rw" of Tenethohetahahe thottcte ~ el Parte eee » ‘ x : | He es ; ant8 ot ‘5 x | | 3 cS wasdcna bette ew yA newerr ee , " ae hea aeons rae he ethalheths zebber ant r =f Ae 2! . ohe he le* : ree Bohs het at ie s 1 B- Bb2 ‘ 2 v + he 3! sa M " yer a . ye the Ma othe tets Re pio y y “rie vs . ; = Me : winict ; 7 cece yt behets ‘et ; ra EY? We #-0:909 ae . tet ” ot ™ ¥ Cae ' ' seit tates ar acest ata ac PO rnrpe . 2 nih = fae , mihchohet-Apllohel . sation: « at ee Spe: ie fea tae nah belt : toh ur ’ “ib ee < be - oe oohci its A Ws rw Wo ‘ ‘ rer’ ; coreg het che Minti Ha adel ea Se our of " a: th =e Ne shoths Hl Hoel ft , baler : hz ¥e ne is 4 a edad z hee! fel We We Ae We ‘ Be! = ae Maw tar test We . : \ wa - a y : “" 4 pater P w Aa F yy eS od act Ache Aobedete r<"s atts thats WoW olt Sonne Hye! wha Rs a he = he ce hres ot x ' ry Me Henahetea Babe wat tel a As" Me ieosasant stehataeitite : y thea he Ma the A “ : 7 | ~ ? " ~s' - - a ‘ Pele am of Me oe a yt a ri pelietatate , pols Hoff Be Booty aes ‘ ‘ ere co sh ate . as ofl Wm Ae oo count) othe Wolh-= the 2 Del te eit He Be Ralette Matt Hye tte aot rege ae ae oe . gman * er OP pea S pa eon (em ee oats <3 ,' Ernst Mayr Library d 4 Is...) i m parative Z ue Wbrt To pacha. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BULLETIN OF THE Peon DED ST A TES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1891 + : — hy ”) ¢ s a Y, 5 ad * * ~< ; em ; + Pa " . « é & ‘ y i = & + 7 : ws - - . a ee ~*~ s * + . » 2% r . a * re ies 2 my —_ , Va ew eee ~ 2 Sa 4 * fn “Vr < te ve 2 J <3 Morac =5 tok a at —— we —. ee i Nase ed > mt Se hee cha ee oe Pure - sriladhs: Ps end me OR ees Wes t- ‘ iN > Feet. ¥ ae } in oe, ONIAN AND CARBON IFEROUS WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT: PRINTING OFFICE | akan Y-< S| Der 2k ee : CONTENTS. » 5s Y pe, cs , . ek Fi — ! _ Letter of transmittal by Mr. G. K. Gilbert. ...... Dain winchlas hn Galan Hoe as 4 Cece NN Sis ano 6 Daots Win tnd gina ahebewen beeces4sgcue Ba peer _ IntropucTIoN. The state of opinion at the beginning of the present cen- . tury regarding the classification and naming of geologic formations.--. ..-.- - CuHapTerI. The history anddevelopment of opinion regarding the classifica- tion of rocks in the United States, from the time of William Maclure to the completion of the geological survey of the State of New York (1809-1843) -.-. CHAPTER II. The general application of the nomenclature of the New York ‘system asa standard of correlation in other parts of the United States eo ln vind oie yale Sam eid bos) < gives n a a awin= atiagins ons nawwie mae eaes . CHapTeR III. Miscellaneous discussions regarding the correlation of Devo- r nian and Carboniferous formationsin the central part of the United States Is 0562 AL. Lahone taney Haina wing a'p Boreas thece dacs sedane shane _CHAPTERIV. The differentiation of the Carboniferous system...... 2 Soak telat _ CHAPTER VY. The Coal Measures or Pennsylvanian series: The development of at) its nomenclature and classification in the Appalachian Province (1836-1888) . - CHarTeR VI. The conglomerates and Lower Carkoniferous formations of the IIMS ETOOVANICO. «(0 0 ae Los wn ca een coon eee ieee ne eee oed onl nue CHarTeR VII. The Chemung-Catskill problem: The history of the discus- __ sions concerning the correlation of the Chemung-Catskill formations in the Pe eiGrunern part of the Appalachian Province.......... ..-22. 222. ceca ce ee nene _ CHAPTER VIII. The Lower Carboniferous or Mississippian series: The devel- | opment of the nomenclature and classification of the Lower Carboniferous formations of the Mississippian Province (1821-1874) -...........-.-..--...- CHAPTER IX. The Waverly problem: The history of the discussion cencern- ing tke correlation of the Waverly, Marshall, Goniatite limestone, Kinder- _ hook, and Choteau formations (1838-1888) ......... 2.222. .neeee 2-2 cone eee ’ CuapterR X. The Permian problem: Discussions relative to the correlation of the Permian in Kansas and Nebraska and other parts of the United States ou so Jat n'a oth sates 18 neg ang nwissewan Henan sn aohtae adennsen _ CHAPTER XI. Devonian and Carboniferous correlations in the Western and Seertnerd Provinces of North America.........-........--------02000-0--000 CHAPTER XII. The Acadian Province: The correlations and classifications of the Upper Paleozoic formations in the Acadian Province..........--.. eae . .to- < - 135 173 193 213 226 2 ae o 7 a | Oe * - ” : + “ads ‘ i, AAS ‘ z : . : 2 ee 3 + ie FSS = om Va A ee \ 4 — a ie. ; he i aX te x y Ey nae s . ~ “ea LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL up i DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, U. 8S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, SS ae DIVISION OF GEOLOGIC CORRELATION, ae Washington, D. C., March 15, 1891. $m: I have the honor to transmit herewith a memoir by Dr. Henry _§. Williams on the Devonian and Carboniferous formations of North _ America, prepared for publication as a bulletin. _. This memoir is the first of a series, and in order to show its relation to those which are to follow, I quote the following passage from the _ report of the Director for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1888 : } ‘ah In order to develop the geological history of the United States as a consistent BS whole, it is necessary to correlate the various local elements. The events of one dis- _ trict—the succession of eruptions, sedimentary deposits, and erosions—must be con- : “nected with the synchronous events of other regions. It is especially important to _ determine the synchrony of deposits. So far as the outcrops bales can be contin- ously traced, or can be observed at short intervals, correlation tan be effected by the ‘Ge study of stratigraphy alone. The correlation of strata separated by wide intervals _ of discontinuity can be effected only through the study of their contained fossils, _ This is not always easy, and it is now generally recognized that it is possibie only within restricted limits. As distance increases the refinement in detail of correla- tion diminishes. SO ' Recent discussions in connection with the work of the International Gonpasanl of r Geologists have shown that different students assign different limits to the possibili- aa ties of correlation, and give different weights to the various kinds of paleontologic evidence employed. Rate The study of the data and principles of correlation is thus seen to be a necessary part of the work of the Geological Survey, and by making the study at the present Pe time it can offer a timely contribution to general geologic philosophy. It has there- _ fore been determined to undertake the preparation of a series of essays summarizing a existing knowledge bearing on the correlation of American strata. It is proposed to x have a treatise prepared by a competent specialist on each of the following systems: The Quaternary, the Newer Tertiary, the Older Tertiary, the Cretaceous, the Jura- Trias, the Carboniferous, the Devonian, the Silurian, the Cambrian, the Eparchean, and the Archean. es _ Each essay will consider the several geographic provinces of the system it treats, Bs : the stratigraphic divisions that have been made in the several provinces, the extent ; to which these divisions can be correlated with one another, the degree of precision A with which the upper and lower limits of the system can be correlated with the limits of the corresponding European system, and the extent to which the American subdivisions can be correlated with the European. It is proposed to treat sepa- wy ray | ae = — i ; *Ninth Annual Report of the U. S. Geological | Survey. 16. . Ba 3g Aaa Cc ath _ Rane Harner Colt SA "/8 be a | ee td: Oe 8 THE DEVONIAN AND ss eficts Sy acceiimmiaiutd Pee “wou sm rately the evidence from vertebrate fossils and the eiehaiené from fossil plants sinito ; all the systems in which they are found; and there will be prepared in connection with the work a thesaurus of North American stratigraphic terminology. The work has been placed under the general charge of Mr. G. K. Gilbert, anh. a number of specialists to assist him have already been selected from the various divi- sions of the Survey. Each of the systems indicated above was iatisand to a palesnislaaaea or a geologist for treatment, and several conferences were held for the i purpose of developing a definite plan of work. Eventually the plan was — formulated as follows, being incorparated in a circular letter addressed — the Director to the several specialists chosen for the work in Febroary, ‘ 1888 : PLAN FOR THE DISCUSSION OF AMERICAN GEOLOGIC SYSTEMS. | (1) It is proposed to prepare an essay on each of the following American geologic o. i systems, namely: (1) Quaternary, (2) Plio-Miocene, (3) Oligo-Eocene, (4) eee Sd (5) Jura-Trias, (6) Permo-Carboniferous, (7) Devonian, (8) Silurian, (9) Cambrian, (10) x y z, (11) Archean. The ‘‘ Congress” committee of the American Association for the Advangsinent ant Date Science at a recent meeting resolved (in effect) that ‘‘ systems are determined primarily — eS ae by fossils, secondarily by structure.” This series of essays is planned on the assump- ee he tion that for purposes of correlation the most important fossils are marine inverte-— Veaehk oN brates. The evidence from vertebrates and that from plants will be discussed each — 92 nd by an appropriate specialist, but this arrangement does not preclude their considera- . ¢ tion in the essays on individual systems. & (2) Each essay should show how the system of which it treats has been paleonto- = logically and stratigraphically delimited in North America, and should recite and discuss the facts and principles on which such delimitation is based. ” (3) Fach essay should show into what series (major subdivisions) the syste has been divided in various parts of North America, and on what facts and principles — the division has been based. If these subdivisions are not uniform in all parts ¢ of — the continent the various areas of exposure should be classified in provinces, and eet the essays should show whether and to what extent the series of the several provinces ‘ : ay can be correlated with one another. a ker (4) Each essay should show whether and to what extent the subdivisions of the system in any or all of its American Rees can be correlated with the subdivis- ions of the system in Europe. (5) Each essay should be prepared with the aid of a Son prahoneia’s review of ihek pertinent literature, so as to constitute a summary of the material at present avail able for the major taxonomy of the system. ri (6) The names of systems in (1) are provisional. Each essay should consider the by question of names for system and series. se a The number of systems is likewise provisional, and it may eventually appear shag those enumerated in (1) are not coordinate. It was necessary to prepare a scheme ion ay ec in order to apportion the work of assembling the facts, but after these have been. A “ a assembled, their discussion may lead to an improved scheme. Provision will be | if made for such discussion after the series of essays has been prepared. oe (7) The general purpose of the preparation of the series of essays is thrsefaliiy? Pherae first, to exhibit in a summary way the present state of knowledge of North American. a geologic systems; second, to formulate the principles of geologic correlation anda ee iy ' taxonomy; third, to set forth from the American standpoint the possibility, or the He % LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. 9. i impossibility, of using in all countries the same set of names for stratigraphic divi- eee smaller than systems.'! By comparing the list of geologic systems in this “plan” with the list in the passages cited from the report of the Director, it will be observed that there are slight discrepancies. The unsettled problems of nomenclature thus suggested were elaborately discussed by a con- - ference of the geologists of the Survey held in J anuary, 1889, for the hs _ purpose of establishing the conventions necessary to bonifobaitin: in the ‘: preparation of the sheets of the Geologic Atlas of the United States. BS, _ By that conference it was determined that the stratigraphic units de- a -lineated on the sheets of the geologic atlas should be designated as Ey | formations, that no stratigraphic unit of a higher order should be rec- - ognized in the atlas, and that the only term of classification there em- a _ ployed should be the geologic “ period.” 2 The time-term “ period” thus ae adopted for the geologic atlas has the same taxonomic rank as the strati- Ny ome term “system ” employed in the “ plan” for the instruction of _ the essayists and in the passage cited from the report of the Director. It | was preferred by the geologists of the conference because it was believed y - that the major classification expressed by either term is essentially arbi- bi trary and does not find in nature a universal expression, either physi- 4 is, cally through lithologic and structural differences, or biotically through othe differentiation of faunas and floras. The chronologic term seemed to them freer than the stratigraphic from the implication that the : elassific units are natural and general rather than artificial or local. _ he conference likewise indicated and defined eleven periods to be used in the classification of the formations represented in the atlas, and designated them as follows: (1) Pleistocene, (2) Neocene, (3) Eocene, x (4) Cretaceous, (5) Jura-trias, (6) Carboniferous, (7) Devonian, (8) Silu- rian, (9) Cambrian, (10) Algonkian, (11) Archean.! These are the exact equivalents of the “‘ systems” enumerated in the preceding quotations, but they differ somewhat as to name. _ The conventions thus adopted for the work of the Geological Survey have modified and controlled the work of the division so far as they are applicable, and the substitution of “period” for “system” has Mati ged the point of view of the essays in 4 manner conducive to their a fe simplification and to their value as contributions to the subject of cor- relation. a Although the essayists, working under the same general instructions, have had before them the accomplishment of the same purposes with _ respect to ‘the several groups of formations assigned them, no attempt has been made to mold their modes of treatment in a common form. es ei’ _ This plan was published in the Tenth Annual Report of the Survey as part of a progress report of eae the work of the Division of Correlation (pp. 108-113). Further report of progress may be found in the _ Eleventh Annual Report, pp. 59-62. 2 Tenth Annual Report U.S. Geological Survey, pp. 63-65. SIbid., -) pp. 65-66, gee A t ames LES A RRS yt ve DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFE x ‘ - geologic Rillatiot It groups facts and opinions as is Oat _and Devonian formations about certain specific problems of corr and traces the history of the discussion of each problem. In ee: - tion with the historical summaries there is much incidental di of the principles of correlation, and they are afterward classifi - ¢losing chapter. The author concludes, from the American. ‘stand 4 that in a universal classification of formations it is not pra ica SS _ employ classific units smaller than periods. oy Very respectfully, your obedient servant, «Hon. J. W. PowE Lt, ‘: _ Director U. 8. Geological Survey. OUTLINE OF THIS PAPER. i ye The following essay is a historical study of the classifications and nomenclatures E dof, geological formations in America, made with the purpose of ascertaining -how Re satisfactory correlations have been made and upon what principles they have been ay based. For this purpose the literature upon the whole Paleozoic for the first 40 y years of the century has been reviewed, but for the period following the publication ___ of the Final Reports on the Geology of the State of New York (1842-1844), the study Be has been confined to the literature of the Devonian and Carboniferous systems. ____In the course of the historical development of the science, and as the geological es _ surveys have extended over new territory, a number of specific problems have arisen ___ for the solution of which it has been necessary to determine the relations between 2 standard formations alreadynamed and classified and those newly discovered. In _ this essay the discussion of each of these problems has been followed out in detail, 4 5 the various attempts at correlation have been noted, and the methods employed and : the final results attained have been traced to the principles involved in their deter- 5, a amination. he | _ The following problems have been thus discussed : 7 es (1) The general correlation of the Paleozoic formations of eastern North America ae : with the corresponding formations of Europe. _ (2) The determination of the parallelism between the upper Paleozoic formations * of the Appalachian region and the rocks of the interior of the continent as far west ___ as the Mississippi River. a (3) The correlation in the Northern Appalachian region of the various subdivis- & ; _ions of the Coal Measures and formations immediately underlying them. (4) The problems connected with the correlation of the Chemung and Catskill groups, and with the correlation of the Waverly and Marshall groups. fe __ (5) The elaboration of the Mississippian series, or ‘‘Subcarboniferous” formations ‘i of the Mississippi River basin. , (6) The Permian problem of Kansas and Nebraska. Ba? (7) The correlation problems involved in classifying (a) the formations of the Aca- a: ~ dian province, and (b) the formations of the Rocky Mountains and Western Plateau provinces. 2 a In the discussion of these various problems severai definite stages in the develop- _ ment of the principles of correlation have been recognized. At the opening of the - century the Wernerian system of classification was generally adopted. In this a: classification the mineral characters of the formations were regarded as of funda- - mental impértance, and constituted the chief criteria for their classification and cor- relation, and the order of deposition was supposed to be indicated by the actual and relative position of the present outcropping of the strata. The theory underlying Bt this latter interpretation was, that the older rocks formed the core of the mountains; -* on the higher part and at an inclination were formed the next younger, and as the ___ waters dried off the surface of the earth the successive rocks were deposited at lower -_ and lower levels. The names “Primary,” “Secondary,” ‘‘ Tertiary,” and ‘‘Quater- nary” preserve the memory of this theory, though the theory itself has given way to the more rational one of oscillation of the crust of the earth itself, with relative sta- 4 =e 5 : 11 12 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. — | [BULL 80. bility of the mean tide edek of the ocean. The correlations of this period were de- — i fective, not so much on account of imperfect observation as on account of incorrect: theories. ‘Red sandstone,” ‘‘ Mountain limestone,” ‘‘ Saliferous rocks,” and “ Grau-_ wacke” were truly found in America, but they were not the correlatives of forma- tions so named in Europe, because formations present no regularity in the order of sequence of their mineral characters. The perfecting of the New York system of © ‘om Paleozoic rocks (published in 1842) marks practically the abandonment of the Wer- ie ‘a nerian school of opinion in America. ed The second stage.of. development took definite shape in the New York eyutean ve Formations were considered as holding a fixed order of sequence, but differences in — : thickness or even in composition were to some extent allowed as compatible. Still, a general ‘parallelism of strata” was believed in, and in order to make the interpre- tation fit the facts, “ gaps” and ‘‘intercalations” were assumed. The application of 4 this principle of correlation is conspicuous in.the various attempts at “ parallelism” . i made in the period 1840-1860, and the method is most minutely carried out in the ati second Geological Survey of Pennsylvania, where the term “ persistent parallelism — bi, : of strata” is named and defined. Fossils were used in these correlations, but rather — as arbitrary labels which were of value only when exact identity was recognized, This being rarely the case, fossils played only a secondary part. This principle dia not reach satisfactory results, because stratigraphic order and stratification itself offer no intrinsic evidence of the age of the formation, and stratigraphic structure was found not to be uniformly persistent even for a few miles’ extent. In the first quarter of the century, an Englishman, William Smith, or “Strata Smith,” as he was called, advanced the idea that strata could be idemtaiaal by their fossils, and fossils have ever since been used with greater or less success in identify- ing formations; but when the fossils are not of the same but of kindred species, ica? other considerations have been brought forward to establish the correlation, Within the last 20 years fossils have begun to be used on the principle that they contain in bar, themselves intrinsic evidence of their relative age. aie And this brings us to the third stage in the development of the methods of correla- ae k tion in which fossils assume the chief rdle. Underlying these correlations are the ey following considerations: Geologic formations in their mineral and lithologic com- ce i Ee a wa alas tate i position, their stratigraphic and structural characters, and as to their limitations _ are recognized as strictly local formations; hence the primary principle is thatnone __ of these characters can be relied upon Sort the correlation of formations of different — J ’ . hi ‘ “= = * 7, oe hs e Pe. ay. a 14 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. = [aurt.80. In the Edinburgh Encyclopedia! there is an exposition of his views _ ie which will serve our present purpose. . i The author divided the science of mineralogy into two divisions, ‘a geognosy and oryctognosy. He said: : 4 7. Geology, according to Werner, comprehends not only geognosy but also geography, — ag hydrography, meteorology, and geogony. Geognosy makes us acquainted with sa SS y. structure, relative position, materials, and mode of formation of the mineral masses ; of which the crust of the earth is composed. ; “a ol WERNER’S SYSTEM. Bio Br b- In 1740 De Maillet maintained that the globe was composed of strata . successively deposited one over another, by the sea, which gradually retired and uncovered the present continents. This view was adopted by Linneus. Buffon accepted it also, in part, so far as regarding super- ss ficial strata as the deposition from water. It played a conspicuous # part in Werner’s system. oa ee 4 Werner had several] pupils, of whom some of the more prominent are oe Mohs, Charpentier, Buch, Raumer, Freisleben, Humboldt, Steppen, — | Engelhart, Esmarck, D’Andrada, Brocchi, De la Rio. In the orticle a 4 before us we find Werner’s system discussed under the following heads: 4 ‘¢ Werner on the structure of the crust of the globe.” Then followthe > . “¥ subdivisions : | FE oh £3 1. Original extent of the formations. | eg 2. Their present extent and continuity. ¥ 3. Position and direction of strata in relation to fundamental rocks. Dae 4. Position and direction of strata themselves. . es 5. Relation of the outgoings [outcrop] of the strata to the exterior of sieuiotadieda! Under the first head, “the original extent of formation,” Werner dis- tinguished as “universal formations” those that extend around the — whole globe (not, however, without interruption), and constitute by ees | the greater mass of the crust of the earth. Almost all the Primitive, Transition, and Secondary formations are ‘‘ universal depositions.” Of ay these the following are named: ‘Granite, Gneiss, Porphyry, Lime-— a stone.” ‘ Partial formations,” of which sandstones, limestones, shales, — etc., are examples, were deposited only in particular places, and were due to lake or flood sediments. The author wrote: yo Ente The spheroidal figure of the earth, its crystalline and stratified structure, and ie” numerous petrifactions are proofs of its original fluidity. The fluidity, according to. 4 Werner, was aqueous, and he conjectures that the various rocks were originally inks 2 3 pended or dissolved in water, and gradually deposited from it: 2 Two grand epochs are recognized in his system, first, “the Primitive, containing no fossils or organic remains, always below the other rocks, ake a and wholly of chemical origin.” “Second, the Secondary : these scene were formed posterior to the creation of areanlee beings.” The rocks — TS = 4 1 The Edinburgh Encyclopedia, conducted by David Brewster, LL. D., F.R.S. 1812-1831. Asides “ Mineralogy,” prepared by Prof. Robert Jameson, D. D., F. R. B., L. ,and E. nauiebor of natural history. a Edinburgh. First American edition, 1832, vol. x11, bee Jt 2 Op. cit., p. 437. ye ee cng “hg ‘ muita ay - -WERNER’S SYSTEM. 15 mee, of this group ental resemble the first group, but contain fossils, are : ealled “Transition” by Werner, and “Intermediate” by other geol- a % ogists. The Secondary are called ‘“ Floetz.” In addition to these two grand epochs, there were recognized by some geologists, (3) The Tertiary, including the upper part of the Secondary class of - Werner, which is distinguished as containing the remains of quadru- _ Peds ; ; ee 2 (4) An Alluvial class, consisting of gravel, sand, clay, marls, recog- a nized by its resting upon the previeusly mentioned class; and ee (5) The Volcanic class, the rocks of which were undoubtedly produced by fire. ¥ _ In general, Werner believed all rocks were formed from one and the a - game solution by deposition, either chemical or mechanical. These “depositions” were made at various heights determined by the gradual ei, departure of the water as it evaporated or sank away into cavities in _ theearth. But, to account for the formation of the “Secondary trap” : iP and certain ‘¢ Primitive porphyries,” new inundations were assumed to _, have taken place! In his system there were series of formations, and om ‘ each series was denominated a “suite;” thus, there were eight of these ‘suites, called— © : * - 1. Limestone formation suite. Sa 2. Slate formation suite. - 3. Trap formation suite. or 4. Porphyry formation suite. Bes 5. Gypsum formation suite. > 6. Salt formation suite. y 7. Coal formation suite. _ 8. Serpentine formation suite. Thus, “ the limestone formation suite” consists of—* 1, White granular limestone in the Primitive class (with large, granular, distinct concretions). _-—-2,:-Variegated limestone in the Transition picky, having ‘less translucidity, ” and containing the first traces of petrifactions. ‘d 3. The gray Floetz limestone, scarcely translucent on edges, and full of petrifactions, - and found in the Floetz or Secondary rocks. av, J 4, Chalk. 5, Limestones and marls of the Paris Basin. 6, Caleareous tuff. "aa ___In these series, extending from the earliest to the latest period, there eis 1S, ‘a gradual disappearance of the crystalline, and a gradual increase a of the earthy aspect, “‘ corresponding with the relative age of the dif- ferent members of the series, and the state of the solvent from which BGs _ they were precipitated, and all serving as proofs of the immensely ~ great but gradual alteration of the state of the universal waters.” “Quietness of the water” was the characteristic at first, and as the . 1Qp. cit., p. 436. 16 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. waters shallowed they were more disturbed, and the resulting adie " q wereless crystalline and more earthy ; and, lastly, the earthy limestones | as a result of exposure of the rocks to erosion by withdrawal of the | waters. ah Another point conspicuous in his theory is that regarding the actual position of the rocks as indicative of the age when they were formed. — - In describing each of these formation series we find the following sen- tence, ‘with sinking levels of the outgoings of the newer and newer | a strata.” i‘ | The following exhibits Jameson’s idea of the classification, which is | og apparently an amplification of the scheme taught by Werner. . CLASSES OF ROCKS. OxLass I. Primitive Rocks ——Urgebirge of Werner; Terrains primitifs "4 of Daubuisson. 