5. Pemberton, Burlington County.—Professor E. D. Cope (Cook’s Geol. New Jersey, 1869, p. 740) stated that mastodon remains had been found at Pemberton. Previously, Conrad (Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila. vol. I, 1832, p. 11) had reported that bones and teeth of this species had been found here. In the collection of the Academy at Philadelphia are a part of a skull and some bones and teeth which were collected at Pemberton in 1887 by J. C. Saltar and E. McConnell. Rhoads (Mamm. Penn. N. J., p. 234) mentioned this skeleton and said that it was exposed in the bed of a small stream. Mr. J. Coleman Saltar, now of Milford, Delaware, has kindly replied to the present writer’s inquiries. He says that the skeleton was found about 1.5 miles northwest of Pemberton, in the bank of a small stream lying partly in the water, partly embedded in the bank. The flood-plain is perhaps about 10 feet below the tilled land along the stream. On the flood-plain is recent silt. Below this appears to be a Pleistocene deposit which contains vegetable débris, including pine cones. The skeleton was in this layer, about 3 feet below the surface. Professor Valiant informed Mr. Rhoads that another skull was found, a good many years ago, in a swamp near Pemberton, and for a long time was used as a door-step before its real nature was discovered. Mr. Saltar, in the letter referred to above, stated that his understanding has been that this skull was found along the same stream and was used as a stepping-stone in crossing, until some progressive person sought to change its position.
In the collection of the Academy, at Philadelphia, are 2 good teeth and parts of 2 others which are said to have been found at Pemberton. They are credited to G. C. Forsyth. At Princeton University is a nearly complete lower jaw, No. 8173, of a mastodon which was collected at Pemberton.
Pemberton is on Rancocas River. In Salisbury and Knapp’s work of 1917, on page 184, it is stated that sands which seem to belong to the Cape May are found along the North branch of the Rancocas near Pemberton.
6. Trenton, Mercer County.—Mr. S. N. Rhoads, in 1903 (Mamm. Penn. N. J., p. 235) stated that there is in Rutgers College Museum a specimen of tusk of mastodon which was reported to have been found in 1878 associated with stone implements in the Trenton gravels, 12 feet below the surface. Cook (Rep. Stat. Geol. New Jersey, for 1878, p. 15) stated that the tusk was found at a depth of 14 feet, with the gravel and stones partly stratified over it. There may be a question whether the tusk belonged to a mastodon or to an elephant. Professor S. Lockwood (Pop. Sci. Monthly, vol. XXLI, p. 344) wrote that he had seen a tusk, doubtless the one mentioned above, taken from the Trenton gravels. Whether or not this tusk was found immediately at Trenton was not stated, but Cook reported that it was found at Trenton.
7. Freehold, Monmouth County.—Several mastodons have been reported from this place. Professor Samuel Lockwood, in 1882 (Amer. Jour. Sci., vol. XXIV, p. 291; Pop. Sci. Monthly, vol. XXII, p. 341; Proc. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. XXXI, 1883, p. 365) reported that he had exhumed a skeleton of a mastodon in a peat-swamp 2 miles west of the town. It rested on hardpan, beneath the peat. Over the neck were sticks which had been cut by beavers. Lockwood’s complete account was published in the Popular Science Monthly, as quoted. The skeleton was in very bad condition. The lower jaw is not mentioned. According to the New Jersey map cited, the region about Freehold is occupied by the Pensauken formation; according to Salisbury and Knapp the identity of this is not wholly certain. It is impossible to say when the skeleton had fallen there. Some one, probably G. H. Cook (Geol. New Jersey, 1868, p. 741), stated that bones of mastodon had been found near Freehold by O. R. Willis. Professor Valiant has told the writer of a milk-tooth of a mastodon found at “Hartshorne’s mills” (Cook’s Geol. New Jersey, 1868, p. 781).
8. Englishtown, Monmouth County.—Mr. S. N. Rhoads (Mamm. Penn., N. J., p. 235) stated that Professor Valiant had informed him that remains of mastodon had been found in marl at Englishtown. The relations of the remains to the marl one can not now learn. According to the New Jersey geologists, the region about the place is occupied by Pensauken; but one can not be certain about the geological age of the mastodon.
9. Marlboro, Monmouth County.—George H. Cook (Geol. New Jersey, 1868, p. 741) reported that a portion of a jaw of a mastodon had been found in a mill-race at Marlboro; but when this happened we are not told. Rhoads, as cited, probably refers to the same specimen, where he mentions a ramus of a young mastodon containing the milk dentition. This is in Rutgers College. The gravels on the hills about Marlboro are referred by the New Jersey geologists to the Pensauken. It is not unlikely, however, that Cape May deposits are to be met with at lower levels.
10. Long Branch, Monmouth County.—A number of mastodons have been found in the vicinity of Long Branch. In 1824 (Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist., N. Y., vol. I, pp. 143–147), De Kay, Van Rensselaer, and Cooper gave a detailed account of the exhumation of a mastodon skeleton on a farm called “Poplar,” 3 miles southwest of Long Branch, and 2 miles from the sea-beach. The skeleton was found near the border of a marsh and so close to the surface that it was discovered by a molar sticking out of the turf. The vertebral column lay only about 8 or 10 inches below the surface. These bones, including the skull, which lay near the surface, were more or less decayed. The tusks were not found at all. The bones were all buried in a stratum of black earth about 8 feet thick. Below this was a bed of sand, with rolled pebbles, of unequal thickness, but generally thicker than the bed of muck. Under this again was found a bed of marl of undetermined age. The impression received by the investigators was that the animal had sunken into the marsh and died in a standing position. In such a case, the bog had been formed before the animal was mired in it. There is an account by Van Rensselaer in the American Journal of Science, volume XI, 1826, page 246, of the finding of this skeleton. Godman (Amer. Nat. Hist., vol. II) gave an account of the same discovery. Cook (Geol. New Jersey, 1868, p. 741) thought that the bones had become exposed to view through subsidence of the peaty layer, due to its having been drained.
James Hall (Geol. 4th Dist., N. Y., p. 365) states that he had assisted in exhuming a mastodon at Long Branch which was in a natural vertical position, his body supported by the turf soil or black earth and his feet resting upon a gravelly bottom.
Lockwood (Amer. Jour. Sci., vol. XXIV, 1882, p. 294; Pop. Sci. Monthly, vol. XXII, p. 344) reported that he had known of 2 teeth of the mastodon which at distant times had been taken up at sea off Long Branch.