I am free to allow that this has the appearance of heaping hypothesis on hypothesis; but in no other way does the analysis of the history of our streams seem possible, and the success of the experiment can be judged only after making it. At the same time, I am constrained to admit that this is to my own view the least satisfactory of the suggestions here presented. It may be correct, but there seems to be no sufficient exclusion of other possibilities. For example, it must not be overlooked that, if the Anthracite river ran southeast during Newark deposition, the formation of the Newark northwestward monocline by the Jurassic tilting would have had a tendency to turn the river back again to its northwest flow. But as the drainage of the region is still southeastward, I am tempted to think that the Jurassic tilting was not here strong enough to reverse the flow of so strong and mature a river as the Anthracite had by that time come to be; and that the elevation that accompanied the tilting was not so powerful in reversing the river to a northwest course as the previous depression of the Newark basin had been in turning it to the southeast. If the Anthracite did continue to flow to the southeast, it may be added that the down-cutting of its upper branches was greatly retarded by the decrease of slope in its lower course when the monocline was formed. The only other method of reversing the original northwestward flow of the streams that I have imagined is by capture of their headwaters by Atlantic rivers. This seems to me less effective than the method just considered; but they are not mutually exclusive and the actual result may be the sum of the two processes. The outline of the idea is as follows. The long continued supply of sedimentary material from the Archean land on the southeast implies that it was as continually elevated. But there came a time when there is no record of further supply of material, and when we may therefore suppose the elevation was no longer maintained. From that time onward, the Archean range must have dwindled away, what with the encroachment of the Atlantic on its eastern shore and the general action of denuding forces on its surface. The Newark depression was an effective aid to the same end, as has been stated above, and for a moderate distance westward of the depressed belt, the former direction of the streams must certainly have been reversed; but the question remains whether this reversal extended as far as the Wyoming basin, and whether the subsequent formation of the Newark monocline did not undo the effect of the Newark depression. It is manifest that as far as our limited knowledge goes, it is impossible to estimate these matters quantitatively, and hence the importance of looking for additional processes that may supplement the effect of the Newark depression and counteract the effect of the Newark uplift in changing the course of the rivers. Let it be supposed for the moment