3 Those formed antecedent to that of the creation of organic beings. aes. Chemical formation, no fossils, under the Floetz or Transition. | The rocks of this class are— . f} es, . Granite, with syenite, protogene topaz rock. ae . Gneiss, and varieties of white stone. yey . Mica slate, and varieties of talc slate. se . Clay slate, Thonschiefer, with alum slate, flinty mae etc. aa . Granular limestone, and primitive gypsum. ees! . Primitive trap. | . Serpentine and euphe . Porphyry. . Quartz rock. CLASS II. Transition Rocbi Tebercaine conan of Werner. | Contains fossils, is less crystalline than the Primitive, and interposed — between the Primitive and Secondary. aa The rocks are— ioe i esa . Grauwacke, Werner; Psammite of Brongniart. ree, ae iy . Transition limestone. ac . Granite and porphyry. . Gneiss, mica slate, etc. iy Serpentine, ae . Quartz rock. pe . Red sandstone. “ . Transition trap. , See . Gypsum, Pe rs SCmonvwoanrk WWE OODIAMNS wwe Class III. Secondary or Floetz rocks.—Floetzgebirge of Werner; Ri Secondary or Floetz rock of J ameson ; Terrain secondaire of Daubuis-— , 4 son. It rests on Transition or Primitive, is less crystalline, has many i: q y . ; ‘ais fossils. The principal Secondary rocks are— Bs 1. Sandstone. Wa eS 2. Limestone. is Pea a 3. Gypsum. 7h eta 4. Trap rock. . ree A limestone. SE » second sandstone is the New Red or Variegated sandstone, the fer Sandstein ” of Werner, “ Red Ground” of English geologists, Red ” of Buckland, “‘New Red or Variegated sandstone” of on. The second formation of “ grés” and “ grés avee argil,” and bigarre.” It rests upon the second or Magnesian limestone. the th ird sandstone formation, ‘‘Green Sand” of English geologists, sandstone formation” of Jameson and Daubuisson, ‘“ Quader- ih ceil in” of Werner. It rests upon the upper Oolite, and is covered beth sandstone formation is associated with the rocks that rest (See the “ Paris formation.” ) : BP ecbadary Haale of Jameson, the “‘ Floetz Gyps” of Werner. ine Inded the first and second gypsum, also Se es esenmpe scape S pos: ae of the characteristic fossils contained in geological de- E Be ‘Bull. 80—2 ‘ ink , 18 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. posits. William Smith, as all geologists know, early in the osn tag recognized the importance of fossils in identifying geological deposits, ou and as early as 1812 a map of England and Wales was prepared by him with the order of the geological deposits marked upon it, and it was known, by William Smith, at least, that the several strata were char- acterized by different organisms. The order of these deposits was known by him, and a table was drawn up in 1799, some improvements _ were made in his map and in his table in 1815 and 1816, and in 1815 a small treatise was published by Smith, entitled “* A Geological Table of British Organized Fossils,” which identified the course and continuity — : of the strata. It will thus be seen that in the earliest decade of the century there was one man, at least, who recognized the importance of fossils in de- termining and correlating geological strata. The methods of Smith were applied, however, no lower than the Carboniferous system, and it was not until later that they were adopted as a general principle for the Se classification and systematization of the whole geologic column. Although fossils were recognized as important, they were so poorly - understood, and so few individuals studying geology had any accurate — knowledge even of their generic characters, that they were of very slight service in correlating strata. Mineral characters, therefore, played the principal part in all the oa classifications, correlations, and even nomenclatures of the geologists of the first quarter of this century. , =k Much confusion is found, also, in the attempts to generalize, onac- count of ignorance of the true means of correlating the strata that cropped out in different regions. The early names used indicate the principles of these classifications, such as ‘¢ Granular limestones,” ** Ar- gillite,” “* Grauwacke,” “Old Red sandstone,” * Uolite,” ‘“‘ Cretaceous,” ‘“ Magnesian limestones”; and a great many others could be enumer- ated. These, it will be seen, are all names indicating the usage of min- __ eral characters for the distinction of the strata, independent of their locality and independent of their order of sequence or position in a ver- tical scale. In order to change this system, it was necessary that a careful oleae ‘ ‘ of fossils be made, that their biological relations be clearly understood, and that their characters be geographically and geologically known. The; classification of the geological deposits for England was fairly well — 4 understood for the Mesozoic and higher strata as early as 1822, butthe — lower strata, the Paleozoic series, as we now understand it, were not well understood prior to the works of Murchison and Sedgwick and their associates. Murchison’s “Silurian system” was not published till 1839, and the classification of the Paleozoic series, although studied by English and Americans between 1830 and 1840, can not be regarded as having been fully understood by geologists until about the year 1840. A glance at the general system of classification in the early text books WILLIAMS. ] EARLY CLASSIFICATIONS OF ROCKS. 19 will give the best idea of the state of opinion in this first period of geo- logical science. The rocks were classified at the beginning of the cen- _ tury by the Wernerian school into Primary and Secondary rocks; the idea contained in this distinction was, for the first, those rocks which were originally deposited from chemical solution and by evaporation from the ocean waters, and the Secondary were those which were pro- duced by water erosion and reshaping of the Primary rocks, and depo- sition of the sediments above them. In the Secondary series fossils were observed, but the Primary series was supposed to have been laid down before the existence of organisms upon the earth. As observa- tions accumulated, the rocks called Primary were found to include some which are now placed in the Paleozoic series. The name Transition came into use as a designation for the rocks, which were known to be _ stratified and occasionally to contain fossils, occupying a position be- tween the original Primary and Secondary formations. The Germans applied the name “ Grauwacke” to this Transition series, and we find in EKaton’s classification, as presented in his “Index to the Geology of the Northern States,” his ‘* Erie Canal rocks,” and his otber papers, the - use of the term “ Grauwacke” in a sense which is different from that originally applied, but one necessitated by the discovery of the same kind of rocks at undoubtedly different horizons. The ‘“Grauwacke” _ of Raton was spoken of as “ First,” “ Second,” and ‘Third Grauwacke,” ete., and we find him identifying the great mass of the rocks of western “a irs i aa , - m4, New York as belonging to the “ Third Grauwacke,” which he placed in the Secondary class. This “Third Grauwacke” is placed above the Carboniferous, and also above the “ Saliferous rocks,” a name which he used to represent the English Saliferous group, but which he identified with the Onondaga Salt group or Salina of the New York system. This was placed above the Conglomerates in the order of sequence because the ‘‘ Millstone Grit,” which they were supposed to represent in the English series, was below the New Red sandstone, The imperfection in the methods of correlation of this time is well illustrated by Eaton’s identification of the “Old Red sandstone” in New York. In “ Erie Canal rocks,” 1824, ‘“‘Old Red sandstone” is placed at the top of the “Transition class.” It included the “‘ Red sandstone of the Connecticut River,” and the “Red sandstone of the Catskill Moun- tains,” and in 1820 he reported the “ Old Red sandstone” as outerop- ping in the Niagara gorge. This example shows that the-color and composition were the basis of _ correlation, and that the belief that the order or sequence of formations must be the same in New York as in Great Britain led to the erroneous _ Classification. This confusion is due not so much to poor observation, which Eaton can not be charged with, as to erroneous theories which were common to geologists in his time. The recognition of the position of the Car- PE SV MNS Bat Re et REE Page SAT el ee Ce vo see me _- ae Lia Se ey we ci pie We cis as es 74-8 : 20 THE DEVONIAN AND Speirs limestones and Millstone Grit with the Old Red sandstone below the New Red sandstone above, was well established, but the di line, which separates our Paleozoic from Mesozoic,” was not drawn u itil the fossils had been carefully studied. by oe f: Originally, and beginning with the works of Bakewell and De la Beche, and Conybeare and Phillips, above mentioned, the Carbonifer- ous Coal Measures were associated with the Sheva: rOckarom what is called the “ Medial or Oarbonihenaie order.” This was s the step toward the modern classification into Paleozoic and Mes By the majority of geologists for several years later than 1822, the Red sandstone and the Carboniferous were included in the seca n and the rocks below’ were placed in the Transition or Grauwac the older classifications. a It was John Phillips? who first clearly conceived tlio importance associating the Carboniferous, the Devonian, and the Magnesian li stones together, and separating them from the rest of the New FE formation, to form the upper part of the Paleozoic strata. This prowl ht the vmarkation between the ancient (Paleozoic) fauna and the middle Re (Mesozoic) fauna at the top of the Permian, or, in England, at the top a of the Magnesian limestones; and the distinction was based purely upon the study of the contained fossils. This was first suggested in the a articles in the Penny Snes in 1840 and 1841, entitled a ( rs 4 a is responsible for so sbuaiin the Paleozoic is given in ie: " Pale 0: Fossils.”4 The term ‘“ Paleozoic” was suggested by Sedgwick tot the place of “ Protozoic,” the term which Murchison applied to ’ rocks described in his “ Silurian system,” and which were regarded a belonging to the Transition strata of the Wernerians. | Thus it will be seen that the grand distinction between Mesozoi ic Paleozoic, as now understood, was entirely determined by the fossi The study of the Devonian rocks, and the determination of tl position by Lonsdale in 1837, furnish another example of the ap tion pf paleontology in perfecting classification. The rocks themse their stratigraphy, their relations to other rocks, had been ¢ studied by Murchison and De la Beche, and by numerous others more irregular way, prior to 1838, but the identification of their contents by Lonsdale, and their comparison with the fossils of formations, made it possible for him to assert positively that the 1 Conybeare and Phillips’s Geology, etc. ? The Silurian, Cambrian, and, as we see in De la Beche, the Devonian petite: iy She 3 Author of ‘‘ Paleozoic Fossils of Cornwall, Devon, and West Somerset,” published in 1841, ae ‘Page 160. es aes Ba ard) i », heretofore regarded as of the Secondary strata of Beation of the Paleozoic by its fossils which we owe to i ks determination of the intermediate position of the De- em by Lonsdale were two conspicuous examples of the ines- ue of fossils for geologic correlation. Heretofore the f the Wernerian school were dominant in all geologic classifi- d correlations. Afterward in English and American geology gy became the indispensible ally of stratigraphic geology. > ae Sa CHAPTER I. : 4 THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF OPINIONS REGARDING a THE CLASSIFICATION OF ROCKS IN THE UNITED STATES FROM™ THE TIME OF WILLIAM MACLURE TO THE COMPLETION OF _ THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ~ 1809-1843. An article appeared in the Trans. Am. Phil. Soc., in the year 1809, *, which is among the earliest careful expositions ‘of the systematic — arrangement of the rocks of North America, if not the very earliest.? = The classification adopted by Maclure is the Wernerian, and he de- fends the usage of this system by the following arguments*: “First, — because it is the most perfect and extensive in its general outlines ; 4 and secondly, the nature and relative situation of the minerals in the ~ United States, whilst they are certainly the most extensive of any field yet examined, may perhaps be found to be the most correct elucidation of the general exactitude of that theory as respects the relative position of the different series of rocks.” The following is the nomenclature adopted :! ‘ Crass 1. Primitive rocks.—(1) Granite, (2) Gneiss, 48) Micaslate, (4) Clay slate, (5) — : Primitive limestone, (6) Primitive trap, (7) Serpentine, (8) Porphyry (9) Syenite, (10) Topaz rock, (11) Quartz rock, (12) Primitive flinty slate, is Primitive gypsum, (14) White stone. Cxass 2. Transition rocks.—(1) Transition limestone, (2) Transition trap, (3) Grey- wacke, (4) Transition flinty slate, (5) Transition gypsum. a Cuass 3. Floetz or Secondary rua hy —(1) Old Red sandstone or first sandstone forten? 2 ral tion, (2) First or oldest Floetz limestone, (3) First or oldest Floetz Gypsum, (4) Second or Variegated sandstone, (5) Second Floetz gypsum, (6) Second Floetz (10) Floetz Trap formation, (11) Independent Coal formation, (12) Newest Floetz Trap formation. ee: Crass 4. Alluvial rocks.—(1) Peat, (2) Sand and gravel, (3) Loam, (4) Bog iron Ore, (5) Nagel fluh, (6) Cale tuff, (7) Cale sinter. It is singular to notice how persistently this original errorof placing the ‘‘ Coal formation ” high up in the “Secondary ” was perpetuated by later geologists. So, too, the position of the “ Rock Salt formation,” ~ which was in the Mesozoic in England, was erroneously regarded, when © 7 1 Vol. 6, pp. 411-428. *The article is entitled ‘‘Observations on the geology of the United States, explanatory of a geological map, by William Maclure, read January 20,1809.” For students of early maps, it is well to remember this map of Maclure’s in the Tranasctions. As 3 Op. cit., pp. 411, 412, 4Tbid., p. 412. 29 ‘ i . eh 8 Ss gO. : ‘ . gyre ty “i, : ¢ » te Sone ee ~ m," * - ~~ Ts — WILLIAMs.] MACLURE, CORNELIUS, DRAKE. 23 discovered in New York and other places, as a central one in the “FF loetz rocks.” The position of the “Independent Coal formation” is defined by Maclure as extending “from the head waters of the Ohio, with some interruption, all the way to the waters of the Tombigbee.”! _ This “Coal formation,” as mentioned above, is placed in the upper part of the “ Floetz,” and is said to lie on “immense beds of Secondary limestone, intercepted in some places by extensive tracts of sandstone and other Secondary argregates.” Maclure was familiar with the theoretical classification of Werner, and it is instructive to us, seeking a universal classification for the rock formations of the earth, to observe that the first geologist of America, in 1809, found the formations of America “ the most correct elucidation of the general exactitude” of this German system. Perhaps American geologists are not at present in danger of imitating any foreign system with such reverence, but the attempt to harmonize or coordinate the classifications across the ocean leads to the same imperfect science, unless strict and even severe adherence to the facts be insisted upon. In 1818 Elias Cornelius, in a paper on the geology, mineralogy, ete., of parts of Tennessee, Virginia, and Alabama and Mississippi Terri- tories, defined two limestones which he distinguished as the “inclined strata” and the “ horizontal strata,” reminding us here of the Werne- - rian ‘ Floetz” formation. His “inclined strata” were observed along the route of his travels over the Blue Ridge and the Cumberland Moun- tains, and all of the five ranges of the Alleghany Mountains. They were usually called gray limestones, sometimes reddish, as at Knox- ville. The second, or “ horizontal strata,” of bluish color, he observed from the Cumberland Mountains for 200 miles southwestward. The editor explains in a note that the “highly inclined limestone” is the Transition of Werner; the “flat strata” belong to the Secondary. John Grammar, jr., gave an account of coal mines in the vicinity of Richmond, in Chesterfield County, and noticed that the coal rests upon granite, isinclined 45° to the horizon, and has a thickness from 25 to 50 feet, thinning out southward; but he did not describe its geological horizon.” In an article by John H. Kain, we find a reference to coal worked at Knoxville, Tennessee. Daniel Drake published “A geological account of the valley of the Ohio.” ? This isin a letter to Joseph Correa de Serra, and it presents his views in regard to the surface rocks and conditions, and some of the basement rocks are also referred to in the article, but the nomenclature for these is entirely Wernerian, as “ Floetz,” “Secondary,” ‘ Geest,” ete. 1 Trans. Am. Phil. Soc., vol. 6, p. 425. 2 This is the first notice we see of the Mesozole coal formations of this region. * Trans. of the Am. Phil. Soe., vol. 2, new series, pp. 124-139, _in the preface, page vi: “ With respect to the theoretical part, as 1 porated by the State of Connecticut and jrovieealie is , ) Haven, and the first meeting was held in the philosophical Yale College, New Haven. The Geological Society continued in existence for wheres year gradually came to an end.’ 8, fe It is evident from the honor bestowed upon William Maclure t the first quarter of the century he was regarded as the most ) American geologist. In 1819, when the American Geological Se was started in New Haven, he was elected its first givers 4 note at the foot of page 360, volume I1, of the Silliman Journal, \ a donation from him to the ‘Anmoridast Geological Boclety 1 is refer has signaled most of the interesting loodlitien of minerals in B and America.” ae When we remember how few of the present facilities for tra communication with foreign lands were existent in 1820, when thi written, some idea can be formed of the great influence such a must have exerted over the opinions of American geologists. __ : W. B. Stilson, in a sketch of the geology and mineralogy of a pa the State of Indiana, briefly described the geological formations of the State, and referred them to the “ secondary rocks.” This was a co rect correlation following Maclure’s classification ; the mariorer st ate fore noted, was in the standard seale. In 1820 Prof. Amos Eaton published *‘An Index to the Geology of the Northern States.”* The observations recorded in his book re almost entirely the result of his own personal experience. He 1 I have given in to any theory it is to that of Werner, with 1 provements of Cuvier and Bakewell.” which he grouped into five classes. These were as follows; Strata. 1. Granite. f 2. Gneiss. 3. Hornblende rock. 4. Mica slate. 5. Talcose rock. 6. Granular limestone. I. Primitive class .......... 1 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 2, page 139. E ; ras 2 Prof. Dana informs me by letter, October 30, 1888, that by consultation of the records of thes in Yale College library he ascertained that the last meeting of the society was held in 1826, : last member, E. Leffingwell, died in New Haven during the year 1888. Isaac Lea was a men the society, and when he died there was but one member of the society still living. Inthe early nu bers of the American Journal of Science frequent references are aay to the reception of books 2 specimens by the society. oe * Second edition, 286 pages, 12mo, Troy, New York. ey, , ; . ~ na S “BRONGNTART, 1 NUTTALL. 25 ys Argillite. 8. Metalliferous limestone. 9. Graywacke. 10. Red Sandstone (including ions of ‘ Catskill Mountains, Oswego River, Niagara River, and Connecticut River”). Hf a Breccia. = 12. Compact limestone. 13. Gypsum (Manlius, Onondaga, Madison, etc.). 14. Secondary sandstone. 15. Basalt. 16. Greenstone trap. 17. Geest. . 18, Alluvion. D ieiabeuit: class ..-. ATiovial einas......-- sae M er ihe Arkansas, 500 ales from its mouth, ‘equal to the best Ee coal ;” this by L. Bringier. 1 Am. Jour. Sei. vol. 3, p. 226. ss 8 Jour.of the Acad. of Sci. of Philadelphia, 1821, vol. 2, pp. 14-65. ee Te eR IE a een 26 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. kill coal mines in the neighborhood of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, which were then being worked to the extent of 1,500 tons annually sent to market. In 1823! Ami Borré discussed “ European Geology, with rerharka on the prevailing geological arrangements.” The nomenclature is mainly — zc Wernerian; such terms as “ Encrinal limestone,” “Old Red sand- stone,” and “Coal Formation” are associated with “ Grauwacke,” “ Ploetz,” and “ Red Ground,” and in the next volume,’ Conybeare and Phillips’s Geology is reviewed.” In the review the supposition is made that our salt and gypsum beds may belong to the “original marl” of the authors, and doubt is expressed as to the Connecticut Old Red sandstone being really the equivalent of the “ red marl.” 4 The “Rhode Island anthracite” is referred to “transition slates,” graywacke slate.® It is distinctly stated * that in this country no distinction had theretofore been made between “ rothe todte liegende ” and the English * Old Red sandstone,” and the argument is set forth — , that since the red sandstone in Connecticut lies below the coal measures | therefore the “‘rothe todte” is not uniformly above the coal, as if is claimed to be by the authors, the Connecticut sandstone having been recognized by its fossils as equivalent to the ‘‘ rothe todte.” Again, in this same year, Prof. Edward Hitcheock gave a considerable ~ account of ‘‘the Geology, Mineralogy, and Scenery of the Connecticut River.” He recognized the sandstone along the Connecticut River as unmistakably the “ Old Red sandstone” of the English authors.’ Also, he referred to the occurrence of the ‘‘ coal formations ” along the river, at Chatham, at’ Middletown, and at Berlin. * The occurrence of fish in these coal beds at Westfield and Sunderland is mentioned on page 76, where one of them is referred to the genus Palethrissum. In the next volume ® the “ Rhode Island coal formation” is said to be older than that of Connecticut, and the supposition is made that they are both “transition.” Hitchcock in his classification evidently fol- lowed Conybeare and Phillips’s Geology, and from a foot-note” itis evident that he regarded the red sandstone to be the same with the * rothe todte liegende,” ‘‘ which,” he says, ‘‘ lies immediately below the bituminous marl formation of Germany, and below the coal formation in England.” He quoted Conybeare as considering them distinct, and ventured the supposition that the ‘‘ red sandstones of the Connecticut — Valley” are not ‘*Old Red” but “rothe todte,” although he still con- sidered the sandstones west of the Connecticut River as true Old Red sandstone. This confusion in regard to the determination of our red sands was not altogether due to faulty stratigraphic observation on the certs of 1Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 6, pp. 188-192. ®Tbid., p. 230. *Tbid., vol. 7, pp. 203-240. 7Ibid., vol. 6, p. 39. ’ This was published in 1882. 8 See ibid., pp. 41, 44, *Red marl of Conybeare and Phillips is in the 9 Tbid., vol. 7, p. 28. Triassic. 10Tbid., p. 27. 5 Am. Jour. Sci. vol. 7, p. 224. ~ A i. . x3 aan G1.) ¢ Bae. ree _—_—— a 2 aera AE | TN eee FLek toner Ba Se eRe ys - —— ; " ~< < . a 24 : . conf ai ion in oes identification of them with the ar covanleenantoert the English books. The English geologists elves 3 were not yet united in distinguishing the red sandstones in country, and here, too, the trouble was more due to an attempt ng them with the red sandstones of the European Triassic e to understand their difference in England. It was not dera rably later that our geologists clearly distinguished and their proper geological horizon the Triassic sandstones of the u mT it “Valley and southward along the Atlantic border, and the al I aleozoic red sandstones now known as Potsdam, Medina, and red sandstones. sar 1824 is noticeable in the progress of se rictiokt Geology by i. b lication of Amos Eaton’s work on the Erie Canal rocks. ! | : ’ Beiaboce His ves system in naming iooks is recognized 2 new names which he proposes in his classification. These are e pattern of “the metalliferous lime rock,” that is, the Latin nation meaning * to bear,” added to the name of the mineral, and ed to the rock. Such terms are “saliferous rock,” forcdeaida * “ geodiferous slate,” ‘lime rock,” etc. A few of these terms are res sie in our nomenclature, but where they are used they are Wate o of the science on the eastern continent, unless it is where ts sand discoveries ‘ne siege ae demand such a course.” This is deed Agricultural Survey of the District adjoining the Erie Canal, by Amos Eaton, a) a plate, Ponneny New York, taken under the direction of the Hon. Stephen Van Rens- 28 THE DEVONIAN AND - CARBONIFER US. i ULL. 80. Eaton’s article is entitled c Ought American geologists t t 0 | changes in the science proposed by Phillips and Conybea protests against accepting such a radical change in classifi Phillips and Conybeare propose, which is yeeewsic sf a Rise and characterizing each individual geological pba thus an directly in the steps of William Smith and Cuvier. aT: re ' In 1824, in pea 1 of the second series OF Treneaagee of be Fer lent to the Old Red of Werner, underlying alee cues aa ee S of St. Mary, and limestones at St. Joseph, and on Drummond Islat with Orthoceratites, Millipore, Madreporz, Encrini, shells,” et of the fossils are described and figured; they are all referred Secondary.” Vote a ae 32 THE “DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROU oS. ee tion of Amos Eaton, viz, the covering “of the western 6 co yu back and upper parts of New York with Secondary oe found them, by their fossils, to belong to the Transition, and ré re “The analogy or identity of rocks I determine by their fossils 5 ae th first instance and by their position and mineralogical characters it h second or last instance.” He mentioned instances of such deterr tions in regard to certain rocks of Ohio, ——s eats Baki principle underlying the oats school of ona careelaiiel niiele after took the place of the Wernerian school. . sig Si To show how the errors of the system of Werner led to eal identity, it may be noticed that Eaton’s determination of the rot western New York, ete., as belonging to the “ secondary rocks? ’ of classification, appears to be influenced by the term ‘ floetz 2 ‘of Wernerian nomenclature, which applied to these rocks. ea | ; In 1830 James O. Morse published an article! in which is an illustr: a tion of the arguments used for defending the Wernerian system. ‘The author referred to the doubt which had been expressed as to the iden. x : tification of certain rocks with the Greywacke, and argued as follows ee Prof. Jameson describes Greywacke as composed of sand connected together by basis of clay slate, and minute inspection of the rock of these regions will convi \ any one that our Greywacke has these component parts. > 2 Prof. Amos Eaton made some * Observations on the coal formations sett in the State of New York in connection with the great coal beds a of Pennsylvania.”2 In this article he recognized four distinct coal forma. z tions in the United States: First, “the genuine Anthracite or Glan coal,” in the Transition Argillite, Newport, Rhode Island, and Wort true anthracite, but what he calls ““Anasphaltic coal,” occurring in. rock, lowest of the second series, which he identifies with the gre: Coal Measures of Europe, Pennsylvania, Carbondale, Lehigh, waxan, and Wilkes Barre; third, the “ bituminous coal” proper, rock of the lowest of the upper a ohaare rocks, Tioga, Lycomit Pennsylvania; fourth, * Lignite coal,” as seen at the south shore Bay of Riutos: in New Jersey. The first or “Anthracite coals’ represented by slates which he traced from Canada to Orange C our New York, but the coal never occurs in seams thicker than an i The third, “ bituminous coal,” Eaton traced from Pengey ran Seneca and Cayuga Lakes, and the coal seams, he said, were not _ 2 inches in thickness. Itis said to “rest on what the English call C boniferous limestone.” This “ Carboniferous limestone” is pe Tully repecion, and the “ Coal Measures” above are the Genesee s pp- 84, 85. *Trans, of the Albany Institute, vol. 1., pp. 126-130. dent at was Peisvoacd ie halaetivse: He belioved-thar r paper, 6 miles east of Lockport, which at the surface was hig her than the surface of Lake Ontario, would reveal the Coal ut 600 feet below the surface, and he was so confident that he us ested that legislative aid be furnished for boring down to this And again he says :' “And it may be stated that if coal is not fou | beneath the Saliferous rock, which is more than 200 miles in ex- 1 bit. 9 ill be truly a geological curiosity which has no parallel on the n continent ; but we find many deviations in America from the leah mazims which seem to = 3 SAN in Europe.” 