies.

Hatteras. Aspinwall.

Massachusetts. West Indies.

Cape Lookout. Santo Domingo.
22 North Carolina. Antilles.

.

WOOND OP CoD

50

Other Perio-

£ | South Carolina Pleistocene Localities. ods than
2 Pleistocene.
=!
=
2
3
SPECIES.
Bye. a|
aap | oiler 8 alte oe
2/818 |/S|8 Bla | eles
Hele |iee=@ oc th 2a Er Wes Gi |) os: ;
as) (=) rad p > & Ay ate OC The
& ao Pay ° {o} oO set =| S143
3 5 ° a se <= us} roy B = oO S g
> 5 = w oe] & | s <a ‘ §|°
5 SN Or | RO ml ores Pata ees leet = |poep tee
Aime lalalalo/EF)/o)]olg |Siale
Mollusca Gastropoda.—Con.
S|) Pattorina, Irrorata Sai cicicc.c0cclecccce's a" |) pe. Gel ee >.€ x DG |. 9-6) 12.
69] Solarium granulatum Lamarck....... x BG We] 2-6
60} Adeorbis Holmesii Dall............... Ved} 24 x
61| Calyptraea centralis Conrad.......... x B.S Im. cA. €
62| Crepidula fornicata Linné............ We ax XS Xen | en | ae
63| C. aculeata Gmelin var. costata Linné| V >. ie2-€ ai |>.4 xX|xX/|xX
64] Crepidula convexa Say........ss.eee. Voix x|x
65| Crepidula plana Say...........sccceee Ve] PX es >). ailo.<
66| Natica pusilla Say........cccsescccees Ve ie: <a | (>.< b.@l(.¢
67| Polynices duplicatus Say............. Np |lee.Se\hee-€ b. Gal 3) 19. ¢
68| Polynices heros Say [Verrill]....... x p. Gili. |
69| Sigaretus perspectivus Say...........- Ve Pee ox x
70| Angaria crassa Holmes.............+.. p. SHIT 9.
71| Cochliolepis nautiliformis Holmes.... lp: 2.4 x
72| Vitrinella multicarinata Stimpson.... Sa >. « X, || Sole
73| Fissuridea alternata Say............6- hf) ee. fap.< ax: (eX
74| Cavolinia gibbosa Rang (?).........- x Xx
75| Chiton apiculatus Say............... x x
76| Balanus perforatus (Bruguiére) Dar-
Roy I crate eievave re ciamiorcicteiete cisereieis siateisielaisiare 7/0 rep. Gurl -

SI

m
o

3 3 Geographical Range of Living Representatives.
8 §
O= a
a v
= | &
A oe Kind of Shore or Bottom
i q Preferred by Living
a we Representatives.
S o5 Extreme Extreme
5 2 Northern Southern
Z| g Range. Range.

aa]
i]
S 3
5 a

ov
eS A
NU 0-10 Mud, estuaries. Rhode Island. Jamaica. 58
R -—deep Hatteras. West Indies. 59
R 60
R Hatteras. South America. 61
Co 0-15 Shells, gravel. Prince Edward Is. South America. 62
R 0-589 Cape Lookout. Barbados. 63
Cc 0-22 Shells. Nova Scotia. Florida. 64
Cc 0-487 Shells. Prince Edward Is. Trinidad. 65
Cc 2-15 Sand, shells. Massachusetts. Florida Keys. 66
A Sand, mud beaches. Massachusetts Bay. Vera Cruz. 67
VR 0-40 Sand, mud beaches. Gulf of St. Lawrence. Georgia. 68
NU New York. Martinique. 69
VR 70
R South Carolina. Florida Keys. 71
R 0-15 Hatteras. Florida. 72
NU 1-50 Hatteras. Barbados. 73
R Pelagic North Lat. 43°. North Lat. 41°. 74
VR Massachusetts. South Carolina. 75

ON AM BW HD H

3. Lists oF PLEISTOCENE Fossits From OTHER STATES.

a. Florida.

. Ameria scalaris Dall.

. Tornatina canaliculata Say.
. Bulla striata Bruguieére.

. Terebra concava Say.

. Terebra protexta Conrad.

. Terebra dislocata Say.

. Conus pygmaeus Reeve.

. Mangilia plicosa Adams.

. Mangilia cerinella Dall.

. Oliva litterata Lamarck.

. Olivella mutica Say.

. Marginella apicina Menke.
. Marginella minuta Pfeiffer.
. Fasciolaria gigantea Kie-

ner.

. Fasciolaria distans La-

marck.

. Fasciolaria tulipa Linné.

. Fulgur perversum Linné.

. Fulgur pyrum Dillwyn.

. Melongena corona Gmelin.
. Tritonidea tincta Conrad.

. Nassa vibex Say.

. Anachis avara Say.

. Astyris lunata Say.

. Urosalpinx perrugatus Con-

rad.

. Urosalpinx tampaensis Con-

rad.

. Eupleura caudata Say.
. Eupleura caudata var sul-

cidentata Dall.

. Muricidea multangula Phil-

ippi.

. Scala lineata Say.
. Scala Frielei Dall.
. Pyramidella crenulata

Holmes.

32. Eulimella sp.

33. Turbonilla interrupta Tot-
ten.

34. Turbonilla sp.

35. Odontostomia caloosaensis
Dall.

36. Odontostomia conoidea
Brocchi.

37. Odontostonua fusca C. B.
Adams.

38. Odontostomia sp.

39. Pyrula papyrata Say.

40. Strombus pugilis Linné.

41. Cerithium murcarum Say.

42. Vermetus irregularis Or-
bigny.

43. Vermetus varians Orbigny.

44. Vivapora georgiana Lea.

45. Ampullaria hopotonensis
hea.

46. Rissoa_ callistrophia, var.
Dall.

47. Crepidula fornicata Say.

48. Crepidula convexa Say.

49. Crepidula plana Say.

50. Natica pusilla Say.

51. Polynices duplicata Say.

52. Teinostoma cryptospira Ver-
rill.

53. Achanthocites — spiculosus
Reeve.

54. Fissuridea alternata Say.

55. Arca secticostata Reeve.

56. Arca occidentalis Philippi.

57. Arca umbonata Lamarck.

58. Arca ponderosa Say.

59. Scapharca transversa Say.

60. Pinna carnea Gmelin.

53

. Atrina rigida Dillwyn.

. Atrina serrata Sowerby.

. Ostrea virginica Gmelin.

. Pecten exasperatus Sower-

by.

. Pecten ornatus Lamarck.
. Pecten gibbus Linné.
. Pecten gibbus var. disloca-

tus Say.

. Pecten gibbus var. irradians

Lamarck.

. Spondylus echinatus Mar-

tyn.

. Anomia simplex Orbigny.
. Modiolus demissus Dillwyn.
. Cardita domingensis Or-

bigny.

. Cardita floridana Conrad.
. Venericardia tridentata Say.
. Venericardia perplana Con-

rad.

. Cyrena floridana Conrad.

