Vol.

66

MARCHAPRIL 2002

No. 2

HISTORY OF SOIL SCIENCE

Historical Development of Soil and Weathering Profile Concepts from Europe
to the United States of America
John P. Tandarich,* Robert G. Darmody, Leon R. Follmer, and Donald L. Johnson
ABSTRACT

profile concepts. This paper documents historical and

geographic aspects of the evolution of these disciplines
and their profile concepts from European sources to
the USA. We emphasize the interdisciplinary communication between pedologists and Quaternary geologists
that existed during and since the early 20th century, as
both sciences evolved their unique identities and domains of study. As the 21st century unfolds, we see
practitioners of both disciplines attempting to reopen
this communication to the mutual benefit of both and
the earth sciences in general.
Both disciplines developed from pioneer geologist
Abraham G. Werners geognosic concern with the surface of the earth of the late 18th and early 19th centuries
(Tandarich and Sprecher, 1994; Tandarich, 1998). The
agricultural purview of the developing science of geology became known as Agrikulturgeognosie, or agricultural geology (Tandarich and Sprecher, 1994; Tandarich,
1998). When agricultural geologist Friedrich A. Fallou
(1862) defined soil science that he called Naturwissenschaft Bodenkunde or Pedologie, as distinct from
Sprengels (1837) Bodenkunde (soil knowledge), he
stressed the need to study soil under one main concept
(Tandarich and Sprecher, 1994; p. 7). We suggest that
the concept for soil study, formulated as a response to
Fallou, was the soil profile.

In the 1870s, agricultural geologists (pioneer pedologists) in Germany, Denmark, and Russia conceived of the soil profile. In more
than a century since, pedologists have generally agreed on the reasons
and purpose for using symbols such as A-B-C for the designations,
but not on the definitions themselves or the assigned significance of the
designations. In this paper, we submit that two seemingly conflicting
classes of profile concepts evolved in the USA from European roots.
The conflict stems historically from arbitrarily defined thin and thick
profile concepts, often referred to as the soil or geologic weathering
profiles, respectively. The pedologic or thin profile concept is depthrestricted when compared with the geologic thick weathering profile.
The geologic profile concept was developed as a homologue of the
pedologic profile and is considered to be the full or complete profile
of weathering. Throughout the 20th century many variations of the
concept of profile appeared, and all seem to have pedogeo conflicts,
exemplified by the myriad C horizon definitions by soil scientists.
Recent concepts, such as the pedoweathering profile, have integrated
the terminology used by pedologists and geologists into a functional
and useful classification for all horizons of complete profiles. Full 21st
century understanding of soils beyond the historic 20th century needs
of agriculture, increasingly requires a knowledge of soil properties to
greater depth than merely the historic solum and upper C horizon,
and makes understanding subsolum properties more critical than
ever before.

s pedology and Pleistocene (or Quaternary) geology, have sprung from similar scientific roots, it is
not surprising that they have developed homologous

Evolution of The Soil or Pedological Profile

The terms soil horizon and soil profile are 20th-century additions to the glossary of soil science (Glinka,
1914; Marbut, 1927; Shaw, 1927). Before their inception,
scientists used other terms to describe soil, including
formation, soil layer or layer, vegetable mould, vegetable
soil, stratum, substratum, and level. Werner, originator

J.P. Tandarich, Hey and Associates, 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1015,

Chicago, IL 60604; R.G. Darmody, Dep. of Natural Resources and
Environmental Sciences, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1102
S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801; L.R. Follmer, Illinois St. Geol.
Surv., 615 Peabody Dr., Champaign, IL 61820; and D.L. Johnson,
Dep. of Geography, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 607 S.
Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801. Received 5 June 2000. *Corresponding author (chicago@heyassoc.com).

Abbreviations: ASSA, American Soil Survey Association; FAO, Food

and Agriculture Organization.

Published in Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:335346 (2002).

335

336

SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 66, MARCHAPRIL 2002

of geognosy (modern geology) in the late 18th century,

coined the term formation and used it to mean a discrete
rock layer or stratum observable in the field (Ospovat,
1971; Laudan, 1987). Thus began a three-dimensional
focus on layers or strata of rocks and soils by Werner
and his academic successors in agricultural geology
(Tandarich and Sprecher, 1994; Tandarich, 1998). The
three-dimensional view of a soil was called a soil section,
cut, or vertical cut. German agricultural geologists such
as Fallou (1862), J.R.L. von Libernau (1868), and Albert
Orth (1873, 1875) recognized the third dimensional perspective of soil by the mid 19th century.

The Diverse European Origins of the A-B-C

Soil Profile
It has been widely assumed that Vasilli V. Dokuchaev
(1879a, 1879b) first conceived of and published the AB-C profile (Tandarich et al., 1988). More accurately,
he synthesized and expanded upon existing concepts.
Actually, Orth (see cover) promulgated the bodenprofil (soil profile) as an essential basis for geognosticheagronomische Kartirung (geologicalagronomic
mapping) that had been initiated in 1868 (Orth, 1873,
1875) and, according to Muckenhausen (1997, p. 266),
carried the soil profile down to the parent material.
In addition, Orth (1875) developed soil groupings based
on profile characteristics.
Danish scientist Pieter E. Muller, who stated that he
was influenced by Orths work, used the letters a, b,
and c in soil profile diagrams (see cover) and analyses
(Muller, 1878). His (Muller, 1878) designations were:
a torf (turf), b bleisand (bleached sand), b
rotherde (reddish earth), and c untergrunde (underground). However, the paper was not published until 9
yr later (Muller, 1887). In the meantime, Dokuchaev
had published his concepts (Dokuchaev, 1879a, 1879b,
1883) and it is, therefore, Dokuchaevs name that has
become associated with the soil profile and not Orths
or Mullers.
Most soil scientists probably dont associate Charles
Darwin with soils, but he made soil-biota process observations intermittently for over 40 yr, which culminated
in his worm book (Darwin, 1881). Russian pedologist
A.A. Yarilov (1936) even honored Darwin as the
founder of soil science, adding that Rothamsted Research Station manager Edward J. Russell endorsed the
book as the most interesting book ever written about
soil (see also Johnson, 1999). A diagram in the book
shows a soil profile with an A-B-C-D sequence of horizons or layers, with the A indicating sod, the B the main
vegetable mould (topsoil), a C horizon representing a
stone-line, and a D apparently representing bedrock
(chalk).
Dokuchaev (1879a, 1879b) credited Fallou and Orth
as having influenced his own thinking. We suggest that,
following on Fallous and Orths work, Dokuchaev
(1879a, 1879b, 1883) crystallized the one main concept
of the soil as an independent natural body, seen in a
profile composed of horizons that facilitated soil to be
systematically described, compared, and classified.

Dokuchaev (1879a, p. 2528), in his initial lectures

of 1877 through 1878 on the Russian Chernozem published in French, formulated a concept of soil sie`ge (appearance) as a construction (arrangement) of trois
enchantillons (layers): le premier de la couche [layer or
stratum] du sol [A, le second [B] de la couche transitionaire, et le trosie`me [C] de la roche primitive [original rock]. Dokuchaev (1879a, p. 27) appears to use
enchantillons and couches interchangeably.
In his first major work on soil published in Russian,
Dokuchaev (1879b, p. 7071) used two phrases when
he spoke of what is now known as the profile:
(stroenie chernozem struc
ture of the chernozem) and

(zaleganiya chernozem stratification of the chernozem). The structure or stratification of the chernozem consisted ideally of an individual A, B, and C
(ghorizont horizon, meaning layer or

stratum). The phrase Dokuchaev (1879b, p. 71) used

to describe the C horizon is

(korennoyu porodoyu root rock).

In the first Russian soil work published in English,
Dokuchaev and Nikolai M. Sibirtsev (1893) introduced
the A-B-C scheme into the USA at the 1893 Worlds
Columbian Exposition in Chicago, IL (Tandarich et al.,
1988; Simonson, 1989). Dokuchaev and Sibirtsev (1893,
p. 4) described the concept of the soil cut, in which
always and everywhere there could be distinguished
by the three following levels: A.level of the soil;
B.transitive level of the soil; C.primitive-rock (subsoil).
The thickness of the soil was represented by A B
(Dokuchaev and Sibirtsev, 1893, p. 7). However, neither
the terms profile nor horizon was used in this publication.
Dokuchaev (1900, p. 35) presented a syste`me des
zones verticales de sols . . . at the Universal Exposition
of 1900 in Paris (Exposition Universelle de 1900 a` Paris).
He used the term lhorizon equivalently with zone vertical in his publication (Dokuchaev, 1900). The A-B-C
profil de la coupe [scheme] des zones verticales des
sols . . . also included a D horizon when necessary (Dokuchaev, 1900, p. 40). The D horizon was not defined
only described as being below a C horizon.
In Russia, Dokuchaevs profilehorizon concept
evolved through application by his students, such as
Sibirtsev (1900), S.A. Zakharov (1906), and Konstantin
Glinka (1908, 1914, 1915). The Glinka (1914) profile
became known in Germany through Glinkas collaboration with Orths student Hermann Stremme (Tandarich
and Sprecher, 1994), and consisted of an eluvial A, an
illuvial B, and the parent rock or C horizon. Although
the A-B-C profile was known in Europe through Mullers (1887) work, it appears to have been used only in
Russia (e.g., Sibirtsev, 1900; Zakharov, 1906; Glinka,
1908, 1915), and Germany (Ramann, 1911; Glinka,
1914) until about 1920.