5 le ie ritmate outgrowth of the imperfection of the Warucriae SYyS- em. ee position that Saliferous rocks pg a particular hse ay the German Sehivol in ‘this, gna it was not due to the ignorance uneducated that attempts were made to find coal in New York for years after this, but it was due to the ignorance of the best gists s of the time as to the right means of correlating rock equiva- OSs the Atlantic. ; of Pixos Bea aricsra: viz: ke Carboniferous, Cgacapenh and apeeagll He referred to Bakewell’s classification, and this idea i is 1 Se ecionlarizes i in the article referred to, saying that he snide ow that “the Lehigh or Lackawannock coal * * * isembraced Second Grauwacke, Secondary, and that the Tioga coal is em- in the Third Grauwacke or Upper Secondary of Bakewell and g) Bs and in this latter position, the Third Grauwacke, he mentions longing to the “ thin layers of coal at Ithaca, on Seneca Lake, and Erie shores.” | ees of Faton’s in identifying the rocks of Ithaca, Cayuga Lake, ~< ° Erie Canal, 10 miles west of the Onondaga Salt Works. 34 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFERC 5 points of which may be worth EN in Be ee te ae I stood in England at this time. The rocks from the top doy n is called ‘the lowest fossiliferous” are divided into nine gro together are called “the superior stratified or fossiliferous These divisions are as follows: 1. Alluvial Group. 6. Red Sandstone. 2. Diluvial Group. 7. Carboniferous. 3. Lowest Great Mammiferous. 8. Grauwacke. 3 4. Cretaceous. 9. Lowest Fossiliferous, — 5. Oolitic. , sion, the Grauwacke. -- Eaton identified the second coal with the formations below t erous,” and the third coal, he stated, is the same with the out Ithaca and on Cayuga Lake.’ 2a poe This opinion was controverted by David Thomas, who datent : ticle, Greatfield, Cayuga County, New York, 1830.2 He pointed o Ot fact that the rocks on Cayuga Lake dip slightly to the south, whic would bring them below the Tioga coal, and he modestly differed from the distinguished geologist, Prof. Eaton, and suggested that these 1 on Cayuga Lake must belong to different strata, below the coal i of Tioga, Pennsylvania. for wu) Granular limerock with no organic remains; (2) iad ous, mountain, or Carboniferous limerock,” whith he recogni 4 fossils in the rocks from Glens and Trenton Falls, Bethlehem, ¢ Oa Esopus Strand, and Rondout. ‘ (3) The Oolitic series of ¢: rocks, the ‘coral rag,’” recognized on the south shore of Lal and 23 miles southwest of Albany. ‘(4) Tertiary marls,” rec in New Jersey as “ London clay,” and ‘shell marl” in the ‘are K iS wk This aptiaio’ is dated October 2, 1831; the identifications, : as it’ seen, are mainly utterly wrong, alana the attempt shows how principle of correlation by means of fossils was being forced into ne at and adopted by even the extreme disciples of Werner. rie Hs: In the same year and volume® Eaton published another article e 1 De la Béche, Henry. Sketch of a classification of the European rocks. Am, Jour. Sci, ve 1830, pp. 26-39. ce ? Albany Institute, Transactions, vol.1; also Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 19, pp. 21-26. - § Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 19, p. 326. 4Tbid., pp. 21-26. i te ‘ °“On the four cardinal points in Stratigraphic Geology, established by organic remains. sd Jour. Sci., vol. 21, pp. 199-200. § Ibid., pp. 182-138 x ty a ‘ehioh are ays to Tulaplass of both continents, with some of organic associations in North America.” In the list eighty species amed. The names were taken, of Mollusca, chiefly, from Sowerby, of ‘sate from Goldfuss, of Crustacea, from sion gniart. It is an at- rt lea the retin ose in America, Pi the Bake- x | In an article in the American Journal of Science, Prof. Silliman, the i e od: litor, reviewed ‘* Phillips’s Geology of Yorkshire,” which had been peti lish hed i in 1829. In the course of his remarks we find the following state- z “me ant: “ Werner and Smith are, therefore, the leaders of the modern - school of geology,” and “Smith has the great merit of establishing the ts that different strata contain different fossils, but that the same 8 Gita over a very large extent of country contains generally the same 4 fossils, hence he deduces the important conclusion that strata may be ee nated and indentified by their organic contents.”! _ Edward Hitchcock reported? on the “ Geology of Massachusetts,” eve ich he had examined under the direction of the government of that ‘Ste , during the years 183031. Part first, or economical geology, was eal in the J ournal, and in a foot-note the editor said that “ this is lis : az: seas = ecu in Connecticut and Massachusetts is reconsidered, and =a _proanl is regarded as in older rocks than that of Bheds Island, and — the Pennsylvania anthracite is reported as occurring in the higher eds of the Grauwacke, and as belonging to a newer horizon than that of the Rhode Island coal. ae ore Featherstonhaugh‘ did little more in the way of classification a = in theoretically to adapt the system of Conybeare to America. The | tat ible of formations is as follows: (details only of the parts pertaining y the present discussion are here given): Feet Dio WM on oldu acsdae oh ey guguma ede | 16. Variegated or red marl .....-.-.... 500 3 Weis, PORE OIE ee is Boise Cr denc se 300 ( Supermedial order. . 14. New Red sandstone .-..........-... 300 | a ) 13. mania yee Shier aes tad: 500 ap (12. Exeter red conglomerate......-.... 500 ondary. | Se; 11. Coal beds Eis ra gh ah 1, 000 , . 10. Millstone grit and shales........-.. 800 ; \ Medial order ...--.- 9. Carboniferous limestone ...-..-.--. 850 8. Old Red sandstone ..........-...- 1,500 ae Tam. Jour. Sci., vol. 22, pp. 4, 11-12, veto ww 36 See yt DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFERO OU 2 : : id f 7. Greywacke......-.-....-. Transition ...-Submedial order. --. } 6. Transition sandstone ...-.....--. * In 1833 Eaton gave reasons for referring the Pennsylvania ‘coal beds | _to the Secondary Coal Measures of Europe.' In this article reference | re is made to coal plants collected by Mr. James Hall, then adjunct pro- | fessor in Rensselaer Institute. Eaton defended his reference of the « al beds of Pennsylvania to the ‘‘ Secondary,” and mentioned his ae cation of twenty-three species of the specimens of ferns collected by Hall with species described by Brongniart rom the great Secnnaeet =x _ coal formation. J. B. Gibson, in 1833, recognized in Pennsylvania, New York, Upper Canada, Ohio, and ivictaoay: twosuperior formations: the New Red sand- stone, associated with which he reports Magnesian limestone, gypsum, and — rocksalt; resting on this is a calcareous formation, forming the cataracts of Niagara, Onondaga, and Genesee.’ Of the limestone along the hs, de River he said : It corresponds in all material respects to the Lias of the English geologat and corroborates the German doctrine of universal formations.% ais a And more of the same kind. Bituminous coal in Alabama was reported by Alexander Ipamee in % 1834, and a section was run across the country from Baltimore to thes ' Ohio River by William E. A. Aiken.‘ 54 In 1834~35 the Transactions of the Geological Society of Penudvive Bs nia, vols. 1,2, were published. | y Richard C. Pavia had several papers in these transactions in regard to the geological position of the coal deposits of Pennsylvania and — Richmond, Virginia.2 He recognized in the plants from Lewistown, — Mifflin County, Pennsylvania, “marine plants of the family Fucoids, from the Grauwacke group, and the Old Red sandstone.”*® In one arti oa cle Taylor shows that coal is not to be expected to the northward, as the dip of the rocks is southward. In Pl. 8, Fig. 5, the true relation — of the beds from Blossburg northward to the Dieu River is given, i and from observations made upon the dip of the rocks, decreasing | north- aa ward, he estimated that the rocks at the Chemung River, “Chimney ‘i Maecuws,” would be 6,275 feet below the summit of the hills of the “a Tioga Basin. These beds below the Blossburg coal basin are called — . “Old Red sandstone,” and he regarded them as 6,000 or 7,000 feet a thick.’ Bret 1The coal beds of Pennsylvania i hr i to the great Secngery, Coal Measures of ond . Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 23, p. 399. 2 This is the Niagara limestone. ; | ie 3 kg 3 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 23, p. 203. ’ byes 4 Aiken, Dr. William E. A.: ‘‘Some notices of the geology of the country between Baltimore and ee, Ohio River, with a section illustrating the superposition of the rocks.” Am. Jour. Sci., 1st ser., vol. 26, Ey : 1834, pp. 219-232. 4 5 Vol. 1, pp. 5-15. = ®Pp. 204-223: ‘‘On the mineral basin of the coal field of Blossburg, on the Tioga River, County, Pennsylvania,” fees 7P. 208. . ae es - Reap ed a TROOST. i . 1 fhichd l, Virginia,” and gave a full account of ‘these interest- beds of Seal, ” which he regarded as “probably of Transition age” her t than. Secondary, to which position Mr. Maclure referred them. that time, apparently, the fossils had not been studied, ignorance d to which left the geologists in the dark as to the true position | Mesozoic deposits. account is given’ of studies of sections for 250 miles across Vir- and “Maryland. | In the discussion the Primitive, Transition, Old and ‘Secondary rocks are recognized, and the Fredericksburg om eds were referred * to the “ Oolitic” ts tere el sie of the anticline were seen other coal beds, which Mr. Taylor ed ‘Transition. A cut is given‘ presenting the true relations of = si nein a ages deposits, but the Blossburg coal is re- ttcutitains, in which he sevgetitas the coal formations as 1g to the “‘ Coal Measures.” ‘d Troost, § ina paper on certain Pentremites found in Tennessee, ay }, and Kentucky, identified the rocks of Perry County, Tennes- pig stratum below the Coal Measures,” regarded by him as “in 0 tind ‘Trilobites, Calceola sandalina, Calamopora, Terebratula, Spirifera, “poy ete. oh ng lish. ”~ The aodeluaton is that the beds containing the Pentre- mite of “ale Southern States characterize “the Upper Transition » same author’ wrote “On the organic remains which character- the » Transition series of the Valley of the Mississippi.” In this arti- he included “ Mountain limestone” in the “ Transition strata,” be- p. 177-193: ‘‘On the relative position of the Transition and Secondary coal formations in nis and description of some Transition coal, or bituminous, anthracite, and iron- ore beds FO RY eS SEO ALN a NS a ee ie ep ; rn * ree es Sy Nae fou ‘ q \ ; ee se » we d ” ay ried Nee | a -" _ 38 “ THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROU hy } cause, as he says, “ the fossils of the Carboniferous limestone are th se found in the Grauwacke of Europe, while his Grauwacke is without fossils except in the upper strata.” The ‘‘ Carboniferous limestone ae i oe considered distinct from the ‘‘ Coal Measures.” = In 1836 8. P. Hildreth recognized in the State of Ohio, using ‘shee oe J nomenclature of De la Béche, the “ Tertiary, Super-Cretaceous, New — . Red sandstone, Red marl, White Lias limestone, Millstone grit or Breccia, Bituminous coal, Old Red sandstone.” The “Pittsburg coal — ef strata” and the “ Carboniferous limestone” are described. An “ex- | tensive spring of petroleum” is mentioned. A large number of fossils are figured, thirty plates of which are published with names and short _ descriptions.! In 1836 Featherstonhaugh 2 compared the deposits of anthracite cal and bituminous coal, and stated that the former belongs to an entirely distinct geological position from that of the latter. The “ anthracite,” with the exception of Broad Top in Bedford County, Pennsylvania, is ‘‘ without exception deposited low down among what have been called se 4 the Grauwacke rocks.” And he thinks they will prove “ the equiva sae lent of Mr. Murchison’s Silurian rocks.” ? In 1837, George E. Hayes‘ gave his reasons for differing from those — who oanidinnad the rocks of western New York as of Secondary aig He regarded them as “ older than the Carboniferous ” and of Transition age.” In 1838 Charles T. Jackson, speaking of the Coal esau of bane field, Massachusetts, refers them to the ‘‘ Conglomerate or Grauwacke.”® This brings us up to the time of the Geological Survey in New York, and the work of the Rogers in the Pennsylvania and Virginia rocks, and. the clearing up of the classifications, due in great-measure, for the lower rocks, to the publications of Murchison and Sedgwick in England, which had then reached America. It is interesting to notice that so long as” the Transition and Grauwacke rocks were classified in accordance with | ne the Wernerian system, nothing satisfactory was reached. a 5 Measures, the Saliferous rocks, the Grauwacke, the Old Red sandstone, _ 4am and the Carboniferous limestones, when attempts were made to identify ; them in this country, were placed in the positions to which they were Ree assigned by the Wernerian school; position being determined not by 2 study of their stratigraphy alone, but by the primary identification of the rock from its mineralogical characteristics, which were supposed to be recognized, and then by an arbitrary reference of it toa position ine ae the system corresponding to that found in the European series, en Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 29, pp. 1-154. ? Report of a geological ‘reconnoissance made in 1835, from the seat of Government by the ede of Green Bay and the Wisconsin Territory to the Coteau de Prairie. 3Op. cit., p. 113. 4 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 31, pp. 241-247. 5Tbid., vol. 34, p. 395. fp ss Sushil Sine ° ’ fe aA * ue ¥ cay tg aS P & -. ROOM Te ela * eg hae ers f Pt mie 3 FIRST NEW YORK SURVEY. 39 itarefal Sfatigtaphic observations. Following the methods y Marehison anit eee although taking the data from the Raktons. And nitisantity the “ New York system,” as it was rd called (the name was proposed as a temporary name for nee), became the standard section for American Paleozoic this New York system of rocks is for the Paleozoic one of the fect and satisfactory geologic sections found anywhere in the d may well stand as a classic section for the interpretation of which had been called Transition in the older nomenclature. n 1837, the first annual report of the Geological Survey of New York pu lished. In this report, T. A. Conrad, who had previously stud- paleontology of cies deposits along the coast, and was rec- ‘York. In classification, tan nomenclature of Eaton mainly d. We notice! that in the main the strata he studied were a as belonging to “the Silurian or Lower Transition rocks. ill be seen that the Murchisonian classification had already America. ik Pace report special attention is called to the importance of in the fossils carefully studied by a man specially appointed for that hid State paleontologist. The next year Conrad was appointed ’ ) 0 its which will shew the aga that had bets made deehnt g exe concluded that — the exception of the upper part of ae «< Oalciferous slate” of Eaton, containing the gypsum, was el ea with the “ dye earth” of Shropshire.° i r he “ Saliferous sand rock” of Eaton, was the Red sandstone at ra é and Genesee Rivers (now the Medina sandstone.‘) 10p. cit., p. 184. 4Tbid., p. 111. 2 Op. cit., pp. 109, 110. 5 Tbid., p- 112. 3Tbid., p. 110. ; ®Tpid., p. 113. * oe Perel 52 oe Wake Oe Mbt ost ces | -.. Sine Lp se tee FS ee AO. ‘THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIF RO (5) Olive sandstone and slate of Salmon Ravana werent unt) two, 4 and 5 were recognized as equivalna. of te ‘the oe Sita. article Geology, p. 568. (6) The black limestone and shale of Trenton, the «« Birdeeye im stone,” and “ calciferous sand rock” of Eaton, and the eranwnele re an flags ” of Murchison.! In this report, also, thirteen species of fossils are described from th first group above, which he regarded as equivalent to the are The localities given are Norwich, Cazenovia, Madison, and burne. Since all these localities are Hewes localities, anit thet are Devonian fossils, it is evident that in 1838, the paleontologist rad regarded these Devonian rocks as equivalent to the Ludlow g , of the Upper Silurian of Murchison. a ae ms Lardner Vanuxem reported for the third district? and appears to low Eaton’s nomenclature, except in a few new names, like “1 limestone,” which had already been published. Fossils are given fo Ae “Trenton limestone, black shale,” “ green shale and sandstone,” upp ngs limestone,” “ white sandstone” (which can be recognized as the Or kany). The species in this report were evidently ties Conrad. James Hall reported for the fourth district. This, it will be remem- bered, includes the rocks of the State from Cayuga Lake westward. if These rocks were regarded as equivalents of the Old Red eerie and Carboniferous groups, and stratigraphically above the Silurian s Sys- tem of Murchison.‘ Some erroneous identifications, however, are evi- | dent; what is now the Medina sandstone was called in this report “Olds Red sanaacnnes and the Corniferous limestone was identified as § “Car ( boniferous or Mountain limestone.”> Bias W. W. Mather, in 1838, published the first annual fa pcill of the wn logical Survey of the State of Ohio. In his identifications he ment bl oned | first the great limestone deposit, which he correlated with the “ Mou tain or Carboniferous limestone” of Europe. He defined this as ing the western border of the State. He named a number of | from this limestone, which are evidently erroneously identified, e formation is Silurian, and not Carboniferous, as he supposed. His” third formation he ati ‘“‘ Waverly sandstone series,” Other poi of ig correlation were made, as CON er a 6 also an ‘ a I 7 fuze mt > y on , . __ neal >be the formations called “ Carboniferous limestone” i in “America were | correctly identified. ie The second annual report of the Geological Survey of Ohio w 1N. Y. Geol. Sury., 2d Rep., p. 114. 21bid., p. 116. ®Ibid., pp. 253-286. 4Tbid., p. 291. 5 See ‘‘map along the Genessee River from PAdantcs southward.” arias, The ditector of the work, and editor-in-chief, was 1 Mather. The volume contains reports by Mather,! C. Whit- 2 J. W. Foster, ©. Briggs, jr.,4 and J. Locke.® he geological parts of this report we have general descriptions re, rions surveyed and some location of the order of the strata, oes in a ‘¢ 4 menclature adopted by the New York Survey was being formed. Both es systems have struggled for existence in some parts of the country. . — The system of Rogers was one based Strictly upon the nature of the ie a rocks and their stratigraphic Sequence, and in so far is satisfactory for yg that particular region; but the New York System was defined in addi- tion by the fossil contents of the various formations, and an attempt was made at the very start to correlate them with the several forma- tions defined by the European geologists. Peas ar Poe Whether we adopt local geographical names or not, it is doubtfal if Simple numbers, as proposed in the Pennsylvania system ot Rogers, will ever be satisfactory except for a limited region. | ae In this same year, 1838, we have a report upon the Upper Thine S, ey by C. U. Shepard.?, The name “ Magnesian limestone” is applied to Pp ay ire * ty nl were misunderstood by him on account of the misinterpretation of fossils; for instance, the “limestones” were regarded as the gs . iS "See Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 34, pp. 189, 190. ee 2 Tbid., pp. 134-161. *Tbid., vol. 33, pp. 121-123, — IN sive aera, MURCHISON. 43 Ture ig SA ae rank with the Mountain limestone of ae oli and rest on he: loam “Trilobite rocks” for what had previously ane ‘Transition or the Silurian system. In this paper he stated La ophomena is the most characteristic of the Trilobite system ;” ne aaa has as yet been found only in the upper term,” or ( vin limestone where Strophomena is rare,” and that this 4 “ Ee inently characteristic of the Carboniferous system.” This icates a careful observation of fossils, although the identifications bro uder than customary at the present time. 188 39, Whittlesey, Ch., recognized the following classification of ks of Ohio: oe an” al . Coal Measures. ns Conglomerate. averly series. lack shale, Hamilton and Marcellus). limestone (including Corniferous and Onondaga). Tamilton and Marcellus shales ” extended from the lake to the he Newburg section. ‘Chemung and Portage” included the he and Bedford and hi to about half way to Hudson. bio , 4 = Silurian system.$ ew Red system. Upper Silurian rocks,9 arboniferous system. Lower Silurian rocks.? we “om: Red system.’ ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee Oe ee ee) us Conglomerate (Magnesian limestone) ...-.... Mee eG Gandstone .. .... 2-222 22. cone - ne cetn ee J Jour. Sci., vol. 33, page 123. d., vol. 35, Pp: 237-251. gia‘of the coal fields and overising iccaiine: By Roderick Impey Murchison, E F. R. a etc. n two parts. London, 1839. Quarto, 768 pp., 37 plates, and large folding map. o. BSP. 13. 5 Pp, 27. 6 P. 79. 7P. 169. 8 P. 195. 9 P. 265, Po Oa re ee ie mad on ee hy “eX J on aw Wh -— Pay hehe we par 5. NA aa r Mies Phe ite: Fy ELS THE ‘DEVONIAN ‘AND canto g. Upper Coal and Fresh-water tisk tt AS ae a g. Lower Coal Measures .--.-. ---------- ---+-+---++------- 4G, h. Millstone grit......------ -----------+ -----+ --+-++----- 5 | i. Carboniferous limestone -...---..-----.--------- ee k. Old Red Conglomerate -..-.------------+-+---+------ sot 1. Cornstone and marls of Old Red.........-------+------- | Cold Red « m. Tilestone of Old Red .... ---- ---2 - ----25 cn weee pone ee ones . Upper Ludlow rock.. ) ; . Aymestry and Ludlow | limestone .... ---- a . Lower Ludlow rock.. 7 , ae Ludlow .. - - Upper Silurian, ¥ rocks, Wenlock limestone... Wenlock .. - Wenlock shale. ..-.-.-- Upper Caradoc (with limestone) . ...--. Caradoc. ..: . Caradoc ee 2 a detrei ates . Llandeilo flags (and rocks. | q sant eps iia ‘ Llandeilo -- | hoes Upper Cambrian (beds of passage) ..-..---- ibe iain on Cambrian s} Slaty Cambrian rocks i... s-sccy cess hat aA A: nr a Bea 7 4 ’ , — U 4 es ; z 2 Ee ae it , fama oe Wns pak, aay Po od 3 “2h 4 r: Res A 9 Oe >> Sosa f " » re” i ful fj Nae pe ate 2 Si aes y ot M. de Verneuil! gave the following classification : ; 1. Coal Measures and Millstone grit. Carboniferous System. ..-.-.-. 2. Mountain limestone. ~ es ; 3. Lower Carboniferous shales. si 1. Upper Silurian (including Old Red sandstone : Silurian System.......-.--+- 5 ee ee Res 3. Lower Silurian. ree, , Thus evidently following Murchison, and he pointed out the error Foster of Ohio and other American geologists in identifying limeston containing Silurian fossils as ‘‘Mountain limestone.” x In the same journal, in the following year (1841), J. Ww. Foster ex. plains that the Silurian fossils came from a formation wron sly calle ed by him “ Mountain limestone.” + ia In a review of the report of the geological and agricultural surv of the State of Rhode Island, by Charles T. Jackson,’ the reviewer ge the following opinion: ‘In determining the geological age of Dr. Jackson gives a preference to superposition of strata and mineralogical composition over zoological and botanical charact } a which, however, he allows to be of great value. He _pre the Wernerian division of Transition rocks to the names Ci and Silurian proposed for certain groups in England, which | will never be regarded in this country as appropriate terms fo ) rocks.” Ex This is an indication of the prejudice which is not ‘confined td t ) geologists or to the early stages of geological science, “put troubles us at the present time. | The names ‘¢ “Cambrian” ? Verneuil, Ed. de: Sur l’importance de la limite qui sépare le caleaire montagne des formatio 1s ¢ lui sont inférieures. Soc. géol. France, Bull., 1840, vol. 2, pp. 166-179, 3 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 40, 1840, pp. 182, 183. Fat he Tiaseank shit Saeonaly watch against the aetna which tempt . them to cling to those pes: which have been, merely because they > have been. a In 1840 Conrad published a paper “On the Silurian system, with a ti parate and characteristic fossils.” ! This paper appears to be in te iiatng. on the south in the mountains or hill regions of north Als bama, rocks which represented the Silurian system. He reported : in the vicinity of Florence and Tuscumbia, Alabama, the “Oriskany me andstone.” At Blossburg, Pennsylvania, the “‘Old Red sandstone” s recognized by the presence of Holoptychius. On the western ; es of the Appalachian he found the Carboniferous system well de eveloped, with the Mountain limestone rare and generally in thin de posits. The “New Red sandstone” was recognized in very limited ar reas. No traces of the “Oolitic,” the “Lias,” or “Wealden” were o. ‘Teco ognized. The *‘‘Cretaceous” was widely distributed and the Nertiary 1 formation” was reported as occurring on the sea border. Tew York State the “Llandeilo flags” were recognized and the doc sandstone” was regarded as the equivalent of the “Trenton lin stone.” The “ Wenlock shale” was recognized in the “ Rochester shale” and the “Calciferous slate” of Eaton. The “ Wenlock lime- stone” was identified in the ‘“ Helderberg limestones,” six of them. The * Ludlow rocks” were not defined in this paper. A table is given? _ showing the characteristic fossils of each of the formations and their English equivalents as represented in Murchison’s Silurian system. This paper is particularly interesting as the first exhaustive attempt to pemeelate the formations of America with those of Murchison’s Silurian - system by means of their fossils alone. Previous attempts had been ba nade by him to correlate the New York rocks with the English rocks ee in general.’ In a notice, by O. P. Hubbard, of the third annual report on the Geol logical Survey of New York,‘ a few remarks are made which show e confusion which existed at this time regarding the classification of ‘the N lew York rocks. He shows that there was considerable difference of opinion as to the position of the rocks in central and western New rk. ‘They have been alternately described as Transition and Sec- | ond lary te “The Saliferous group” is counted as above the coal series, - oT ooo eta Le 1Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 38, pp. 86-93, Be EES ath th 7 | 2Ibid., pp. 89, 90. Raye. og - 8 See New York annual reports. Ye oi aes 4Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 39, pp. 95-108. aie, 2 Barty. r > Ss Z nS igs ; a de ie 46 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. ere. Pout, 80, and this with the “sandstone of Rochester” is regarded as wee d sandstone. The rocks of the fourth district are considered as belong- cs ing to the ‘‘ Old Red sandstone and the Carboniferous group,” and to. a lie “above the Silurian system of Mr. Murchison,” a conclusion based _ 4 in part upon the organic remains. 4 This confusion was doubtless due to the fact that the wanna % method, which, somewhat modified, was seen in the earlier works of | Eaton, was inconsistent with the new method which was being elabo- 4 rated by the New York State geologists. Those who thought in terms — 4 Prof. Eaton’s systematic work heretofore followed the English treat- q ise on geology by Bakewell. In an article which appeared in 1840! he Ry: quotes an outline of the system of Brongniart, proposed in 1829, which — he'states the author still maintained in 16S aks duet gelatine Sys- 7 tem and attempted to defend its application to American Ree it may 6 be worth while to record Brongniart’s system of classification : ’ of the first considered the new method revolutionary. 