. Cyrena caroliniana Bosc.

. Sportella constricta Conrad.
. Codakia orbicularis Linné.
. Lucina chrysostoma Phil-

ippl.

. Phacoides pectinatus Gme-

lin.

. Phacoides muricatus Speng-

ler.

.-Phacotdes multilineatus

Tuomey and Holmes.

. Phacoides floridana Conrad.
. Phacoides nassula Conrad.
. Cardium isocardia Linné.

. Cardium robustum

Solan-
der.

. Cardium muricatum Linné.
. Cardium

Spinosum
spinosum Meuchen.

var.

IOOo.

LOT

102.

103.

104.
105.
1006.
107.
108.
109.
TLO;

TLS
I12.

ate
114.

nS:
116.

LE.

118.
119.

. Cardium serratum Linné.

. Cardium Mortoni Conrad.
. Montacuta floridana Dall.
. Diplodanta punctata Say.

. Dosinia discus Reeve.

. Dosinia elegans Conrad.

. Transennella Conradina

Dall.

. Transennella caloosana
Dall

. Macrocallistra nimbosa So-
lander.

. Chione cancellata Linné.
Anomalocardia caloosana
Dall.

Anomalocardia — brasiliana
Gmelin.

Venus campechiensis Gme-
lin.

Parastarte triquetra Con-
rad.

Angulus versicolor Cozzens.
Angulus sybariticus Dall.
Tellina umbra Dall.
Tagelus gibbus Spengler.
Tagelus divisus Spengler.
Donax variabilis Say.
Gemma gemma var. pur-
purea Lea.

Labiosa canaliculata Say.
Rangia cuneata Gray.
Mulinia lateralis Say.
Mulinia lateralis var. cor-
buloides Reeve.

Ervilia concentrica Gould.
Congeria lencophaeata Con-
rad.

Pholas campechiensis Gme-
lin.

Barnea costata Linné.
Gastrochaena cuneiformts
Spengler.

hw HD H

54

b. Cornfield Harbor, Maryland.

. Actaeon melonoides Con-
rad.
. Tornatina canaliculata Say.

. Mangiha cerina Kurtz and

Stimpson.

. Nassa trivitata Say.

. Ilynassa obsoleta Say.

. Fulgur carica Linné.

. Fulgur pyrum Dillwyn.

. Astyris lunata Say.

. Urosalpinx cinereus Say.

. Eupleura caudata Say.

. Scala Sayana Dall.

. Scala lineata Say.

. Turbonilla interrupta Tot-

ten.

. Turbonilla reticulata C. B.

Adams.

. Odontostomia seminuda

Adams.

. Crepidula plana Say.

. Crepidula fornicata Say.
. Crepidula convexa Say.
. Polynices duplicatus Say.
. Nucula proxima Say.

25.
22
22:
24.
25.
26.
27)
28.

29.

30.

Leda acuta Conrad.

Yoldia limatula Say.

Arca ponderosa Say.
Scapharca transversa Say.
Mytilus hamatus Say.
Pandora triliniata Say.
Callocardia Sayana Conrad.
Venus mercenaria Linné.
Venus mercenaria var. no-
tata Say.

Petricola pholadiformis La-
marck.

. Macoma balthica Linné.

. Macoma Virginiana Conrad.
. Ensis directus Conrad.

. Tagelus gibbus Spengler.

. Mulinia lateralis Say.

. Mulinia lateralis Say var. b.
. Rangia cuneata Gray.

. Mya arenaria Linné.

. Corbula contracta Say.

. Barnea costata Linné.

. Dentalium sp.

. Foraminifera.

c. Sankoty Head, Massachusetts.

. Buccinum undatum Linné.
. Ilynassa obsoleta Conrad.

. Crucibulum striatum Say.
. Fusus scalariformis Stimp-

son.

. Urosalpinx cinereus Say.
. Cerithiopsis Green C. B.

Adams.

. Odostomia trifida Gould.
. Turbonilla interrupta Tot-

ten.

. Margarita obscura Gould.

IO.

3 BE

16.

7,
18.

19.

Caecum pulchellum Stimp-
son.

. Rissoa aculeus Stimpson.
12:
52:
14.
Bs.

Crepidula fornicata Say.
Crepidula plana Say.
Crepidula convexa Say.
Skenea_ planorbis Forbes
and Hanley.

Polynices heros Say.

Arca pexata Say.
Scapharca transversa Say.
Mytilus hamatus Say.

al “hy

55

20. Modiolus modiolus Linné. 31. Ceronia arctata H. and A.
21. Venericardia borealis Con- Adams.

rad. 32. Spisula solidissima Dillwyn.
22. Cyclocardia novangliae 33: Mesodesma Jamesu.

Morse. 34. Cumingia tellinoides Con-
rad.

23. Ostrea Virginica Gmelin. pie at
35. Mya arenaria Linne.

24. Anomia aculeata Gmelin. 6. P
25. Astarte undata Gould. Se OOP eras.
37. Balanus eburneus Gould.
26. Astarte castanea Say. aC) DEMIS vacant
27. Astarte quadrans Soules 39. Panopeus (claws).
28. Venus mercenaria Linné. 40. Clione sulphurea Verrill

29. Venus mercenaria var. no- (sponge).
tata Say. 41. Serpula dianthus Verrill
30. Ensis directus Conrad. (Annelid).

4. DISCUSSION OF AND CONCLUSIONS FROM THE TABLES.

According to Tuomey, at White Point Creek in northeastern
Horry, very near the ocean shore line, there is a deposit of shells
among which are Venus mercenaria, Ostrea Virginica, Scapharca
incongrua, Arca Noae and a species of Pectunculus. This deposit
is doubtless Pleistocene, as he claimed. Again Tuomey gives a short
list of fossils from Laurel Hill bluff, northeastern Georgetown
County, which includes Arca ponderosa, Scapharca campechiensis,
Mulinia lateralis, Spisula similis, Donax variabilis, Rangia cuneata,
and Oliva litterata. It is interesting to note that the fossil bed here is
eight feet above tide, the highest elevation yet known for the Pleisto-
cene fossil deposits of the State. At other places in Georgetown
County southward from Laurel Hill, especially along Winyah Canal,
characteristic Pleistocene fossils have been found. These localities
in the northern part of the Coastal belt of the State, combined with
two or three others mentioned by Tuomey as occurring in northern
Charleston County, together with the localities listed in these tables,
show plainly that along the entire shore of the State the deposits of
Pleistocene fossils surely extend from White Point Creek in the
north to Beaufort, and probably beyond toward the south, in one
continuous sheet, except where cut through by streams.

