Letter to Taylor from Leverett, March 17, 1914

Item — Box: 2, Folder: 7

Staff Only

Scope and Contents

From the Series:

The correspondence series includes approximately 1100 letters written between 1892-1939. The majority of the collection are letters between Frank Leverett and Frank Bursley Taylor; they discuss their field work, Monograph 53, other publications and various related problems. There is also other correspondence with other geologists, including T.C. Chamberlin, Grove K. Gilbert, J.W. Goldthwait, H.L. Fairchild, et alia. There is extensive correspondence with the U.S. Geological Survey, the Geological Survey of Canada, and the Michigan Geological Survey. The primary subject of this series is the surficial glacial geology of the midwestern U.S. and Canada. Leverett & Taylor's work was essential for understanding how the Great Lakes were formed as the Pleistocene glaciers advanced and retreated from the midwestern states. The letters describe the 30 year process of gathering data, mapping the data and constructing the picture of glacial processes during the last Ice Age.

Dates

Creation: March 17, 1914

Conditions Governing Access

The collection is open for research.

Conditions Governing Access

The material is stored offsite in Remote Storage. Please contact Special Collections 3 working days in advance if you wish to use it.

Extent

From the Collection: 1 Linear Feet

Language of Materials

English

Additional Description

General

I inclose a copy of my letter to Stanton for you. I find I cannot leave until Thursday PM and will reach Fort Wayne at 9:05 and the next train leaves at 9:53, so we would have nearly an hour to talk over matters. Attached also is copy of letter to Stanton and the Committee on Geologic Names explaining why the simple "general rule" that the same name cannot be used for a deposit and a part of that same deposit should be reconsidered for Pleistocene deposits. Leverett goes on to explain the situation using the "Wisconsin drift" as an example, with its components Wisonsin till, Wisconsin gravel, etc. versus the Committee suggestion about the "New York till of the Wisconsin drift". Leverett gives other examples of the confusion the Committee ruling would create for geologists, noting that the Pleistocene is more complex than the bedrock formations and therefore demands a different treatment.