1. Primitive class (Agalysient, overthrowin® or breaking up by sae tay, A forces). . Transition class (Hemilysient, half breaking up by internal forces), . Lower Secondary class (Abyssient, deepest abyss of the ocean). © . Upper Secondary class (Pelagient, the ocean). . Tertiary class (Thalassient, the sea). - . Diluvial class (Clysmient, the deluge). ~ ae . Alluvial class (washed). “ia OO Ww It will be seen from the terms used that Brongniart considered the rocks to be formed in the Primitive class by the overthrowing or break- _ ing up processes due to internal forces; the Transition class, | half to _ this operation; the Lower Secondary alaak, to the sedimentation of the — deep abyss of the ocean; the Upper Secondary, to the ordinary danas > sition of the ocean; the Renee to the shallow seas or modern Seas 5 the Diluvial, to Spi or deluges on the land; and the seventh, Alluvial, to the washing of rivers and streams. “54 The general theory of this interpretation of the strata was propose ad earlier by Lehmann, and is associated with the general notion that the ; earth was formed from water solution—first, by a chemical crystalliza-— . tion and deposition, and later by sedimentation from the ocean, at first higher up in the hills, and, as the water evaporated, lower down in the valleys. This general theory pervades various systems of the early part of the century, and may be regarded as the fundamental theory of ‘i Werner, determining his method of classification and of correlation. are In the present article, Eaton attempted to point out the limits bee tween the various divisions of Brongniart in our own strata. He rec: . ognized the well known Stockbridge marble of Massachusetts as the upper stratum of the Primitive class. Second, he regarded the “ Cor. 1 Amos Eaton: References to North American localities to be applied in illustration of thee equiva: lency of geological deposits on the easteru and western sides of the Atlantic. Am. Jour. Sci., vol 39, p. 149, fy _, EATON, CLAPP. 47 ir her as Beetiien: to “* some pair or most of the Grauwacke of De la Béche, the Grauwacke limestones of some English the Grauwacke slate of Bakewell, and perhaps the Carbouifer- k of Conybeare, and, surely, the Upper Transition (one of the mite) rocks of Brongniart.”! ne limit between the Secondary and Tertiary, Eaton recognized along th shore of Raritan Bay, in New Jersey. He says. “ Upper- of 1 the Secondary deposits is the Cretaceous formation most per- "characterized, but it contains no white chalk; the last of the el ie nothing particnlar valuable in this article, or new, even at tt ime, but the particular importance of quoting it is to show how Vernerians were beginning to recognize the absolute importance ; ‘ils in determining the relations of deposits. ‘ae oe ‘se jal sapere’ sr 66 a of the Rico of the Ete iiiéstone” of Troost and eae of Kentucky, Indiana, llinois are identified as Carboniferous limestone. The author con- 2 the ‘limestone of the Falls of the Ohio” in its upper portion 3 identical with the Ludlow and Wenlock, the lower and middle rt =a een to the Niagara limestone and ideo: shales ne, | “omy shale, Water-lime, and Onondaga ttuidaitaed This et the total rock deposit bares see the ‘* Blue apie and Bot of fetid Pater yiiatline limestone immediately underlying the hale the author identified with the New York Water lime, and the : shale” above it he regards as not equivalent to the Ludlowville en asserted by Prof. Hall, but as lower and the true equiva- | Resa the ‘First anniversary address before ee ‘kavootnie ican Geologists in Philadelphia.”* A few points are interest- 198 oe sal ede icnlents of the vicinity of New Albany, Indiana, as causa with those described ae Pia of Saag Proc. Phil. Acad. of Sci,, vol. 11841, pp. 18, 19, 177, 178. a a Le ee ne Ye? 7!’ ate on ar ee Oth be - rm . Pe RE ST ese = aq - eg VEE ” shih tv 7 ee ome a '¥ 48 | THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIF EROU X The Association? was formed the year before at thee all men of the New York Survey, who “ issued a circular engaged in similar surveys in other States” to a meeting in P ' phia. We learn from Hitchcock’s address that the first. attel classify American geology was made by William MacClure in 1807, in the field work preparatory to this, crossed the Alleghany Mo un in ar rig In 1810, et Bruce had started the Ainerelogataas MacClure as its first president. In 1832 the Paula ea 0 Society was started. Nee In eee to this ‘eee abies in the early pars of the ce surveys had been started and more or less publication had teas ie n- plished in the way of reports or accounts of the surveys made in twenty one States and Territories. The men engaged in these State 7 \ "i were as follows: a North Carolina, Olmsted; South Carolina, Vanuxem ; Minoan hu- | setts, Hitchcock ; Tennessee, Troost; Maryland, Dueatel ; New Jersey, ~ H. D. Rogers ; ae York, Giseen Mather, cman James Hi all, Conrad, and Beck; Virginia, W. B. Rogers; Maine, Rhode Island, a a New Bras caliine, Sackedus Connecticut, Percival and Shepard ; Penn- sylvania, H. D. Rogers; Oia Mather, Hildreth, Locke, Briggs, and — Foster; Delaware, Booth; Michigan, Houghton; Tadiaihe D. D. Owen; — Kentucky, Mather (only a reconnaissance); Georgia, Cotting (no 1 port had been published up to1841); Arkansas, ete., Featherstonhau; a ~Iowa, D. D. Owen and Locke. ure Besides these, a reconnaissance had been made by Nicollet west 0 f Mississippi, aon in 1824 EKaton’s Erie Canal Survey had hai: mee de, ard in coal ann miaceal regions in Pennsylvania, Virginia, ee Mis Ss Hitchcock made slight reference to the actual state of ie in matter of correlation and classification of the geological terranes ; Y can be better learned from the study of the New York reports, for Paleozoic at least, and the other reports, which it is not neces: sary | to diseuss. ; Bs 3\: The last annual report of the New York State mos was publi is! in 1841; sufficient to say here that the Archean was fairly well re nized abt g the eastern border of the continent, and its general 'The Association of American Geologists held its first meeting in Philadelphia on the 24 0. 1840. The following were the original founders present at this meeting: E. Hitchcock, ia. H. D. Rogers, L. Vanuxem, William W. Mather, W. R. Johnson, T. A. Conrad, E. ae C. B. Trego, J. C. Booth, M. H. Boyi, R. E, Rogers, A. McKinley, C. B. Hayden, R. C.‘ Houghton, B. Hubbard. | — a x (HE I 0 +ERS ‘BROTHERS, B, SILLIMAN. 49 nda to ‘the sources of the Mississippi. The Paleozoic was rec- cl in its — ox bce the eastern part of the United HE dia ans, illinois, Beictigen; and Missouri. The Devonian was recog- nis zi ned: by:eomne of its fossils in New York State, but its: rap denne was ut 1 ast the Caradoc smiidlatone; the Wenlock shale and Hint id the Ludlow rocks, but it was not until the final reports were 1 (two or three years later) that a full classification of the bic series was accessible to American geologists. ot x aoa brothers used fossils to determine the age of the Mait- alists for the year 1842” was given by B. Silliman.! Bae have a few indications of the state of the science at that illiman had the advantage of being in England in 1805, when assions of the rival schools, the Neptunists and the Vulcanists, Ages and the Huttonians, were at their height ; Prof. J ame- ia, Prof. Playfair, and Prof. Thomas Hope defending the | of Hutton. Silliman appears to have taken a neutral position in to these schools, recognizing the — points i each. We find fons Saitichen - -Theils ke Nordamerika und seiner Gebirge, von D. oJ fohann David Schoépf.” & Of w illiam Maclure he said: See was the William Smith of this country, and not only did he add to the foreign ons of this country in mineralogy and geology, but he did great service in the on of personal field-work and interpretation of onr geology, and also in pub- his Geology of the United States with the first general map of the geology of ern part of the continent. eralogy was studied prior to the cultivation of geology in caas well as in Great Britain. The earlier geologists were mineral bs ace i Sak Colonel ae at Yale College, the Messrs. Dana, BOS ton, |, had. each accumulated more or less valuable mineral cab- 50 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROU York by Dr. A. Bruce, in 1809, which lasted a year, aun ime American Journal of Science and Arts was established in New H Silliman did not rehearse any detailed account of the state of f science at the time, but gave general statements referring to the | p with comparisons of the general results effected by the American gi - ologists with what had been done by the English and Haropean ge olo : gists. 3 ae a In 1842 T. A. Conrad published an important paper in the Jonni of the Philadelphia Academy of Science, entitled “ Observations on the Silurian and Devonian Systems of the United States, with descripti on: 1S of new organic remains.” A number of fossils were identified, ar and several points of interest are noted in this paper, indicating the nies tion of the groups as they were then recognized. The “older Paleozoic rocks” were the equivalent of the Transition of the older nomenclature. The author notes the perfection of the series of rocks in New York State, and “the great convenience they afford for study, in that tl 1ey lie nearly horizontal.” }— ea In this paper the ‘*‘ Cambrian rocks” are- included in the Silurian, and the Silurian thus includes all the rocks from the Archean cae. f to the Tully limestone inclusive. Thus it will be seen that the mits 25 ' described previous to 1842 as Silurian fossils may have been Silur iria n or Devonian to the base of the upper Devonian. — Ve A list of supposed equivalents is given,? in which we find the ie Wer Silurian strata are: ‘(10) Clinton group, (9) Niagara sandstone, ( 8) Shales of Salmon River,* (7) Blue shale, (5) Trenton limestone, (4) Mohawk limestone, (3) Birdseye limestone, (2) Calciferous limestone, * (1) Potsdam limestone.” ‘ 0 ae The “ Trenton limestone” is reported as “ forming the weil of the Ohio a River from Cincinnati to Louisville.” . - 9h The Middle Silurian strata are the “ Niagara slates which equals t he Wenlock shale, and upward to Oriskany sandstone. te ee airy The Upper Silurian rocks included the lower Ludlow and succeeding rocks upward to the Tully limestone inclusive. err oe he | In the Devonian system, Conrad placed as Lower Devonian tl h e@ Ithaca group; as Middle Devonian, the Chemung group; as des Devonian, the Old Red sandstone. The subdivision into Lower, Middle, and Upper Silurian — appears t 0) have been original with Gonitad, and he proposed the names ‘ Mohaw W k system” for the Lower, * Helderbére’ system” for the Middle, and “Onondaga system” for the Upper Silurian groups, respectively, nd stated that the systems are based upon the ‘ distinctness of the ee sil contents.” ee 1 Jour. Phil. Acad. Sci., 1842, pp. 228-235. 2 Ibid, p. 230. 3 These three are regarded as the equivalents of the Caradoc. rag 4In his list there is no No. 6, and Conrad states that 7, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 are wenn in Europe. — oe Da ot _ THE FINAL NEW YORK REPORTS. ay | were uiliebed 4 in nt. years 1842-431 i ‘The classification which appears in the several final reports was Palready outlined by Conrad in 1841, and, in fact, the general order of strata was given in his report for 1839. The Gexilapment of the classi- - fication of the rocks for New York State will bear minute study, and + will yield yaluable suggestions to students of systematic geology: pi e rocks: with which the New York geologists were concerned were ainly confined to the series from the Archean or Primary rocks thre ugh the Paleozoic as far as to the base of the Carboniferous. The "geologists, although working together, had the State separated into ; tour divisions and developed the stratigraphical geology of each dis- _ trict independently, observing the character of the individual rock for- | ae their order, and the fossils contained in each. Conrad was the paleontologist during the field operations, and his contribution to © the, work was the identification of the fossils sufficiently well to make “recognizable the relationship between the fossils of the New York _Tocks and the formations of England which had been studied so care- ie and were so elaborately defined by Murchison and Sedgwick. he fossils of the British sections had been described by John Phil- tips, J. De ©. Sowerby, and Lonsdale, and their descriptions were accessible to the American geologists as early as 1839; Conrad had used this Silurian system with its fossils as a basis for the classification | omy correlation of the rocks of New York State. The attempt was made i in 1839 to divide the New York rocks in accordance with Murchi- son and Sedgwick’s classifications, and the fossils found in them, corre- ‘sponding with those of the British rocks, were enumerated. Thus, i in the third annual report, Conrad gave a “ table of formations,” showing the order of superposition and some characteristic fossils of the Transi- tion strata. The Carboniferous strata (No. 10) were mentioned (but are in Pennsylvania), then the rocks of New York? were distributed as follows: perider the “ Old Red peeaions group (Murchison)” he placed : “9, Old Red sandstone (?) and Olive sandstone,” which, we find ‘tom study of the reports, includes the Chemung and Catal groups. tee J Dark-colored shales and black slate,” which appears to be the Ecaiiion and Marcellus. ‘Under “Medial Silurian system,” are found “ (7) Gray Brachiopodus Bs aiione Helderberg sandstones, Helderberg limestones, second Pen- -tamerus limestones; (6) Gypseous shales, Rochester shales, and Pent- _amerus limestones, (5) Green slate, Lenticular iron, etc., and (4) Niagara _ sandstone (red).” be, editors of these final reports were William W. Mather, report of the first district, published 1843; Ebenezer Emmons, report of the second district, 1842; Lardner Vanuxem, report of the third istrict, 1842, James Hall, report of the fourth district, 1843. It is important also to remember that T. AS Conrad published his final report on the paleontology of the survey in the year 1841, in the fifth al mal report. Lowe sf -Y. Geol. Survey, 3d Ann. Rep., pp. 62-63, 52 THE DEVONIAN AND ‘cARBONIFEROUS. ee Under «Lower Silurian system” he placed “ (3) ‘Salmon dened pre nd. stone (olive) and green slate, (2) gray Crinoidal limestone, Trenton lime. 4 stone and slate, Mohawk limestone, gray limestone with ayes veins, gray Calcareous sandstone.” — ‘ Under the term “ Cambrian system (Sedgwick)” he placed “ (1) olive : _ is . sandstone and slate, and varigated sandstone (Potsdam elie of Emmons),” and below all these the “ Primary.” In the next report! James Hall gave a somewhat more elaborate list 4 of formations, but distributed them substantially as was done by — Conrad. As this classification was only tem porary, I will not stop to enumerate it in detail, the final results pay oiht in the final veponta, will bé given in the proper place. ‘f But in the fifth annual Report, Conrad produced a more finished classification, and with slight modifications the order of sequence po deposits and the general relations of the groups to each other are those - which appeared in-the several final reports; but we do not find the q classification into the “ divisions of the New balan system” in ‘Dos. , rad’s reports. . ‘ ‘Tete We may mention a few points in regard to Conrad’s classification of | 18411, The following names were used: “ Tertiary,” ‘Cretaceous Sys- tem,” * Oolitic system,” ‘“* New Red sandstone or Saliferoys system,” | i iachpuiitierea system,” ‘Old Red sandstone or Devonian system,” including the Chemung and Catskill rocks. Then the “ Upper Silurian: series” included the rocks from the “ Oneonta group, No. 26,” to a “Black slate, No. 21.” The ‘* Middle Silurian series” included from the “ Onondaga limestone, No. 20,” down to the “ Rochester shale, ae 10;” the “ Lower Silurian series » included from “ Pentamerus oblon-— gus limestone, No. 9,” to the “ Potsdam sandstone, No. 1,” inclusive. — ‘- Thus we see, that to the end of his work in connection with the sur-— vey Conrad’s influence was directed toward the correlation of the American classification with that already in use in Great Britain. _ 4 After the annual reports were finished, the several geologists prepared | - their final reports. We find no evidence that Conrad assisted in their — preparation, and in these reports, from the first one published to the last, there is a general symmetry in the classifications, but a neglect _ of any formal recognition of the classifications already adopted in Murchison’s Silurian system, although the authors refer to the corre- lation of some of the New York deposits with recognized horizons in Murchison’s Silurian system. A most important feature of the com- | pleted reports is the introduction of the “New York system” ‘into geological nomenclature. The New York system was constituted to include the geological deposits from the earliest fossiliferous rocks to the base of the Carboniferous, and we find the four authors disagree- ing in their interpretation of what this system included, and as i the groups into which it was subdivided. “on x “ct “hg ’ 1 Fourth annual report, 1840. 2See Fifth Annual Report, pp. 31-46. - ~ THE ‘FINAL NEW YORK REPORTS. 538 | 5 ia Mather adopted the following plan: They had a “ Pri- stem, ” including the Archean as we consider it to-day; second, CO nic system,” including a conglomeration of strata, all supposed ns to lie below the Potsdam sandstone; third, the ““ New York which included the Champlain divin. the Ontario division, rberg division, the Erie division, and the Catskill division or Above this, according to Mather, followed the “ Coal system,” 1 Sandstone system,” the “‘Trappean system,” the “ Tertiary > and the “‘ Quaternary system,” but Vanuxem enumerates only ate. “Quaternary system,” the others being wanting in New as Ciesiating sie Champlain Ontario, Ploidestcnit; and Erie s, but placed the rocks of the Catskill Mountains in a separate calling i it the ‘“‘Old Red system.” The division line in their a nem aa made it begin with the Pentamerus limestone rried it to the top of the Helderberg limestone. All four of the jlally alike as named by the several reporters, there are fre- ferences in usage, as in the use of “ Loraine shales” by Em- the Hudson River group of the other reports, and of ‘“ Cor- limestone” by all the authors but Emmons, who uses “ He.- *g limestone.” Besides these differences we notice that deposits oned in some of the reports which are left out in others, and ports the name of the rock is given, while in others the word s attached to a geographical name, as “ Niagara limestone” ara group.” | differences which appeared in the final reports accentuate ties which the geologists met with in attempting to classify formations according to the methods then in use. The old sys- et ea Ate anees! abe me ra es Le aeee sabi rer uk . st a ow wu ra a, 54 THE DEVONIAN AND SaRpoNneeaEe | ww a 10. ‘ *,-4 * tem of correlation by means of the petrographic characters of ee ee posits was used in part by these geologists and formed the original — basis of the classification. In the field work the formations were dis- 4 tinguished by their petrographic features and were so defined. In most cases local names were applied to them; the geographic designa-_ tion of the place where the particular formation was discovered, or was found to be exposed in a good condition, was applied to the rock, and as the surveys went on the name as applied was extended to the otiare outcrops of what appeared to be the same stratum or series of strata. This was all very well so long as no correlation was attempted, but as soon as correlation of the several formations with those of other regions — was attempted the necessity of some other means of identification was apparent. This means was recognized in the fossil contents, but in the © field the fossils were not studied, and could not be studied by the field geologists. It was necessary to take them home and compare them — with other fossils from other parts of the country and world, and to de- _ scribe them, and ascertain their range and distribution. All this re- quired time and learning, which could not be attained at once by any one of the geologists. This learning was the special province of the — paleontologist, and the wide knowledge requisite to corrélate thon : various strata of the New York system accurately with those of Great Britain was, we may imagine, clearly recognized by Conrad before he — left the survey; but, as we have learned since, many years of study — have not enabled geologists to establish with certainty the correlation between the several faunas of the formations in New York and those abroad. The great desideratum at that time, and for geologists at the pihesorane time, is such a system of nomenclature and classification as shallena- — ble the field geologist at once to record his observations correctly and _ systematically, and to preserve the records of fossil contents which he A discovers for the careful detailed study of the paleontologist. The no- oe menclature adopted in many cases by the New York geologists, which — has satisfied the demands of the progress of science, at least up to the ‘ present time, is that which is based upon the simple practice of giving | a geographic name to a rock terrane, connecting it with the name of the particular rock which is exhibited at the locality in which it out- crops; for example, “Trenton limestone,” “Oriskany sandstone,” ‘Scho. harie grit,” ‘“‘ Genesee slate,” although in the latter case slate is not ap- ” propriate, because it is a false name, shale being the right name. These several terms applied to definite rock masses located in particu- lar regions in New York State, having their typical outcrops designated _ by their names, can be applied with exactness at all times, and suggest _ the progress of thescience. Whenever wrongly applied to deposits out- — side the original region where discovered, new names can be easily sub- Ny stituted. ‘ie The groupings of these separate formations, made without regard to” - _ 7 os if anan ee waa 3 THE NEW. YORK CLASSIFICATIONS, 55 the ‘ ns ; m% , x s AX ‘- he Ky ee ro are an Ay : we és Est a > Tau ~ pbx “ rE Ss ie Pete ia ee =F 5B. “THE ‘DEVONIAN AND ) CARDONIPEROUS. ee * ae be aes rs CLASSIFICATION BY EMMONS. 1812, ig [Final Report, Second District, p. 429.] ; ie aos pe “I prmoonie Byebeme. i)... weeks ct s5) cob abe New York system. Old Rediaystont /-)\. 6.6 ich ice eben ac kbire Sod Old Red sandstone, with its beds of Con . ; ‘glomerate and its greenish shales: of pe q Catskill Mountains. rg aS New Red system ween cenene veces --es--0--New Red sandstone associated with Wok 58 Tertiary ..... Sect talanurk beth cole Blue and yellowish clays of Champlain and white and yellowish sand. 1. Primary system. 2. Taconic system. 3. New York system CLASSIFICATION BY VANUXEM. 1842. [Final Report on the Third District, p.13.] Classification of rocks of New York State. 4. Quaternary system. ( Champlain division ‘Tabular view of the aren rocks of New York. 7 Ontario division........-- Gray sandstone, Medina sand- Helderberg division Erie division .......-.-.--Marcellus shale, \ Catskill group. Wasco slate, Magnesian slate, Stockbridge: limestone, Granular quartz. 1: ( Champlain group.... Potsdam sandstone, Calciferous sandroe 3 4 Chazy and Birdseye limestone, mar of Isle La Motte, Trenton limestone, ty Utica slate, Lorraine shales, Gray sand- stone, Conglomerate. ae Ontario group......- Medina sandstone, Green shales and Oclise tic iron ore, Niagara limestone, Red | shale, Onondaga salt and plaster rocking Manlius water-lime. Helderberg series ....Pentamerus limestone, Oriskany sandstone, Enecrinal — limestone, Cauda-Galli grit, grit, Helderberg limestone. Meigen asin sn | Upper and Lower Ludlow rocks including ee wd uis eh ads the Devonian system of Phillips. I ae limestone .......- rus limestone............ | relations with the SES, and Virginia rocks and those of ad Michigan are expressed as follows: pe enmayvania and Virginia Survey. Ohio Survey. Michigan Survey. (Soft light-colored ecaroen ; No.9 Waverly sandstone | sandstones, argilla- e group —s series. ceous slates and flag- esee slate ........ .......No.8 Wanting(?) ....... stones of Lake Hu- ae SPetot.- na sees ~~ WONting ...-do<0s. [ ron, sandstones of . Point aux Barques. Wanting or but par- Rca, black alumin- z - tially developed. ous shales. is Shale.....-........No. 8:. Black slate, a limestone... De ace ss 2 Baa of Cliff ri Corniferous limestone. en ee Se vastae fi bine bd cisae sates cedadededes sealed Sheer x Several limestones rep- , ee STU. Sad roe shaw wes dn resent this and lower beds. eee N° Dict acu wie ath eee Saeed a aaw wai lemaas sth ‘correction. 1€ classification of the rocks of the New York system into ‘‘system- subi livisions, founded upon the fossil and lithological characters,” application to them of geographical names suggested by the ‘where the typical sections occur have stood the test of com- for 50 years. The classification is based upon observed facts, - nomenclature is expressive of actual facts with no mixture of sroupings of these stages into “ geographical subdivisions ” is n that it expresses only accidental relations, and produces artificial groups. There*are no geological reasons for drawing of New York, part iv, comprising the survey of the fourth geological district, by James ~ ee Le Lee). Oe ee Pe ee ae, ee ee ee : . ON RG oe een A ee ee a Fe a pet ae ee CE bi ie AED NES ar Oy RR ae ‘ “ ek Se CR ee a aed 3 - 4 aa a ae we Lin > F eat 7 - 2 . ) a. 4 - bs we 7 5 ne j - sa os Se iy BOS ie 5 & a, ad ‘es ee AS. Brus eae, 60 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONTFBROUS, is es B ag the lines between the ‘‘ Champlain” and “ Ontario,” or ‘the w “Oniio® and “Helderberg divisions,” and this part of the classitication has - accordingly fallen out of use, because useless. a Like objection exists to the term “New York system.” While the a base is well marked, the rocks of Pennsylvania, to the top of the Coal- _ Measures, should as added to them to complete the system. Adding — the Carboniferous system, as expressed in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Vir- ginia, a natural group of a first order is produced which nearly cor- responds to what we call the Paleozoicera. Were we to adopt forthis grand terrane the name Appalachian group, we should have a properly constituted name for an actual, existing geologic group, free from theory, and its use would probably assist in the progress of science. This classification of the New York State survey is further defective in the retention from the old nomenclature of such definitive terms as Corniferous, Encrinal, Water-lime, etc. Intrinsically they are not dis- — tinctive of any particular stage and therefore do not fulfill the true pur- a pose of names for the stages. * ¢ A similar objection holds in the case of such names as Cauda-galli ae grit, Pentamerus limestone, and similar terms. Although the fossils indicated may characterize the formations so named in their typical _ outcrops, the fossils may fail in the geographic extension of the forma- _ tion, or further study may show that the fossils are not confined strati- graphically to the zone represented by the particular formation in question. 