As to the ages in which these species occur, it is seen that at least
95 per cent of them, as known certainly, live along the coast today.
It is possible that the percentage will run higher when more thorough

56

investigations have been made into the present fauna of the south-
eastern Atlantic coast of the United States. But, as it is, we havea
reconfirmation that the beds here considered are without doubt Pleis-
tocene. It is further seen that about 60 per cent. of these Pleistocene
species are also found in the Pliocene of the neighboring regions.
This shows that the transit from Pliocene to Pleistocene times and
conditions brought no great or sudden changes with it in South
Carolina. The probability is that, with the advance of the ice-sheet
from the north into the latitude of New Jersey, the accompanying
cold was a long time reaching South Carolina, and there was no
widespread destruction of Pliocene forms on this part of the coast
whatever may have been the effect produced farther north. This
phase of the subject will come up later in the discussion, and need
not be dwelt upon here. It may also be observed that about 30 per
cent. of the species are also Miocene. This is about what we might
expect if there had been no great or sweeping changes, and if only
the ordinary forces of evolution had been at work combined with
moderate changes in environment. Only occasionally is a form seen
to run back into the Oligocene or the Eocene—one proof that the
transition from Oligocene to Miocene conditions was accompanied
by influences more destructive to life than have been those of any
transition since that time. |

In accord with well-recognized and almost universally adopted
principles, it is assumed, without taking the time to prove it, that any
given species lives under approximately similar conditions of tem-
perature, depth, shore or bottom, salinity, current, or other environ-
mental condition in whatever geologic age it has been found. For in
case the species, as has just been said, should little by little be changed
with gradual advances into a distinctly different habitat to such a
degree as to be clearly distinguishable from what it was originally,
then it comes to be no longer regarded as the same species, but as a
new species, distinct from the old. Therefore, with respect to the
matter in hand, it is safe to assume that a species had, in the main,
the same conditions of temperature, the same kind of bottom, the
same fondness for or aversion to salt water or brackish water, or to
a shore of vigorous waves or a region of quiet, or to shallow water or
deeper, etc., in the Pleistocene Period that it has today. Now, these
conditions for recent forms have been fairly well worked out by
Verrill and Smith on the southeastern coast of New England, and
by others along the Atlantic coast farther south, whose work has
been tabulated by Dall in Bulletin 37 of the Proceedings of the Na-

57

tional Museum, and given by him in describing species in the Trans-
actions of the Wagner Free Institute of Science. These have been
the publications most relied upon in making out depth and geographic
ranges for the living forms. The literature available has not always
contained the results of the latest discoveries concerning the habitat
of recent species. When these discoveries are made known, this
table, especially in the columns headed “Geographical Range,” may
be somewhat modified.

Concerning Depth—Of all the conditions of habitat, none is of
much greater influence upon a form than depth. From the investi-
gations of Verrill and Smith along the southeastern coast of New
England, it is seen that each zone of depth, if that word can be so
employed, has its peculiar life-forms, which, should they migrate
much beyond their proper depth range, would perish. Of course,
many forms live equally well in two or more zones, but others seem
to be confined to one particular depth zone, especially such forms as
live between tides. The main reason that depth is an important fac-
tor in the distribution of life-forms is that variations in depth in sea
water brings about a variation in temperature, though variation in
pressure, too, is not to be underestimated. Again, in shallow bays
and estuaries the water is subjected to greater extremes of heat and
cold than is the case on the open coast at equal depths, and only cer-
tain forms can adapt themselves to these marked extremes. At cer-
tain stages of its existence, a species would be killed by a lowering of
the temperature of the water by 5° F., or even less. Brooks’s experi-
ments in Chesapeake Bay showed that a fall of 2° F. in the tempera-
ture of the water killed all the swimming larvae of Ostrea virginica.
A rise of twice that many degrees, remarks Dall, would probably
have only hastened their development. The general rule is that “‘it
is always easier for a cold-water invertebrate to survive in warmer
water than it is accustomed to than for one belonging to warm
waters to persist when there is a change to a lower temperature.” An
increase in depth brings about a lowering of the temperature, and
this is the ground for the importance attached to depth range. Now
a study of the tables shows that most of the species of which record
is had belong to the shallow-water zone exclusively, only 30 out of
the 179 species listed ranging over fifty fathoms in depth, and some
of these very little over the fifty-fathom line. Only thirteen species
range deeper than the 100-fathom, line, and these show a preferred
range much shallower than that, as the following list clearly shows:

Pteria colymbus, 10-180, usually shallow; Diplodanta semiaspera,

58

14-294; Glycymeris pectinata, 2-175; Leda acuta, 7-225; Barbatia
Adamsii, 5-116; Phacoides amantus, 2-640; usually shallow; Pha-
coides crenulatus, 15-124; Phacoides multilineatus, 8-287; V eneri-
cardia tridentata, 36-124; Chione cribraria, 15-124; Turbonilla
interrupta, 2-107; Crepidula aculeata var. costata, 0-589, commonly
0-25; Crepidula plana, 0-487, usually shallow. Also, it must be
taken into account that Pteria colymbus, Diplodanta semiaspera and
Venericardia tridentata are very rare forms, and that Leda acuta,
Glycymeris pectinata, Barbatia Adamsii, Chione cribraria, and
Crepidula aculeata var. costata are almost as rare in the Pleistocene
of South Carolina. This fact could be interpreted to mean that these
forms may even have had their preferred habitat close to the lower
limit in depth, and yet a few individuals have lived in shallow water ;
but we have record, in case of two of them, that they prefer the
shallower depths. Two other of these species are seen to have a
very wide geographical range: Turbonilla interrupta from Nova
Scotia to the Barbados, and Crepidula plana from Prince Edward
Island to Trinidad. Now, the general rule for a species migrating
southward is to seek the cooler waters it is accustomed to by sinking
deeper and deeper. The probability is that these two forms
reach their greatest depth range much farther south than along
the South Carolina coast. The other three species are all Pha-
coides, and it is well known that one of them, Phacoides amian-
tus, usually lives in shallow waters. Now, in the absence of con-
tradictory evidence, it is usually safe to assume that what is pre-
ferred by one species of a genus is probably preferred by the others.
So the three species of Phacoides may be considered as preferring
shallow waters. Of the seventeen forms having their maximum
depth range between fifty and one hundred fathoms, some are rare
and others very rare, and need not be given too much weight; and
the others still have abundant opportunity, without an exception, of
having a much shallower habitat than fifty fathoms, almost all of
them having an upper range of eight fathoms or less. It seems true,
then, that on the whole these species today prefer a shallow water
habitat, many of them living between tides even, as the absence of
depth figures, following Dall, may generally mean. They constitute
what may be called a littoral facies. The conclusion from this study
of depth is that the Pleistocene species of South Carolina lived, on the
whole, in shallow water and constituted a littoral facies. The value
of this conclusion will be more evident later, when we come to con-
sider geographical range.