The Soil Profile Concept in the United States

of America
In the USA, agricultural geologist Nathaniel S. Shaler
(see cover) (1890, 1891) described and illustrated dis-

TANDARICH ET AL.: HISTORY OF SOIL AND WEATHERING PROFILE CONCEPTS

tinct layers in forest soils: the true or upper soil (including the forest mould), and the false or under soil (also
called the subsoil). This appears to be the first soil profile scheme promulgated by an agricultural geologist in
the USA. By the date of publication, Shaler (1890, 1891)
takes precedence over Eugene W. Hilgard, who did not
publish his profile concept until 1906 (Hilgard, 1906;
Jenny, 1961).
George Coffey (1912, p. 8) considered the soil an
independent, natural body, a bio-geological formation,
consisting of a surface soil and a subsoil. The author
of the U.S. Bureau of Soils (1914) Instructions to Field
Parties (who Simonson [1987] believes was Curtis F.
Marbut, Coffeys successor as head of the U.S. soil survey program) defined the soil section, composed of soil
material, as including the topsoil, subsoil, and substratum layers.
Marbut (1927) discovered the soil profile while
translating Glinkas (1914) work during a 3-yr period
(19141917). Marbut wrote in his personal papers that
advancement of the Russian work was a politically sensitive issue because of the anti-Russian sentiment in the
U.S. Bureau of Soils. He stated, I had to work in secret.
I was called a Russian worshipper by my own men.
Whitney had a reputation for getting rid of those who
did not agree with him [e.g., Coffey]. I told him [Whitney] that I would follow his orders, but would think for
myself (Lankford et al., 1985, p. 39, Folders 141144).
Marbut had completed and prepared a limited number
of carbon copies of the Glinka translation for circulation
to a few selected persons by 1920 (Lankford et al., 1985,
vol. 5, p. 40). However, it appears that he waited to
have the translation published until the U.S. Bureau of
Soils head Whitney was too ill to oppose it. The translation was finally published (albeit in mimeograph
form) in conjunction with the First International Congress of Soil Science in 1927 (Marbut, 1927).

United States Soil Profile Evolution

in the 1920s and 1930s
Marbut introduced the soil profile concept without
using horizon designations at the American Association
of Soil Survey Workers meeting in East Lansing, MI in
1921 (Marbut, 1922). Merris M. McCool and Jethro O.
Veatch, also without horizon designations, did the first
profile-oriented work in the USA, in Michigan in 1922.
They presented their work at the American Soil Survey
Association (ASSA) meeting held in Urbana, IL in 1922
(McCool and Veatch, 1923). Marbut touted the work
as the first work of the kind to be done in the United
States (McCool and Veatch, 1923, p. 165). At the 1922
meeting, it was recommended, that the Association
encourage the more intensive work in the individual
states regarding Characteristics of Soil Profile
(ONeal, 1923, p. 173). The first person to publish the
A-B-C designation system in the USA was Raymond
S. Smith of Illinois, in a paper given at the 1923 ASSA
meeting in Chicago (Smith, 1924).
Simonson (1987, p. 13) has declared, without documentary evidence, that the ASSA was formed to coun-

337

teract the growing influence of C.F. Marbut. Perhaps

such resistance by some ASSA members to either Marbut or the use of the profile concept led to a statement
by P.E. Brown of Iowa State University made at the
1923 ASSA meeting:
What has been the accomplishment to date in soil survey
research? Little beyond the accumulation of knowledge of
soil characteristics and a change of viewpoint. Both are
most significant. Dr. Marbut in his discussion on soil classification at the Michigan meeting of the Association (Marbut,
1922) emphasized the fact that a beginning has just been
made in soil science, by the gathering of facts. He also called
attention to the changed views on the subject. It took a
long time to bring about a conviction that soil mapping was
not a geological operation and there are still some men in
the field who see soils geologically rather than from a true
soils viewpoint.
The suggestions which Dr. Marbut made were timely
and should lead to a different conception of soil survey in
relation to soil science. The study of soil profiles, the sorting
of the various factors serving to differentiate soils on the
basis of profile characteristics and the gradual accumulation
of a fund of soil information, from the soil and not the
geological, agricultural, or botanical standpoint will certainly lead to a rapid development of soil science.
It is not necessary to agree to all Dr. Marbuts premises,
to accept his grouping system or to follow his ideas absolutely but he certainly offers suggestions which merit our
careful consideration.
(Brown, 1924, p. 22)

Brown clearly represented a faction of ASSA members willing to evaluate and accept new ideas regardless
of origin. His statement reflects an emphasis on the
use of the profile as a concept for studying soils as
independent entities, paving the way for the development in the USA of what is now known as pedology.
Bridges (1997, p. 52) relates a personal communication from Simonson who stated that during 1924 a
circular was issued which contained instruction on the
use of the A-B-C designations; its anonymous author
was Marbut. This explains how a symposium Profile
Studies of Four Major Soil Groups could be organized
at the 1924 ASSA meeting in Chicago. The presented
papers, published later, used the A-B-C designations in
a generally consistent way: J.C. Russell and E.G. Engle
(1925) on the central prairies, H.H. Krusekopf (1925)
on brown soils of the north central states, Earl Fowler
(1925) on coastal plain soils, and Veatch (1925) on
northern podsol soils. Charles F. Shaw (1925; see cover)
also used the A-B-C designation in his report on Australian soils. Veatch (1925, p. 27) refers to the A-B-C profile
as the Glinka scheme. This was 2 yr before the mimeographed Marbut (1927) translation of Glinka was available in the USA; carbon copies of the translation were
circulating within the professional community.
A symposium on Soil Profile Studies was held at
the 1925 ASSA meeting. All of the presentations and
subsequent publications featured the A-B-C system:
Thomas D. Rice (1926) on prairie soils, Mark Baldwin
(1926) on northern timbered soils, William Hearn (1926)
on southern soils, and Macy H. Lapham (1926) on western soils.

338

SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 66, MARCHAPRIL 2002

Table 1. Correspondences of soil horizon and layer concepts as

given in Shaw (1927).
Soil horizon
A (A1 ) eluvial horizon
A2
Billuvial horizon
Cunweathered parent material

Soil layer
Surface soil
Subsurface
Subsoil
Substratum

In 1926 Shaw, who was serving as chairman of the

ASSA Committee on Terminology, proposed a terminology glossary (Shaw, 1927). Here, for the first time,
definitions were compiled, including soil layer, soil horizon, and soil profile. The term soil layer was used in
descriptions of the soil section since the inception of
soils surveys in the U.S. Bureau of Soils in the late 1890s
(U.S. Bureau of Soils, 1914; Simonson, 1987). The terms
horizon and profile were more recent arrivals through
Glinka (1914) and Marbut (1927). Shaw merely equated
the definitions of soil horizon and soil layer; the correspondences between them are summarized in Table 1.
The horizonlayer synonymy was used for educational
purposes: horizon was used in scientific contexts and
layer in school or lay contexts (Lapham and Marbut,
1931). Currently, layer is used by geologists and sedimentologists to refer to any tabular body of rock, of
ice, or of unconsolidated material, lying in a position
essentially parallel to the surface or surfaces on or
against which it was formed, and more or less distinctly
limited above and below (Bates and Jackson, 1987, p.
373). The term layer has been broadened in a soils sense
to include horizon. Horizon, although originally defined
as a layer in a soil profile, has come to mean a layer or
material altered by pedogenesis (Soil Science Society
of America, 1997). A soil profile was defined by Shaw
(1927, p. 68) as a vertical section of soil from the surface
into the underlying unweathered material.
Shaw presented the glossary at the First International
Congress of Soil Science in 1927 (Shaw, 1928a), and
again later that year at the 1927 ASSA meeting where
it was formally adopted by the society (Shaw, 1928b).
The Shaw (1929) profile shows an appreciation for characterizing the region beneath the A and B horizons: C1
represents oxidized, leached, C2 is oxidized, unleached,
and CN equals unaltered parent material (the CN designation, rewritten as Cn, was used 45 yr later by Birkeland (1974) for unaltered parent material).
After the horizon definitions were adopted by the
ASSA in 1928, no real consensus was reached in the
profession regarding horizon definitions. The ASSA appointed a Committee on Horizon Criteria, chaired by
E.A. Norton, to develop standard horizon definitions.
C.C. Nikiforoff (1931) cursorily reviewed the history of
the A, B, and C horizons, possibly as background for
the committee. The committee met from 1931 to 1934
and the results were reported by Norton (1932, 1933,
1934, 1935), but no consensus on standard definitions
was reached. In its final statement, the committee decided to leave horizon concepts flexible and their definitions deliberately imprecise to allow application over a
wide variety of conditions (Norton, 1935).

