Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Scientific American”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
USGS1991

Clarifications and corrections of the dates of issue of some publications containing descriptions of North American birds

The date of issue of a work containing a new scientific name determines the date the name is available and, therefore, the priority of the name with respect to other applied to the same taxon. Differences between the dates printed in publications and the actual dates of issues often resulted from procedures in distribution and erratic publishing schedules, especially before the twentieth century. Distribution, including that to subscribers, was usually the responsibility of the author (Jackson, 1975: 14-15). Early publications were customarily issues in parts (Price, 1982) and the dated title page was usually issued last, which complicates matters of establishing an actual publication date. Early bibliographic works, especially those of Sherborn (e.g., 1902-1933), Mathews (e.g., 1911, 1919, 1925), Waterhouse (e.g., 1885, 1889, 1937), Zimmer (1926), and Richmond (e.g., 1899b, 1902, 1917), have provided information on the actual dates of issue of many ornithological works. Many modern publications (e.g. American Ornithologists' Union [A.O.U.], 1957, 1983; various volumes of Peters's check-lists) have neglected recent, and some older, bibliographic works on several sources of scientific names of birds that affect the proper citations. Here, we clarify information on the dates of issue of some publications on North American ( sensu , A.O.U., 1983) birds. In the event the actual day of issue cannot be determined, the last day of the month or year, whichever was known, or, lacking such information, the printed date, is the date of availability of the scientific name (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1985: Article 21). Sources for determining the dates of issue include bibliographic works and the invaluable notes of Charles W. Richmond (in the Division of Birds library, Smithsonian Institution). In the following, books are listed alphabetically by the author of the scientific names, and journals by the first word in their title.

Archives of Natural History↗
USGS2000

The AOU Conservation Committee Review of the biology, status, and management of Cape Sable Seaside Sparrows: Final report

The Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow ( Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis ) was listed as an original member of the federal list of endangered species in 1968. It is restricted to seasonally flooded prairies of extreme southern Florida and is disjunct from all other conspecific breeding populations (Kushlan et al 1982, McDonald 1988). Since the subspecies was described in 1919, its populations have been discovered and rediscovered, often only to disappear or decline to a handful of individuals (Werner and Woolfenden 1983, Kushlan and Bass 1983). Although the sparrow historically is known from six distinct areas, at present only two of these areas support populations numbering in the hundreds or low thousands of individuals. Debates swirl around the status of these remnant populations. The main controversy encompasses whether the sparrow, now largely restricted to Everglades National Park, is in jeopardy of global extinction and if so, what actions must be taken to prevent this from happening. In November 1998, a panel of scientists was assembled under the auspices of the Conservation Committee of the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) to evaluate the scientific evidence relevant to this controversy. The Panel was charged with scrutinizing the evidence for the existence and probable causes of global population decline in this subspecies, evaluating proposed management actions, and suggesting further research necessary to manage the remaining populations to maximize their chances of long-term persistence. This document presents the conclusions of the Panel, which are based on our reading of the peer-reviewed and “gray” literature, interactions during a workshop held 9 to 11 February 1999 at Florida International University in Miami with researchers investigating the sparrow's biology, and site visits associated with the workshop. In addition, researchers provided the Panel with position papers summarizing their findings and conclusions prior to the workshop and provided information in response to specific questions following the workshop. Further information was obtained through public comment on an initial draft of this report.