59

Concerning Shore and Bottom Conditions.—Investigations show
that bays and other partially inclosed bodies of sea water maintain a
different aggregation of life-forms from that found out on the open
coast, where the waves are more vigorous and life more strenuous.
The group of animals on sandy bottom is markedly different from
that on muddy bottom; so also do rocky and shelly bottoms differ
from each other in the kind of animals they maintain and from the
other kinds of bottom mentioned. The same holds good for the
shores ; they differ from one another and from the various kinds of
bottom in the species preferring them. Of course, some species ap-
pear to thrive equally well on two or more kinds of bottom or shore;
but, on the other hand, each kind of bottom or shore has its own pecu-
liar characteristic species. In general, it may be asserted with some
degree of assurance that all the species of any one genus, if there
is nothing known to the contrary, prefer similar shore or bottom con-
ditions. For example, if Scapharca transversa is always found pre-
ferring sandy shores, it is not far wrong to say that other species
of Scapharca very like also prefer sandy shores. In the tables, how-
ever, this supposition has not been employed, and any word used in
describing the kind of shore or bottom inhabited by any species is
given on the authority of such workers as Verrill, Dall, Gould, Say,
Binney, Fisher, Walther and Tryon. In discussing this phase of the
subject, however, it does not seem amiss to employ the supposition
just mentioned. Again, the kind of material upon which the marl
beds rest and which is mixed in with the shells as they are exposed to-
day, where there is evidence to suppose that these shells have not
been carried by currents and deposited as they are found, but occupy
the same position in the main today that they occupied when they
were living in Pleistocene times—then, let it be said, this material
must be taken into account and given serious weight in drawing con-
clusions concerning the shore and bottom of the Pleistocene seas and
bays.

From the tables it seems that about thirty species of the entire
number are found living in mud. Of this number, nineteen prefer
the mud to any other kind of bottom, and thirteen seem to be found
only on muddy bottom, and six are found in the mud of estuaries or
other places of brackish water. More than half the mud-loving
species are the only species of their respective genera, and so can
be of little weight in attributing this characteristic to others of their
genera. Forty-six species are found to live on sandy or gravelly
bottom or shore, and of these, twenty-nine prefer sand above all

60

other kinds, and thirteen are found living only in sand. Here, for
the most part, among the sand-lovers, each species is not the only
one of its genus, as is the case with more than half the mud-lovers.
So there is this evidence that a good many more species live in the
sand than in the mud. A few species prefer shelly bottom, and occa-
sionally one is mentioned as having been found on rocky bottom or
shore, but never rocky alone—always some other kind in addition to
the rocky. This is well, for there is no evidence of a rocky shore’s
existing along the South Carolina coast either in Recent or Pleisto-
cene times. It is seen at Young Island and Stono River, the two
places which furnish by far the greater number of species, that the
beds of shells have quantities of sand containing mud or clay mixed
with them. At one or two other places in the State the mixed-in
material is pretty much all mud or clay, as is the case at Maxyck
Ferry on the Santee, where a few species, like Mulinia lateralis, have
been found. This is just what our tables would lead us to expect. So
the conclusion here, as reached by a study of life-forms and of
actual beds as found, is that, though mud-loving species are found
in abundance, and also some lovers of shelly bottom, yet the weight of
evidence is in favor of a sandy bottom and shore for the Pleistocene
sea. Before leaving this phase of the subject, it is well to note that,
of the mud-loving forms, some species are very abundant as Pleisto-
cene fossils. Rangia cuneata is found in very great abundance un-
derneath Charleston, whole beds being made up of it down about
fifteen feet beneath the surface. Now, this is one of the estuarine
forms, and probably indicates that at one time during the Pleistocene
Period, the Ashley and Cooper rivers flowing into a somewhat land-
locked bay as they do today, there was much mud and brackish-water
conditions that just suited Rangia cuneata. Up the Potomac from
Cornfield Harbor, Maryland, about eighteen miles, is found an ex-
tensive bed of this species. Now, at Cornfield Harbor, Rangia cune-
ata is found, but is rare. The supposition here is that the water was
brackish enough at that distance up what was then an estuary as to
just suit this species and too brackish for much of anything else, that
while the deposit was being formed at Cornfield Harbor under marine
conditions that farther up the river was being formed under
estuarine conditions. In regard to the South Carolina Pleistocene
forms, it may be said that Rangia cuneata is only one of a half-dozen
that may have had just such estuaries with brackish water to live in.
With the exception of this species, the estuarine species are not at all
abundant in the Pleistocene localities of the State; indeed, three of

6I

them are very rarely found. The indication, then, is against any
extensive development of estuaries in South Carolina during Pleisto-
cene times.

Concerning Geographical Range—The eastward and westward
migration of species along shore is in general more easily done than
is the migration northward and southward. In the former case,
the temperature, which is the most potent factor by far in influen-
cing faunal distribution, remains practically constant, except for
changes due to currents in the sea and to fresh-water streams from
the land; while, in the latter case, the northward and southward ex-
tent of shore line, temperature continually changes with latitude,
and also the currents and rivers play an important role in modifying
temperature. It is not so difficult for a northern shallow-bottom
species that is not littoral to migrate southward to a considerable
distance, for it can always seek cooler waters by sinking into deeper
depths as the southward migration is continued. But it is almost im-
possible for a southern shallow-bottom species to migrate very far
northward, because it cannot find water of accustomed temperature
by rising to more shallow depths, being already in shallow depths.
The force of these remarks is plainly evident when it is recalled that
the Pleistocene forms were essentially shallow-water forms. They
were, therefore, as much limited in their north and south range then
by reason of depth conditions as they are today. Furthermore, such
species as live between tides and such as are strictly shore forms,
getting their food under such conditions, are very much restricted in
north and south range, for in this case the privilege of seeking cooler
depths as it moves southward is denied the more northern form.

Also, there is more likelihood of change in bottom conditions close
in shore than farther out at deeper depths; or, putting it the other
way, conditions of bottom are more constant at some little distance
out than near shore line, where every little inlet has its influences.
These things combined point to the fact that the Pleistocene species,
no more free to migrate than their living representatives today, can
be taken as a safe means for interpreting what must have been the
temperature in the Pleistocene Period in the particular latitudes in
which they are found fossil.

Before turning again to the tables, there is another factor affect-
ing distribution of marine fauna that must be spoken of, and that is
the influence of currents. In this particular case, the influence of the
warm Gulf Stream and of the cold Arctic Current has to be consid-
ered. In the neighborhood of Cape Hatteras, according to Dall, close

ai

62

in shore, owing to the cooling effect of the Arctic Current, there are
many forms that belong more strictly farther north; while off shore,
maybe at no great distance, there are southern forms brought north-
ward beyond their limit by the warm waters of the Gulf Stream. In
this way are brought together, in closely adjoining regions, two dis-
tinct facies—forms which, without the influence of currents, would
have their proper habitat hundreds of miles apart. Sharp points of
land jutting out into the sea for several miles, in some cases many
miles, often mark the limit in range of certain forms, especially those
that love the simple life, preferring a quiet, shallow-water habitat;
for, in attempting to round such a point, the form would be carried
into depths it is unaccustomed to, or into bottom or shore condi-
tions different from those hitherto surrounding it, or else out to where
waves and currents are more vigorous than please its fancy. Cape
Cod, Cape Hatteras and Cape Fear are just such points along the
Atlantic coast that mark the limit of range for a goodly number of
species. Cape Hatteras, in addition, is the point where the Gulf
Stream is deflected off shore as it flows northward, and is also the
point where the Arctic Current, in its southward movement, ceases to
be a surface current and sinks beneath the Gulf Stream. For the rea-
son that Cape Hatteras marks the limit of so many forms in their
migration, it has been taken as the dividing point between northern
and southern forms. Those forms whose northern limit of geo-
graphical range is at Cape Hatteras, may be regarded as southern,
while those whose corresponding southern limit is at Cape Hatteras
may be regarded as northern forms. There can hardly be any ob-
jection made to taking Hatteras as this dividing point; for here it is,
let it be remembered, that the line of separation between the warm
along-shore current and the cold along-shore current exists.