National and International Profile Formalization

When Charles E. Kellogg (see cover) became the
Chief of the Soil Survey after the death of Marbut in
1935, he defined the A and B horizons (the solum) for
use in the national soil survey (Kellogg, 1936, 1937).
While the emphasis on the A and B horizons has remained unchallenged to the present, the C horizons
definition and application could be called inconsistent.
Kellogg (1930, p. 35) initially described the C horizon
as parent material that has been unaltered by soilbuilding forces. He (Kellogg, 1936) then called the C
horizon weathered parent material. Later, he and the
Soil Survey Staff characterized the C as little altered
by pedological processes (Soil Survey Staff, 1951,
1962). This ambiguous C concept became dogma.
This dogmatic C horizon became part of the theoretical base of pedology through Roy W. Simonsons work.
He (Simonson, 1959, p. 152) proposed that it had an
indefinite lower boundary. According to Simonson
and David R. Gardner (1960, p. 128), the pedon concept
would . . . [extend] downward far enough to include
the full set of genetic horizons. The lower boundary [of
the C horizon] cannot be defined clearly, nor can it
be established conclusively in many instances by direct
observation. It must remain somewhat vague, as does
the lower boundary of the soil itself.
On an international level, the Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO) (1977, p. 18) stated in its horizon
designation guidelines that the C . . . should not be labeled as [a] soil horizon but as [a] layer, since [its]
characteristics are not produced by soil forming factors.
However, the FAO also declared that the C horizon
does not show properties of any other master horizons
(FAO, 1977, p. 20).
We have listed subsolum horizons and their definitions in Table 2. In most instances the designations were
assigned to intervals between the solum and unweathered material or bedrock.

A-B-C Profile Expansion And Alternatives

Efforts have been made to expand existing or develop
alternative horizon designation systems. D.W. Pittman
(1932) promulgated the descriptive system proposed by
A.N. Sokolovsky (1931, 1932). In this scheme, a P (parent rock) horizon was used rather than C. In addition,
the unaltered parent material was designated with a
notation z following the P (Pittman, 1932).
Eugene P. Whiteside (1959) proposed a series of morphogenetic horizon designations in place of the A, B,
and C. His profile below the solum consisted of pedogenetic horizons W (water leached, oxidized, and slightly
altered) and X (unknown). These pedogenetic horizons
were distinguished from petrogenetic horizons P (primary materialunaltered, unleached, and unoxidized
layer) or U (underlying, unrelated materials). In addition, Whiteside (1959) advanced a total profile concept,
the soil, which extended from the surface (V) to the
unaltered (P). While Whitesides proposals were not
wholly adopted, his E horizon designation was used in

TANDARICH ET AL.: HISTORY OF SOIL AND WEATHERING PROFILE CONCEPTS

339

Table 2. Summary of subsolum horizon and layer concepts.

Horizon or layer
Symbol or
designation
C

C1

C1
C2

C2
C3
C3
C4
CC
Cn, Cn
Cox
Cr

Cu

Dr
E
G

M
OU
P
R

Placement (subsolum
unless otherwise
indicated)

Definition or description

Subsoil

Subsoil, parent material or rock

Feebly altered parent material
Substratum
Unweathered parent material
Unconsolidated material little affected by
pedogenic processes and lacking properties of O, A (including A2 later renamed
E), B, and R; (includes C1, C2, D, G)
Oxidized or gleyed, unleached
Weathered, leached parent material
Altered, unleached parent material
Basal horizon of weathering
Decomposed, disintegrated, oxidized, leached
Slightly weathered
Transitional to C2 (viz.) Leached, oxidized
Decomposed, oxidized, unleached parent or
source
Unaltered, unleached parent material
Below substratum
Below substratum: unaltered geologic
formation
Decomposed, lesser disintegration, oxidized,
leached
Oxidized, unleached
Decomposed, slight disintegration, oxidized,
leached
Transitional to C4 (viz.) Elements of C2 and C4 horizons present
Unoxidized, unleached (unaltered)
Oxidized, unleached
Unaltered parent material
Oxidized, unleached
Strong reduction from groundwater influence
Weathered, partly consolidated or soft
bedrock
Unaltered parent material
Below C
Ochre gley
Slight decomposition, oxidized, calcareous
Stratum unlike C and/or solum
Below C
Unaltered, unoxidized, unleached,
unconsolidated
Below C
Consolidated rock like that from which C (or
solum, if no C is present) has developed
Unaltered parent material
Reduced gley or glei
Glei (groundwater influenced)
Within the C or beneath Altered gleyed parent material
Undifferentiated, unripe material
Irreversibly indurated (non-pedogenic)
Oxidized, unleached
Parent rock
Unaltered, unleached, unoxidized
Hard (consolidated or indurated) bedrock

S
U
UU
Unaltered
W
Zone 4
Zone 5
Below oxidized,
leached
Below oxidized,
unleached

Sedentary weathered zone

Underlying material unlike overlying material
Unoxidized, unleached
Unoxidized, unleached
Weathered zone
Oxidized, unleached
Unoxidized, unleached
Oxidized, unleached
Unoxidized, unleached

Reference
Dokuchaev (1879, 1883, 1900), Dokuchaev and Sibirtsev (1893)
Zakharov (1906) in Zakharov (1927)
Shaw (1927, 1928a, 1928b)
Kellogg (1930, 1936, 1937), Soil Survey Staff (1951, 1960, 1962,
1975, 1981, 1993), FAO (1973, 1977)
Follmer et al. (1985), Tandarich et al. (1994)
Marbut (1924)
Fowler (1925)
Veatch (1925)
Norton and Smith (1928), Shaw (1929)
Kellogg (1930, 1936, 1937), Soil Survey Staff (1951)
Follmer (1979)
Marbut (1924), Shaw (1929)
Fowler (1925)
Veatch (1925)
Norton and Smith (1928)
Follmer (1979)
Norton and Smith (1928)
Follmer (1979)
Follmer (1979)
Frye et al. (1960, 1962), Willman et al. (1963, 1966)
Shaw (1929), Birkeland (1974)
Birkeland (1974)
FAO (1973, 1974, 1977)
Soil Survey Staff (1981, 1993)
Birkeland (1984)
Dokuchaev (1900)
Zakharov (1906) in Zakharov (1927)
Norton and Smith (1928)
Kellogg (1930, 1936, 1937), Soil Survey Staff (1951)
Follmer et al. (1985), Tandarich et al. (1994)
Soil Survey Staff (1951)
Norton and Smith (1928)
Zakharov (1906) in Zakharov (1927)
Glinka (1914)
Kellogg (1930, 1936, 1937), Soil Survey Staff (1951)
Brinkman and Pons (1973), Dent (1986, 1993)
Soil Survey Staff (1951)
Hallberg et al. (1978)
Pittman (1932)
Whiteside (1959)
Soil Survey Staff (1962, 1975, 1981, 1993); FAO (1973, 1974,
1977)
Nye (1954)
Whiteside (1959)
Hallberg et al. (1978)
Frye et al. (1960, 1962); Willman et al. (1963, 1966)
Watson (1961)
Leighton and MacClintock (1930, 1962)
Leighton and MacClintock (1930, 1962)
Kay and Pearce (1920), Kay and Apfel (1928), Kay and Graham
(1942)
Kay and Pearce (1920), Kay and Apfel (1928), Kay and Graham
(1942)

340

SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 66, MARCHAPRIL 2002

the FAO (1973, 1977) and later Soil Survey Staff (1981,
1993) systems.
E.A. Fitzpatrick (1967, 1980, 1988) also broke with
tradition and formulated an alternative approach to the
A-B-C-horizon designation. His system categorized all
major horizons into 77 types based on their own characteristics and diagnostic properties. Such a large system
adds precision and important distinction, but is difficult
to remember and apply in the field.
The study and classification systems of soils around
the world were largely developed independently from
one region to another. The systems were largely built
on regional experiences. Nevertheless, in recent decades
the A-B-C concept of soil profile has been used to denote the master horizons of most soils of the world.
The A-B-C notation is most easily applied in youthful
landscapes, particularly in those regions glaciated during
the Pleistocene. Its application in areas outside of glaciated regions has been more problematic.

A-B-C Use in Deeply Weathered Profiles

In many nonglaciated areas of the world, deep weathered profiles have developed. The application of the C
in these areas was as uncertain as the designation of the
material that had weathered from the bedrock. G.F.
Becker (1895, p. 289), in his studies of the southern
Appalachian gold fields, noted that geologists had used
the German words geest (meaning dry land) and
gruss (meaning transported angular material; it now
means an in situ weathering product) when describing
decomposed bedrock. Considering these word uses unsatisfactory, he proposed the term saprolite [from the
Greek , meaning rotten] for thoroughly decomposed, earthy, but untransported rock. When the exact
character of the original rock is known it is easy to
qualify this term and to speak of granitic saprolite, and
the like (Becker, 1895, p. 289290). Although Becker
(1895, p. 290) observed soils above the saprolite, he
neither described the soil and saprolite nor attempted
to genetically relate them in a profile.
Fowler (1925) was the first to apply the A-B-C profile
to deeply weathered soils of the Piedmont and Coastal
Plain. He subdivided the C horizon into two members:
the C1 was parent material weathered from bedrock
that retained its geological character and could extend
downward many feet, and the C2 was the unaltered
parent material bedrock (Fowler, 1925). Marbut (1928),
in his USDA Graduate School lectures, recognized that
the C horizon of certain soils in the Piedmont often
extended down several tens of feet (several meters) into
the disintegrated and decomposed (his terms) rock. He
discussed analyses of C horizon samples at 25 (7.6 m)
and 75 foot (22.7 m) depths (Marbut, 1928). Shaw (1929)
included disintegrated bedrock in his C horizon definition. William Battle Cobb (1931, p. 87) in his study
of chemical constituents lost from horizons in selected
Georgia soil profiles, distinguished between the C horizon and the less weathered lower horizons that he
called weathered rock. R.C. Jurney (1935, p. 57) recognized that lying between the bedrock and the soil

