Letter to Taylor from Leverett, May 27, 1926

Item — Box: 2, Folder: 19

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: May 27, 1926

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 read the insertion you made in the footnote of the second paper. Case OK'd it and it has gone onto to Oklelberg before I read it. It is probably necessary to make further changes in the proof. I see no reason to predict a return to the Chicago outlet as neither the Port Huron nor the sill at the E end of Erie are undergoing uplift. In your first paper you claim the zero isobase is still as far N as in Nipissing time, but in the second paper your insertion seems to suggest the Port Huron outlet is still uplifting and might eventually shift the discharge past Chicago. You also suggest the uplift at Buffalo would continue so that the Erie basin would be unable to discharge there and would have to go also towards Chicago. It is my understanding that the area of uplift is now entirely N of the Erie Basin, so I was quite surprised to see you suggest a diversion past Chicago as a near event. I thought we discarded that idea years ago when we found that the uplift is restricted to an area too far N to affect the preseent outlets. I still think W.B. Wright made a pertinent suggestion and I expect to see corrobative evidence when St. David's gorge is given critical study. I do not think your second paper is vitally affected if you adopt his suggestion. P.S. I do not find the clipping on the Gulf Stream you mentioned so I infer you did not inclose it.