The Auk↗
USGS2002

Digital data grids for the magnetic anomaly map of North America

The digital magnetic anomaly database and map for the North American continent is the result of a joint effort by the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC), U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), and Consejo de Recursos Minerales of Mexico (CRM). This integrated, readily accessible, modern digital database of magnetic anomaly data is a powerful tool for further evaluation of the structure, geologic processes, and tectonic evolution of the continent and may also be used to help resolve societal and scientific issues that span national boundaries. The North American magnetic anomaly map derived from the digital database provides a comprehensive magnetic view of continental-scale trends not available in individual data sets, helps link widely separated areas of outcrop, and unifies disparate geologic studies. This open-file report presents three unique, gridded data sets used to make the magnetic anomaly map of North America. Subsets of these three grids that span only the United States were also created, giving a total of six grids. Details on the data processing and compilation procedures used to produce the grids are described in the booklet that accompanies the North American magnetic anomaly map. All three grids have 1-km spacing and are projected to the DNAG projection (spherical transverse mercator, central meridian of 100 o W, base latitude of 0o, scale factor of 0.926 and Earth radius of 6,371,204 m.) More details are given in the metadata files that accompany the gridded data files. These grids are presented in Geosoft binary grid format, with two files describing each of the six grids (suffixes .grd and .gi). This format can be easily converted to numerous other formats using the free conversion software offered by this company at http://www.geosoft.com/. The first grids (NAmag_origmrg.grd and USmag_origmrg.grd) show the magnetic field at 305 m. above terrain. For the second grids (NAmag_hp500.grd and USmag_hp500.grd) we removed long-wavelength anomalies (500 km and greater) from the first grid. This grid was used for the published map. Although the North American merged grid represents a significant upgrade to older compilations, the existing patchwork of surveys is inherently unable to accurately represent anomalies with long (greater than roughly 150 km) wavelengths, particularly in the US and Canada (U.S. Magnetic-Anomaly Data Set Task Group, 1994). The lack of information about long wavelength anomalies is primarily related to datum shifts between merged surveys, caused by data acquisition at widely different times and by differences in merging procedures. Therefore, we removed anomalies with wavelengths greater than 500 km from the merged grid to reduce the effects caused by the spurious long wavelengths but still maintain the continuity of anomalies. The correction was accomplished by transforming the merged grid to the frequency domain, filtering the transformed data with a long-wavelength cutoff at 500 km, and subtracting the long-wavelength data grid from the merged grid. In addition to the 500-km high pass filter, an equivalent source method, based on long-wavelength characterization using satellite data (CHAMP satellite anomalies, Maus and others, 2002), was also used to correct for spurious shifts in the original magnetic anomaly grid (Ravat and others, 2002). These results are presented in the third grids (NAmag_CM.grd and USmag_CM.grd), in which the wavelengths longer than 500 km have been replaced by downward-continued satellite data. The steps used to create the third long-wavelength-corrected grid are: 0. The North American 1-km merged grid was decimated to 5 km. 1. This 5-km grid was converted to a 0.05 degree grid and was low-pass filtered using a Gaussian filter with a 500-km cutoff, then decimated to 1 degree. 2. A joint inversion of this 1-degree low-pass aeromagnetic grid and satellite data, with the aeromagnetic data weighted very low, was used to produce a stabilized downward continuation of the satellite data. 3. The inverted data were interpolated to 0.05 degrees and again low-pass filtered using the same Gaussian 500-km filter to remove short-wavelength artifacts. 4. The low-pass grid from step 1 was subtracted from the original 0.05-degree aeromagnetic grid to create a 500-km high-pass aeromagnetic grid. This grid was added to the low-pass inverted grid from step 3 to get a corrected 0.05-degree aeromagnetic grid. 5. The corrected 0.05-degree aeromagnetic grid was projected to the DNAG projection and regridded to 5 km. This was subtracted from the decimated 5-km aeromagnetic grid to generate a 5-km correction grid. A matched filter was used to remove short-wavelength artifacts resulting from the projection and regridding process. 6. The resulting 5-km correction grid was regridded to the original 1-km grid and subtracted from the original 1-km aeromagnetic grid to generate the final 1-km corrected aeromagnetic grid. The six grids described in this report are available for download. Two metadata files, one for the North American grids and one for the United States grids, are also included with the gridded data.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2002

Magnetic anomaly map of North America

This digital Magnetic Anomaly database and map for the North American continent is the result of a joint effort by the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and Consejo de Recursos Minerales of Mexico (CRM). The database and map represent a substantial upgrade from the previous compilation of Magnetic Anomaly data for North America, now over a decade old (Committee for the Magnetic Anomaly Map of North America, 1987). This integrated, readily accessible, modern digital database of magnetic anomaly data will be a powerful tool for further evaluation of the structure, geologic processes, and tectonic evolution of the continent and may also be used to help resolve societal and scientific issues that span national boundaries. The North American magnetic anomaly map derived from the digital database provides a comprehensive magnetic view of continental-scale trends not available in individual data sets, helps link widely separated areas of outcrop, and unifies disparate geologic studies. This booklet outlines the data processing and compilation procedures used to produce the magnetic anomaly database and map that accompany this booklet.