[AB horizons] itself is a deep zone of material which

cannot be classed either as rock or as soil. He called
this zone the C horizon and defined it as the place of
decomposed rock material which is gradually changing
into soil (Jurney, 1935, p. 57). O.C. Bryan (1935, p.
6667) used the designation C for disintegrated and
decomposed rock in the soil profile.
In the tropics, as one of us pointed out (Johnson,
1994), an alternative profile scheme was formulated by
some workers in the 1950s through 1960s. In his cocoa
soils studies, C.F. Charter (1949) observed that humid
tropical soils in South America and Africa typically exhibit three-layered profiles: a fine fraction mantle (topsoil, surface mantle), above a stony layer (stone-line),
over weathered regolith or weathered bedrock. P.H.
Nye (1954), working in Nigeria, subsequently gave two
master horizon designations for such three-layered soils:
a surficial Creep (Cr) Horizon that includes the surface
mantle and the stone-line), and a Sedentary (S) Horizon
for the subjacent weathered zone. J.P. Watson (1961),
working in southern Africa, renamed the three horizons
as follows: M for mineral mantle, S for stony layer
(stone-line), and W for the weathered zone, a much
simpler and more straightforward scheme. Donald L.
Johnson (1994), in comparing humid tropical soils with
humid midlatitude soils, averred that the midlatitude
A-E-B-C scheme is basically the same as the M-S-W
scheme, where A M, E S, and B C W, and
that the same basic genetic processes produce them
(many midlatitude soils have stone-lines at either the
AB horizon interface, or the EB horizon interface).
The deeply weathered profiles developed in bedrock
began to receive more attention from pedologists since
the 1950s (Stolt and Baker, 1994). The term saprolite,
as originally defined by Becker (1895), began to be used
in U.S. soil surveys in the 1960s. Larry T. West (personal
communication, 2000) stated that the earliest use of
the term that he had seen was the Clarke and Oconee
Counties, Georgia soil survey correlated in 1965 and
published in 1968 (Robertson, 1968); and that the term
appears to have entered the published soil science literature (at least in the USA) by 1973 (Ojanuga, 1973).
H.H. Eswaran and W.C. Bin (1978) recognized distinct zones within the weathered bedrock portion of
profiles and modified the concept of G. Stoops (1967)
to address the situation. Their zones are briefly described as: A B, accumulated gravel either
with (1) or without (2) petroplinthite, m mottled
zone with plinthite, p pallid zone, evident rock
structure, and R cohesive rock (Eswaran and Bin,
1978).
Stanley W. Buol, his colleagues and students, have
studied profiles in deeply weathered rock worldwide
for over 25 yr. C.S. Calvert et al. (1980) applied the
designation R-S to the saprolite and the R-U to the
unweathered bedrock portion of these profiles. Within
a short time, E.L. OBrien and Buol (1984) used C for
saprolite. After further consideration, T.J. Rice, Jr. et
al. (1985), R.A. Rebertus and Buol (1985), and Griffin
and Buol (1988) applied Cr to the saprolite portion of
the profile. The designation Cr was originally used in

TANDARICH ET AL.: HISTORY OF SOIL AND WEATHERING PROFILE CONCEPTS

the FAO (1973, 1974, 1977) system for strong reduction

from groundwater influence. However, the Soil Survey
Staff (1981, 1993) chose to designate weathered or soft
bedrock by Cr.
However, Buol found imprecision in the concept of
saprolite, its use and application and has developed a
provisional taxonomic classification for it (Buol, 1994).
Most recently, P.J. Schoenberger et al. (1995), Li et al.
(1997), and Buol et al. (2000) have used the C for saprolite.

The Solum: A European Scientific Soil Concept

The struggle with soil horizon and profile concepts
was not unique to the USA. In Finland, Benjamin Frosterus recognized that there was no one language in the
northern European and Scandinavian countries that had
a scientific word for soil. His prime example was the
widely used German word boden, meaning soil, topsoil,
or ground, in this linguistic category. Consequently,
Frosterus (1924) proposed the term solumhorizont (a
singular German noun, from solumthe Latin word for
soil) for that portion of the earth surface affected by
soil-forming processes. Frosterus (1924) recognized that
the Solumhorizont extended from the surface downward and included (i) a surface zone of depletion, (ii)
a zone of enrichment and (iii) a zone unaffected by soilcreation processes (the Untergrund). The solumhorizont concept was advanced at the 1924 International
Conference on Agrogeology in Rome (at which the
International Society of Soil Science was formed) that
was attended by a few U.S. scientists, including Marbut.
The concept name was shortened to solum when
brought back to the USA.
In 1926, Shaw (1927) defined the solum as the weathered part of the soil profile, and had restricted the term
to the A and B horizons. Marbut (1928, 1951) called
the solum the true soil, the mature soil, or the soil
layer. However, outside of the USA, some scientists,
such as D. Baize (1993) in France, appear to retain
Frosterus original concept of the solum as the weathered portion of the earths crust; his conceptual solum
and reference profiles include the A, B, and C horizons.
The original solum concept embodied the entire soil
profile, not just the A B. However, the solum concept
in the USA has been restricted to the A and B horizons
for the last 70 yr and this notion has spread globally.
Nevertheless, a concept of a total solum incorporating
the entire A-B-C profile has utility and is suggested in
the profile concept of Norton and Smith (1928), the soel
concept of Whiteside (1959), and the pedoweathering
profile of John P. Tandarich et al. (1994).

Development of Homologous Profile Concepts

The subdiscipline of geology called Pleistocene geology or Quaternary geology arose from the Wernerian
geognosic roots from the late 18th through the 19th
centuries, as did agricultural geology. Many of the pioneer geologists who practiced agricultural geology,
such as Amos Worthen, George H. Cook, Dokuchaev,
Thomas C. Chamberlin, Hilgard, W.J. McGee, Frank

341

Leverett and Alexander Winchell, were also active researchers in what became known as Pleistocene or
Quaternary geology (Tandarich, 1998). The interest in
soils among Quaternary geologists has expanded to include the subdisciplines of paleopedology and soil stratigraphy.
In the 20th century study of Pleistocene geology, the
concepts of the geologic weathering profile (Tandarich
et al., 1988), and soil stratigraphy (Morrison, 1967, 1978)
evolved to form a geological basis for understanding
soils. Initially this evolution took place in schools and
governmental agencies within the mid-continental USA
where glaciated landscapes were prevalent. These institutions included the Universities of Chicago, Illinois,
and Iowa, and the geological surveys of midwestern
states.
Colleagues of Shaler and Hilgard, Chamberlin, and
Rollin Salisbury at the University of Chicago, trained
George F. Kay (see cover). Kay was the originator of
the term gumbotil (Kay, 1916) and geologic weathering
profile (Kay and Pearce, 1920) concepts. Kay (1916, p.
637) characterized gumbo(til) as a grayish, tenacious,
thoroughly leached, and nonlaminated joint clay. According to Kay (1916, p. 637), gumbotil is chiefly the
result of weathering of till, but he never referred to it
as soil. He gave a paper before the ASSA in 1929 (a
reworking of portions of Kay and Apfel, 1928) entitled
Gumbotil, its characteristics, origin and significance
(Kay, 1930). Kay described stages of the alteration processes of the gumbotil and weathering profile:
solution, hydrolysis, the formation of colloids and crystalloids, precipitation and leaching, the gradual passage downward of all the transportable elements of the till, including
the iron, the silica, the colloidal clays, and similar colloidal
silicates. The resultant residuum of the chemical leaching
process is a practically insoluble stratumthe gumbotil. In
addition, such physical factors as wind action, freezing and
thawing, and burrowing of ground animals may have played
some part (Kay and Apfel, 1928, p. 111112; Kay, 1930,
p. 134135).

However, Kay stopped short of declaring the processes listed above to be soil-forming processes and the
weathering profile, including the gumbotil, to be coequal to a soil profile. Yet he (Kay and Graham, 1942)
equates the gumbotil and weathering profile zones as
defined by Morris M. Leighton and Paul MacClintock
(1930; see below) to soil profile horizons. Kays weathering profile zones are unnumbered or otherwise symbolically designated: gumbotil, oxidized and leached till,
oxidized and unleached till, and unoxidized and unleached till (Kay and Apfel, 1928; Kay and Graham,
1942).
We suspect that Kay was influenced by the work of
Stevenson and J.F. Barker (1911) at Iowa State University on gumbo soils of Iowa. As Kays archival papers
on the weathering profile are missing and presumed
lost, we may never know if he corresponded with soil
scientists as he formulated his ideas. Kay collected publications on soils, particularly soil survey reports, and
corresponded with soil scientists Bushnell, Conrey, Norton, Rice and Smith in the 1920s and 1930s (Kay, n.d.).

