27. Development and adjustment of the Permian drainage.—The problem is now before us. Can the normal sequence of changes in the regular course of river development, aided by the post-Permian deformations and elevations, evolve the existing rivers out of the ancient ones?
In order to note the degree of comparison that exists between the two, several of the larger rivers of to-day are dotted on the figure. The points of agreement are indeed few and small. Perhaps the most important ones are that the Broad Top region is drained by a stream, the Juniata, which for a short distance follows near the course predicted for it; and that the Nittany district, then a highland, is still a well-marked divide although now a lowland. But there is no Anthracite river, and the region of the ancient coal-basin lakes is now avoided by large streams; conversely, a great river—the Susquehanna—appears where no consequent river ran in Permian time, and the early synclinal streams frequently turn from the structural troughs to valleys located on the structural arches.
28. Lateral water-gaps near the apex of synclinal ridges.—One of the most frequent discrepancies between the hypothetical and actual streams is that the latter never follow the axis of a descending syncline along its whole length, as the original streams must have done, but depart for a time from the axis and then return to it, notching the ridge formed on any hard bed at the side instead of at the apex of its curve across the axis of the syncline. There is not a single case in the state of a stream cutting a gap at the apex of such a synclinal curve, but there are perhaps hundreds of cases where the streams notch the curve to one side of the apex. This, however, is precisely the arrangement attained by spontaneous adjustment from an initial axial course, as indicated in [figure 13]. The gaps may be located on small transverse faults, but as a rule they seem to have no such guidance. It is true that most of our streams now run out of and not into the synclinal basins, but a reason for this will be found later; for the present we look only at the location of the streams, not at their direction of flow. As far as this illustration goes, it gives evidence that the smaller streams at least possess certain peculiarities that could not be derived from persistence in a previous accidental location, but which would be necessarily derived from a process of adjustment following the original establishment of strictly consequent streams. Hence the hypothesis that these smaller streams were long ago consequent on the Permian folding receives confirmation; but this says nothing as to the origin of the larger rivers, which might at the same time be antecedent.
29. Departure of the Juniata from the Juniata-Catawissa syncline.—It may be next noted that the drainage of the Broad Top region does not follow a single syncline to the Anthracite region, as it should have in the initial stage of the consequent Permian drainage, but soon turns aside from the syncline in which it starts and runs across country to the Susquehanna. It is true that in its upper course the Juniata departs from the Broad Top region by one of the two synclines that were indicated as the probable line of discharge of the ancient Broad Top lake in our restoration of the constructional topography of the State; there does not appear to be any significant difference between the summit altitudes of the Tuscarora-Mahanoy and the Juniata-Catawissa synclinal axes and hence the choice must have been made for reasons that cannot be detected; or it may be that the syncline lying more to the northwest was raised last, and for this reason was taken as the line of overflow. The beginning of the river is therefore not discordant with the hypothesis of consequent drainage, but the southward departure from the Catawissa syncline at Lewistown remains to be explained. It seems to me that some reason for the departure may be found by likening it to the case already given in [figs. 16-18]. The several synclines with which the Juniata is concerned have precisely the relative attitudes that are there discussed. The Juniata-Catawissa syncline has parallel sides for many miles about its middle, and hence must have long maintained the initial Juniata well above baselevel over all this distance; the progress of cutting down a channel through all the hard Carboniferous sandstones for so great a distance along the axis must have been exceedingly slow. But the synclines next south, the Tuscarora-Mahanoy and the Wiconisco, plunge to the northeast more rapidly, as the rapid divergence of their margins demonstrates, and must for this reason have carried the hard sandstones below baselevel in a shorter distance and on a steeper slope than in the Catawissa syncline. The further southwestward extension of the Pocono sandstone ridges in the southern than in the northern syncline gives further illustration of this peculiarity of form. Lateral capture of the Juniata by a branch of the initial Tuscarora, and of the latter by a branch of the Wiconisco therefore seems possible, and the accordance of the facts with so highly specialized an arrangement is certainly again indicative of the correctness of the hypothesis of consequent drainage, and this time in a larger stream than before. At first sight, it appears that an easier lateral capture might have been made by some of the streams flowing from the outer slope of the Nittany highland; but this becomes improbable when it is perceived that the heavy Medina sandstone would here have to be worn through as well as the repeated arches of the Carboniferous beds in the many high folds of the Seven Mountains. Again, as far as present appearances go, we can give no sufficient reason to explain why possession of the headwaters of the Juniata was not gained by some subsequent stream of its own, such as G, [fig. 18], instead of by a side-stream of the river in the neighboring syncline; but it may be admitted, on the other hand, that as far as we can estimate the chances for conquest, there was nothing distinctly in favor of one or the other of the side-streams concerned; and as long as the problem is solved indifferently in favor of one or the other, we may accept the lead of the facts and say that some control not now apparent determined that the diversion should be, as drawn, through D and not through G. The detailed location of the Juniata in its middle course below Lewistown will be considered in a later section.
| FIG. 22. | FIG. 23. | FIG. 24. |