3 The only kind ‘of name which can be applied without objection tothe ultimate subdivisions of the terranes, is a binomial term composed of the lithologic name of the rock and the geographic name encicating its typical exposure. The use or the name “Old Red sandstone system” ‘i been dis: _ carded, and its use in 1843 indicated that the name system gave such — dignity to a terrane that it was supposed necessary to find it in every —~ complete section of rocks. It was later that geologists agreed that the © 4 Old Red sandstone. represents the Devonian system, but represents it a in a different type of deposits. A; The imperfection in the nomenclature, even at the present time, is aa seen in the fact that English geologists! still use the phrase ‘¢ Devonian — and Old Red sandstone” for the rocks between the Silurian and Car- boniferous systems. This error and confusion comes from the difficulty in ridding ourselves of the old notion that the age of rocks may bein- dicated by their lithologie or stratigraphic characters. Age can be 2 4 indicated only by something which persists through time; the litho- ee ™ mee: logic characters of rocks indicate what they were made of and hows <3 the stratigraphy indicates the vorder of sequence. The age of rocks can be indicated only by something which changes with the passage of = time according to some definite law. The organisms represented by Wee | te 11887. Geikie Text-Book: Woodward's Geology of England and Wales. i" a DEFECTS IN THE NEW YORK SURVEY. ‘ 61 lremains aime inéet these requirements. A continuous rock section pnishes us with the order of sequence of these changes, but a classi- fice tion of the rocks based upon the age of the fossils must not be _ hampered by stratigraphic or lithologic limits. The time classification can be built up only gradually by wide study of the fossils, and the R: ne ou 1enclature of the formations must be applied, and applied with pre- on, before the time limitations can possibly be fixed with precision. _ Besides these defects in the final results of the New York survey, here were two imperfections occasioned by lack of evidence, and others » to false generalization. The Devonian system was scarcely more Been recognized by its general fauna—the limits above and below were not determined. The upper limit excluded the Catskill formations which were subsequently placed in the system. An equivalency was supposed to exist in Ohio and Michigan between the Chemung and the = rocks now called Waverly belonging in the Carboniferous system. The attempts to correlate with the English models resulted in fixing the _ limit between the Wenlock and lower Ludlow of Murchison between the ~ Corniferous limestone and Marcellus shale of the New York system. The rocks above this limit were correlated with Murchison’s Ludlow ~ group and Phillips’s Devonian system. « _ The imperfection of this work was mainly due to ignorance of the 2 precise relations existing between the two faunas; and, secondly, to the fact that Phillips’s fossils were mainly middle and upper Devonian forms, while the lower Devonian species and the lower Devonian type 4 ag deposits were not well understood by the New York geologists. _ It was the comparative study of the fossils, and particularly a more a Pearetul discrimination of them and better appreciation of the range of the characters they exhibited, which finally cleared up these imperfec- 3 tions. ts Having perfected a scheme of classification, the next step of progress was the correlation of the formations cea of New York with the _ scheme. This was mainly accomplished during the decade from 1840 | to 1850. The chief discussions of the subject were published between 3 1842 and 1851. James Hall published an article in 18421 in which an attempt was _ made to correlate the rocks of the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, part of “Michigan, Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa, and Wisconsin, with the rocks ¥ Saad York State. He classified the basins of the Coal Measures into four groups, as follows: first, that of Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio; ‘a second extending over portions of Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, and ny nnessee; a third in Missouri, and a fourth in Michigan. He traced imderlying “conglomerate” from Pennsylvania to the Mississippi - River. The “Old Red sandstone” was not recognized west of the Genesee River in Allegany County, New York; the Chemung forma- s, “ion, which, he remarked, ‘‘ Lyell compares with the lower part of the my} Pe ‘ aaa oe, 1 Notes upon the Geology of the Western States, Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 42, p. 312. Bes Ser at Se ree eyo a eo. an mest Res - + « ys é ee, a te * LG ee CP ee | . 7 i, < an > > gee ee ; . SN aps ee we Be (Reg eee ae 62 - THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. Bun. 80. nak Sag r » Ae ae Ola Red i in Forfarshire, etc., Scotland, in its gray, thin, ini sand- x stones and green shales,” Hall recognized in Ohio, at Cuyahoga Falls, q Akron, etc. Healso correlated the Portage and Gardeau with rocks at — Cuyahoga Falls and Newburg in Ohio, but found them of diminished — a thickness. He said, “The Portage sandstone (known as Waverly 4 sandstone) ” is found in many places in Ohio. The thin-bedded lime- — stones which he found often Oolitic in structure, and in some places — becoming thick beds of limestone interstratified with sandstone, in — Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky, Hall found to contain fossils which | were different from those of the limestones of New York, and he thought fo them to be identical with the Carboniferous limestone of Europe, re- _ cording one of the fossils, Productus hemispherica, which was a char- | acteristic of that formation.' The conglomerates which occur above. 4 this he correlated with the Millstone grit of the British classification. This identification of the carboniferous rocks in the West, or in the: ; Mississippi Valley Basin, was not new with Hall, but had anes made — several years before by D. D. Owen, as will be showin further on. ; In 1842 Hall? read a paper before the Association of Geologists and | Naturalists, which was published the following year with a plate ex- a plaining a section from Cleveland to the Mississippi River. In this. 4 plate the Waverly sandstone series of the Ohio report is called ‘ Che- — mung and Portage groups.” The term “ Subcarboniferous rocks” is — applied to “ friable gray sandstone with intercalated beds of oolitic © limestone” lying between the “‘ Waverly series” and the “ Carbonifer- — ous limestone.” Where the latter outcrops in the Mississippi Biv Valley it is called the ‘‘ Great Carboniferous limestone.” 4 At Newburg “‘ the Portage sandstone or upper part of the group is a seen, and is there underlaid by the green shale. These are equivalent — to the Waverly sandstone of the Ohio reports, as was afterward ascer- q tained by visiting the quarries at Waverly. From Newburg we pass — over the shales and sandstones of the Chemung group, till we arrive upon the Conglomerate, which is well developed at Stow and Cuyahoga 4 Falls. This Conglomerate, which, so far as I could discover, is identi- e cal with the outlier of a similar mass in the southern part of New York, is the fundamental rock of the great coal formations.” P The “ black, bituminous shale underlies this Portage and Chemang | on the road toward Columbus, and represents samc auiasnain and Moroel say particularly the latter.” In the vicinity of Louisville and New Albany, at the Falls of Ohio, 4 the ‘* black, bituminous limestone” he correlated with the Marcellus — shale of New York above the ‘Corniferous limestone.” This is fol- — lowed by the “green shales and slaty sandstones of the Portage group _ 3 1 Notes upon the Geology of the Western States, Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 42, D- 57. A “a ? Hall, James: Notes explanatory of a section from Cleveland, Ohio, to the Mississippi River, iz ina | southwest direction, with remarks upon the identity of the western formations with those of New | a York. Assoc. Am. Geol., Trans., 1843, pp. 474-531, : 3 Tbid., p. 272, Ww ave ly sandstone ‘series ig Ohio.”! Above this were scen * friable Ee @® R = me o- a ee _— cr = ad i - co @ for = % fae) * ey M © Lam] io] °o Sails 34 © — —_- B ® NM er o S ® ui iia: are pad in the section by the name ‘Subcarboniferous, r ee. the fossils and the character of the aannishage a hans of is. ‘to 9 strictly referred to Carboniferous and older deposits.” ? a eer ante t the author referred to Dr. Owen’s mseheaenia: of “the D. Owen first applied the term Subcarboniferous to the limestones cn the Coal Measures, having included with them the Silurian ym Lt to the whole series be applied the designation Cliff ve _ James Hall introduced the name Subcarboniferous to indi- e@ 1 aks: which he regarded as lying below the “‘ Carboniferous lime- ne ne,” the intercalated calcareous beds of which contained fossils ,t] 10Se 0 of the Carboniferous era.* ‘he ‘Carboniferous limestone” of Hall’s paper was not recognized of New Albany, Indiana, where it is reported as resting upon the rboniferous rocks.” From there it was traced westward, and = the Mississippi Valley in Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, and Tennessee. e author held that upon going westward the character of the S ts changes, and the nature of the species changes with indica- of difference in depth. vi ill be seen that Hall’s interpretation was based upon tracing the nuity of the strata. Though fossils were considered in a general than to lapse of time. So that the more minute comparison of oe for a long time failed to convince geologists of the errors of ue est bia of Baehonal examination, tracing the rocks step by re all y a New York to the Mississippi Valley, that these rocks i It was difficult to get people to believe in the testi- 0 f fossils against such assertions. the ead 1843 H. D. eae emagriy ihe opinion that the black " es: Notes explanatory of a section from Cleveland, Ohio, to the Mississippi River, in a ., D. 281. Chi ipter VIII. 8, Henry D.: On Marcellus and Hamilton of the West; Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 45, 1843, pp. 161, 162. ee te ee Oe ae ers? et F dpe Sin a “lS ge 4 es “yaMDs: HALLS CORRELATIONS, 63 exer 2 ; he differeuces noted were regarded as due to changed conditions. Si, WR —a br = et ais Be Soe hae — « 4 ~~ x i? a ~“ ° rata Sa 3. iy Bios ie he ae se a “ ew ata fi . ' et re Fe - . ce, : Pin din! eae , ae a > foe a - . 64 ‘THE “DEVONIAN AND hae J garded them as representing both the Mareellus and the ‘Hamilton on, although not equivalent to either. = ea vl In 1843” David Dale Uwen commented “On the Geology of the West- 4 ern States.” In this paper a fine-grained sandstone and chert. with iron ore was described from Tennessee, Kentucky, and Indiana, and examined on its outcrop near the Knobs. In its lower part this forma-_ tion was correlated with the Devonian system of England and with the | 3 Chemung group of New York, and was described as resting on black % bituminous shales and as equivalent to the Marcellus shales of New. York. The high appreciation of the results of the New York State survey is 7 indicated by the frequent references which were made in the Journals — ¥ to the reports.° | In D. D. Owen’s review a tentative scheme of a chronologic table i is given as follows :+ x 3. Black River limestone, 4. ‘Trenton limestone. 5. Utica slate. 6. Hudson River group. 5 7. Oneida Conglomerate, ~ Sa 8. Medina sandstone. 9. Clinton group. 0. Niagara sandstone. oe 1, Onondaga Salt group. ae 2. Water limestone. a. 3. Pentamerus limestone and Catskill shaly limestone. 4. Oriskany sandstone. "Sa 5. Cauda-galli and Schoharie grit. € 4 16. Onondaga limestone. : 17. Corniferous limestone. oe 18. fae shale. P pene 8 19. Hamilton group. se Third or upper division ..... 20. ‘Geuesce slate. _ a. 21. Portage group. ye. Transition-series -.....-.... 22. Chemung group. : ' Second or Middle Division -. Transition series ........... if | Transition series ........-..- f 4 L Owen speaks of the Marcellus shale as ‘the base of the third division of the American Protozoic rocks.” The equivalents to this are given _ as the “lower part of F. VIII of Pennsylvania and Virginia, Post: med idial, Older Black slate of Rogers.”® The transition from the nadety 4 lying Gariite rous and Seneca limestone is sharp. — He expressed the opinion that the black shale at the Falls of Ohio is probably the representative of the Genesee, and that the Bnerinital— . limestone of Tennessee and Kentucky (Button Mould Knob) may rep- resent the Encrinital limestone of the Hamilton of New York.6 NY See Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 43, pp. 161-162, a Se 2 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 45, pp. 151-165. “ 3 Among these may be mentioned particularly, ‘‘ Review of the New York Geological Reports,” ‘by D. D. Owen, published in the Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 46, pp. 143-157; vol. 47, pp. 354-380; vol. 48, PP- bepttes. 2d ser., vol. 1, pv. 43-70, vol. 3, pp. 164-171. ‘Ibid, vol. 47, p. 355. (This article is signed ‘‘D, D. O.,” p. 380.) 5Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 3, 1847, p. 57, © Ibid, p.72. HENRY D. ROGERS. 65 ie D. “fang, delivered the annual address before the ation of geologists and naturalists at the meeting held in Wash- a. 1844, At ope time the geological publications of the United States had pached a stage of considerable perfection, the author remarked.'! The ' at yy and Mineralogy of the State of New York ” had been issued. p orts on surveys covering the greater part of the Eastern States e Union had been published, furnishing information in regard to sozoic, Mesozoic, and Tertiary formations of this half of the nitec States. In regard to the Paleozoic formations he said: tom Lake Champlain, therefore, westward to the mouth of the Wisconsin Riv er,@ te fa of ab least 1,100 miles,and southward to Alabama, over a still larger and -y complicated tract, and throughout the entire triangular area included between se limits, the boundaries of each of our Paleozoic Appalachian formations have n determined and with very considerable precision.? 3 and his brother had prepared a map of the United States, 14 feet (12 feet in size. This was apparently of the eastern part of the Inited States.2 The e paleontology of the Appalachian basin at this time had been 2d on by the researches of Messrs. Conrad, Emmons, and Hall, in w York, and by Messrs. Hall, Owen, Troost, Locke, and Clapp, in Western States, until “five hundred well characterized marine s had been made known.” The work of study and description was i ed further, particularly by James Hall. Rogers acknowledged, in that “the most elaborate classification of our Appalachian Paleo- ¢ strata hitherto is that of the New York geologleal survey.” “It braces, under the title of the New York system, the entire body of ita from the bottom of the lowest fossiliferous rocks to the base of 3 Red sandstone of the Catskill Mountains.” A Ithough the New York geologists were acknowledged to have pro- ed a valuable classification of these formations, the author did not satisfied with recommending this for general adoption. He appreci- he difficulties attaching to the application of local names to the ee cal formations, and because of the necessity ofa general nomen- * for rocks he gave an account in this address of a scheme of ing and naming the Paleozoic strata, which his brother, W. B. 3, and himself had been maturing during the last three years.‘ = ymenclature was purely artificial. To quote hesays: s to distribute the whole great body of strata, from the base already ito the top of the Coal Measures, in nine distinct series, the products of y great successive periods, and resorting to the-analogy between these s and the nine natural intervals into which the day is conveniently divided e named them in ascending order, the Primal, the Matinal, Levant, Preme- ig : Henry D.,on American geologyand present condition of geological research in the United, d im. Jour. Sci., vol. 47, 1844, pp. 137-161, 247, 278. pL 7. I find no evidence that it was published.—H. S. W, _ Bull. 80—5 - grit, and Schoharie grit as locally distributed in New York, the first 66 — THE DEVONIAN AND CARDONIFEROUS. atu; atecaiag? Sunrise, Gartnuen, Hows elec Sunset, Bvening, and Twilig periods of the great Appalachian Paleozoic day. . ; The author goes to some length in explaining the application of this 4 scheme to the formations of the ‘Appalachian system” and their cor- = responding limits in the formations of the New York geologists, and we 4 notice that he has attempted to cover very much the same field already covered by the nomenclature of the New York State survey. The ad- vantages of his nomenclature it seems to the writer are entirely nega- tive; the names are entirely arbitrary, and on that account have not the objections attaching to them which were raised against mineralogic C or paleontologic names. The greatest objection to the scheme as ¢ whole is that it is necessarily local, both geologically and geograph- ically, since it is ascheme of nomenclature which does not permit inter calations without disturbing its symmetry, and it does not allow o of expansion to cover what might be found below or to cover the higher x rocks. 5 The author discussed in the latter part of his address the formatinul | of the Mesozoic period, named the Red sandstone along the eastern border ‘‘ Mesozoic Red sandstone,”! and enumerated some of the fossils: occurring in the “* Mesozoic Coal Measures of Eastern Virginia.” The 3 Cretaceous deposits are briefly referred to and a few of their charac- . teristic fossils enumerated. The Cainozoic or Tertiary period is also briefly described, and above that the Post-Pliocene period is reported in Maryland and North Carolina and elsewhere along the coast, and a few ry of the fossils which Conrad had been so active in describing are ne In 1847 Daniel Sharp? reported the Oriskany sandstone, Cauda-Galli being most prominent in Pennsylvania and Virginia. The whole seric S is classified in the Devonian system. e The Marcellus shale, the Hamilton group (Moscow shales, Everina 1 limestone, Ludlowville shales), Tully limestone, and Genesee slate ai eo especially distinguished by their faunas, which consist chiefly of Brach- iopods and Lamellibranchs, the majority of them peculiar to the De- vonian while afew occur in the higher Carboniferous deposits. This is by far the most fossiliferous series in the Devonian system. Th @ Portage group, consisting of sandstones and shales and having a thick k- ness of 1,000 feet, is nearly barren of fossils, while the Chemung rock KS, which have a suisketoad of 1,500 feet and occur just above the Portag group, are highly foaniliferotn, Both of these series are considered as belonging to the Devonian system, and with the Hamilton group com = stitute the “Erie division.” The Devonian system closes with | the Chemung group, above which comes the Old Red sandstote formati om 1 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 47, 1844, p. 247. is 2Sharpe, Daniel: Report on the fossil remains of mollusca from the Paleozoic formations of t United States (etc.), with remarks on the comparison of the North American formations with those o f Europe. Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc., 1847, vol. 4, pp. 145-181, JAMES HALL, 2 67 in the main agreed with American geologists in the line of sys em of America with that of rapt after which he added a tab- Eston and formation in eonntey. 1848, before the American Association of Geologists and Natur- James Hall presented a paper! in which some etltetios compatri- a >) ade is reported as thicker aiid containing abundant : hea the calcareous matter is reported as increasing on coming ward, The Onondaga Salt formation thins out on coming west- ‘the Helderberg formations mainly disappear west of New York, t the Upper Limestone, which appears in Ohio, Indiana, and Ken- , but is of lighter color than its representatives? in New York. farcellus and the Hamilton formations are reported as sandy in Aa St, | and the muds diminish and the sands increase in western Y ork, and in Ohio only the lower, Shale, and this of limited thick- ears. The rocks from the Hamilton group upward, and the ! Sin sandstone are more sandy in the East, and more argillaceous inner westward. The rocks of the Catskill iene called evaition of sediment along the border, extending from tow ae. k shrough Pennsylvania southward. id. de Verneuil, after a visit to the United States and examina- The Beeniferons and bas ee limestone.—H. S. W. sur le paraliélisme des roches des dépéts paléozoiques de l’Amérique septentrionale avec d "Europe, suivie d’un tableau des espéces fossiles communes aux deux continents, avec l’indi- n des Ktages ot elles se rencontrent et terminé par un examen critique de chacune de cos espéces. ‘France, Bull., 2° s6r., vol. 4, 1847, pp. 646-709. mn between these two great groups of rocks. He then correlated . a 68 ‘THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. A few copies of the paper doubtless came to America, patterns! ps. in which it had most effect upon American geology was the condensed translation and review of it by Mr. James Hall, which appeared in bie American Journal of Science.! In the present essay the original baper and Hall’s opmukenae upon it will be discussed together. Mr. Hall’s Review of M. de Verneuil’s Study of the American Pale- 2 ozoic was entitled “On the Parallelism of the Paleozoic Deposits of North America, with those of Kurope; followed by a Table of the Species of Fossils common to the two Continents, with indication of the positions in which they occur, and terminated by a critical exami- nation of each of these species; by Ed. de Verneuil (translated and condensed from Bulletin of the Geol. Soc. of France, 2d ser., vol. 4 fe? this J ournal; by James Hall, New York State Geologist).” anys This review is of great guineas historically, as it shows how the classification of the New York strata was perfected by compe: with the European strata and their fossils. « -M. de Verneuil, one of the ablest paleontologists of the time, had — a been associated with Murchison in studying the Russian series. This had led to a careful comparison of the English Silurian and higher rocks with those of Russia, and had fitted him preeminently to recog- nize corresponding species, zones, and faunas in the New York and American series. And this “review” of his report on the “parallel-_ ism ” was by the rising paleontologist of New York, who, better than any other American, ects stn the fossils and the arguments pre-— sented. De Verneuil appreciated the great value, for classificatory purposes, | : of the New York series. He said, ‘*‘ No country in Europe offers us so complete and uninterrupted a development of the Silurian and Devo-- nian systems,” and “this series presents a continuous succession of — deposits which are superimposed in regular Stratification. Sed The various strata of this New York system had been defined dnd: named in their stratigraphic order, each different kind of rock receiving -a distinct, generally geographic name. These formations had been 24 grouped together arbitrarily on grounds of their geographic outcrops; as Champlain, Ontario, Helderberg, and Erie divisions. By some of : a the State Geologists they were regarded as merely convenient group-— ings of the rocks for reference, and of no scientific value. In the final reports attempts had been made to correlate them with | the English subdivisions, as given by Murchison and others, but these — 4 correlations were incorrect, as the result has shown. No satisfactory method of classifying the individual formations into more comprehensive groups had been attained. De Verneuil proposed by = to unite them into groups according to their paleontologic affinities. 1 Second series, vols. 5 and 7, 1848. - 2Am, Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 5, p. 178. . ~fa w a a saa _ ¥ « 42 * q oe HALL, DE VERNEUIL. 69 7 ; s had been roughly attempted by Hall, but, as we examine the eS proposed by De Verneuil, it is Spider that the final grouping Barcatty influenced by his suggestions. ee — the first volume of the Paleontology of New York, published in va ‘847, no attempt was made by Hall to form subordinate groups of the «Be everal formations included in the lower or “‘ Champlain division,” the P otsdam sandstone, Calciferous sandrock, Chazy limestone, Birdseye limestone, Black River limestone, cearton limestone, Utica shales, % adzon River shales). De Verneuil thought there were several subor- inate groups, viz, (1) Potsdam, (2) Calciferous, (3) Chazy, Birdseye, and Black River limestone, (4) Prenton limestone, Utica and Hudson re ver shales. The placing of the Oneida conglomerate and the Me- oe na sandstone with the Niagara limestone was supported by de Ver-. Epeuil. It had been proposed by Vanuxem and Mather, but was not followed by Hall; in this review the latter expressed his assent to its I propriety. 4 ‘The combination (Water-lime, Pentamerus galeatus limestone, Del- _ thyris shaly limestone, Upper Pentamerus) to form the Lower Helder- _ berg group, was the suggestion of de Verneuil.! This is in accordance with Conrad’s identification of this combination with the ““ Wenlock limestone” in 1841, but does not agree with Hall’s previous grouping _of the equivalents of the Wenlock limestone. ' he inclusion of the Oriskany with the Corniferous in the Devonian was suggested by de Verneuil. The combination Marcellus, Hamilton, : h ally, and Genesee as a lower group, and Portage and Chemung as an upper group of the Erie division of the New York reports was also his. y p, De Verneuil’s parallelisms of the strata of Europe and America were as follows: 2 st Bec vith obo sandstone he regarded as the equivalent of the * sand- pas with obolus” of Russia and the ‘Carboniferous sandstone” of undinavia. The siliceous limestone and Black River and Trenton T mist ones were the “ bituminous schist and Orthoceratite limestone” of S yveden and Rassia. The Utica shales and Hudson River group were ie “ Graptolite slates ” of Sweden and of Bain, France. These to- : ther form the equivalent of the inferior stage of the Silurian system, and as we study his classification of the next division, it is apparent * i hat the groupings suggested are not those arising from the particular srican sequence of rocks, or alone from the faunas themselves, but ‘s m thei: equivalency to the divisions of the European classifications.’ Tn the western exposures in Indiana and Ohio, he recognized a union the faunas of the Lower and Upper Silurian, but in New York these re separated by the Oneida and Medina arenaceous deposits, and he ‘ the line so as to include the latter in the Upper Silurian with the ‘ int on and Niagara. The limestones and shales of the Niagara he re- parded as the equivalent of the limestones and slates of Wenlock and JAm. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 5, p. 180. 2Tbid., pp. 179, 180. SN TEE eA Cs ere Cao Rees | ee a eee : eh eee eS See ha Soa ale + sy "eh. ae’ _ ‘ eink z 70 THE Sa peutk AND CARBONIFEROUS. of Gothland, and the five inferior groups ¢ of the Helderberg di nivicok as. a _ the equivalent of the Ludlow rocks. a In M. de Verneuil’s opinion the Devonian begins with the Ofiskany 4 and includes the five superior groups of the Helderberg division and ‘ss the six groups of the Erie division and the Old Red sandstone. His a argument for beginning the Devonian with the Oriskany is the paleon- — tologic equivalency of its fauna with the fauna of the European Devo- — nian, the occurrence of Asterolepis in Schoharie grit, and the characters _ of the numerous Spirifera, some of which reminded him of Spirifer cul- _ trijugatus and S. macropterus of the Hifel, and the fact observed by Hall that the Oriskany was preceded by a violent movement of the waters, — denuding and wearing depressions in the underlying rocks. The Oris- — kany he regarded as the equivalent of the fossiliferous schists of the — border of the Rhine. The Chemung, Portage, Genesee, Tully, and — Hamilton represented for him the formations of the Eifel and Devon- ; shire; the Marcellus shales, those of Wissenbach in Nassau; the black rascal) schists of Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, he regarded as _ ~ representing the Genesee slates of New York, and the calcareous band | below represented the Corniferous and Onondaga limestones and the — Hamilton group of the East. He held that the Devonian disappears entirely on the borders of the Mississippi, where the Carboniferous BS. tem rests directly on the Silurian.! . M. de Verneuil first pointed out the fact that the “ Waverly series” & of Ohio and Indiana in great part belonged to the Carboniferous sys- _ tem, and not to the Devonian or Chemung, as American geologists — q held.2 This determination was based upon study of the fossils from q near Medina, and from Cuyahoga, and Newark, Ohio. He showed that — the representative of the Portage in Ohio was possibly at the base of the Waverly sandstone, but found it difficult to draw a line on account — of the lack of fossils, and held the view that in Indiana, Kentucky, — 4 and Tennessee all above the black slates is Carboniferous. a In a foot note* Mr. Hall explains that he had ealled rocks at New s Albany, Indiana, lying above the black slates and containing Carbon- — 4 iferous fossils, “‘ Subcarboniferous, from the fact that up to that timeI — was not aware that anything below the base of the great Carboniferous — limestone had been recognized as bphlai oy 8 to the Carboniferous period.” ; In Tennessee the siliceous strata of Prof. Troost are also reportaal as. belonging to the Carboniferous system. Those ‘“ Psammites and sili: 4g ceous strata” M. de Verneuil regarded as equivalent to the “ yellow sand- — 4 stone of Ireland” and the “slates and sandstones of Westphalia.” - The reviewer at the close still differed from the author in his defini- — a tion of the Devonian system above and below, insisting that the limit — between Silurian and Devonian should be at the base of the Schoharié _ 4 ; 4 Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 5, p. 181. 2Tbid., vol. 7, p. 45. 