342

SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 66, MARCHAPRIL 2002

A student and colleague of Kay, Leighton (see cover),

refined the weathering profile concept. Leighton (1958)
relates that, during his early years at the University of
Illinois, he was inspired both by Glinkas work (1914)
and Marbuts. Between January and July of 1923, Marbut gave a series of lectures at the University of Illinois
that Leighton attended, and field trips were organized
by university faculty members (Smith and others) to
allow Marbut to view Illinois soils and comment on their
characteristics and classification. The note cards of the
soil profiles Marbut saw on this field trip are in the
Marbut Collection (Lankford et al., 1985).
As a result of this experience Leighton (1958, 1959;
Leighton and MacClintock, 1930, 1962) credited Marbut
for insights obtained on the soil profile and its application to studies of Pleistocene weathering profiles. In
addition, Leighton had good rapport with the soils faculty at the University of Illinois during the 1920s. He
particularly credited Smith and Norton, who were working on their own profile concepts at the time (see above
and Table 2), for their active collaboration who directed attention especially, and with great helpfulness,
to the detailed characteristics of the soil and immediate
subsoil materials (Leighton and MacClintock, 1930,
p. 30).
Leighton (1958, p. 704) explained that the weathering
profile was used as the geologic homologue of the
pedologic term soil profile and also in recognition of
the differences in the objectives, scope, and application
of geology and pedology. Leighton (1958, p. 705) emphasized that it should be clear that the geologic terms
weathered zone and profile of weathering and the pedological terms soil and soil profile refer to the same
thing. Unfortunately, many users have consequently
assumed that the actual profiles are different because
the words are different. This partitioning of geological
and pedological contexts was decided in an unwritten
agreement resulting from a meeting between Leighton
and Marbut during the latters 1923 lectures and field
trips in Illinois (Leighton, 1958). As a result, the soil and
geologic profile concepts were treated independently and,
in many cases, differently or even mutually exclusive from
each other. Hence, later concepts evolved beyond original intentions.
Quaternary geologists in the 1920s were interested in
soil profiles, but considered them less important than
other geological endeavors. Agricultural geologists at
the time were trying to diminish or rid themselves of
their dependence on geological theories and create an
independent soil science, with a subdiscipline concerned
with soil genesis known as pedology. The Leighton
Marbut agreement was seemingly a matter of convenience to delineate professional domains. This led to
views that soil is not part of geology and vice versa.
The Leighton and MacClintock (1930, 1962) weathering profile is similar to the Kay and J.N. Pearce (1920)
profile except that the weathering zones were numbered
from 1 through 5. Horizon 1 was restricted to the part
called the surficial soil, the A horizon. The gumbotil
proper, later correlated with the B(g) horizon by Simonson (1941) was designated Horizon 2. Horizons 3

through 5 were within the C horizon: Horizon 3 was

oxidized and leached; Horizon 4 oxidized and unleached; and Horizon 5 unoxidized and unleached (unweathered). The Leighton and MacClintock weathering
profile was used in Illinois and elsewhere in Pleistocene
geologic studies until a revision was made by John C.
Frye, H.B. Willman, and Herbert D. Glass. This revision
began to evolve in the late 1940s and the 1950s.
Frye, a Pleistocene geologist at the Kansas Geological
Survey between 1942 and 1954, became acquainted with
pedologist James Thorp, the U.S. Bureau of Chemistry
and Soils, Division of Soil Survey regional correlator
for the Great Plains. Glass (personal communication)
stated that Frye became sensitive to the soil science
literature and soil studies relative to Pleistocene stratigraphy through communication with Thorp and his published works (e.g., Thorp, 1949; Thorp et al., 1951).
Frye came to the Illinois Geological Survey and succeeded Leighton as Chief in 1954, holding the post until
1974. Willman, a stratigrapher, had been working at the
Illinois Survey since 1926, and Glass, a clay mineralogist,
since 1948. The three began collaborating on Pleistocene
soil studies in 1958 (Glass, personal communication,
1987) and produced major works on the concepts of
gumbotil, accretion-gley, and the geologic weathering
profile concept (Frye et al., 1960; Willman et al., 1963,
1966).
Close linkage with the pedological profile is an integral part of the Frye, Willman, and Glass profile though
they were uncomfortable with the term horizon, preferring instead zone. Their A-zone and B-zone are equivalent to the A and B horizons of the 1951 Soil Survey
Manual (Soil Survey Staff, 1951). The subdivisions of
the C-zone (pedological C horizon) were threefold: CL,
leached and oxidized; CC, unleached and oxidized; and
UU unoxidized and unleached.
The KayLeightonFrye weathering profiles were all
developed to describe pedogenic horizons that they observed below the solum in youthful glacial deposits.
Outside glaciated regions of the world, some geologists
(and pedologists) have been using the term weathering
profile to encompass both the pedological profile (solum), and the subsolum extending down to the unweathered bedrock (Pavich, 1986, 1989a, 1989b).

Interdisciplinary Communication And Concepts

Thorp (1935, 1949; et al., 1951) was one of the first
to recognize the need to maintain interdisciplinary communication between pedology and Quaternary geology.
Robert V. Ruhe of Iowa State University and the
USDA-SCS pioneered studies combining pedology, geology, and geomorphology (Effland and Effland, 1992).
One of Ruhes early publications treated Kansan and
Nebraskan gumbotil variability (Ruhe, 1948). His work
with Iowa State University pedologists Simonson and
Frank F. Riecken led him to the conclusion, initially
proposed by Simonson (1941), that gumbotil should be
recognized as part of a paleosol profile. After Ruhe
examined railroad cuts in southern Iowa (Ruhe, 1954),
he possessed the data necessary to develop his concepts

TANDARICH ET AL.: HISTORY OF SOIL AND WEATHERING PROFILE CONCEPTS

of landscape evolution, soil stratigraphy and soil geomorphology that he promulgated in later works (Ruhe,
1956, 1959, 1969a, 1969b; Ruhe and Fenton, 1969). In
particular, the work done by Ruhe in the Greenfield
Quadrangle (Ruhe et al., 1967) and colleagues elsewhere in southwestern Iowa (Daniels and Jordan, 1966)
help set modern standards for integrating geological
and pedological methods to obtain better results for
understanding the modern landscape, and why soils and
paleosols are where they are. In 1958, Ruhe and colleague Raymond B. Daniels proposed revisions to the
horizon designation system of the Soil Survey Staff
(1951) that accommodated paleosol horizons (Ruhe and
Daniels, 1958).
Peter W. Birkeland, a Quaternary geologist influenced by pedologist Hans Jenny when at the University
of California, Berkeley, has published on the interrelationships of pedology, Quaternary geology, and geomorphology (Birkeland, 1974, 1984, 1999). Birkeland modified the soil horizon designation system of the Soil
Survey Staff (1951) by adding a Cox for an oxidized C
horizon, and a Cn for unoxidized C (Birkeland, 1974).
The latter was changed to Cu in 1981 in response to
the horizon designation changes of the Soil Survey Staff
that year (Birkeland, 1984).
In 1978, Quaternary geologist George R. Hallberg of
the Iowa Geological Survey, and Iowa State University
pedologists Thomas E. Fenton and George R. Miller
developed a hybrid profile descriptive system that incorporated notations from both the pedological and geological profiles. Letter clusters represent observed conditions below the pedological solum in loess and till: e.g.,
OL oxidized, leached; OU oxidized, unleached;
and UU unoxidized, unleached (Hallberg et al., 1978).
Independent of the Iowa effort, pedologist and Quaternary geologist Leon R. Follmer of the Illinois Geological Survey, influenced more by Leightons profile ideas
than Fryes, developed a fourfold division of the C horizon (Follmer, 1979, 1984) that subdivided the region
below the solum and included the unweathered portion
of the profile (Table 2). More recently, Follmer et al.
(1985) and Tandarich et al. (1994) introduced the pedoweathering profile concept, which contained pedogenic
C and geogenic D horizons (Table 2), and integrated
the functional parts of the pedological and geological
profiles.

Discussions and Implications

In the 1860s and 1870s a simple concept for understanding and studying soils, which has become known
as the A-B-C soil profile, began emerging from the work
of English, German, Danish, and Russian scientists.
From that time until the late 1920s, when the ideas
reached the USA, firm conventions of soil profile and
horizon designations had yet to evolve.
In the USA, the soil profile as originally defined by
Shaw, ranged from the surface to its unweathered base.
However, the practical agricultural concerns of the Soil
Survey Staff replaced the more flexible ideas of the
ASSA regarding horizon definitions. The shallow pro-

343

file model of the USDA has traditionally emphasized

the solum: the A and B horizons of agricultural concerns, the focus of soil survey interest. For these reasons,
the subsolum C horizon has traditionally been deemphasized and largely disregarded. Simonson viewed the C
in his profile concept as vague, with an ill-defined
upper and lower boundary; the FAO considered the C
to be unaffected by soil-forming (pedogenic) processes.
The deep profile stratigraphic concerns of geologists
and geomorphologists led to an expanded profile developed from, and essentially a homologue of, the pedological profile. In spite of efforts by Thorp, Ruhe and others
to integrate them, these two approaches artificially
created by Marbut and Leighton, the pedological and
geological, were seen as unrelated by some practitioners. The subsolum emphasis of the weathering profile
not only applied to Quaternary deposits, but also extended to deeply weathered bedrock (Pavich, 1986,
1989a, 1989b; Cremeens et al., 1994).
Recently, pedologists, Quaternary geologists, and soil
geomorphologists have suggested and used profile concepts that are synthetic, i.e., they incorporate concepts
and ideas from pedology and geologywhat the German scientists of the late 19th century called geopedology (Yarilov, 1927). When pedologists expand their
study of the soil profile to greater depth, they will find
geopedological profile definitions and applications useful. A geopedologic model can aid communication, promote understanding of the whole profile to a higher level
than the five-factor model of Jenny (1941) or current
models can do, and will provide more reliable interpretations of soil genesis and soil use. Also, as a consequence of a deeper view, it will attract other disciplines
that, in reality, have overlapping interests with pedology.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper is part of the senior authors Ph.D dissertation
and fulfills a portion of the requirements for the Ph.D. in
the Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences,
Univ. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The authors thank the
following for assistance at various stages of the research and
writing: E.A. Bettis II, S.A. Blair, S.W. Buol, H. Eswaran,
V. Holliday, H.C. Hobbs, the late I.J. Jansen, the late W.H.
Johnson, E.M. Melhado, M.J. Pavich, C.W. Rovey II, L.M.
Sabas, G.F. Vance, and L.T. West. The authors also thank
the following for translating original source materials: C.
Leonhard (German), and G. Opelka and T. Chaika (Russian).

