Page:The Journal of geology (IA journalofgeology11893univ).pdf/398

ble existence of faults, with upthrow on the east, along the eastern margin of the Triassic rocks, is a difficulty in the way of the complete acceptance of this theory. Unfortunately too little is known about the structure of the western plateau to say whether the course of the lower Housatonic could be accounted for on such an hypothesis. On this theory the Connecticut would be consequent upon the Jurassic deformation, and revived by the post-Cretaceous uplift.

It may be suggested that the southeast courses are due to the tilting of the peneplain at the time of elevation, the plateau now being, as we have seen, much higher in the northwestern part of the state than elsewhere. But the acceptance of this theory necessitates a degree of smoothness and absence of even mild relief in the peneplain, which is hardly possible. The present average slope of the plateau is but a few feet per mile, and it seems incredible that so gentle a tilting could force rivers as large as these to take new courses. Besides, if the Housatonic and Connecticut were deflected, why were not the smaller streams—the Naugatuck and Quinebaug—also given southeastern deflections? Clearly, this explanation is not the correct one.

Superimposition. It has been suggested that these courses may be inherited from a Cretaceous cover, which formerly stretched over Connecticut for a considerable distance, but of which no traces now remain in the state. On parts of Long Island the Cretaceous deposits are found, and it is not inherently impossible nor improbable that they once stretched far over the main land. In New Jersey^[1] several lines of evidence seem to show that the Cretaceous beds formerly extended across the Triassic, probably to the margin of the highland plateau. The curious drainage of the Watchung Crescent is one evidence of this, but the other proofs are along entirely different lines, so that there is apparently good evidence that the Cretaceous beds