With these remarks as prefatory to the discussion concerning geo-
graphical range, a close study of the tables will now be entered upon
with the purpose of seeing what must have been the geographical
range of Pleistocene forms. Of the 160 species whose ranges are
known, eighty-eight have their extreme northern geographical range
either at Cape Hatteras or some point south thereof, and may be
classed as southern forms. This in itself, according to Fisher, would
be sufficient to stamp the Pleistocene forms of South Carolina as
constituting a southern facies, his law being that if more than 50 per
cent. of any aggregation of marine fauna belong to any one facies,
the whole aggregation may, in general terms, be placed under that
facies. Here the percentage of strictly southern forms is fifty-five.

63

But this is no more than was to be expected. Unless there had been
very unusual conditions of climate during the Pleistocene deposition,
a region in the latitude of South Carolina could hardly be expected
to have anything else than a southern facies of marine fauna. On
the other hand, it is somewhat astonishing to find that, out of the 160
species, only one has its southern limit at Hatteras or at some point
north thereof. This is Aligena elevata, and has its northern limit at
Maine, and southern at Hatteras, most abundant in the region just
south of Cape Cod on to New Jersey. Its depth range is 2-63 fathoms
so far as is known. The probability is that it will be found farther
south and in deeper water in some of the dredging that is being
done. As said at the outset, it is easier for a cold-water form to
move into warmer regions than for the opposite to take place. This
supposition carries more credence when it is noticed that its northern
range is only so far north as Maine, and its deepest depth range only
sixty-three fathoms. Furthermore, its extreme rarity as a Pleisto-
cene fossil in South Carolina, only one valve being found from several
bushels of the material collected, would lead one not to attach too
much importance to its being found in the Pleistocene so far south.
There is a pelagic form described by Holmes under the name Cavo-
lima Tuomeyit, which has been questionably included in these tables
as Cavolinia gibbosa, whose range limits are 43° N. to 41° N. This
form cannot enter into the discussion ; so likewise several other ques-
tionable forms. Turning again to the tables, it is seen that there are
several species that may possibly be regarded as northern forms,
though they do range farther south than to Cape Hatteras. These
are: Venus mercenaria var. notata, Cape Cod to Georgia; Petricola
dactylus, Maine to South Carolina; Macoma balthica, Arctic Sea to
Georgia; Mya arenaria, Nova Scotia to South Carolina; Barnea
truncata, Massachusetts to South Carolina; Solen viridis, Rhode
Island to Georgia; Scala multistriata, Cape Cod to South Carolina ;
Turbonilla nivea, Maine to South Carolina; Polynices heros, Gulf of
St. Lawrence to Georgia (on authority of Verrill) ; Chiton apicula-
tus, Massachusetts to South Carolina. But every one of these is
seen to reach as far south as South Carolina, some beyond. If they
do that today, there is no reason why they should have required a
different climate in Pleistocene times to reach the latitude of South
Carolina. Furthermore, the tables show that almost all these forms
are shallow-water forms, as already discussed, and could have mi-
grated southward more easily under a cooler climate than under a
warmer one. If the climate had been much cooler in Pleistocene

64

times than today, these species would probably have pushed their
way farther southward and be found in the Pleistocene deposits of
Florida. A search into the Florida Pleistocene fossil list fails to
show a single one of them there. So the supposition that the Pleis-
tocene climate for South Carolina was cooler than that today loses
this evidence. To offset these seemingly northern forms, we find a
few species with northern limit on the South Carolina shore and
ranging to the southward, namely: Cyrene caroliniana, South Caro-
lina to Cuba; Mytilus exustis, Charleston to Brazil; Xylotria palmi-
lata, South Carolina; Pyramidella crenulata, South Carolina to St.
Thomas ; Cochliolepis nautiliformis, South Carolina to Florida Keys.
These are shallow-water forms even in their most southern range,
and could not migrate far northward, according to the principle pro-
posed at the beginning of the discussion of depth. Their northern
range would be more limited under colder climate. Of the ten
forms named as possible northern forms, eight are rare in their oc-
currence in the South Carolina Pleistocene, and the other two are by
no means abundant. Of the five forms ranging from South Carolina
southward, four are rare in the Pleistocene, but the fifth, Pyramidella
crenulata, is abundant. This may be taken as a slight indication that
these warm-water species were more at home in the region than were
the species from cooler waters.

One more comparison, and then the general conclusions can be
drawn. It is seen that three forms have their southern limit a little
to the north of South Carolina, but still south of Cape Hatteras.
These are Yoldia limatula, with a range from Norway to North Car-
olina; Modiolus modiolus, from the Arctic Sea to North Carolina,
and Mytilus edulis from the Arctic Sea to Fort Macon, North Caro-
lina. They are very rare in their occurrence in the beds under discus-
sion. It is not unreasonable to suppose that, if these species had
vitality enough to survive after rounding the Cape, they may have
pushed their way farther south still. It may be said of them, as it was
said of Aligena elevata, that it can be expected that dredgings will
reveal them farther south than they have yet been found. To compare
with these, there are six or seven species that have their northern limit
to the south of South Carolina. These one may, in this connection
call extreme southern forms. One of them, Sportella constricta, is
questionably included in the tables, and will not be considered, as no
correct conclusion could be: drawn from questionable data. The
other six are: Diplodanta soror, Tortugas to Jamaica; Cyclinella
tenuis, Cedar Keys, Florida, to Brazil; Cardita foridana, Tampa to

65

Key West; Rangia cuneata, Gulf of Mexico to West Florida; Petri-
cola typica, Cape of Florida to the Antilles; Tritomidia cancellaria,
Jupiter Inlet, Florida, to the Isthmus of Darien. These deserve
especial notice. Diplodanta soror is common in its occurrence in the
Pleistocene of the State; and Rangia cuneata, as has already been
pointed out, is very abundant indeed in the bed underlying Charles-
ton. This last-named species, as has already been noticed, is found
in abundance in Maryland up the Potomac from Cornfield Harbor.
Its occurrence so abundantly so far north as Maryland is very re-
markable, and must mean that, at some time during the Pleistocene
Period, there was greater warmth in that particular region than to-
day, or else that the brackish water has failed in some of the neces-
sary conditions to sustain Rangia cuneata. The occurrence of these
extreme southern forms, together with the abundance of the two
just mentioned and also the Tritonidia cancellaria (on Stono River),
almost compel the conclusion that the Pleistocene facies of South
Carolina, if different from that of the coast today in the same region,
was more southern.