REFERENCES
Baize, D. 1993. Place of horizons in the new French Referentiel
Pedologique. Catena 20:383394.
Baldwin, M. 1926. Some characteristic soil profiles in the north central
states. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 7:122132.
Bates, R.L., and J.A. Jackson (ed.) 1987. Glossary of geology. 3rd ed.
American Geological Institute, Alexandria, VA.
Becker, G.F. 1895. Reconnaissance of the gold fields of the southern
Appalachians. p. 251331. In Sixteenth annual report of the United
State Geological Survey to the Secretary of the Interior 189495,
Part IIIMineral resources of the United States, 1894 metallic
products. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC.
Birkeland, P.W. 1974. Pedology, weathering, and geomorphological
research. Oxford University Press, New York.

344

SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 66, MARCHAPRIL 2002

Birkeland, P.W. 1984. Soils and geomorphology. Oxford University

Press, New York.
Birkeland, P.W. 1999. Soils and geomorphology. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, New York.
Bridges, E.M. 1997. Origins, adoption and development of soil horizon
designations. p. 4765. In D.H. Yaalon and S. Berkowicz (ed.)
History of soil science: international perspectives. Advances in
Geoecology 29. Catena Verlag GMBH, Reiskirchen, Germany.
Brinkman, R., and L.J. Pons. 1973. Recognition and prediction of
acid sulphate soil conditions, p. 169203. In H. Dost (ed.) Acid
sulphate soils. Int. Land Rec. Inst. Pub. 18. Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Brown, P.E. 1924. Problems in mapping and classifying Iowa soils.
Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 5:2023.
Bryan, O.C. 1935. Genesis and morphology of the red soils in the
southeastern United States. Am. Soil. Surv. Assoc. Bull. 16:6669.
Buol, S.W. 1994. Saprolite-regolith taxonomy: an approximation. p.
119132. In D.L. Cremeens et al. (ed.) Whole regolith pedology.
SSSA Spec. Publ. 34. Madison, WI.
Buol, S.W., A. Amoozegar, and M.J. Vepraskas. 2000. Physical, chemical, and morphological properties of some regoliths in North Carolina. Southeastern Geol. 39:151160.
Calvert, C.S., S.W. Buol, and S.B. Weed. 1980. Mineralogical characteristics and transformations of a vertical rock-saprolite-soil sequence in the North Carolina Piedmont: I. profile morphology,
chemical composition and mineralogy. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44:1096
1103.
Charter, C.F. 1949. The characteristics of the principal cocoa soils. p.
105112. In Proc. Cocoa Conf. Cocoa, Chocolate and Confectioners
Alliance, London.
Cobb, W.B. 1931. Changes in chemical composition produced by
formation of pedalferic soils from different parent materials. Am.
Soil. Surv. Assn. Bull. 12:8792.
Coffey, G.N. 1912. The development of soil survey work in the United
States with a brief reference to foreign countries. Proc. Am. Soc.
Agron. 3:115129.
Cremeens, D.L., R.B. Brown, and J.H. Huddleston (ed.) 1994. Whole
regolith pedology. SSSA Spec. Publ. 34. Madison, WI.
Daniels, R.B., and R.H. Jordan. 1966. Physiographic history and the
soils, entrenched stream systems, and gullies, Harrison County,
Iowa. USDA Tech. Bull. 1348.
Darwin, C.R. 1881. Earthworms and vegetable mould. London.
Dent, D.L. 1986. Acid sulphate soils: a baseline for research and
development. Int. Land. Rec. Inst. Pub. 39. Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Dent, D.L. 1993. Bottom-up and top-down development of acid sulphate soils. Catena 20:419425.
Dokuchaev, V.V. 1879a. Tchernozeme (terre noire) de la Russie
DEurope. Societe Imperiale Libre Economique. Imprimeric
Trenke & Fusnot, St. Petersburg, Russia.
Dokuchaev, V.V. 1879b.
. (Cartography of Russian soils). (In Russian.) Imperial University of St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Russia.
Dokuchaev. V.V. 1883.
. (Russian Chernozem).
(In Russian.) Imperial University of St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, Russia.
Dokuchaev, V.V. 1900. Collection pedologique. Exposition Universelle de 1900 a` Paris. (In French.) Section Russe. Edition du
Ministere des Finances, St. Petersburg.
Dokuchaev, V.V., and N.M. Sibirtsev. 1893. Short scientific review
of Professor Dokuchaevs and his pupils collection of soils exposed
in Chicago in the year 1893. E. Evdokimova, St. Petersburg.
Effland, A.B.W., and W.R. Effland. 1992. Soil geomorphology studies
in the U.S. soil survey program. Agric. Hist. 66:189212.
Eswaran, H., and W.C. Bin. 1978. A study of a deep weathering
profile on granite in Peninsular Malaysia: I. Physico-chemical and
micromorphological properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42:144149.
Fallou, F.A. 1862. Pedologie oder allgemeine und besondere Bodenkunde. (In German.) Verlag Schonfeld, Dresden.
Food and Agricultural Organization. 1973. Guidelines for soil profile
description. Soil Resources Development and Conservation Service, Land and Water Development Division, FAO, Rome.
Food and Agricultural Organization. 1974. Soil map of the world.
Vol. 1: Legend. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization), Paris.

Food and Agricultural Organization. 1977. Guidelines for soil profile

description. 2nd ed. Soil Resources Development and Conservation
Service, Land and Water Development Division, FAO, Rome.
FitzPatrick, E.A. 1967. Soil nomenclature and classification. Geoderma 1:91105.
FitzPatrick, E.A. 1980. Soils: Their formation, classification and distribution. Longman, London.
FitzPatrick, E.A. 1988. Soil horizon designation and classification.
Tech. Pap. No. 17. International Soil Reference and Information
Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Follmer, L.R. 1979. Appendix 3. Explanation of pedologic terms and
concepts used in the discussion of soils for this guidebook. p. 129
134. In J.A. Lineback et al. (ed.) Wisconsinan, Sangamonian, and
Illinoian stratigraphy in central Illinois: Midwest Friends of the
Pleistocene 26th Field Conference, 46 May 1979. Ill. Geol. Surv.
Handb. 13.
Follmer, L.R. 1984. Soilan uncertain medium for waste disposal.
p. 296311. In Proceedings of Seventh Annual Madison Waste
Conference, 1112 Sept. 1984. Madison, WI.
Follmer, L.R., J.P. Tandarich, and R.G. Darmody. 1985. The evolution
of pedologic and geologic profile concepts in the Midcontinent,
U.S.A. p. 191. In Agronomy Abstracts 1985. ASA, CSSA, and
SSSA, Madison, WI.
Fowler, E.D. 1925. Profile characteristics of some coastal plain soils.
Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 6:1923.
Frye, J.C., H.B. Willman, and H.D. Glass. 1960. Gumbotil, accretiongley, and the weathering profile. Ill. Geol. Surv. Circ. 295.
Frosterus, B. 1924. Die Klassifikation der Boden und Bodenarten
Finnlands. p. 141176. In Memoires sur la classification et le nomeclature des sols. (In German.) Vol. IV. Commission No. 8.
Comite Internationale de Pedologie, Rome.
Glinka, K.D. 1908. Pochvovedenie. (In Russian.) Izdany A. F. Devriena, Petrograd, Russia.
Glinka, K.D. 1914. Die Typen der Bodenbildung, ihre Klassification
und geographische Verbreitung. (In German.) Gebrueder Borntraeger, Berlin.
Glinka, K.D. 1915. Pochvovedenie. 2nd ed. (In Russian.) Izdany A.
F. Devriena, Petrograd, Russia.
Griffin, R.W., and S.W. Buol. 1988. Soil and saprolite chararcteristics
of Vertic and Aquic Hapludults from Triassic basin Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 52:10941099.
Hallberg, G.R., T.E. Fenton, and G.A. Miller. 1978. Part 5. Standard
weathering zone terminology for the description of Quaternary
sediments in Iowa. p. 75109. In G.R. Hallberg (ed.) Standard
procedures for evaluation of Quaternary materials in Iowa. Iowa
Geol. Surv. Tech. Info. Ser. No. 8.
Hearn, W.E. 1926. Southern soils. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 7:15
24A.
Hilgard, E.W. 1906. Soils. The Macmillan Company, New York.
Jenny, H. 1961. E.W. Hilgard and the birth of modern soil science.
Collana Della Rivista Agrochimica No. 3. Pisa, Italy.
Johnson, D.L. 1994. Reassessment of early and modern soil horizon
designation frameworks and associated pedogenic processes: Are
midlatitude A E B-C horizons equivalent to tropical M S W horizons? Soil Sci. (Trends in Agri. Sci.) 1994:7791.
Johnson, D.L. 1999. Darwin the archaeologist: A lesson in unfulfilled
language. Discovering Archaeol. 1:67.
Jurney, R.C. 1935. Morphology of the reddish yellow soils in southeastern United States. Am. Soil. Surv. Assoc. Bull. 16:5759.
Kay, G.F. 1916. Gumbotil, a new term in Pleistocene geology. Science 44:637638.
Kay, G.F. 1930. Gumbotil, its characteristics, origin and significance.
Am. Soil. Surv. Assoc. Bull. 11:132136.
Kay, G.F. nd. Index of materials to be found in the geological folders.
Typescript copy in the G.F. Kay Papers. University Archives, Department of Special Collections, University of Iowa Libraries, Iowa
City, IA.
Kay, G.F., and E.T. Apfel. 1928. The Pre-Illinoian Pleistocene geology
of Iowa. Ia. Geol. Surv. Ann. Rept. 34:1304.
Kay, G.F., and J.B. Graham. 1942. The Illinoian and Post-Illinoian
Pleistocene geology of Iowa. Ia. Geol. Surv. Ann. Rept. 38:1262.
Kay, G.F., and J.N. Pearce. 1920. The origin of gumbotil. J. Geol.
28:89125.
Kellogg, C.E. 1930. Preliminary study of the profiles of the principal
soil types of Wisconsin. Wisc. Geol. Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull. 77A.

