Dr. H. Gibbon made some remarks on the simultaneity of storms on both sides of this continent.
Prof. Whitney made some remarks supplementary to his communication to the Academy in 1862, on the question—“Which is the highest mountain in the United States, and which in North America?”
He remarked that but little had been done, outside of California, during the last five years, towards improving our knowledge of the topography of the western part of our continent. Some valuable contributions to the physical geography of the central portion of the eastern edge of the Rocky Mountains, have been published by Drs. C. C. Parry and Engelmann in the Transactions of the St. Louis Academy, (1863 and 1866) and several peaks were measured by Dr. Parry; but of these only two are located on any map, namely: Long’s and Pike’s. Of these Long’s Peak is 13,456 feet, and Pike’s, 14,215; this latter being the highest summit in the Rocky Mountain range, at least within the borders of our own territory. Of the continuation of the Rocky Mountains north into British Columbia, but little is known. Some peaks are said to be 16,000 feet and over in height; but it is believed that no accurate measurements have been made in that region; and, further, it is not at all in accordance with what we have learned of the relation of peaks to passes in other mountain chains, to suppose that when the passes are as low as 5,000 feet, the mountains on either hand should rise to an altitude of 16,000 feet. This would be more probable were the high points volcanic cones; but this they are not supposed to be. Lord Milton and Dr. Cheadle’s book, recently published, gives no information as to the height of the peaks near the pass traversed by their party, (the Leather Head Pass) except a statement that one point, far exceeding all others in elevation, was “from 10,000 to 15,000 feet high.”
Professor Whitney referred again to the fact that the height of Mt. St. Elias, as given on the British Admiralty charts, and probably from Sir Edward Belcher’s measurement, namely, 14,970 feet, was still ignored by all compilers of gazetteers and geographies, even down to Ansted’s latest work, published in 1867. The old figures, 17,854 feet, obtained from an old Spanish document found in Mexico by Humboldt, have been shown to be grossly exaggerated by two separate measurements of more modern times.
The recent measurement of Mt. Hood by Mr. A. Wood, was mentioned, and several reasons given why little weight should be attached to it. If Mr. Wood’s measurement were correct, the height of Mt. Hood must be nearly 4,000 feet greater than that of Mt. Shasta, and so notable a fact would have been clearly recognized by explorers, as it always has been that Mt. Shasta itself is nearly that much higher than Lassen’s Peak. But, on the other hand, experienced observers have stated that Mt. Hood was not as high as Mt. Shasta, nor as Mt. Adams, or Mt. Rainier, this last-named peak being, according to Wilkes, only 12,300 feet. Again, Mt. Hood was roughly measured by Dr. Vansant, and his result (11,934 feet) gives the height of that mountain as less than that of Mt. Adams, also measured by him with the same instrument, and this instrument could hardly have been so rough and liable to error as the one employed by Mr. Wood. Further, this last-named gentleman gives the limit of forest vegetation on Mt. Hood as 9,000 feet, while our careful observations on Mt. Shasta place it on that mountain, at 8,000 feet. It is certainly contrary to what we have everywhere on this coast observed, to suppose that the limit to which arboreal growth reaches, should not fall considerably in going north three hundred miles, rather than rise 1,000 feet, as would be the case if Mr. Wood’s measurements were correct. Finally, that Mr. Wood’s figures are not very reliable is shown by the fact, that on plotting his estimates of distances traveled and the angles of the slopes as given by him, it was found that, to correspond with his statements, the mountain must be no less than 33,400 feet high.
Finally, Professor Whitney concluded that we have as yet no satisfactory evidence to invalidate the statement previously made by him, that we have in California the highest mountains in the United States, and the grandest and largest mountain mass in North America, although one or two of the volcanic cones of Mexico rise to higher altitudes than any of our peaks.
Prof. Whitney also exhibited one of the short barometers made for the Geological Survey, by James Green, of New York. Having had occasion to work at high elevations—the party being sometimes, for weeks together, camped at from 8,000 to 10,000 feet above the sea—it has been found that the vacuum in the ordinary barometer tubes soon becomes deteriorated, and the mercury dirty from the constant lowering and raising of the column, which is required when a large number of observations are taken at so great an elevation. By having the barometer tube made only long enough to commence the reading at about twenty-four inches, or at an elevation of 6,000 or 7,000 feet, the difficulty above specified is to a great degree avoided, and the instrument made much more portable and convenient to carry, especially on peaks so steep that both hands are needed to aid in climbing. Two of these short barometers have been used in the high mountain work of the California Survey, and found extremely convenient. Of course the short barometer must be compared with a long one at some station camp of sufficiently great elevation to allow this to be done.
Dr. Gibbons made some remarks on the inferior quality of the macadamizing material employed in this city. He inquired if any person knew of the existence of any better stone for this purpose, in the vicinity of San Francisco. Prof. Whitney replied that an excellent basaltic rock was to be had in great abundance near Petaluma, at a point convenient for shipment, and that there was no really valuable rock for macadamizing to be had nearer than this point.