Special Map↗
USGS2013

Colorado geology then and now: Following the route of the Colorado Scientific Society’s 1901 trip through central Colorado

In 1901, Charles Van Hise asked Samuel Emmons and Whitman Cross to organize a grand excursion across Colorado as part of the combined meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, GSA, and the Colorado Scientific Society (CSS). This trip replays part of that 10-day excursion across Colorado. Shortened to three days, this trip takes in some of the same sites as the 1901 trip, plus adds others of interest along the route where CSS members are reinventing geological interpretations. The trip will follow the precedent set in 1901; CSS members will serve as “site or stop hosts” in addition to the trip leader and drivers. While walking in the steps of the most famous of our profession we will also see some of the most magnificent scenery of Colorado.

Colorado↗
USGS1998

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 1998

Introduction The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is an impartial scientific organization that strives to produce scientific results that are relevant to the people of the United States and their land and resource managers. In cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, the USGS conducts research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, stream flows, biota, and other data sets are available to American Indian and Alaska Native institutions. The USGS recognizes the need learn from and to share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal fiscal year 1998.

Report↗
USGS2026

Testing the efficacy of industrial mitigation measures for caribou in the Arctic

1. Mitigation measures are commonly employed to reduce the negative effects of industrial development on wildlife but are not often evaluated for their efficacy. For example, oil fields in the Arctic typically incorporate design features intended to increase permeability for migratory, barren-ground caribou ( Rangifer tarandus) , even though there is limited empirical evidence of the effectiveness of some of these features. 2. Given expected increases in energy development in the North American Arctic, we examined whether two mitigation measures commonly used for migratory caribou, elevating pipelines and separating roads and pipelines, were effective at increasing the probability caribou would cross infrastructure. 3. We conducted our investigation on adult female caribou in the Central Arctic Herd of Alaska during summer, analyzing movement data from telemetry collars (2015-2020) in conjunction with spatial data on oil field infrastructure. To evaluate whether caribou would cross infrastructure as a function of the mitigation measures, we employed a generalized additive modeling framework capable of detecting non-linear and threshold responses. 4. We found that caribou were more likely to cross a pipeline when the nearest pipeline was elevated (≥1.9-m), a result that supports current mitigation recommendations. We also found that caribou were more likely to cross both a road and pipeline when they were directly adjacent to one another, as opposed to being spatially separated, a result that contradicts recommended mitigation strategies. 5. Synthesis and applications . As new energy projects are designed and implemented in environments around the globe, it is important to ensure that mitigation efforts for wildlife are scientifically validated for their efficacy. In the North American Arctic, such efforts will be critical for minimizing the impacts of expanding industrial development on migratory caribou and on the human communities that rely on them for subsistence.