TANDARICH ET AL.: HISTORY OF SOIL AND WEATHERING PROFILE CONCEPTS

Kellogg, C.E. 1936. Development and significance of the great soil

groups of the United States. USDA Misc. Publ. 229. U.S. Gov.
Print. Office, Washington, DC.
Kellogg, C.E. 1937. Soil survey manual. USDA Misc. Pub. No. 274.
U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC. (Reprinted in 1938.)
Krusekopf, H.H. 1925. The brown soils of the north central states.
Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 6:146148.
Lankford, N., L. Gentzler, D. Garwood, T. Norris, R. Roberts, and
C. Stewart. 1985. Unpublished materials of Dr. Curtis Fletcher
Marbut. Soil Surv. Horiz. 26:3640.
Lapham, J.E., and C.F. Marbut. 1931. Twenty-four representative
soils of the United States. USDA, Washington, DC.
Lapham, M.H. 1926. Some profiles of representative Western soils.
Am. Soil Surv. Assn. Bull. 7:2542A.
Laudan, R. 1987. From mineralogy to geology: The foundations of
a science, 16501830. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
and London.
Leighton, M.M. 1958. Principles and viewpoints in formulating the
stratigraphic classifications of the Pleistocene. J. Geol. 66:700709.
Leighton, M.M. 1959. Important elements in the classification of the
Wisconsin glacial stage: a reply. J. Geol. 67:594598.
Leighton, M.M., and P. MacClintock. 1930. Weathered zones of the
drift sheets of Illinois. Ill. Geol. Surv. Rept. Inv. 20.
Leighton, M.M., and P. MacClintock. 1962. The weathered mantle of
glacial tills beneath original surfaces in north-central United States.
J. Geol. 70:267293.
Li, K., A. Amoozegar, W.P. Robarge, and S.W. Buol. 1997. Water
movement and solute transport through saprolite. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 61:17381745.
Libernau, J.R.L. von. 1868. Grundsatze fur die Aufname und Darstellung vonlandwirtschaftlichen Bodenkarten. Wien.
Marbut, C.F. 1922. Soil classification. Am. Soil Surv. Assn. Bull 3:
2432.
Marbut, C.F. 1924. The classification of arid soils. p. 362375. In Actes
de la IV Conf. Int. de Ped., Vol. 3. Rome.
Marbut, C.F. (trans.) 1927. The great soil groups of the world and their
development by K.D. Glinka. Edwards Brothers, Ann Arbor, MI.
Marbut, C.F. 1928. Lecture XVI. In Soils, their genesis and classification and development/a course of lectures given in the/Graduate
School/of the/United States Department of Agriculture/February
to May, 1928. Mimeograph. USDA, Washington, DC.
Marbut, C.F. 1951. Soils: their genesis and classification. Soil Science
Society of America, Madison, WI. (Published series of lectures
given in 1928 in the Graduate School of the USDA).
McCool, M.M., and J.O. Veatch. 1923. Soil studies in Michigan. Am.
Assoc. Soil Surv. Workers Bull. 4:159165.
Morrison, R.B. 1967. Principles of Quaternary soil stratigraphy. p.
169. In R.B. Morrison and H.E. Wright (ed.) Quaternary Soils.
Proc. Int. Assoc. Quat. Res. 7th. Cong., Vol. 9. Center for Water
Resources Research, Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada, Reno, NV.
Morrison, R.B. 1978. Quaternary soil stratigraphy concepts, methods, and problems. p. 77108. In W.C. Mahaney (ed.) Quaternary
soils. Geoabstracts, Norwich, England.
Muckenhausen, E. 1997. Developments in soil science in Germany
in the 19th century. p. 261275. In D.H. Yaalon and S. Berkowicz
(ed.) History of soil science: international perspectives. Advances
in Geoecology 29. Catena Verlag GMBH, Reiskirchen, Germany.
Muller, P.E. 1878. Ueber die Humusformen der Buchenwalder auf
Sand und Lehm. p. 5118. In P.E. Muller. 1887. Studien uber die
naturlichen Humusformen und deren Einwirkung auf Vegetation
und Boden. (In German.) Verlag von Julius Springer, Berlin.
Muller, P.E. 1887. Studien uber die naturlichen Humusformen und
deren Einwirkung auf Vegetation und Boden. Verlag von Julius
Springer, Berlin.
Nikiforoff, C.C. 1931. History of A, B and C. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc.
Bull. 12:6770.
Norton, E.A. 1932. Report of the Committee on Horizon Criteria.
Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 13:7173.
Norton, E.A. 1933. Report of the Committee on Horizon Criteria.
Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 14:21.
Norton, E.A. 1934. Report of the Committee on Horizon Criteria.
Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 14:119.
Norton, E.A. 1935. Report of the Committee on Horizon Criteria.
Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 16:149.

345

Norton, E.A., and R.S. Smith. 1928. Horizon designations. Am. Soil
Surv. Assoc. Bull. 9:8399.
Nye, P.H. 1954. Some soil-forming processes in the humid tropics.
1. A field study of a catena in the West African forest. J. Soil
Sci. 5:721.
OBrien, E.L., and S.W. Buol. 1984. Physical transformations in a
vertical soil-saprolite sequence. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48:354357.
Ojanuga, A.G. 1973. Weathering of biotite in soils of a humid tropical
climate. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 37:644646.
ONeal, A.M. 1923. Minutes of the business meeting of the American
Association of Soil Survey Workers held in Urbana, Illinois, November 17 & 18, 1922. Am. Assoc. Soil Surv. Workers Bull. 4:173
176.
Orth, A. 1873. Das geologische Bodenprofile nach seiner Bedautung
fur den Bodenwert und die Landeskultur. In German. Berlin.
Orth, A. 1875. Die geognostisch-agronomische Kartirung. In German.
Verlag von Ernst & Korn, Berlin.
Ospovat, A.M. (trans.) 1971. Short classification and description of
the various rocks by Abraham Gottlob Werner. Hafner Publishing
Company, New York.
Pavich, M.J. 1986. Processes and rates of saprolite production and
erosion on a foliated granitic rock of the Virginia Piedmont. p.
551590. In S.M. Colman and D.P. Dethier (ed.) Rates of chemical
weathering of rocks and minerals. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
Pavich, M.J. 1989a. Appalachian Piedmont regolith: relations of saprolite and residual soils to rock-type. p. 111. In G. Matheson (ed.)
Design with residual materials. Geotech. Spec. Publ. No. 63. Am.
Soc. of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
Pavich, M.J. 1989b. Regolith residence time and the concept of surface
age of the Piedmont peneplain. Geomorphology 2:181196.
Pittman, D.W. 1932. A proposed descriptive symbolism for soil horizons. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 24:931934.
Ramann, E. 1911. Bodenkunde. 3rd ed. Verlag von Julius Springer,
Berlin.
Rebertus, R.A., and S.W. Buol. 1985. Iron distribution in a developmental sequence of soils from mica gneiss and schist. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 49:713720.
Rice, T.D. 1926. Profile studies of representative soils in the northern
prairie states. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 7:114A.
Rice, T.J., Jr., S.W. Buol, and S.B. Weed. 1985. Soil-saprolite profiles
derived from mafic rocks in the North Carolina Piedmont: I. Chemical, morphological, and mineralogical characteristics and transformations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49:171178.
Robertson, S.M. 1968. Soil survey of Clarke and Oconee Counties,
Georgia. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington.
Ruhe, R.V. 1948. Some notes on the Pleistocene geology of Shelby
County, Iowa. Proc. Iowa. Acad. Sci. 55:281286.
Ruhe, R.V. 1954. Pleistocene soils along the Rock Island relocation
in southwestern Iowa. Am. Railway Eng. Assoc. Bull. 514:639.645.
Ruhe, R.V. 1956. Geomorphic surfaces and the nature of soils. Soil
Sci. 82:441455.
Ruhe, R.V. 1959. Stone lines in soils. Soil Sci. 87:223231.
Ruhe, R.V. 1969a. Quaternary landscapes in Iowa. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
Ruhe, R.V. 1969b. Application of pedology to Quaternary research.
p. 123. In S. Pawluk (ed). Pedology and Quaternary research.
National Research Council of Canada.
Ruhe, R.V., and R.B. Daniels. 1958. Soils, paleosols and soil-horizon
nomenclature. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 22:6669.
Ruhe, R.V., and T. E. Fenton. 1969. Paleosols and soil stratigraphy.
p. 335340. In Etudes sur le Quaternaire dans le Monde. 8th Congress of Inqua. Paris: Union Internationale pour Letude du Quaternaire. (In French.)
Ruhe, R.V., R.B. Daniels, and J.G. Cady. 1967. Landscape evolution
and soil formation in southwestern Iowa. USDA Tech. Bull. 1349.
Russell, J.C., and E.G. Engle. 1925. Soil horizons in the central prairies.
Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 6:118.
Schoeneberger, P.J., A. Amoozegar, and S.W. Buol. 1995. Physical
property variation of a soil and saprolite continuum at three geomorphic positions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:13891397.
Shaler, N.S. 1890. Aspects of the earth. Charles Scribners Sons,
New York.
Shaler, N.S. 1891. The origin and nature of soils. p. 219345. In J.W.
Powell (ed.) Twelfth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 189091. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC.