3Ibid., p. 461. Chahine j ——— 71 . he e@ I Getakniny left out of consideration, and that the line the Devonian and Carboniferous was not spare acon and ae this review quotes M. de Verneuil’s views as to the great i e strata of North America, * * * y of the State of New York presents us, below the Carboniferous system, can most complete. Every favorable condition is there also united =. subdivisions are, however, of permanent value. As Hall 1 _- Meiticrs phic units of the rocks and express the his- hanges of local conditions. They express for each geographic ae. history of the world was built. The fossils they contain ans by which the history of geographically separate prov- be compared, and, as will be seen by tracing the effect of de work, the Raoedinattne and systematizing of the several ' yelative uniformity of condition for each separate province Bee pihed by a earned study of the fossil contents. on 3 oN cow York pe ets attempted to make groupings of the funda. > = len 4 oY = it is ated upon facts whiek have a history, and therefore can ‘ically classified.‘ nnessee, according to the reports of Troostand Owen, Silurian, Sci., 2d ser., vol. 7, p. 231. _ pared. For instance, in a table* the Brachiopods of the Oriskany aang be | a F * mt eee ue Se ae en i a vies ph soe tj 2 ais ee Ts ae i ra St Beh ei ‘ Pires: Pa Tens mae 72 ‘THE DEVONIAN AND ‘CARBONIPBROUS. seh — 7 iets co: Devonian, and Carboniferous species occur together. Hall -accounte tad s for this fact by the absence in this basin of the rocks which in New York separate these great limestones, thus bringing the representa- — tives of the Niagara, Lower Helderberg, and Corniferous together, aatd causing some confusion of the species at their junction. This was in the direction of clear definition for the faunas. tie to this time (and to some extent even to the present), geologists did not appreciate the essential importance of knowing the precise order and | association of species making up the successive faunas met with in geological sections. y James Hall also prepared a paper on ‘‘ Parallelism of the Paleozoic — deposits of the United States and Europe.”! This was written after — the work on the geological survey of the State of New York had been ~ completed. Interest had also been excited in Europe, and he had the a benefit of the studies of several very able European geologists. si had visited America the first time; de Verneuil had written his paper — on the Parallelism of the Paleozoic formations of America with those — of Europe; Daniel Sharpe had written a paper on the Paleozoic aca of North America;? Murchison’s Silurian System had been published several years before; also Phillips’s Fossils of Devonshire, and pee description of Carboniferous Fossils; these were all published and at hand for comparison. “a The first part of Mr. Hall’s paper was devoted to a comparison be- q tween the Paleozoic rocks of New York and those of the West. As bearing upon our present discussion the only point of particular interest — in this comparison is the correlation of the “ Cliff limestone” with the | Niagara, Clinton, and Corniferous limestones of the East. Inthe Westa — black shale was found to follow this limestone in some parts of Ohio, — Indiana, and Kentucky, which was believed to represent the remaining — part of the Devonian; above it, all over the Mississippi Valley area,the — Carboniferous limestone appeared. Several interesting points appear — in the discussion of the comparisons between the American and the q European sections made by Messrs. Sharpe, de Verneuil, and others. In — these comparisons the use of fossils was paramount, and all the argu- ments were based upon the presence of fossils, irrespective of the lith- | ologic characters of the deposits. The determinations were based — P, chiefly upon a numerical comparison of the recorded lists of fossils ; resemblance of genera and identity of species were recorded as deter- | a mining the correlation in each case. This principle was carried to the | extent of recognizing, in species from what are called now Devonian ~ deposits of America, correlations with Silurian, Devonian, and Car- | boniferous species in the different groups of organisms which were com- — ‘It appeared as chapter xvilI of Foster and Whitney’s Report on Lake Superior, Lea I, PP “ 285-318, published in 1851. SEN 2 Quar. Jour. Geol. Soc. Lond., August, 1848. 3Ibid., p. 316. HALL’S PARALLELISM OF THE PALEOZOIC. 73 Bask acid to indicate a ‘close affinity with the Carboniferous ;” the halopoda of the Marcellus and the Brachiopoda and some Cephal- oi the Chemung and Hamilton groups are reported as “ of Carbon- 0 s facies.” Again, the Brachiopods and Lamellibranchs of the hemung and Hamilton, and the Brachiopods of the Corniferous are in- cated as presenting a “ Devonian facies,” while the Lamellibranchiata “ qt 1 Orthocerata of the Chemung and Hamilton, the Cephalopoda of the rniferous, and the Cephalopoda and biruetadca of the Schoharie grit | re regarded as ‘equivalents of the corresponding faunas of the Lud- oT So rocks in Europe.” from indicates considerable confusion, and the inference to be drawn from a study of these results is that the determination of the fossils s not sufficiently accurate to make the comparisons with precision. | tis S vbable that the difference between the species which were de- fi ned as “Carboniferous,” or “ Devonian,” or “ Upper Silurian (Lud- lov w)” in Europe, belonging to the same genera, was not so great as the és ai ference which the species, belonging to the same horizon, might ‘exhibit on the two sides of the ocean; but at this stage in the progress | of paleontology there was apparently very little appreciation of the oa unt of variation which species of the same genus undergo during the same geologic epoch. 7 = Hall was of the opinion that the Upper Helderberg of the New York System represented the Ludlow group of Murchison, and while he rec- ognized the fact that the Ludlow beds were iamminintele by the English fr from. the Devonian, he insisted that the fossils of the Ludlow were re represented by the fossils of the Schoharie grit and Corniferous lime- fone more closely than by any of our Lower Helderberg species. He isted that either the Ludlow beds belonged to the Devonian or that there must be some consider able gap in the New York series between the Lower Helderberg and the Upper Helderberg. He said, after ting that he could not agree with M. de Verneuil in ictus the 0 wer Helderberg limestones in parallelism with the Ludlow: oy — an) ae a vada out of consideration the Oriskany sandstone and Cauda-Galli grit, we feel = osed to regard the Schoharie grit as possessing zoological features more in accord- 6 with those of the Lower Ludlo w series than any other rock in our classification. We shall thus place it for the present.' And i in his table of equivalents the Wenlock series is represented by Clinton group in part, Niagara group, and Lower Helderberg lime- mes; and the Ludlow series and Devonian system are represented y our Ripper Helderberg limestones, Hamilton group, Chemung group, u nd the Red sandstone and shale of the Catskill Mountains.’ % ae \s indicative of the stage of refinement reached in the identification Ee peotes and its results, the following quotations may be made: Although it is not difficult to find the evidence of a general parallelism in our suc- 1Foster and Whitney, Rept. on Lake Superior, pt. 2, p.310, 2Tbid., p. 317. | e a Ks = . out he = sh < WX lett Tem! bogs. Sans 8 tate is roy : LR a a be oti: GE oe ouk et 74 THE DEVONIAN “AND: CARBONIFEI suede aa comparisons the difficulties increase rather than diminish. ; The relations of our divisions often appear to be in two directions, and ibis im possible to account satisfactorily for the apparent divergence in the direction of groups, as shown by the evidence afforded by the recognized species of European | authorities.! i. This determination of (correlation with) the Ludlow was independent of his determination of the true representative of the Devonian system — in America; for in another place he said : oe q The Oriskany sandstone, however, marks an important horizon, since we now regard | itas commencing the Devonian period.” s Although fossils were used for the purpose of correlating formations 3 across geographic intervals, as from England to America, it was not by paleontology pure and simple. It was an identification of strata by. — likeness of fossils irrespective of the question of paleontologic history. — The fossils were mere “ medals of creation;” those possessing the same — : ‘marks were supposed to belong to the same creation. The time had not come for an examination of the relations of the various fossils to. each other. The law of paleontologic succession did not become a factor of correlation till the idea of the evolution of species furnished K a rational basis of confidence in the naturalness of the observed order of sequence of forms. The idea of evolution suggests the true biologic system of correlation, in which the data of the classification are fossils, — and the distinctions made are into periods in the history of organisms, — the strata taking their relative position in the series according to the period in this history which their contained “i remains may indi- cate. a 1 Foster and Whitney, Rept. on Lake Superior, pt. 2, p. 314. 2 Ibid., p. 302. CHAPTER III. om of correlation the Carboniferous system is particularly te, in that there is nothing in the name nor in the usage a ermine precisely the limits of the system above and below. and divisions Lower Carboniferous, Millstone Grit, and Coal es have been handed down from the early classifications before ethods were inuse. The question whether the Permian shall con- ‘the: third age of the Carboniferous period or not must be settled ! trarily or by reference to precedent. In order to establish nt it must be determined what is the standard Carboniferous Be distinguish it from the ‘iebidet common usage, whieh s the Lower Carboniferous, the Coal Measures, and the Permian one Carboniferons system. A review of the literature shows ipa T ‘ou its aiiplied was made by W.D. Conybeare in 1821.' It was the » “ Medial or Carboniferous order,” and was defined to include: e Coal Measures, the *‘independent coal formation” of Werner; 1e Millstone grit and shales; (3) the Carboniferous or Mountain and (4) the Old Red titel This grouping of the rocks o¢ gested by their ‘ “association hep! in the districts which that is New Red amdkiemne beds in Tisaiend enable rest un- n ably upon the Carboniferous. The line of unconformity gave 4i0n for the distinction between “ primary” and “secondary,” and 6 ease” and “secondary,” and for the classification of se | hier In the Wernerian nomenclature the term ‘ Floetz class ” lied to the flat-lying rocks, beginning with those New Red sand- n the English series and running upward. yb beare’s Carboniferous order also included rocks correlated as Old Battone, and he recognized that the ‘‘ Old Red approaches in its Sond ale nearly to the characters of the gray wacke upon which 75 Ae 2? eo TO © ae a iS ae & os Se 4 * et, Se ar Cee ee eee ‘ — —S re ae 34 > birt me 4 ; o* ‘te 2 eure THE DEVONIAN AND CARDONTPEROUS. Este it reposes, and indeed graduates insensibly into that rock, ‘so that th ie line of separation between them is frequently only an imaginary and i arbitrary demarkation.”! es Thus we see that the Carboniferous as originally understood | grouped about the Coal Measures, had its upper limit a line of vu anal formity, and below had no sharp line of demarkation. a Nae ee * Murchison and Sedgwick had previously recognized the importance =), of the Old Red Sandstone as a distinct terrane, and as holding a pe - culiar and interesting fauna,” and in 1839, in the Silurian system, Mur- ay chison raised it to equal rank with the duncrias and martes call. ing it the “ Old Red system.” i Murchison included in the Carboniferous system the rocks associated with the Coal Measures, which are terminated above by the rocks of tl ne New Red system, and below by those of the Old Red system. The three divisions of the Carboniferous system (Coal Measures, Millstone grit, and Carboniferous limestone) were recognized by Murchison. _ The Old Red system of Murchison included: (1) Quartoze Conglom. erate and sandstone; (2) Cornstone and marl; (3) Tilestone. - Immediately shill the Tilestone at pres village was the Upper Ludlow and top of his Silurian system. The Tilestones were regarded as beds of passage to the Silurian. They were afterward called “ Down- 7 ton sandstone,” a name proposed by John Phillips. Sel: a This was the classification with which the New York geologists sought to correlate the rocks of the New York system in 1840. The Carboniferous system was made up of the Coal Measures at t top, the Millstone grit, and at bottom the Carboniferous limeatoaaal A Above the Carboniferous came the New Red sandstone or New Red system, in which the Magnesian limestone, the Saliferous group, and the New Red sandstone were conspicuous divisions. Below the Car- 1 boniferous came the Old Red system, which in Murchison’s classifica- tion filled the interval between the Carboniferous and Silurian systems. The confusion about the Devonian in the final reports of the New York survey arose partly from the original confusion in England. - The series in New York are perfectly simple up to the Conglomerate. The Red rocks of the Catskill were identified with the Old Red system. % The Devonian rocks were clearly below these Catskill rocks, and while some of their fossils were similar to Phillips’s Devonian fossils, others i were also like Murchison’s Ludlow fossils, and as the Ludlow group im- mediately preceded the typical Old Red rocks of England, and as the a chief of Phillips’s Devonian fossils were really Upper Devonian, it was natural to conclude that the rocks of our Middle and Lower Devonian L were to be correlated with the Ludlow rocks of Murchison. 3 The correcting of this mistake could come only from a careful stacy’ of the fossils. When this had been done by de Verneuil the correc- ‘ 1 Op. cit., p. 862. 2Geol. Trans., vol. 3. ~ CLASSIFICATION OF THE CARBONIFEROUS, 17 smade; but Hall accepted it only after making a careful study ¢ fossils for himself. To Hall the New York rocks were the stand- a de Verneuil, Sharp, and Lyell the English rocks were the aaa rd, and they had no prejudices in favor of any particular inter- station of the American rocks. The lithologic characters were prom- 1 tin Hall’s correlation; to the English geologists, and particularly to e Ver neuil, fossils were the chief criteria. in the Pamidiiforous system the lack of a representative of the Car- niferous limestone in the Pennsylvania sections led to confusion, wy reports we read of the Coal Measures as “secondary,” and ar * tre odie coal-beds.” (1835.) It was, doubtless, this supposition he e true order was (1) limestone, (2) grit, (3) Coal Measures, that > Ohio geologists' to correlate the Corniferous limestone under- me F the shales and fine-grained sandstone (Waverly) with the Moun- eeestone. 4 3 Wernerian idea that anthracite coal belonged to the “ grey- eke” or “transition,” as taught in Conybeare and Phillips’s geology p1en2, and imitated elsewhere,’ was the influencing cause of the oneous views as to the position of the eastern coal-beds of Pennsyl- , a8 Seen in the papers of James Pierce and William Meade,’ and s following up the discussion. In Tennessee the Mountain lime- » was rightly classified, because there the limestone was actually i below the Coal Measures. \ remarkable example of error arising from this firm belief in the atity in the order of lithological deposits for America and England sen in the paper of Prof. C. Dewey,‘ who in 1838 interpreted the red : cs about Rochester (Medina) as Old Red, and the overlying lime- s (Niagara) as ranking wtih the Mountain limestone of Europe. Bi jhe Mississippian province the identification of the rocks from the } Measures downward was correctly made, not because of accurate ledge of the fossils, but because the three grand divisions of the al English Carboniferous system were there present in the same : first, a series of limestones, then conglomerate or sandstone, oal Measures. s it came about that the true classification of the Carboniferous iS ‘throwgh the western or Mississippi Valley formations, and not ougl i the typical Appalachian sections in Pennsylvania and south- = their subdivision was made independently of the European ‘The base was determined by the fossils of species allied to spe sies of the Carboniferous limestone of England. 1 the Appalachian province the limit was determined by the top of ine Devonian rocks. But in the case of the upper limit, while al custom in America has been to regard the Coal Ceaees as ie ve Sot: 1 Le Je 1Ohio Geol. Survey, 2d Ann. Rep., by W.W. Mather, 1838. 2Geological Nomenclature, by Amos Eaton, 1828. 3See Am. Jour. Sci., Ist ser., 1827, vol. 12, pp.69, 76, 4Am, Jour. Sci., vol. 33, p. 121. eta, NA Tre pe Shee 9 er ee ee a 1 a - Pein e ¥ ir a ea 4 “4 eee ah tipo # ye Feet 4 : "SO po tae f oo Fin .'o at ~~ ae Mv ; ] a, ' of im warns 4 3") lar a OE as eee ; ral CA Y Sag om are , es ke" ? et 18.--< 0 Re DEVONIAN. AND canpostrenous the top of the Carboniferous system and to treat the appearance of th Permian type of fossils as indicating a new system, there has been 10 recognized standard for the settlement of the question. 1) In the same way at the base, where the last Devonian fossils are separated from the Coal Measures by deposits lacking marine fossils, the determination of the line of division between Devonian and Car- boniferous has occasioned considerable dispute, which would certainly have been less had there been a recognized standard section of the Ca: boniferous system outside America which might be referred to as standard in all cases of difference of opinion about our own rocks. In order that we may have such a standard, I shall describe more in detail the Carboniferous system as first dei for English geologists.! The English author who first appreciated the importance of grou é ing certain rock formations with the Coal Measures to form what now is called a system, was W. D. Conybeare.2. The German geologist, va Werner, and the school of geologists that followed him, had called the Coal Measures the “Independent Coal Formation” or ‘Stein Koh- lengebirge.” Conybeare subdivided the ‘‘ Transition and Secondar y formations” of Werner into orders, and his medial order was called the ‘‘ Medial or Carboniferous order.” Here were included “ therock forma- tions, which ought to be considered together with the Coal Measures. ” In his classification these formations were, “I. The Coal Measures. II. The Millstone gritand shale. III. The Carboniferous or Mountain ‘ini stone. IV. The Old Red sandstone.”* His “ Supermedial order” in cluded all the rocks from the Coal Measures to the Tertiary, substan. tially what we now call Mesozoic. His Submedial order was the ‘“ Grau- wacke” of Werner. | é Conybeare prominently notices that the formations of the « Medial | or Carboniferous order” are the rocks which form the “ Pennine chai u” (spelled by him Penine) of mountains in northern England. He -carefully defines the position and structure of the range, and p re poses the retention of the name ‘ Pennine,” which was first applied t them by the early Roman colonists of the island. Other exhibitio 8 of Carboniferous rocks are mentioned by him, but here alone he fount d the whole series represented, and the rocks ‘of the Pennine range were the typical rocks of the system which Conybeare defined. In Hughes’s “ Geography of British History” (London, 1863), w find the ‘“* Pennine range” defined as ‘“‘applied by general consent to the extensive range of high ground stretching south from the Che 7 Hills to the district of the Peak in Derbyshire, about 170 miles it length,” stretching from the border of Scotland southward to the 1 y ral : 1A portion of this chapter has been read before the Indianapolis meeting of the American Geologi gi. cal Society, and an abstract appears in its bulletin, vol. 0, pp. 16-19. i ‘s Conybeare and Phillips, Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales. Loncon, 1822, p. 823. 3 Op. cit., p. 325. Aa 4 See Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales, pp. 365, 366, or, ed 5 a ee ee yi Aiea Se at eee fee ee eek, Tee Mewes Core bape tal te - “ a wef ‘ As “. aes ae ig THE ORIGINAL CARBONIFEROUS. 79 ‘d font. m1 It is composed “ entirely of rocks belon eke to the fe TOUS series.” sp on the east the coal fields of erin nett Yorkshire, arbyshire, aud on the west the Lancashire and Cheshire coal as pointed out by Conybeare, the rocks of this range not only the typical rock formations to which he applied the name “ Car- ee pases,” but each of the members of that eer: f . cae se as ae by Conybeare. And Murchison, in the Silurian ( 1839), made classic the names * Silurian ersten “Old Red a ‘Carboniferous system,” ‘New Red system,” and “ Oolitic te : : them, geologists in general adopted the name Gastionidutents m for one of the great groups of rocks composing the grand geolog- of these early English authors were in unison in distinetly exelud- € » rocks afterward (in 1841) called ‘“‘ Permian” by Murchison, and ; time going under the names “ New Red sandstone” and “ Mag- limestone, ” « Saliferous system” and “ New Red system.” Cony- , De la Beche, and John Phillips agreed in including the “ Upper d sandstone” in the Carboniferous system, while Murchison, after (in 1839), separated from the Carboniferous the lower member as tinct system. On page 169 of his Silurian system he says that pplied the name ‘Old Red system’ to the Old Red sandstone 1008: writers in order to convey a Jpat conception of their Carboniferous system in which previous writers ines merged Is surmounted by one red group, so is it underlaid by all: four of these early authorities in English geology agree in inition of the original Carboniferous system, which is that of a8 seek to determine the precise definition of the Carbontiereus ’ we are led directly to this typical section in the Pennine range, early defined by Conybeare, and afterward adopted as the typical | by the founders of geological science in England, and afterward rT elation recognized as the standard section of the Carboniferous 1 throughout the world. The section of this typical Pennine Car- -10p. cit., p. 20, 2 Op. cit., p. 22, 8 Op. cit., p. 149, ty i a ” ee. « ‘ing conformably upon the first, is the Mountain or Carboniferous lime- — shire; these latter are terminated where contacts are seen by the “New — 80 - 'THE DEVONIAN AND Canuonieenee 8 boniferous system consists of, first, the upper part of the Ola Red: sal nd , 3 stone resting upon lower beds of Old Red sandstone, unconformabl} ca about the Cheviot Hills, or upon the Cheviot Volcanic series, or ed aR Silurian rocks, as in Northumberland. The second formation, rest- stone, The third member of the series is the Millstone grit and shales. — The fourth, the Coal Measures, including the familiar coal fields of — Lancashire and Cheshire, of Yorkshire, Northumberland, and Derby- _ Red,” in some places apparently conformably, but generally uncon- q 3 formably. The system in this Pennine range was evidently terminated — both below and above by geologic disturbance of greater or less extent, | furnishing natural deliminations, thus peculiarly fitting it for a stand- a ard of geologic definition. | “ge An analysis of the standard systems in geologic classification shows us % that a system is a series of rock formations whose stratigraphic order and lithologic composition are thoroughly well expressed in some defin- ; able geograpic region, and whose fossils indicate a continuous biologic sequence, more or less distinctly broken at its lower and upper limits _ from contiguous formations. Thus a typical section has definite geo- — graphic position, geologic delimitation, and biologie definition. The | Silurian system in Wales and western England, the Devonian ile of south and north Devonshire, the Jurassic system of the Jura xo i, tains, are examples, and no less perfect is the Pennine Carboniferous — system of the Pennine range of north England to which the unsatisfac- # tory name of Carboniferous has been so long applied. i While so much is true of the standard or typical expression of a , ZeO- : logic system, it can not be expected that any system will offer precisely — the same features in other regions of the world or on other continents. — We conclude, therefore, that: (1) Becausethe composition, the sizeof par- ticles, and the order and thickness of deposits are all determined by = conditions that are geographically dissimilar, therefore a geologic sys- — tem can have but one typical geographic position ; (2) because the geo- — logic events, such as elevation of land, breaking of strata recorded in — faults, and voleanic eruptions, do not ‘take place either uniformly orig simultaneously in different parts of the earth, it is certain that intervals — or breaks in sedimentary formations will not be uniform for separate — regions; and (3) because organisms in the past can not be regarded as — having ceased to carry on the ordinary functions of life and reproduc- — tion, all the breaks in the sequence of organisms, all the sharp lines dis- a a tinguishing the faunas or floras of one formation from those of a pre- — ceding or following formation, are local and not universal. ~ a To apply these reflections to the present case, it will be seen that the | settlement of the question as to which is the typical section upon which | Ss the Carboniferous system was founded, will greatly facilitate all attempts — “a to determine the limits of the system in other regions. - It is evident — “ PY as = reer oc “THE PENNINE PLappNtreRove: 81 typice is the section exhibited in the Pennine range, be name ( Carboniferous is a misnomer geologically (for we now lat carbon or coal- -bearing rocks are not confined to the system. at) called), and as the name does not indicate the geographic f the typical section, it is believed that the adoption of the ‘Pennine system” may be of advantage to the science, for this type of the Carboniferous system. nine Carboniferous system. may be defined as toits geographic as the rock formations of the Pennine range of northern Eng- d equivalent formations in other parts of the world. In geologic ta ion , the Pennine system begins with a red sandstone and ter- 48 with the upper rocks of the Coal Measures. In biologic defini- first marine fauna is that of the Mountain limestone; ; ifs final and flora are those of the Coal Measures. The brackish fauna of G | Red sandstone had not ceased at its opening; the characteris- rmian fauna or flora had not appeared at its close. at ever may prove to be the correlation between the Old Red one and the Devonian systems, the definition of the Pennine Sys- - explicit i in including fishes, such as Holoptychius, characteristic Old: Red system of Murchison, and is as explicit in the exclusion Devonian marine fauna above which its earliest marine fauna rs. ~The rocks and faunas of that which was later called the Per- stem, : are definitely excluded by the original author from the Carboniferous system. The problems of the Devonian Old em and of the Permian system must be discussed on their own ‘This original section of the Carboniferous has its relations to early defined. relating our American rocks the recognition of the Pennine ferous System as typical, settles for us several disputed ques- i For the Paleozoic rocks along the Appalachian and eastern y eg ion the limits between Devonian and Pennine Carboniferous a e. following positions : The Chemung marine fauna is strictly 12 BS phe brackish water fish fauna of the Catskill is as ae y ‘ie Hadeian0 the’ S eiake of Sotircelntion is. ‘definite stratigraphy and the biological evidence indicate that eeaes 10 division between the representative of the Pennine Carbonifero tem and that of the Permian system. The division, line here 1 arbitrarily drawn, and the fact that a Leadon: isa local series sof f a) tiie Deitel austin of the cones vanitiean’ of the hn represen’ tive of a system is seen, and the only way to make this apparent to all is by all the association of the geographic name with the system. 2 Dv Sy wat re ‘ 7 ; Se =, § Pe, te pee. Fe ae $ . + m ~ oh pee | ‘ eae Caras ¥ a F >t. oy wy # 3 - ‘ & my ey \ - - ‘ reeds. ra _* ae re arg im ’ sf Pn SE “Ulery « mt 2S Ted, » pista ees ¥ a as on mee a . 