|WikiProject Missouri||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Missouri may be able to help!
Supposedly windblown loess is the source of some of the deposits? While that would not make them truly "glacial" it is postulated that glaciers ground up rock into the powderly loess, is it not? And that some are hence aeolian and not all merely alluvial? (The point is basically valid and the correction a good one.)
Rlquall 19:42, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- There is a goodly amount of sand in the local soil, as well --- perhaps enough to cast some doubt on this assertion; however, mostly the topsoil is loam, the sandy sort, with a good bit of alluvial silt, as one can imagine, from reclaimed swampland. IANAE; the "loess" is probably lower. Some think that this makes the soil ripe for liquifaction in the event of another large seismic event in the NMSZ. Renaissongsman 00:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Did quite a bit of reordering, addition of information. The "Culture" section language seems a tad balky to me, but I'm currently too braindead to think what to do with it. Renaissongsman 01:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Can we get a map of Missouri with Dunklin, Pemiscot, and New Madrid county highlighted in red?
The Bootheel forms the biggest jog in a nearly straight line of state borders that starts on the Atlantic Ocean with the Virginia/North Carolina border extending all the way to tri-state border of Nevada, Arizona and Utah.
Isn't the "jog" at the Missouri/Kansas border equally large? At the Bootheel the jog is from 36°30' to 36°, while west of Missouri it is at 37°. Pfly 05:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the "catch." The 37th parallel north is a nifty little jog since it places those states above 36°30' and thus not eligible for slavery by the Missouri Compromise (which in turn was nullified by the Kansas-Nebrasaka Act and Dred Scott Decision). The Okahoma panhandle allowed Texas to drop back to 36 30 and enter as a slave state. Americasroof 10:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Between 1893 and 1989, developers cut about 85% ...
What is significant about the year 1989? Why did developers cut timber for 96 years and then suddenly stop? It was obviously not because they ran out of forest. Was there legislation passed? Can the significance of 1989 be explained?
--Atikokan (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)