General Conclusions from the Study of the Tables—According to
Dall, the Pleistocene of Florida shows a change for the cooler from
the warm temperature of the Pliocene. He says further: ‘The
Pleistocene [of Florida], though far from glacial as at the north,
was a period of diminished sea temperatures and moderate elevation
without perceptible tilting. The present epoch has witnessed a
slight increase of sea temperatures and a very slight, probably con-
tinuous, elevation amounting in all to only a few feet.””’ McGee may
be quoted in this connection: “W. B. Rogers, Sanderson Smith,
Cook, Cope, Kerr, Fontaine, Lewis, Chester and others believe it[the
Columbia or Pleistocene of the whole coast] was deposited during
a period of low temperature.’ McGee’s view also was in accord with
this belief. He says that Desor, whose view will be given later, drew
his conclusions from too limited data. Conrad, in speaking of the
Cornfield Harbor species, says: “Were it not for the presence of
Gnathodon cuneatus [Rangia cuneata], Mytilus hamatus and
Arca ponderosa, the group would not vary from that now inhab-
iting the coast as far north as Massachusetts; but the occurrence
of these three bivalves indicates that a climate equivalent to
that of Florida prevailed when the shells of this locality were
living in the sea.” But this view loses some of its force, since
two of the forms he here mentions are known to live at present
as far north as Long Island Sound and Cape Cod, namely:

5—P. D.

66

Mytilus hamatus and Arca ponderosa. The other one of the
three, Rangia cuneata, is the only form present that would indi-
cate a higher temperature than at present prevails; but the
abundance of this, as has already been pointed out, gives Con-
rad’s statement considerable force, though it is hardly probable that
the climate of Maryland in Pleistocene times was anything near so
warm as is that of Florida today. Another fact that adds some
weight to the view here expressed in regard to the Cornfield Harbor
deposit is that, in addition to Rangia cuneata, there are two other
forms whose northern range limit falls short of reaching the Corn-
field Harbor latitude, stopping at or below Cape Hatteras. “In 1852
Desor reviewed the paleontology of the formation [Pleistocene] as
developed from South Carolina to Sankoty Head and Point Shirley,
noted that the fossils are ‘nearly all referable to living species,’ and
that the deposit occupies only a very narrow zone, and inferred not
only that it is marine but that the climate was warmer than now
when it was deposited” (McGee). ‘Verrill more recently enumer-
ated about sixty species from the deposits of Sankoty Head, of
which those from the lower strata indicate warmer and those from
the upper strata colder climate than the present” (McGee). Enough
views have been quoted to show that there are various and con-
flicting opinions as to the climate prevailing in Pleistocene times.
Almost all the more recent views embody the general assertion that
the Pleistocene was a period of much lower temperature than the
Pliocene and slightly lower than the present. However unwilling
an inexperienced worker may be for the view he reaches to be op-
posed to that held by experienced workers in any particular field,
the facts gained from the study of the tables just completed compel
the writer to say that the weight of evidence seems to justify the
opinion that, if the Pleistocene sea temperature differed at all from
that of the present, it was slightly higher rather than slightly lower
than that of the present. This would seem true in South Carolina,
whatever it may have been elsewhere. Now, as has already been inti-
mated, it may be that the results of more thorough study of the
fauna of the Atlantic coast and more abundant dredging may
change the conclusions here reached, but until such data have been
acquired—if they ever are—the conclusions above stated would seem
to be the ones best warranted by the data at present available.

67

BIBLIOGRAPHY

This is not intended to be an exhaustive bibliography, but to in-
clude only the main articles bearing on the subject.

ALLEN, J. H.
Some Facts Respecting the Geology of Tampa Bay, Florida
(Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., Vol. I, pp. 38-42, 1846).

BaILey, J. W.
Microscopical Examination of Sounds Made by the United
States Coast Survey (Smithsonian Contributions, Vol. I],
ad Are: 1851.

BARTRAM, WILLIAM.
Travels through North and South Carolina, Georgia, etc.,
Containing an Account of the Soil, etc. (Philadelphia,
LAO Ls

CaTEssy, M.
Natural History of Carolina, Florida, and the Bahama Islands,
17312, @Not/seen,)

CHARLESTON.
Report of the Scientific Committee of the City on Artesian
Wells (Year Book, Charleston, 1882).

CLARK, W. B.
The Eocene Deposits of the Middle Atlantic Coast (U. S.
Geol. Surv., Bull. No. 141, 1896).
Climatology and Physical Features of Maryland (Md. Weath.
Service, Ist Bien. Rep. for 1892-93, pp. 1-146, 1894).
Outline of the Present Knowledge of the Physical Features of
Maryland (Md. Geol. Surv., Vol. I, pp. 141-228, 1897).

Conrap, T. A.

Fossil Shells of the Tertiary Formations of America (Phila-
delphia, 1832-35; republished by G. D. Harris, Washing-
ton, 1893).

Observations on the Tertiary and More Recent Formations of
a Portion of the Southern States (Phila. Acad. Sci., Jour.,
Vol. VII, pp. 116-129, 1834).

Observations on the Tertiary Strata of the Atlantic Coast
(Am. Jour. Sci., Vol. XXVIII, pp. 104-111; 280-282,
1835).

Observations on a Portion of the Atlantic Tertiary Region
(Geol. Soc. Penn., Trans., Vol. I, pp. 335-341, 1835).

68

Fossils of the Medial Tertiary of the United States (Phila-
delphia, 1848; republished with an Introduction by W. H.
Dall, Wagner Free Inst. Sci., Philadelphia, 1893).

Observations on the Geology of a Part of East Florida, with
a Catalogue of Recent Shells of the Coast (Am. Jour. Sci.,
2d ser., Vol. II, pp. 36-48, 1846).

Observations on the Eocene Lignite Formations of the United
States (Phila) Acad. Sci, Proc, Vol. XVU, pp yeaa
1865; Am. Jour. Sci., 2d. ser., Vol. XL, pp. 265-268, 1865).

Remarks on the Tertiary Formations of the Atlantic Coast
(Geol. Surv. North Car., Report of W. C. Kerr, pp. 24-25,
Raleigh, 1875).

Couper, J. H.

On the Geology of a Part of the Seacoast of Georgia, with a
Description of the Fossil Remains of the Megatherium, etc.
(Memoir on the Megatherium and other Extinct Quad-
rupeds on the Coast of Georgia, by W. G. Hogsdon, pp.
31-47, New York, 1846).

Daur. W.H.

Notes on the Geology of Florida (Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser.,
Vol. XXXIV, pp. 161-170, 1887).

Notes on the Miocene and Pliocene of Gay Head and Martha’s
Vineyard, Massachusetts, and on the “Land Phosphate”
of the Ashley River District, South Carolina (Am. Jour.
Sci., 3d ser., Vol. XLVIII, pp. 296-301, 1894).

and Harris, G. D.