Alaska↗
USGS2014

Guidelines for use of fishes in research: Revised and expanded

The Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Research (2014; 2014 Guidelines ), now available through the American fisheries Society (AFS) website and in print from the AFS bookstore, is a resource to aid researchers and regulatory authorities regarding responsible, scientifically valid research on fish and aquatic wildlife. The Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Field Research (American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists [ASIH] et al. 1987, 1988) emphasized field research and was followed by the 2004 Guidelines including laboratory research topics. Each version of the Guidelines has been jointly endorsed and/or published by the ASIH, the American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists (AIFRB), and AFS--each focusing on the scientific understanding, global conservation, and sustainability of aquatic animals, fisheries, and ecosystems. Changes with time necessitate revisions to make the Guidelines consistent with contemporary practices and scientific literature so to remain relevant as a technical resource. This document provides not only general principles relevant for field and laboratory research endeavors but includes specific requirements for researchers working within the United States and outside of the country. Within the scope of their expertise, the 2014 Uses of Fishers in Research (UFR) Committee members updated and revised sections, resulting in a 90-page 2014 Guidelines having undergone through peer review. As before, topical areas were addressed (see Table of Contents on page 416). Expanded coverage was provided on U.S. and international agencies and programs relevant to research with fishes. The Surgical Procedures and the Marking and Tagging section received special focus by a UFR Subcommittee. Feeds and Feeding and the Administration of Drugs, Biologics and Other Chemicals are just some of the newly added topics. The 2014 Guidelines is user-friendly by way of hyperlinks to external Internet sites, intradocument sections, and tables of acronyms with corresponding terms, low regulatory priority drugs, and Office of International des Epizooties notifiable disease agents. Again, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) role is explained, expectations for research are provided, and a brief checklist for IACUC readiness is included. Overall, the ,i>2014 Guidelines is the taxon-specific resource for our professional societies and is a principal document for standards on the care and use of fish and aquatic vertebrates in research.

Fisheries↗
USGS2020

U.S. Geological Survey science in support of the North American Bat Monitoring Program (NABat)

Bats make up one-fifth of all mammalian species worldwide and are found on every continent except Antarctica. They contribute to overall ecosystem health by suppressing pest insects and pollinating plants and spreading seeds. Eight North American bat species are listed as federally endangered or threatened, and more than one-half are of current conservation concern in the United States, Canada, or Mexico. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) leads, manages, and coordinates the multinational North American Bat Monitoring Program (NABat) as well as conducts scientific research on bats. USGS and NABat partners help resource managers and policymakers make informed decisions regarding the conservation of bats across North America. USGS science also helps inform decision making with respect to WNS surveillance and bat vulnerability; mitigation of potential impacts of energy development on bats; prelisting conservation efforts for regulatory agencies; and land management practices. Partners are essential to the success of NABat. The data contributed by NABat partners provide baseline knowledge on the distribution and abundance of bats, which is used to evaluate the impacts of the threats to bats across North America. These data are also the foundation for the scientific information used to set conservation priorities and evaluate the effectiveness of management actions.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2025

Direct effects of pesticides and other grassland management practices on the North American Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus): A systematic review

This review synthesizes recent scientific literature on the effects of grassland management practices and pesticide applications on monarch butterflies ( Danaus plexippus ), focusing on studies published since the 2020 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Status Assessment (SSA). While the SSA highlighted habitat conservation efforts to enhance monarch populations, there has been limited empirical research on the direct effects of these management strategies on monarch survival and fitness. Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate research published during and after the SSA (2019-2024) on the direct effects of common grassland management practices (mowing, grazing, burning, haying) and pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides) across monarch life stages. This search identified 29 studies that met our criteria. Of these, only two studies addressed the impacts of grassland management on monarchs, indicating a substantial and important information gap. The other 27 studies reviewed indicate significant risks of pesticide exposure to monarchs, particularly at immature life stages from lethal and sublethal effects. The effects of chronic insecticide exposure, particularly neonicotinoids, are especially critical to consider, as research shows insecticides can result in impairment of growth, development, and reproductive behaviors. Additionally, fungicides pose overlooked risks to monarchs due to their toxicity to non-target organisms. Notably, most studies evaluating pesticide effects were conducted in a laboratory setting and thus it is unclear how these results relate to fieldrealistic exposure, as well as exposure over multiple life history stages and potential synergistic effects of pesticides. Additional relevant information gaps remain, especially on studies of southern migratory paths critical for monarch population persistence. Data gaps at relevant scales for grassland management combined with growing evidence of pesticide persistence and subsequent threats to insects, highlight how more ecologically applicable metrics for monitoring environmental chemicals could help improve understanding of the effects of pesticides on monarchs and characterize contamination of milkweed and nectar resources.