346

SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. J., VOL. 66, MARCHAPRIL 2002

Shaler, S.P. (ed.) 1909. The autobiography of Nathaniel Southgate

Shaler, with a supplementary memoir by his wife. Houghton Mifflin
Company, The Riverside Press Cambridge, Boston and New York.
Shaw, C.F. 1925. The development of soil profiles in southeastern
Australia. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 6:5962.
Shaw, C.F. 1927. Report of committee on soil terminology. Am. Soil
Surv. Assoc. Bull. 8:6698.
Shaw, C.F. 1928a. A definition of terms used in soil literature. p.
3864. In R.B. Deemer et al. (ed.) Proceedings and papers of
the First International Congress of Soil Science, 1322 June 1927,
Commission V/Commission VI/Misc. Papers. The American Organizing Committee of the First International Congress of Soil
Science, Washington, DC.
Shaw, C.F. 1928b. Soil terminology. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 9:23
59.
Shaw, C.F. 1929. The parent material and the C horizon of soils. Am.
Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 10:4043.
Sibirtsev, N.M. 1900. Pochvovedenie. (In Russian.) Y.N. Skorokhodva, St. Petersburg, Russia.
Simonson, R.W. 1941. Studies of buried soils formed from till in Iowa.
Soil Sci. Am. Proc. 6:373381.
Simonson, R.W. 1959. Outline of a generalized theory of soil genesis.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 23:152156.
Simonson, R.W. 1987. Historical aspects of soil survey and soil classification. Reprinted from Soil Survey Horizons. SSSA, Madison, WI.
Simonson, R.W. 1989. Historical highlights of soil survey and soil
classification with emphasis on the United States, 18991970. Int.
Soil. Ref. Info. Cent. Tech. Pap. 18. Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Simonson, R.W., and D.R. Gardner. 1960. Concept and function of
the pedon. Trans. 8th Intl. Cong. Soil Sci. 4:129131.
Smith, R.S. 1924. Acid studies in Illinois in connection with the soil
survey. Am. Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 5:6769.
Soil Survey Staff. 1951. Soil Survey Manual. USDA Agric. Handbk.
18. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC.
Soil Survey Staff. 1960. Seventh Approximation. USDA. U.S. Gov.
Print. Office, Washington, DC.
Soil Survey Staff. 1962. Identification and nomenclature of soil horizons. Supplement to Soil Survey Manual. USDA Agri. Hndbk. 18.
U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC.
Soil Survey Staff. 1975. Soil taxonomy. USDA Agric. Handb. 436.
U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC.
Soil Survey Staff. 1981. Chapter 4. Designations for master horizons
and layers in soils. In Soil Survey Manual. USDA-SCS, Washington, DC.
Soil Survey Staff. 1993. Chapter 3. Examination and description of
soils. p. 59196. In Soil Survey Manual. USDA, Agric. Handbk.
18. (rev.) USDA-SCS, Washington, DC.
Sokolovsky, A.N. 1931. A rational nomenclature of genetical horizons
in soils. Cont. Ukrainian Inst. for Soil Res. 3.
Sokolovsky, A.N. 1932. The nomenclature of the genetic horizons of
the soil. p. 153154. In Proc. Paps. Second Intl. Cong. Soil Sci.,
Comm. V, Classif., Geog. and Cartog. Soils. State Publishing
House of Agricultural, Cooperative and Collective Farm Literature, Moscow.
Sprengel, C.S. 1837. Die Bodenkunde oder die Lehre vom Boden
nebst einer vollstandigen Anleitung zur Chemischen Analyse der
Ackererden. Leipzig.

Soil Science Society of America. 1997. Glossary of soil science terms.

SSSA, Madison, WI.
Stevenson, W.H., and J.F. Barker. 1911. The gumbo soils of Iowa.
Iowa. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 119.
Stolt, M.H., and J.C. Baker. 1994. Strategies for studying saprolite
and saprolite genesis. p. 119. In D. Creemens et al. (ed.) Whole
regolith pedology. SSSA Spec. Publ. 34. SSSA, Madison, WI.
Stoops, G. 1967. Le profil dalteration au bas-Congo. Pedologie 17:60
105.
Strzemski, M. 1975. Ideas underlying soil systematics. Pub. TT 7354013. (Translated from Polish). Foreign Scientific Publications
Department of the National Center for Scientific, Technical and
Economic Information, Warsaw, Poland.
Tandarich, J.P. 1998. Agricultural geology. p. 2329. In G. Good
(ed.) Sciences of the earth: an encyclopedia of events, people and
phenomena. Vol. 1 A-G. Garland Publishing, New York & London.
Tandarich, J.P., and S.W. Sprecher. 1994. The intellectual background
for the factors of soil formation. p. 113. In R. Amundson et al.
(ed.) Factors of soil formation: A fiftieth anniversary retrospective.
SSSA Spec. Publ. 33. SSSA, Madison, WI.
Tandarich, J.P., R.G. Darmody, and L.R. Follmer. 1988. The development of pedologic thought: some people involved. Phys. Geog.
9:162174.
Tandarich, J.P., R.G. Darmody, and L.R. Follmer. 1994. The pedoweathering profile: A paradigm for whole-regolith pedology from
the glaciated Midcontinental United States of America. p. 97117.
In D. Creemens et al. (ed.) Whole regolith pedology. SSSA Spec.
Publ. 34. SSSA, Madison, WI.
Thorp, J. 1935. Soil profile studies as an aid to understanding recent
geology. Bull. Geol. Soc. China 14:359392.
Thorp, J. 1949. Interrelations of Pleistocene geology and soil science.
Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 60:15171526.
Thorp, J., W.M. Johnson, and E.C. Reed. 1951. Some post-Pliocene
buried soils of the central United States. J. Soil Sci. 2:119.
U.S. Bureau of Soils. 1914. Instructions to field parties. U.S. Gov.
Print. Office, Washington, DC.
Veatch, J.O. 1925. Northern podsol soils in the United States. Am.
Soil Surv. Assoc. Bull. 6:2428A.
Watson, J.P. 1961. Some observations on soil horizons and insect
activity in granite soils. p. 271276. In Proc. First Fed. Sci. Cong.
No. 1. Mardon Rhodesian Printers, Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia.
Whiteside, E.P. 1959. A proposed system of genetic soil horizon designations. Soil Fert. 22:18.
Willman, H.B., H.D. Glass, and J.C. Frye. 1963. Mineralogy of glacial
tills and their weathering profiles in Illinois. Part I. Glacial tills.
Ill. Geol. Surv. Circ. 347.
Willman, H.B., H.D. Glass, and J.C. Frye. 1966. Mineralogy of glacial
tills and their weathering profiles in Illinois. Part II. Weathering
profiles. Ill. Geol. Surv. Circ. 400.
Wittmack, L. 1915. Albert Orth. Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen
Gesselschaft 33:6065.
Yarilov, A.A. 1927. Soil-science, pedology, khtonology. Pochvovedenie 22:511.
Yarilov, A.A. 1936. Charles Darwinthe founder of soil science.
Pochvovedenie 4:1723.
Zakharov, S.A. 1906. Soil solutions. p. 389. In J. Exp. Agron. 1906.
[no place of publication given]. (In Russian).