Correlation Papers, Neocene (U. S. Geol. Surv., Bull. No. 84,
1892).

Transactions of the Wagner Free Institute of Sciences (Parts
1-6 of Vol. III, Philadelphia, 1890-1903).

Dana, JAMEs D.
Quaternary Geology (Manual of Geology, Fourth Edition,

pp. 981-989).

Darton, N. H.

Outline of the Cenozoic History of a Portion of the Middle
Atlantic Slope (Jour. Geol., Vol. II, pp. 568-587, 1894).

Artesian Well Prospects in Eastern Virginia, Maryland, and
Delaware (Am. Inst. Mg. Engrs., Trans., Vol. XXIV,
PP. 372-379, 1895). | :

Artesian Well Prospects in the Atlantic Coastal Plain Region
(U. S. Geol. Surv., Bull. No. 138, 1896).

Notes on the Relations of the Lower Members of the Coastal
Plain Series in South Carolina (Geol. Soc. Am., Bull.,
Vol. VII, pp. 512-518, 1896).

69

Davis, W. M.
The Geological Dates of the Origin of Certain Topographical
Forms on the Atlantic Slope of the United States (Geol.
Soc. Am., Bull., Vol. II, pp. 541-586, 1891).

DeEPourrTAI_Les, L. F.
Constitution of the Bottom of the Ocean off Cape Hatteras
(Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Proc., Vol. XIV, pp. 58-59, 1872;
Am. Nat., Vol. V, pp. 124, 125, 1871).

DeEsor, E.
Post-Pliocene of the Southern States and its Relation to the
Laurentian of the North and the Deposits of the Valley of
the Mississippi (Am. Jour. Sci. 2d ser., Vol. XIV,

Pp. 49-59, 1852).

Dicxson, JOHN.
Notice of the Mineralogy and Geology of Parts of North and
South Carolina (Am. Jour. Sci., Vol. III, pp. 1-4, 1821).

EMMONS, EBENEZER.
Report on the Geological Survey of North Carolina (Raleigh,
1852).

FINCH, JOHN.
Geological Essay on the Tertiary Formations in America (Am.
Jour. Sci., Vol. VII, pp. 31-43, 1824).

Foster, J. W.
On the Geological Position of the Deposits in which Occur the
Remains of the Fossil Elephant of North America (Am.
Assoc. Adv. Sci., Proc., Vol. X, Part 2, pp. 148-169, 1857).

GLENN, L. C.
The Hatteras Axis in Triassic and in Miocene Time (Am.
Geol., Vol. XXIII, pp. 375-379, 1899).
Underground Waters of the United States—South Carolina
(Water Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 114, pp. 140-152,
We SyiGuS3; 1905)

Hammonp, Harry.
South Carolina. Resources, etc., 725 pages (published by State
Board of Agriculture, Charleston, 1883).

Outline of the Physical and Agricultural Features of the State
of South Carolina (Tenth Census of the United States,
Vol. VI, Part 2, pp. 463-503, Washington, 1884).

7O

HEILPRIN, A.

On the Relative Ages and Classifications of the Post-Eocene
Tertiary Deposits of the Atlantic Slope (Phila. Acad. Sci.,
Proc., Vol. XXXIV, pp. 150-186, 1883; Am. Jour. Sci.
3d ser., Vol. XXIV, pp. 228, 229, 1882).

Tertiary Geology of the Eastern and Southern United States
(Phila. Acad. Sci., Jour., Vol. IX, Part 1, pp. 115-154,
1884).

Contributions to the Tertiary Geology and Paleontology of the
United States (Philadelphia, 1884).

Hopcg, J. T.

Observations on the Secondary and Tertiary Formations of the
Southern Atlantic States (Am. Jour. Sci., Vol. XLI,
pp. 182, 183; 332-344, 1841; Assoc. Am. Geol., Trans.,
PP. 34, 35; 94-111, 1843).

Ho.tiick, ARTHUR.
Geological Notes on Long Island and Nantucket (N. Y. Acad.
Sci., Trans., Vol. XV, pp. 3-10, 1896).

HoiMEs, F. S.

Notes on the Geology of Charleston, South Carolina (Am. Jour.
Sci., 2d ser., Vol VII, pp. 178-201, 1849).

Observations on the Geology of Ashley River, South Carolina
(Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Proc., Vol. III, pp. 201-204, 1850).

and Toumey, M.

Pliocene Fossils of South Carolina (Charleston, 1857).

Remains of Domestic Animals Among the Post-Pliocene Fossils
in South Carolina. Pamphlet, 16 pages (Charleston, 1858).

Post-Pliocene Fossils of South Carolina (Charleston, 1860).

Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina, and the “Great Carolina
Marl Bed,” 87 pages and 4 plates (Charleston, 1870).

Homes, J. A.

Taxodium in North Carolina Quaternary (Elisha Mitchell Sci.
Soc., Jour., pp. 92, 93, 1884-85).

Mineralogical, Geological and Agricultural Surveys of South
Carolina (Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc., Jour., pp. 89-117,
1890).

Geology of the Sandhill Country of the Carolinas (Geol. Soc.
Am., Bull., Vol. V, pp. 33, 34, 1894).

Kerr, W. C.
Report of the Geological Survey of North Carolina: Physical
Geography, Geology, etc., 325 pages (Raleigh, 1875).

Lea, ISAAc.
Contribution to Geology, 227 pages (Philadelphia, 1833) ;
Abstract (Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., Vol. XXV, pp. 413-23, 1833).

71

Leipy, JOSEPH.

Remarks on the Fossils from the Ashley River Beds (Phila.
Acad. Sci., Proc., Vol. XXVIII, pp. 80, 81; 86, 87; 114,
I15, 1876).

Abstract) (Ani. Jour. Sci.3di ser; Vol. XII pps) 222,) 223;
1876).

Descriptions of Vertebrate Remains, Chiefly from the Phos-
phate Beds of South Carolina (Phila. Acad. Sci., Jour.,
2d ser., Vol. VIII, pp. 209-261, 1881).

LIEBER, O. M.
Report on the Survey of South Carolina (Columbia, 1856).
Notes on Certain Ancient and Recent Changes Along the Coast
of South Carolina (Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., Vol. XXVIII,
PP. 354-359, 1859).
Fourth Annual Report on the Survey of South Carolina (Co-
lumbia, 1860).

LYELL, SIR CHARLES.

Travels in North America, 1841-42 (London, 1845; two vol-
umes ).

Observations on the White Limestone and Other Eocene Forma-
tions of Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia (Geol.
Soc., Quart. Jour., Vol. I, pp. 429-442, 1845).

On the Miocene Tertiary Strata of Maryland, Virginia, and
North and South Carolina (Geol. Soc., Quart. Jour., Vol.
I, pp. 413-429, 1845).

On the Newer Deposits of the Southern States of North
America (Geol. Soc., Quart. Jour., Vol. II, pp. 405-410,
1846).