Cooperator Science Series↗
USGS2018

Department of the Interior metadata implementation guide—Framework for developing the metadata component for data resource management

The Department of the Interior (DOI) is a Federal agency with over 90,000 employees across 10 bureaus and 8 agency offices. Its primary mission is to protect and manage the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provide scientific and other information about those resources; and honor its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. Data and information are critical in day-to-day operational decision making and scientific research. DOI is committed to creating, documenting, managing, and sharing high-quality data and metadata in and across its various programs that support its mission. Documenting data through metadata is essential in realizing the value of data as an enterprise asset. The completeness, consistency, and timeliness of metadata affect users’ ability to search for and discover the most relevant data for the intended purpose; and facilitates the interoperability and usability of these data among DOI bureaus and offices. Fully documented metadata describe data usability, quality, accuracy, provenance, and meaning. Across DOI, there are different maturity levels and phases of information and metadata management implementations. The Department has organized a committee consisting of bureau-level points-of-contacts to collaborate on the development of more consistent, standardized, and more effective metadata management practices and guidance to support this shared mission and the information needs of the Department. DOI’s metadata implementation plans establish key roles and responsibilities associated with metadata management processes, procedures, and a series of actions defined in three major metadata implementation phases including: (1) Getting started—Planning Phase, (2) Implementing and Maintaining Operational Metadata Management Phase, and (3) the Next Steps towards Improving Metadata Management Phase. DOI’s phased approach for metadata management addresses some of the major data and metadata management challenges that exist across the diverse missions of the bureaus and offices. All employees who create, modify, or use data are involved with data and metadata management. Identifying, establishing, and formalizing the roles and responsibilities associated with metadata management are key to institutionalizing a framework of best practices, methodologies, processes, and common approaches throughout all levels of the organization; these are the foundation for effective data resource management. For executives and managers, metadata management strengthens their overarching views of data assets, holdings, and data interoperability; and clarifies how metadata management can help accelerate the compliance of multiple policy mandates. For employees, data stewards, and data professionals, formalized metadata management will help with the consistency of definitions, and approaches addressing data discoverability, data quality, and data lineage. In addition to data professionals and others associated with information technology; data stewards and program subject matter experts take on important metadata management roles and responsibilities as data flow through their respective business and science-related workflows. The responsibilities of establishing, practicing, and governing the actions associated with their specific metadata management roles are critical to successful metadata implementation.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2007

A shifting mosaic of scholarly publishing, scientific delivery, and future impact changing the face of learned societies

Nonprofit scientific societies hope that their activities advance their particular mission and impact their profession and, in the broadest sense, humanity in positive ways. The digital age has provided unprecedented mechanisms to enhance the delivery of science to the world. The marketplace of scientific publishing is a rapidly shifting mosaic of challenges and opportunities, and the responses of nonprofit and commercial publishers vary widely, but their outcomes are still uncertain. The response of the American Society of Mammalogists (ASM) provides an example of how a relatively small society has altered its scientific delivery to enhance member benefits while attempting to sustain its economic viability. Since 2000, ASM has moved from a self-publishing, break-even, print-only model to a copublishing agreement with a commercial publisher (Alliance Communications Group, a division of Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas), which now offers members various print and electronic options and generates a shared royalty. Although it is too early to gauge the economic impact of these changes, the ASM leadership clearly attempted to signal its desire for members to view their society as a package of opportunities for edification and involvement rather than just a provider of serial subscriptions. Future challenges facing nonprofit scientific societies include open access, fiscal realities, archiving of publications, and scientific and societal impact; future opportunities include a strengthening of member responsibilities and professionalism, development of data registries to enhance scientific progress, and bundling of like societies. The manner in which nonprofit scientific societies respond to these challenges and opportunities will no doubt affect their sustainability and future impact. ?? 2007 American Society of Mammalogists.