MAcLuRE, WILLIAM.
Geology of the United States (Am. Phil. Soc., Trans., Vol. VI,
pp. 411-428, 1818).

McCa.tie, S. W.
Artesian Well System of Georgia (Geol. Surv. of Georgia, Bull.
No. 7, Atlanta, 1898).
Underground Waters of the United States—Georgia (U. S.
G. S., Water Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 114, pp.
153-158, 1905).
McGEE, J. W.
The Geology of the Head of Chesapeake Bay (U. S. Geol.
Surv., 7th Report, pp. 537-646, Washington, 1888).
Three Formations of the Middle Atlantic Slope (Am. Jour. Sci.,
3d _ ser., Vol. XXXV, pp. 120-143; 328-330; 367-388;
448-466, 1888).
The Southern Extension of the Appomattox Formation (Am.
Jour. Sci., 3d ser., Vol. XL, pp. 15-41, 1890).

72

Neocene and Pleistocene Continent Movements (Am. Geol., Vol.
VIII, pp. 234, 235, 1891).

The Lafayette Formation (U. S. Geol. Surv., 12th Report, Part
I, PP. 353-521, 1893).

Classifications of Pleistocene Deposits (Int. Con. Géol., Compte
Rendu, 5th Session, pp. 160-166, 1893).

MILts, ROBERT.
Geology and Mineralogy of South Carolina (Statistics of South
Carolina, pp. 17-60, Charleston, 1826).

MITCHELL, ELISHA.
On the Character and Origin of the Low Country of North
Carolina (Am. Jour. Sci., Vol. XIII, pp. 336-348, 1828).

MITCHELL, Sam. L.

Observations on the Geology of North America, Illustrated by
the Descriptions of Various Organic Remains Found in
that Part of the World (Cuvier’s Essay on the Theory of
the Earth, pp. 319-424, New York, 1818).

Packarp, 'A.:S;,. JR:
Geology of the Phosphate Beds of South Carolina (Essex Inst.,
Bull, *Vol. 1G, 65-58, 1872; Am: Nat. Vol. Vil, sop:
55-58).

Results of Observations on the Drift Phenomena of Labrador
and the Atlantic Coast Southward (Am. Jour. Sci., 2d
ser., Vol. XLI, pp. 30-32, 1866).

Observations on the Glacial Phenomena of Labrador and Maine,
ete; (Am. Jour.) Sci. 2d7ser,, Vol. XLIV; pp is
1867).

PENROSE, R. A. F., JR.
Nature and Origin of Phosphate of Lime (U. S. Geol. Surv.,
Bull., Vol. VIL, Pp. 475-617, 1872).

Porter, Timotuy D.
Cursory Notice of Some Parts of North and South Carolina
(Am. Jour. Sci., Vol. III, pp. 227-230, 1821).

Pratt, N./As
Ashley River Phosphates, 42 pages (Philadelphia, 1868).

Rocers, H. D.
On American Geology and Present Conditions of Geological
Research in the United States (Am. Jour. Sci. Vol:
XLVII, pp. 137-160; 247-278, 1844).

73

RuFFIN, EDMUND.
Report of the Commencement and Progress of the Agricultural
Survey of South Carolina for 1843 (Columbia, 1843).

SALISBURY, R. D.

A Preliminary Paper on Drift or Pleistocene Formations in
New Jersey (N. J. Geol. Surv., Report for 1891, pp.
35-108, 1892).

Surface Geology (N. J. Geol. Surv., Rep. for 1892, pp. 37-166,
1893).

Surface Geology (N. J. Geol. Surv., Rep. for 1895, pp. 3-16,
1896).

Surface Formations of Southern New Jersey (Geol. Soc. Am.,
Bull., Vol. VI, pp. 483-488, 1895).

The Physical Geography of New Jersey (N. J. Geol. Surv.,
Final Report, Vol. IV, 1895).

Surface Geology (N. J. Geol. Surv., Rep. for 1897, pp. 1-22,
808

1808).
Surface Geology (N. J. Geol. Surv., Rep. for 1898, pp. 1-41,
1899).

SHALER, N. S.

On the Phosphate Beds of South Carolina (U. S. Coast Surv.,
Rep. for 1870, pp. 182-189, Washington, 1870. Boston
Soe; Nat. Hist. Proc, Vol. XII, pp. 222-236, 1871).

Pleistocene Distortions of the Atlantic Seacoast (Geol. Soc. Am.,
Bull., Vol. V, pp. 199-202, 1894).

On the Causes which Have Led to the Production of Cape Hat-
teras ((Beston Soc: Nat. Hiist:, Proc, Vol. XV, “pp:
110-121, 1872).

SHARPLES, S. P.
On Some Rocks and Other Dredgings from the Gulf Stream
(Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., Vol. I, pp. 168-171).

SHATTUCK, G. B.
The Pleistocene Problem of the Northern Atlantic Coastal
Plain (Am. Geol., Vol. XXVIII, pp. 87-107, 1901).

SHEPARD, C. U.
Phosphate Sand in South Carolina (Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser.,
Vol. II, pp. 50-59, 1871).
Notes on the Occurrence and Composition of the Nodular
Phosphates (Am. Jour. Sct, 2d ser.) Vol NEVI, pp:

354-357, 1869).

SPENCER, J. W.
Southern Drift (Exper. Sta. Georgia, Bull., 5 pages, 1890).
Post-Pliocene Continental Subsidence (in America) versus
Glacial Dams (Geol. Soc. Am., Bull. Vol. II, pp. 465-476,
1891).

74

STEPHENSON, M. F.
Geology and Mineralogy of Georgia (Atlanta, 1871).

Tuomey, M.

Report on the Geological and Agricultural Survey of South
Carolina (Columbia, 1844).

Report on the Geology of South Carolina (Columbia, 1848).

Notice of the Geology of the Florida Keys and of the Southern
Coast iof Florida: (Am. Jour. Sci.,.2d ser., Vol aE
PP. 390-394, 1851).

and HotmeEs, S. F.
Pliocene Fossils of South Carolina (Charleston, 1857).

VANUXEM, LARDNER.
Geological Observations on the Secondary, Tertiary, and Allu-
vial of the Atlantic Coast of the United States (Phila.
Acad. Sci., Jour., Vol. VI, pp. 59-71, 1828).

WHITE, GEORGE.
Statistics of the State of Georgia (Savannah, 1849).

Woopwarb, J. B.
Glacial Origin of Older Pleistocene in Gay Head Cliffs (Geol.
Soc. Am., Bull., Vol. XI, pp. 455-460, 1900).

i
»

Pe TTTAT AT

AN

MAGA
(

Tayler
ine
Ny
Me
th
ave)

i avi
Ae Ane
het
i
DOL Peay

}
Has

SEW
aera
My i

, i) 0 Wy
it EL tt
Wien fF a , iy ia
a aa fi HAI
UA 4 Viet f
Ali

é
eta
nih

RU,

ule oD
oat i wi
i a Wily
f ie.
1

iy iA)

i

—~

A

3 2044

Var
AS OS eae