Journal of Mammalogy↗
USGS1993

The influence of capture-recapture methodology on the evolution of the North American Bird Banding Program

Capture-recapture methodology has advanced greatly in the last twenty years and is now a major factor driving the continuing evolution of the North American bird banding program. Bird banding studies are becoming more scientific with improved study designs and analytical procedures. Researchers and managers are gaining more reliable knowledge which in turn betters the conservation of migratory birds. The advances in capture-recapture methodology have benefited gamebird studies primarily, but nongame bird studies will benefit similarly as they expand greatly in the next decade. Further theoretical development of capture-recapture methodology should be encouraged, and, to maximize benefits of the methodology, work on practical applications should be increased.

Book chapter↗
USGS2011

Geology for a changing world 2010-2020-Implementing the U.S. Geological Survey science strategy

This report describes a science strategy for the geologic activities of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the years 2010-2020. It presents six goals with accompanying strategic actions and products that implement the science directions of USGS Circular 1309, 'Facing Tomorrow's Challenges-U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007-2017.' These six goals focus on providing the geologic underpinning needed to wisely use our natural resources, understand and mitigate hazards and environmental change, and understand the relationship between humans and the environment. The goals emphasize the critical role of the USGS in providing long-term research, monitoring, and assessments for the Nation and the world. Further, they describe measures that must be undertaken to ensure geologic expertise and knowledge for the future. The natural science issues facing today's world are complex and cut across many scientific disciplines. The Earth is a system in which atmosphere, oceans, land, and life are all connected. Rocks and soils contain the answers to important questions about the origin of energy and mineral resources, the evolution of life, climate change, natural hazards, ecosystem structures and functions, and the movements of nutrients and toxicants. The science of geology has the power to help us understand the processes that link the physical and biological world so that we can model and forecast changes in the system. Ensuring the success of this strategy will require integration of geological knowledge with the other natural sciences and extensive collaboration across USGS science centers and with partners in Federal, State, and local agencies, academia, industry, nongovernmental organizations and, most importantly, the American public. The first four goals of this report describe the scientific issues facing society in the next 10 years and the actions and products needed to respond to these issues. The final two goals focus on the expertise and infrastructure needed to ensure the long-term sustainability of the geological sciences in the USGS. The ultimate goal of USGS science and of the strategy laid out in this document is to contribute to the development of a sustainable society that operates in harmony with the Earth systems that society depends upon. As we begin the second decade of the 21st century, our Nation faces growing challenges in resource availability, climate and environmental change, and natural hazards. Meeting these challenges will require strong collaboration across the natural and social sciences and extensive partnerships with both the public and private sectors. The six goals described in this document represent a mix of scientific focus areas and operational necessities that together provide a comprehensive roadmap for USGS geologic science to effectively contribute to the USGS mission, providing science for a changing world.

Circular↗
USGS2014

North American amphibians: Distribution and diversity

Some 300 species of amphibians inhabit North America. The past two decades have seen an enormous growth in interest about amphibians and an increased intensity of scientific research into their fascinating biology and continent-wide distribution. This atlas presents the spectacular diversity of North American amphibians in a geographic context. It covers all formally recognized amphibian species found in the United States and Canada, many of which are endangered or threatened with extinction. Illustrated with maps and photos, the species accounts provide current information about distribution, habitat, and conservation. Researchers, professional herpetologists, and anyone intrigued by amphibians will value North American Amphibians as a guide and reference.

Book↗
USGS1984

Bibliography of water-resources reports for Arizona through 1982

This bibliography is a listing of reports concerning the water resources of Arizona obtained by computer search of three bibliographic files: Water Resources Scientific Information Center (WRSIC); National Technical Information Service (NTIS); and GEOREF, from the American Geological Institute. The three files gave listings of several hundred reports, not all of which have been retained in the present bibliography. For example, abstracts and masters' theses are not listed in the final version and some reports for which the subject matter was thought to be irrelevant to a scientific bibliography are not listed. Also included are all the references listed in the two previously published bibliographies of the Arizona District. Thus, it is a comprehensive listing of water-resources reports for the State of Arizona, and some of the reports cover parts of adjacent states. Discussions of related subjects, such as geology, are included in many of the reports. A subject index and an author index to the bibliography are included to facilitate its use.

Arizona↗