7 ‘ 7 * CHAPTER IV. 3 COAL MEASURES OR PENNSYLVANIA SERIES. THE DEVEL- te MENT OF ITS NOMENCLATURE AND CLASSIFICATION IN THE Er: >~PALACHIAN PROVINCE. : orale of the rocks of middle Pennsylvania in 1836 furnished sis for the system of numbers which have played so conspicuous ir “ Pennsylvania geology ever since. The State geologist was “ ib. Rogers, and his assistants were D.C. Booth and J. F. Frazer, RB. K. Rogers as chemist. The classification was as follows: es XII. Coal Measures. - XI. Red shale. ss X. White sandstone, TX. Red sandstone, _ ae _ WU. Olive shales, etc. VII. Cherry sandstone, - VI. Limestone. V. Red shale and Fossil ore. IV. Gray sandstone, III. White sandstone, II. Slate, . f Kae the Leb: , Ba tsaitone, of the Lebanon Valley of the second mountain. of the first mountain, 1e State geologist believed that this series of formations in the order could be recognized “under slight variations of color, size, and ine ingredients, across the Old Dominion and into Tennessee and tbama.” + — | mn constituted the “ series of Appalachian formations,” which Prof. s “for the first time systematically classified and described in the rs 1836, 1837, and 1838.” ¢ Hs eotosict survey of Pennsylvania was begun in 1836 and sev- mual reports were published, but the final report was not pub- ail 1858.? n Geol Survey of Pennsylvania, 1874-’75-’76. Historical sketch of geological explorations in sylvania and other States. By J. P. Lesley, 1876, pp. 54, 55. - C md Annual Report on the Geological Exploration of the State of Pennsylvania. By Henry D. te Geologist. Harrisburg, 1838, pp. 82, 83. logy of Pennsylvania, a Government survey, with a general view of the geology of the eC €3; essays on the coal formation and its fossils and a description of the coal fields of North rica and Great Britain. By Henry Darwin Rogers, State Geologist. 4to, 2 vols., Edinburgh, D, and Philadelphia, 1858, a 83 ae Z ie re: tame | op | - | vas te rag i> a) ie 84 — THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. Prof. Pig 8 system of clagsifigauion ana nomenclature is exhibited in the following synopsis :! | A SYNOPSIS OF THE APPALACHIAN PALEOZOIC STRATA OF PENNS YEW ee IN THE ASCENDING ORDER. Primal erystalline schists (or Azote group). Primal series: . Foot. Primal Conglomerate in Virginia and Tennessee -.-.....--.-..---.----- > ie Primal older slate in Virgifiia.*. -2- s. <2 - sauce ohn a eee ee eee as “- 200 Primal White sandstone, Potsdam sandstone of New York...........--- 2300 Primal upper slate «2.0 “og Iss ona, eect eee eee eee i tcee 2700 — Auroral series (blue limestone of the Western States) : , at Mount Carbon, in Pennsylvania, and assigned by him to the Devo- nian period, were considered by the author to belong in reality to the ‘J “Reds” of the Carboniferous, a few hundred feet below the productive — coal series. They are accompanied by a series of similar footprints at- tributed to batrachian reptiles, trails, prints of some unknown four- — toed animal apparently reptilian, and trails analogous to those of worms and mollusca. The larger footprints are mainly five-toed, alter- — nate in the steps, and nearly equal in size. ae: In 1856 Mr. J. P. Lesley reported on the Broad Top coal basin? = The Broad Top coal basin, situated between Huntingdon and Bed- | ford Springs, was imperfectly reported upon in 1838 by Mr. McKinley, i the substance of the report appearing in the annual reports of the Geo-— | logical Survey. 3 In 1855 the author made a more complete survey of this region, cov- i ering about 80 square miles, established the leyels of over nine a a sand points, and reached the following conclusions: (1) That the suc- cession of the measures is not different from the system made out in— western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio. (2) That the structural re- i sults lead toe the conclusion that the abruptness of the anticlinals could | 4 be produced only by side pressure. (3) That the Precarboniferous — 3 Coal Measures are represented in this region by beds of black slate containing little coal, the Subearbonitenange limestone being presen in . small amounts. J. P. Lesley,’ remarking on the Subconglomeratic Coal Measures of » northwestern. Virginia, thinks those beds represent early Carbonifer- a ous formations, such as are seen in Ireland, Scotland, and possibly in Melville Island. Similar beds occur in southern Virginia, in sout - . eastern Kentucky, and in Nova Scotia. The lowest Devono-Carbonif- erous slate represents a still earlier period, and may be correlated with F the German Devonian Coal Measures. Mr. J. M. Hale‘ (1864) reported at the junction of the Beaver Dam and eastern branches of Clearfield Creek, a boring of 548 feet. At the’ depth of 199 feet a vein of coal 4 feet 4 inches in thickness was reached. ; This is probably in the author's view the same vein as at Osceola or _ Phillipsburg. ag Mr. B.S. Lyman,> in 1867, spunnenaae! on the Great Carboniferous seo by Mr. me which he identified as the ‘ Ferrifer- ) {Pennsylvania Z : ‘Stevenson, ! in 1874, presented a paper ts the New York Ly- yf ort History which embodies the results of an examina- itd “A oa oft the Upper coals are first considered, and the conclusion at the Pittsburg coal, the base of the Upper Coal Measures, ched as far west as Sonora, 71 miles west from Wheeling, red i in ter to ascertain their relations to each other. From mparison it is found that only Coal VIII, VIIIa, VIIIb, and Coal 1 be. seen in all the sections. Coal VIII is the Pittsburg, VIIa as the Redstone, VIIIb as the Sewickley, while Coal XI is the p or Cont Measures west of the Alleghany Mountains. New York Lyceum Nat. Hist., eee "THE DEVONIAN AND. ee ous. ane garded as the “ seri bad of all the Cape at in Ohio, remaining i n existence as a flourishing swamp from the beginning of the epoch until its close.” . The conditions of the Upper Coal Measures during deposition are” treated at length, and the author is led to the following conclusions: | (1) The great bituminous trough west of the Alleghanies does not owe its ‘haotad shape primarily to the Appalachian Revolution. - (2) The Coal Measures of this basin were not united to those of Indiana oi Tihi- nois at any time posterior to the Lower Coal Measure epoch, and probably wer f always distinct. (3) The Upper Coal Measures originally extended as far west as the Muskingum a Ma River, in Ohio. Re. (4) Throughout the Upper Coal Measure epoch the general condition was one of | subsidence interrupted by longer or shorter intervals of repose. During subsidence — the Pittsburg marsh crept up the shore, and at each of the longer intervals of — repose pushed out seaward upon the advancing land, thus civing: rise to the sue- cessive coal-beds of the upper coal measures. feet 2 (5) The Pittsburg marsh had its origin at the east. eee 2 I. C. White,' in 1874, before the same society, discussed the Coal Measures of western Tiscinin and Pennsylvania. Two sections are given from the region under consideration, one fron mY the eastern and one from the western flank of the “ Dividing Ridge,” an elevation between Morgantown and Wheeling, rising in Poveda vania and extending south into West Virginia. _ The eastern section] a thickness of 800 feet in the Upper Barren group and 340 feet in the Upper Coal group; total thickness, 1,140 feet. The western section h a total of 822 feet, 544 feet in the Beak group and 278 of the Upper Coal. The sections show the well known fact that the coals and sand- 4 stones in this district thin out toward the west, while the limestones thicken up. ‘The eastern section in Monon galia County is pains: din detail. The upper sandstones and shales are very coarse, shORT EA th at that they were deposited by pretty strong currents. ce: The different sa 2 and characters of the various coal beads are fully given. : Ne In 1875 J. P. Gonley? State date of aekuadonik prepared a brief digest of the state of classification and nomenclature of the rocks’ in New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania at that time. The article mig be quoted entire were there space, as no further condensation of the statements can be satisfactorily made; but a single scheme of | equiv- alents will suffice to show the ideas of the author as to correlatigieds q the beginning of the second survey of Pennsylvania. On page 97° we find— Z : 1White, I. C.: Notes on the Upper Coal Measures of western Virginia and Pennslyvania. New York 4 Lyceum Nat. Hist., Annals, vol. 11, 1874, pp. 46-57. . 2Second Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, 1874, Report of Progress, I: Note ¢ on the comparative f geo 0) 1 ogy of northeastern Ohio and northwestern Pennsy lvania, and western New York, pp. ten LESLEY, ANDREWS. 91 The following scheme will show the old problem and its recent probable solution : en @ be a 5 In northwestern In middle aes Tn Ohio. Pennsylvania. In New York. | Pennsylvania. a | EE) Pe ee | Seral Cong., XII. Suyahoxa lS + SPC OI OE A ee Umbral, x1. Berea grit.-.. ...--- ~| Second Mountain | Conglomerate ....-| Vespertine, x. —. sandstone ....... edford DIEM ace aa). ws... ---. snes Old Red sandstone | Ponent, rx. (fish). veland shales ....| Oil sands.......... Pi ----.---.| Vergent, VII. EG tecuk|<...-..---.- --....-- ee eee Vergent, VIII. : SE ee Hamilton. .:.. 2... | ‘adent, VIII. Jorniferous Pawel. .-----..-------.| Upper Helderberg -| Post Medidial, VIII. “The author states in a foot-note that he does not adopt ‘‘ the general term Waverly sandstone formation of tie Ohio Reports because of the controversies to which it has given rise.” Also, that “ Erie shales” should stand opposite both Chemung and Portage. * Gia a letter to the editor of the Journal,' dated June 26, 1875, Prof. ley speaks of Mr. Ashburner’s ehavaee of what he anil * baby 1 beds” in No. X, Upper or White Catskill, Rogers’s Vespertine, in Tuntingdon County, Pennsylvania, and considers it of great impor- té i ce to American geology, as it explains the presence of the two coal eds on the face of the Alleghany Mountains and the fourteen small oal beds counted by Prof. Lesley years before, west of the Peak fountain, in Wythe County, Virginia. EL B. Andrews? compares the Ohio and West Virginia coal fields. In this comparison the author takes the Pittsburg seam of coal as he base of measurement. This seam occupies the northern portion of ean coal field, and extends through Pennsylvania, Ohio, and st Virginia. From its outcrop to the base of the productive Coal eas ures the intervals remain quite uniform. In Ohio Dr. New- srry’s Measurement is from 700 to 800 feet and Prof. H. D. Rogers’s n 600 to 700 feet. Butin the southern part of West Virginia the yal is much greater. Prof. Fontaine estimates 3,100 feet as the tal thickness from the horizon of the Pittsburg seam to the base of Be odnctive Coal Measures. This does not include the shales and adjacent Lewisburg limestone, which are probably local. Hence ind about 2,400 feet more of Coal Measures in Virginia than in to) a" Sitaegivania, and hence in West Virginia the series of pro- » Coal Measures make up a great geosynclinal, which is probably Ss continental folding. The various coal seams, separated by all | layers of shale, indicate that it was subject to alternate depres- on and elevation. In West Virginia, above the Pittsburg seam, _ feet of Coal Measures rock occur, showing -several seams of y,J. P.: Coal beds in the Subcarboniferous of Pennsylvania, Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol, 10, p. 153, 154. ¥ om narison between the Ohio and West Virginia sides of the Alleghany coal field. Proc, Am, ol, 24, pt. 2, 1875, pp. 84-92, Acct “fee Paw BPS el REE tie RS ae ’ us Les 3 se aK a) se. ae ‘¢ 7 92 _ ‘THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS, ine coal, In the anthracite coal fields of Pennsylvania theve tea so m ch uncertainty as to the true equivalent of the Pittsburg seam bets th @ is little chance for comparison. a Considerable difficulty arises in attempting to determine this exact t situation of the Coal Measures conglomerate in the various States, n or is the Millstone grit of Indiana and Mlinois synchronized, or its equiva- lent in the Alleghany field determined. In Arkansas a Millstone. grit t ae is reported, which Mr. Lesquereux declares is part of the coal forma- : tion. Mr. Dawson also describes a similar Millstone grit along the Bay of Fundy, but its relation to those of Great Britain or of the e United States is not known. < 3 E. B. Andrews,! in 1875, reported some interesting coal plane from | Ohio: eas ‘% In Perry County, Ohio, a thin bituminous shale occurs at the base of the Ohio Coal Measures, containing pieces of plants similar to branches of Calamites, fish scales, an d asmall Lingula. Just above this layer is a thin stratum of shale carrying leaves of ' Lepidodendron. Inthe higher shalesare found numerous ferns, etc. The plants: found } here were well marked Devonian types, with a few more recent than the Coal Meas- ures, while those belonging to the Coal Measures are new species. A new species of Archeopteris is one of the Devonian forms: Megalopteris (Dawson) is another Devon- ian genus. One species of the genus was known in New Brunswick only, and described by Prof. Hartt as Neuropteris dawsoni. With these was found a fern of a new genus, of the order of the Twniopieridie. The new Ohio genus the author calls Orthogoni- opteris. A new form of Alethopteris was noticed resembling the one found in the coal field of Cape Breton, but specifically different. Also a new Asterophyllites, Hymen 0 phyllites, Eremopteris, and two species of Lepidodendron, with a few others. These are b to be figured in the Ohio reports. 2% Mr. Lesley proposed a scheme of the formations? called “Table of rock formations, arranged in the order of the ages from above down- wards, as they are recognized in America and according to os present 3 state of our knowledge.’’® Recent. Glacial. Tertiary. Cretaceous. New Red. The Coal Measures, anthracite and bituminous. < The Great Conglomerate, No. XII, of Mount Pisgah, called by Rogers, “Seral.” Red Shale, No. XI, Umbral, around Mauch Chunk, White Catskill, No. X (Vespertine), of the Second Mountain. Red Catskill, No. IX (Old Red of England), Pocono Mountain. Chemung shales (VIII, Cadent) holding the oil rocks. Portage sands and shales (VIII, Vergent). ‘ Hamilton black slates (VIII, Scalent); streaks of coal. Upper Helderburg limestones, etc. (VIII, Postmeridial). Oriskany sandstones (VII, Meridial), Stone Ridge, Lehigh iach Lower Helderburg cement Jayers, etc. 1 Andrews, E. B.: Notice of new and interesting coal plants from Ohio. Am.Assoc., Proc., vol. 24, pt. 9, 1875, pp. 106-109. 2See Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Report of Progress D on the Brown Hematite Ore ° Ranges o Lehigh County, by Frederick Prime, jr., 1874, p. 73. | ay *Ibid., p. 63. : . «FONTAINE, WHITE. 93 W M. Fontaine! proposed the name of “ Conglomerate the strata in West Virginia which occupy the interval be- jor of the Productive Coal Measures and the Devonian (or uctive coals and red shales of the Umbral). Important coals D occur in the equivalent of the Conglomerate Series, and also oped coals in the Vespertine of Montgomery County, Vir- + White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, ete. wen, nearly 20 years before, had recognized coals below the ite i in Kentucky, although not in marketable quantities, and lomerate was regarded by him as the base of the Coal Measures, pe in 1876, made some > Nia before the New York yer to B fiochestor The Strata exposed extend from the Mahoning dsto1 ne 3 to the base of the Tionesta sandstone, dipping eastwardly at 2 of little more than 25 feet to the mile. The thickness of the cs varies from 30 to 75 feet. It is usually a massive $s composition is not ene sometimes it being merely a ee a pure white thiksebdtic and very persistent. The ale under this is fossiliferous, containing species of Productus, » Athyris, etc. Then comes a thin seam of coal rich in vegeta- 6 most Eiportant bed in ‘ints part of the einen at one place g 200 tons daily. ions containing the Hikitte coalseams. The total thickness 1,000 feet. ®, William M.: 'Che Conglomerate series of West Virginia. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 276-284, 374-384; the Virginias, February, 1880, vol. 1, pp. 27-29. LC: : Notes on the Coal Measures of Beaver County, Pennsylvania. N.Y. Lyceum of Nat. Is, 1876, vol. 11, pp. 14-18. arles A.: On Conglomerate No. XII (in West Virginia). Philadelphia Acad. Sei. Proc., : | ie 94 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. fs ae Mr. Andrew Roy,! in 1876, reported that the Mahoning Valley ( region lying in the northern mane of the Ohio coal field belongs tot a ‘lower coal of the Lewis No. 1 of the Ohio Geological Survey,” an a has a varying thickness from an inch to 6 or 7 feet. This deposit: re sts % upon the “‘ Waverly” sandstone, which is so folded as to form numer. ous troughs, in which the coal has reached its maximum thickness. The e synclinals were probably formed by erosion anterior to the supe of the coal vegetation, and not by the mountain- hrsesspead forces exhi ited in the anthracite fields of Pennsylvania. In the year 1876 there appeared, as one of the volumes of the Second. Geological Survey of Pennsylvania, the “ Historical Sketch of Geolog- | ical Explorations in Pennsylvania and other States, by J. P. Lesley, — the State geologist.” This was reprinted without revision in 1878. It contains so much of interest to the readers of this essay that I refer them to it without abstracting its contents. a Chapter I is entitled “‘ Early Observations of the Geology of Penn- if sylvania.”* ‘Titles of papers and comments on some of them are given ; dating back to 1780. a Chapter II is entitled “'The Geological Society of Pennsylvania; and 1 what it did to bring about the first geological survey of the State.”4 b 3 Chapter III, ‘‘ A history of the first geological survey of Pennsyl- q vania,” ° an elaborate description of the “ Final Report of 1858,” oocing | pying pages 134 to 197. | - Chapter IV is “A sketch of the history of other State coologiaal surveys in the United States, and of their relations to that of Ponnayiad vania.”® The press of other duties prevented the author from Gomplet-— ing this chapter; only one State, that of North Carolina, is io In these chapters may be seen an account of the development of the knowledge regarding the geology of Pennsylvania up to the eg of the first survey and publication of the final report in 1858. The new survey, begun in 1874, in matters of correlation adopted the classifica- tion of the first survey, but modified and amplified its nomenclature. With the opening of the Second Geological Survey of Pennsylvania. Ly Mr. Franklin Platt was engaged as assistant to work up the bituminous coal fields of western Pennsylvania. As a working scheme of classi-_ : fication and nomenclature he modified the scheme of the first survey as published in the final report of 1858 to adapt it to results of the in- vestigations of the year 1874, and published in Report’ of Progress - H the following scheme of Coal Measures and underlying formations : Fos 1 Roy, Andrew: The Mahoning Valley coal regions. Trans. Amer. Inst. Mining Eng., vol. 4, 1876, PP 188-190. ; 2Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Rep. of Propitcus: Report A: A history of the first Geologicg 1 Survey of Pennsylvania from 1856 to 1858, by J. P. Lesley; pp. 226. 1876. 3 Pp. 3-28. 4 Pp, 29-52. . 2 ‘a 6 Pp. 53-197. | a ey) 6 Pp. 198-200. . “a 7Second Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, 1874. Report of Progress in the Clearfield and Jefferson — district of the bituminous coal fields of western Pennsylvania, Franklin Platt, Harr ebarg 187 5. > * a “a me : alae pa tet Sia be See a Be No. XI ai Belthas xf (Umbral.) ; New River coal beds-.-...... : een SS eer White pANastone. <2... 6.2 No » re. ( Vespertine. ) ea SREWO BUSIOS.. oo. nck we own e eeesees) Olvesandstone............. | .-.-..-.-. eae (Vergent.) oes Juniata coal beds ........-.. No. VIII —a. Black shales ................ ( pti avg. «anal 5 wh) elderberg.. Corniferous limestone... .-.-.. J 3... ...--s.-... (Pestmeridial.) ae White sandstone ............ No. VII.......(Meridial.) ‘Helderberg. Lewistown limestone........ No. VI (Premeridial. ) terlime ......... Cement layers ..........-.... = (Scalent. ) I Red shales and fossil ore .... No. V......--. (Surgent. ) Seeeasesessescs. hedsandstone .............. - No.IV L t pid: a _ ae et sandstone ........... Br Ao ea (Levant.) is ee ae 2 2 ae PeMMEBUONG - 2.62. goon ne wesscs No-It....... ¢ (Matinal.) Serene | WOlOmMites ...... 0... ....2- SB) Sa (Auroral. ) eeseeetes MOANGStONS..........--....-- No. I.......--.(Primal.) In the first column the names below Shenango are those adopted by 18 aig York geologists previous to 1843. The numbers in the third l Ir mn are those adopted by the geologists of the first survey of Penn- ylvania in the annual reports previous to 1842. The names in the urt column are those of the final report of the first geological survey, -H. D. and W. B. Rogers, published in 1858. The letters A, B, C, D, applied to the coal beds of the Alleghany series are those adopted 9 Ho dge and Lesley.' In 1876 Franklin Platt described the geological column at Connells- 1@ section i is as follows, viz: 2% h e Upper (Monongahela) Coal Measures, including about 280 feet of slates, sandstones, shales, and limestones, and the ‘‘Great limestone” with the EF. Cs aa coal bed” at the base. » Lower’Barren Measures, including, besides shales and sandstones, the Pitts- P Bare limestone, about 26 feet below the coal; Connellsville sandstones, 76 feet : oe the coal; and the Mahoning camlatin’ 421 feet below the coal. nual Report, 1841; Lesley’s Manual of Coal, 1856 ; and H. D. Rogers’ Annual Report, 1858. d Geol. Sury. of Pennsylvania, Rept. of Progress L: Special Report on the coke manufac- © Youghiogheny River Valley in Fayette and Westmoreland Counties, 1875, pp. 13-39. ; eRe ee A apa tate he a aaa ee ‘THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. ° . Meee S (3) Lower or Alleghany River series, ‘oheetian of shales, coal as, lime ston ~ ores, and down to the Conglomerate, No. XII. . (4) Ore beds of XI; limestones of XI. (5) Catskill rocks, No. X, or Catskill gray sandstone. ; (6) Chemung rocks No. VIII. { ai The means of correlation and identification were the ‘ Patel coal,” distinguishing the base of the Upper Coal Measures, the “Mahoning sandstone,” which is described as “the great key rock of © the bituminous coal field in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky. It was first best studied on the aeenonine River, in Jeflier- son County, and hence its name.”! = oo This marks the base of the “Lower Barren Measures ” and it puts: ‘ on locally a thousand varying aspects, being coarse, pebbly, and — massive, and again fine-grained, thin-bedded, and shaly.” And at the ~ base of the lower series is the ‘Conglomerate No. XII,” which presents — similar variations. It is the “‘Seral” Conglomerate of the first survey. — In 1877 Mr. Platt? published the following “‘ Scheme of the measures” — which “ would be met with could a well be bored near Waynesburg, or on the highest geological ages in Greene County :° . 1, The Monongahela River system : (a) Greene County group of Upper Barren Measures. (b) Washington County group of Upper Barren Measures. (ec) Upper Productive Coal Measures. The Alleghany River system : (a) Lower Barren Measures. (b) Mahoning sandstone. (c) Lower Productive Coal Measures. . The Kanawha River system: (a) Pottsville Conglomerate . txi (b) Kanawha Coal Measures - ; (c) Mauch Chunk red shale.. XI (d) Mountain limestone --.-.. : . The New River system (of Lesley, not of Eerie as (a) New River Coal Measures. ..-- - Xx. (b) Pocono (Upper Catskill) sandstone . 5 . The Devonian system: 3 (a) Catskill Old Red sandstone, IX. (b) Chemung sand and shales.....-.... (c) Portage shales and sands. -.-..-. ..- Genesee black shales. . VUL (d) Hamilton< Juniata Coal Measures. w ge = = Marcellus black shales. (e) Upper Helderberg limestone. .. ...- J . Upper Silurian system: (a) Oriskany sandstone, etc., to the Archean. on <= he Four new names are noted in oan list, ** proposed by the present State geologist of Pennsylvania,” viz: Pottsville Conglomerate, for Rogers’ “ Seral, = N o. XII. Mauch Chunk fed shale, for Rogers’ “‘ Umbral,” No. IX. .- Kanawha Coal Measures, for Fontaine’s “ New River ” series. Pocono sandstone, for Rogers’ * Vespertine,” 1 PN. Og 1Second Geol. Surv. of Peunsylvania, Rept. of Progress L. Special Report on the coke manufacture of the Youghiogheny River Valley in Fayette and Westmoreland Counties, 1875, 22. “, 2 Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Rept. of Progress He: Report on Cambria County, by F. and w. a. Platt, pp. 194, 1877. $Tbid., p. XXIII. y's | SCHEME: OF FORMATIONS. | 97 0 pe. published in Report of Progress H H., 1875, , but. with change in names, in Report HHH, 1877. In of this report,! by J. P. Lesley, the following scheme of for- on Miferous system: | . River coal series: ; 9 Washington County group. etter Coal Measures, phate He Conglomerate (Seral)..... veeaawe Oa dona) chs ch von ieee’ XII ? -@ Sharon and Quinnemont coal group. ¥ h Chunk red shale........ in limestone ..........-. Crthaerancepiorsticalati XI (e) ) New. River coal group.. meron (Vespertine) (mountain sands) ..............--06 x sandstone (Old Red) (? Oil Sand group) ....-. wagewd wee 4 ated IX yung Mean shales... ..2....-.2..-seecete~ Fawn anaewarcnh ae ‘shales INE 0 Sauincigen oes se < odes cus wer pcmrgedl etal sty talk n'a . formation Rea 6 on 4k ile Pith wen Wak aca eh 6 53 ita Shs Sten “pak shales ....-. OE ee ero bere XI ta he ROUND cans ecu der ee besa cance a eae aa He acberg limestones ...-....---. Nob pikes tiaicta $8 Aostae ante ae | eee Pes ta ceknman 45s Sens cuca oeene seneee gape hii VII Seite BO ir etd a ig daicdn Se aw oa evens ta : VI on Peetigaemont beds” is here substituted for the name wha , River system” of the former reports, because the latter | found inapplicable.” “st on Indiana County? Mr. Platt notes the discovery of “a erposnre of the Mountain limestone on the bank of the Vd ‘ ey vey of Pennsylvania, Rept. of Progress Ht: Report on Indiana County, by W. G. Platt, pp. ington Counties. In his classification the “Waynesburg ‘seni = Coal series, the bottom of which is not seen in the counties nuder exam . $ : ar Pai eo Aes ee oy: 98 | ‘THE DEVONIAN AND “canon SROUS. = . card ee ee ae — In 1876! Mr. tiaieaeda fisaniiied Sissi formations a Greene and made the base of the Upper Barren series. — This is divided into two groups, called the Washin ean County gt and the Greene County group. a The first, or lower, includes the rocks from the Waynesburg oan d- stone to the Upper Washington limestone, inclusive. The second, or Greene County group, extends from the — of me, Upper Washington ; limestone to the top of the series. a & The second distinguishing wate is the Pittsburg Coal Bed, and th e ductive Coal series. Below this_the Lower Barren series is the name applied. to all 1 rocks down to the Mahoning sandstone. : The rocks below the Mahoning sandstone are the Lower Productivi a ination. Ve ae Several local names are applied to the various strata presenting , conspicuous exposures in these counties. These are not of mais: 7 for the purpose of this paper. | = In 1877? the same author reported upon the rocks of Fayette a and Westmoreland Counties. In this classification the Waynesburg sandstone, the Pittsburg coal bed, the Mahoning sandstone, and the Pottsville (Sera) conglom- erate form the conspicuous landmarks in the sections by means of wh ch the four divisions of the coal measures are separated. iri Below the Pottsville conglomerate the Umbral series of iingaed recognized, and the author reports the probable identification of fossil Ss from the limestones of this series in West Virginia with fossils of th Chester limestones of the Mississippi Valley.® = a * The Sharon coal group is placed in this series below the Potter ille conglomerate. - . The Pocono (Vespertine) rocks include the rocks of the district be- low the Umbral limestone.*® In the following year (1878) Mr. Stovenbon’s? third report® was 3 pul ‘b- lished. In this report are particularly discussed the rocks of the secti on in the Ligonier Valley, Fayette and Westmoreland Counties. As in his previous reports, Mr. Stevenson adopts in general the’ nomenclat and classification proposed in the first’ geoogical survey. In this 2 1 Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Rept. of PANES fo Report on Greene and Washington Count i igi , by J. J. Stevenson, pp. 419, 1876. “ea ? Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Rept. of Progress K?: Repott of progress in the Fayette and Wi moreland district of the bituminous coal fields of Western Pennsylvania. By J. J. Sporto 437. 1876. 8 Thbid., pp. 102, 103. 4 Ibid.,p. 103. § Tbid., p. 105. ® Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Rept. of Progress K*: Report of progress in the Fayette and we st 831, 1877. STEVENSON, FRAZER, MORRIS. 99 a nd volume he adapts this nomenclature to that proposed by - Le 10 sley, as where he uses Pottsville Conglomerate for “Seral,” uch ee eonk Red Shale for “‘ Umbral,” Pocono sandstone for “ Ves- ” etc. garding the rocks underlying the Pocono sandstone, in the Fayette ty Te sticas, the author refers them to the Catskill “ by direction zs rot Lesley,” but under protest.! In a paper in the American urna. aes Science’ he explained his reasons for this correlation. The $in question in the river gaps through Laurel and Chestnut P avette County, are separated by many miles from other out- ihe the lower series, and the stratigraphic and lithologic char- rs do not furnish satisfactory means for determining the precise eof the lower beds. Fossils, however, found in the rocks below the acteristic Pocono sandstone were Devonian marine forms, the ma- ity 7 of them identical with species of the Chemung rocks of New ork saan or three Hamilton species, and no species characteristic of . cal Catskill rocks of New York. The author therefore concluded na the rocks were of Chemung age and “probably belong to the Lower ra er nung. ” n the closing chapter (xx11) of the report Mr. Stevenson gives some lua ble “ Notes on the Paleontology of Southwest Pennsylvania,” giv- g a list of 55 Coal Measure fossils, 26 Lower Carboniferous, and 15 nian forms. In most of the rocks of the district the fossils are 5, but occasionally in the limestones and shaly beds sufficient fossils ¢ obtained to satisfactorily determine the correlations. r. Persifor Frazer,’ in 1877, reported that a specimen of coal was x n nto him from a locality 18 miles east of Bath, West Virginia, and sr another specimen from Bath, by Mr. Pendlaten: Mr, Frazer thinks /are some reasons for soastbbie the coal to an horizon below the arb oniferous series. Mr. -§. Fisher Morris‘ reported that the New River coal field has out 0 seams that are workable. Their position is “in the Conglomerate, fo. XII, and hence they are called by Fontaine ‘“ Interconglomerate.” he ne thickness of the Conglomerate series is about 1,450 feet. ir n the report® on Lycoming and Sullivan Bonnin. Messrs. Sherwood. att follow the established nomenclature, identifying the various ata from outerop to outcrop mainly by stratigraphic methods. n the sections traced by Mr. Sherwood “ provisional limits” are re- ad between the Catskill red sandstone and the Pocono gray sand- | n e, and between the latter and “ Mauch Chunk red shale.” ie, of a Rept. of Progress K, p. 13. +, Vol. 15, pp. 423-430. Tr, jr., Persifor: Anthracite from ‘‘ Third Hill Mountain,’ West Virginia. Phila. Acad. Sci., " 1, 29, 1877, pp. 16,17, 4 p. Morris, S. Fisher: ‘‘'The New River coal field of West Virginia.” Trans. Amer. Inst. Min. Eng., es , pp. 261-269. . Ge vey of Pennsylvania, Rept. of Progress G*. Geology of Lycoming and Sullivan Coun- aS _ Fiele notes, by Andrew Sherwood. IJ. Coal Basins, by Franklin Platt. 1880, pp. 266, . a a 100 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. on In this series no fossils appeared to Hale the ourrelatione: “Theo rre ‘s _ lation of Chemung Measures was based upon the appearance of Devo as nian fossils, and in the strata where the fossiliferous beds were few be the red rock similar to those above was prominent the designation “ Transition beds of Chemung into Catskill” is given.! a The report? on Potter County by the same authors, adds no new : features to the general problem of correlation—the report consisting of 4 detailed identification of the formations already classified and named. — In the report*® on Jefferson County the main part of the volume is occupied with details of the township surveys. .On pages xxvii to- XXXIV the author, Mr. W. G. Platt, attempted: a grouping of the forma- é tions that had previously gone under local names. The Lower Produc- tive Coal Measures, aggregating about 300 feet in this county, he divided into the Freeport group, the Kittanning group, and the Clarion group. _ The Pottsville Conglomerate No. XII, 300 feet thick, is aca d into - Homewood sandstones. Mercer group of coals and sandstones. Conoquenessing Upper sandstones, Quakertown coal. Conoquenessing Lower sandstones. Sharon coal and shales. Sharon conglomerate. H. M. Chance,‘ in 1881, compared the Millstone grit of Ponneylyania with that of England. He said a survey of the Conglomerate No. XIT- (Millstone grit) in Pennsylvania by Messrs. Chance, Carll, and White, | and of the same rock in Yorkshire, England, by Prof. Green and col- leagues, led to the discovery of a striking mse in the structure of the rock in the two regions. A comparison of the nomenclature adopted by the two parties of geologists is given, from the Sharon through the Conoquenessing sand- stones to the Homewood sandstone of Pennsylvania, and the Kinder Seout grit, coal, and Rough Rock of Yorkshire. Afterward, as the middle members in both localities were sometimes represented by a single rock and sometimes by several, a generalization was adopted iv by each party, the second and third grits of the Yorkshire formation being called the Middle grits, and the upper and lower Conoquenes- sing sandstones of Pennsylvania, the Conoquenessing group. In the modified nomenclature the Ohio or Sharon Conglomerate of Penn- sylvania corresponds to the Kinder Scout or Lower grits of Yorkshire, and the Rough Rock or Topmost grits of the latter to the Home- wood sandstone of the former. 5. : 1 Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Rept. of Progress G?, p. 50. t y 2Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Rept. of Progress, G%. The Geologyof Potter County, by Andre Sherwood. Report on the Coal Fields, by Franklin Platt. 3 Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Rept. of Progress H®: Report of Progress in Jefierson County, b by W.G. Platt. 1880. ; *Chance, H. Martyn: The Millstone grit in England and Pennsylvania ; in Am. Jour. Bel, 3d aer., vol. 21, 1881, pp. 134-135. ~ I om written by Mr. White was published in 1878.1. He the following formations in the district reported on, viz, \ 1] eghany, and part of Butler Counties. :” uc jive Coal series, teaety coal bed (only). aaa feet.” : notive Coal series. From the base of the Barren Measures to the “ Pied- stone ” of Prof. Lesley, which the author regards the upper member .: group, and Clarion erent 325 feet. River a series (J. P. Lesley). This was called by the author in MSS ‘“ Conglom- series,” thus identifying it with the series so called by Fontaine in West nia , Feet. as nont (1), Upper Homewood Sandstone.........2222-.-.e+seeeeeeeees- 75-155 ales, inclosing sometimes a coal bed, iron ore, ? Mercer ? limestone, and as nie Ais oh oak pe ano MEAS a ada ds baw own peneme sony 20- 80 Ss) ville C onglomerate | EEE sandstone; ; Massillon sand- a: Keleaiclemmec dscns sass seen nates cesces sconces cdence aecsus 40- 50 Daeg alan aielnahehit nee wae bale Seed caccsaseeewe tan meted umes 35- 40 RE Ad wo a nk as on oe aed Ro ARTS wane Wiehe ae Sq heletss 20- 25 es i sometimes thin eae CP GON en ae kins» ev oma padeen < das gal 7 Sy the bottom member of the Upper Barren Measures. hio correlations the classification of the Coal Measures was e: of. Pennsylvania, Rept. of Progress Q.: Report on Beaver, NW. Allegheny, and 8S. 8s, by I. C. White, pp. 337. 1878. ‘WHITE, LESLEY. 101 e _in nature of the formations in eastern Ohio; and as late as 1884 Mr. use in subdividing the beds into groups. - Measures, including the Waynesburg coal beds and the Upper Barret is | ins eile ee 102 THE, DEVONIAN AND CARBONTFEROUS. ss are “fot tions, ‘strictly speaking, are pak banaee: this was thet case , down + O details which were variable in the different counties of Pennsylvaniz 1. As to the classification, the separation of the Con glomerate series from 1 the Lower Coal Measures was not found to express an actual change Orton, then State geologist, united these two, panies them both Lower Coal hisharros: 3 ; =a In the sixth volume? the Coal Measures ‘are classified as Carbonitfer- - ous, thus: (17. Upper Barren Coal Measures. .......2--. ..--2- 222-25 ences DOU | 16. Upper Productive Coal Measures ........-...--- 22. o2enccee RUOM Carboniferous ¢ 15. Lower Barren Coal Measures .-. 2250222 .2---. .-- 52 ooo cee 14. Lower Productive Coal Measures ............--....-.-. -- 3 aoe 13. Conglomerate group « 1in,+ .on entane eset hee bane baie + eee 250 — This is practically the Pennsylvanian classification. In the results already discussed, coal beds, as lithologic formation have been the chief means used in the classifying and correlating the Coal Measures. a7 _ Fossil plants served to distinguish the Carboniferous from the Geet ce at the Cretaceous Coal Measures, but have not heretofore been of mucl ie In Virginia and West Virginia the character of the plants found # i n the Upper Barren Measures led Mr. Fontaine to correlate them with the Permian formations of Europe. he =e The report of his study of the plants and of Mr. White’s study of the structure is given in Report PP of the Second Pennsylvania Survey. ‘ ; A brief account is given of the floras of the ‘Vespertine group (Pocono r formation), Conglomerate group (Pottsville formation), Lewer Produc C- tive Coal Measures, particularly the Kittanning Coal and the Uppers Freeport horizons, Lower Barren Measures, Upper Productive Coal Measures. The flora of the last formation, including the roof shales of the Waynesburg coal_beds, is discussed at length, and the —- described and figured, the authors reaching the conclusion that the ‘¢ Upper Barrens of the Appalachian coal field are of Permian age.” > Most of the species described are from the roof of the Waynesbat @ coal, and the authors suggest that “ perhaps it might be best to sepa- - rate the roof shales of the W aynesburg coal and Waynesburg sandstone ; and consider them transition beds, and the strata overlying and inclu zs | ing the great limestone below the Sewickley" coal are to be consider¢ ds strictly Permian.” ® A 1Geol. Survey of Ohio, vol. 5, p. 10. . 2Ibid., Economic Geology, vol. 6, 1888. By Edward Orton. 3Tbid., p. 3. P 4 The Permian or Upper Carboniferous Flora of West Virginia and SW. Pennsylvania by Wi M. Fontaine and I. C, White, 1880, pp. 143, Pls. XXXVII. r, 5 Tbid., p. 119. : ®Tbid., p. 120. - WHITE, “FONTAINE, LESQUEREUX. 103 & joie Sr ipetine group of Hlinois, Indiana, and Khisbiteiiy. the 1 ly group of southern Ohio, and the Cuyahoga shale and Berea rorthern Ohio.’ ot proposed here to discuss the value of fossil plants as a means lation. The whole subject of the classification, distribution, Brat association of fossil plants is under investigation by an ex- nist. al interesting problems of correlation depend much upon the lence of fossil plants: as the determination of the true relations of the aceous deposits between the marine Devonian and the Carbonifer- formations of the Appalachian province,the correlation of the Upper Zoic formations of the Acadian province, and the differentiation er Permian from the Upper Coal Measures of the Appalachian areas. , work, however, may be cited as an illustration of the kind of mod- tion 5 in classification suggested by fossil botany. In the year 1e results of Mr. Leo Lesquereux’s work on the fossil plants of the . Measures of Pennsylvania were published in Report P.2. Several Bespin particularly those on stratigraphy, were edited by the i Fe eologist, J. P. Lesley. greater part of the work is devoted to descriptions of the At the close of the volume of text a list is given of the “ Liter- eof the United States Coal Flora” (including Devonian), with 145 _ Under “ General remarks,” chapter 2 is entitled ‘On the geo- al and stratigraphical distribution of the plants of Carbonifer- ag re 9373 and at its close a “‘ Table of distribution” gives the vertical and geographical distribution of 599 species of plants. The ge ment of the columns expressing vertical range and classifica- a resents in a concise form the results of Mr. Lesquereux’s long, ex- ative and most careful study of the paleozoic plants of the United ne following is the classification : * . I. PRE-CARBONIFEROUS. Devonian. lemung (top division of No. VIII)=Middle Devonian. kill (No. 1X), Upper Devonian. 10 Sandstone (No. X), including, in Pennsylvania, Sideling Hill Tunnel, pe ennty 5 Red shale, below Pottsville (Mount peneral Lehigh Gap, below ‘gn ‘ uy D, , West Virginia. ) ae? Z a Permian or Upper Carboniferous Flora of West Virginia and Southwestern Pennsylvania, ion of the Coal Flora of the Carboniferous formation in Pennsylvania and throughout the St “Vol. 1, cellular cryptogamous plants, Fungi Thalassophytes, Vol. 2, vascular cryptog- |plants, Calamaria, Filicacea (Ferns). By Leo Lesquereux, pp. 694, and atlas, 87 plates. ted by J. P. L., pp. 617-635. 6-657. pd | ein Me eek ee PE). Cs : - i~ ~ ee ee ; ve - 104 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. — : es ss LL. 8 7 y it ~e * 3. Subconglomerate : Mauch Chunk, No. XI, hacaeates Foutninene conglo omera .te se- ries of West Virginia, and localities in Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Illinois, ter Group; Indiana, Chester Group; and Megalopteris beds of Ohio and Illinois. © 4. Interconglomerate, No. XII, Campbell’s Ledge, near Pittston, east Pennsylvan Hy Shamokin Gap, east Pennsylvania; Jackson Shaft bed, Ohio; Career hed, * madge Summit beds; Ohio ; Youngstown, Ohio. Il. COAL MEASURES PROPER. 1. Anthracite fields. . Beds A, B, and C, at Archibald, Carbondale, ete. Beds D, E, F, at Pittston, Wilkes-Banre, ree etc, . Bed G, Wilkes Bates, etc. . Upper Anthracite (Salem, etc.). . Rhode Island, ete. OMIA 9. Bituminous fields. 10. Coal A, B, above the Conglomerate (both beds often united), at Murphysbor- ough, Neeleyville, Marseilles, Colchester, Morris, Mazon Creek, Centralia Shaft, Van- dalia, Illinois; at Burnt Branch of Caney, etc., Kentucky; at Massillon, Ohio. af 11. Coal C (which i is sometimes united to B), ag Clinton, Missouri ; Cannelton, wes t Pennsylvania. _ 12. Fourth Coal (under the Barren Measures), at Tideuaie: St. John, Mlinois ; Nel- sonville, Ohio; Coshocton, Ohio; Sullivan County, Indiana. 13. Upper Coal (top of the Barren Measures), at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania ; Pom- eroy, St. Clairsville, Barnsville, Ohio; Carmi, Illinois; Grayville and New Harmony, A Indiana. = In this classification the base of the Pocono is regarded as the lowest formation of the Carboniferous system, although the line separating i it from the Catskill below is stated to be “ purely empirical.” ! Z The Kinderhook Group of Illinois ‘is probably referable to the Po cono.” 2 J. P. Lesley, 1886, gave some valuable statistics regarding the Pitts (S- burg coal region.? ‘ The Pittsburg Coal Measures have an aggregate chiens of = 00 - feet, containing 15 persistent workable coal seams. Their outcrop Ties S in a northwest and southeast direction across the State, forming a series of concentric curves, due to the peculiar way in which the st i face has been eroded. The Pittsburg seam is the fifth in descending order. It has been preserved from eroding effects in the southerr n part of the region only. The author sees no reason for disbelieving northern Ohio, and even crossed Lake Erie and Lake Ontario into Canada, and he is firmly convinced that * be once had a quasi-con- - tinental outspread.” The Pittsburg seam has a thickness of 12 feet at Connellsville, Penn- ’ Lesq., Dese. Coal Flora, p. 622 : - re . ; F. 2 Tbid., p. 624. : . : I 3 Lesley, J. P,: The peas of the Pittsburg coal regioa. Am. Inst. Mining Eng., Trans., Vol. 14, 1886, pp. 618-656, plate. Maka — Naat! S STATISTICS. 105 ead. 16 feet at George's Creek, in Maryland. At Pittsburg thick, and its outcrop 350 feet above water level. | rashington bed, also in the Upper Coal Measures, 150 feet he Pittsburg seam, has a thickness in places of 11 feet, its being only 34 or 4 feet. ie Lower Productive Measures occur the Freeport bed, having ge thickness of 44 feet, and the Kittanning and Olario# beds. Upper Barren Measures are characterized by the absence of able coal beds. They contain 17 different limestone beds. The ersistent i is pues . Washington limestone, which has an aver- sepa part of the series. They are not as persistent as the lime- The thickness of this series is estimated at ~The’ Tpper Pisdsotive Measures are also characterized by the predom- ina nee of limestone rocks, which form nearly one-fourth of the whole S8e- Pittsburg Ben Measures ieee an average thickness of 600 | and =. four beds of massive sandstone : ‘The Connellsville ees the Pittsburg seam, and 50 feet thick ; iiss Saltsburg sand- the Mahoning sandstone. limestones occur mainly under the Pittsburg coal seam and » the Connellsville sandstone. Two hundred and fifty feet below ! mer ‘is the Crinoidal limestone, and 100 feet above the Mahoning tor ne is found the Black limestone. The coal of this division is of m mmercial value. ag Alleghany series the first geological survey reniieniskt but six 18, | but the second geological survey found it necessary to sub- each of the series into three parts. A curious feature of this ; ‘that it contains cannel coal beds. ; one. persistent limestone is recognized in this group, designated | Ferriferous limestone, which has been used asa key for the loca- E he. oil- sand ee beneath. This is followed by the Potts- 2 uth develops ia the great Subcarboniferous limestone. It pears in Ohio and Kentucky, and in the Mississippi Valley is 106 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBON ¥ :ROUS. ei _the Pittsburg bed, where it has a thickness of 860 feet, and in Ve County of 650 feet. Its equivalent in Ohio and orn As = the ‘* Knobstone formation.” Underlying these rocks is the oil-sand group, Bacio a ‘total th ness of 350 feet. The first oil-sand, known as the Gantz rock, struck at Pittsburg, at 1,435 feet Lover low-water river level, adit hia ; a thickness of 112 feet. The second oil-sand is called the Fifty-foot” rock, and the third (the Gordon rock) is 260 feet below the Gantz TOC os Concerning the Devonian rocks below the oil-sands little defin te knowledge has been attained. at Frank A. Hill,’ in 1887, made the following: remarks about the « oe relation of the fontiiation of the northern coal fields of Penang hie’ 7 The Northern coal fields are situated chiefly in Luzerne, Lackawanna, Susquehanna, and part of Wayne counties. ‘The Northern coal field” consists of a single curved crescent-shaped basin, with its concave side facing northwest, and ‘‘locally divided — into the Wyoming and Lackawanna valleys.” The rock series consists, besides the 3 coal beds, of shales, slates, sandstones, and conglomerates. The Pottsville conglom-— ; erate above the coal seams has an average thickness of 200 feet. The coal beds are mf split up that in many parts of the valleys they bear different local names, suggest- s ing no relationship whatever. In fact, so little is known concerning the coal beds, — that it is at present impossible to make any definite statement concerning their 3 identification and equivalency. - _~ In 1888 Mr. J. J. Stevenson, as a member of the American commit- — tee, prepared a ‘‘ Report on the Upper Paleozoic (Carbonic),” for the | 4 International Congress of Geologists, which contains the followings’ classification of the Upper Carbonic :? # UPPER COAL MEASURES. Synonyms and local subdivisions. Pennsylvania, XIII in ) yyy; | Upper Barren group) Washer oncede ve Oa ¥ part, Monongahela.- yy Upper Productive group; Upper Productive — Coal _ Bi series. group. Virginia and West Virginia, ' aor Upper Coal Measures. Ohio2: ¢ :: i - mn oi aaa: eer mi 48 ay 4 =A J = ~ ae ie a ¢ Zag The Meadville group consists of— - : DAL Meadville upper shales. ‘ 5 URE at Meadville upper limestone.! eee: Meadville lower shales. .Sharpsville upper sandstone, Meadville lower limestone. Sharpsville lower sandstone. Orangeville shales. 2 The Oil Lake group is correlated with the Berea grit of Ohio, ‘he! Pithole Grit of Venango, and the Pocono sandstone, No. X, of more eastern sections in Pennsylvania.? It is composed of the— ; Corry sandstone (= Third Mountain sand of Venango). Cussewago limestone. ; a Cussewago shales (= = Bedford red shale formation of Ohio). ae a Cussewago sandstone. “Ss at Regarding the formations below this there was still (1881) considera ae ble difference of opinion among the several members of the Secon . | Survey of Pennsylvania. Mr. White, in Report QQQQ, correlated t outcrops of Erie and Crawford Counties as follows: Venango oil sand group: Venango upper sand (first oil sand). ' Venangouppershale. .- “~ Venango middle sandstone (second oil sand). Venango lower shales. ; : Le Beuf conglomerate, _ Venango lower sandstone - - .. Panama conglomerate. : Third oil sand. The author reported Chemung fossils from the Venango upper sand, l, the lower shales, and the lower sandstone. oa The author correlated the Venango as “at least in part of Chemu age.” He had identified Chemung fossils in the higher Riceville shales: 3.3 In a foot-note‘ he stated that he was “disposed to look upon the Venang group as Upper Chemung,” and “on account of the fossils, I should pre fer to call these [called Chemung in the text] Lower Chemung.” 1 we State geologist, however, objected to this interpretation and in th prefatory letter stated his objections. The substance of this objecti@ a is expressed in the following clause: _ a Thus the matter stands at present. Geologists who insist on fossil forms will « ca lI the Venango group Upper Chemung, and will explain the McKean sections by a disappearance of the oil sand in an increased mass of red beds. Geologists whoi ns upon lithological data will call: the Venango group Catskill, or even Pocono; i in spit it of Chemung fossils.® pe The latter course appears to have been Mr. White’s preference. — Bek ow Containing fossils which the author concludes indica: correlation with the Lower Keokuk or UPI ppet Burlington. bs 2 See Q! chapter x, pp. 91-96. 2 Q4, p. 97. (Qi pu 5Q 4 p.xi. WHITE ON PENNSYLVANIA STRATA. 111 eeaamee group in this report are the “Middle Devonian rocks Jhemung, Girard, Portage, No. VIII. Pe They are composed of— ‘ ik 0 A oO i eecerwrese cee eet eeee Seeeweeeees scene seus +8 475 3 ee. White considered the interpretation of the Venango group in ‘Erie and Crawford Counties as of great importance. He said: ¥ This identification [of the third Venango oil-sand with the LeBoeuf conglomerate] Ss scount the most important discovery to which my survey of the district has given =e ~The importance of the correlation is further testified to by the State sologist, J. P. Lesley, who in his letter of transmission wrote : “The cost of thissurvey has been justified merely by one result (setting aside the rest), namely, the determination by sufficient evidence that the third oil sand of Venango es unty is the quarry rock of Erie County, and that this deposit in crossing Erie 4 Co ounty changes its character from a muddy sandstone in the western townships to a coarse gravel rock east of Le Bouf Creek, becoming the Panama conglomerate in the © “Siate of New York ; every where charged with a peculiar group of fossil shells and aweed, and with petroleum, which has evidently resulted from their decomposi- tion. i - = eoe method of this determination was in the first place physical and not y fossils. The average dip and direction of dip were ascertained by the comparison of altitudes of the third oil sand in the numerous wells. os ith this assumed rate of rise on going northward, outcrops were iden- tified by their altitude; these were followed from ravine to ravine or 1 uarry, and the rocks in the quarries were then defined, their fossils dentified, and thus their position in the chronologic eele determined. -. Jthough the same method was practically used by both Mr. White ay nd Mr. Carll, when their tracings of correlation had reached Chau- tauqua Ogunty the result was that Mr. White correlated the Panama ‘conglomerate with the third oil sand of Venango County, while Mr. : rll placed it entirely below his Venango oil group. ‘The fact seems to be, as we review the records of the survey, that Ethe data of lithologic character of rocks and of thickness of the deposits Ww i 8 so constantly variable that the “theory of persistent parallelism > ¢' Po ¢, “< ryt 34 strata” was little more than a theory, the exceptions to which were 43 NUMerous as the illustrations. It was a cut-and-try system of natching together innumerable sections, made up of irregular combi- a ions of shales, sandstones, conglomerates, and limestone of various color, thickness, and texture. Whenever the gaps were over a mile or long the adjustment of the theoretical dip, a few feet more or less tc ) the mile, would enable the parallelism to fit any particular stratum ina given section. The fact that those who showed evidence of having noted the fossils, although they may not have identified them, were Bt 1Q4, p. 101. 2Q4 p. VII. oy > 112 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. invariably nearer right than those who neglected sah, aes the belief that the fossils, even in this case, were the most val means of correlation. aA William M. Fontaine,' in 1877, published some notes on the Ves ex tine of the Virginias. The area oid by the Vespertine in the two Virginias is limited by the main Alleghany in the northern and middle e portions, and by Peter’s and East River Mountains in the southern H portion. The Vespertine rocks compose the middle portion of the main Alleghany from the Potomac to Pocahontas County. The anthor gill 3 an account of the structure of the country and the geographical distri- bution of the Vespertine strata, as well as that of the underlying rocks, showing great distortion of the rocks and numerous faults. Two of t he detached belts of Vespertine east of the limit mentioned are. spoken of in detail, the first occurring on the east flank of the Alleghany Moun- 2 tains, near White Sulphur Springs, containing coal strata and plant i im- pressions, and showing thestrata lying immediately above the Chemung, with the junction of this last with the lower portion of the Vespertine; 7 the second belt more important and extended, about thirty miles east of the last, commencing in the northern part of Virginia, in Berkeley County, and extending south through the State. In the northern and middle portions the coal-bearing member of the Vespertine lies under . the inverted massive sandstones of the lower member, and is found on the west side of the mountain, while in the southern part of the State, where the Vespertine strata are not inverted, the coal-bearing member is lies on the southeastern face of the mountain. As all the strata, in- ; cluding the coals, thicken to the eastward, the Vespertine coal field: mus' have extended much further in that direction than any remnant now a be seen, the belt of country over which well defined coal beds were x formed being more than 300 miles long and 50 wide. : The author considers the most natural upper boundary of the Vesper- os tine in the Virginias to be the base of the “ Lewisburg limestone” (p. 43), which he correlates with the St. Louis and Chester groups (p. 44). ‘The Vespertine strata on Greenbrier River are described, the red 1 upper member attaining a thickness of 250 feet, but thinning out to the north; the middle member, 290 feet thick, having about 70 feet at the top of bluish gray sandstone overlying 40 feet of thinly bedded gray flags, with fully 50 thin strings of carbonaceous matter distribute do through them, but with a considerable coal bed a little farther north. Above this carbonaceous portion are 120 feet of firm gray and brownish sandstones, and then 40 feet of very flaggy, gray, soft sandstones and — shales, with some layers of fissile black shale containing indistinct vegetable impressions, mostly leaves of Lepidodendra. Atthe basp — 20 feet of dark gray, compact, fine-grained sandstone, 5 At Lewis tunnel the base of the Vespertine shows a rock not bong t up at Greenbrier River; a white, pebbly, highly siliceous sandstone, € 0 : 1Fontaine, William M. Notes on the Vespertine strata of vues and West Mes ng Am. Tom ie: E Sci., 3d ser., 1877, vol. 13, pp. 37-48, 115-123, ; ie a Hy ew 2 Aan a 4 = . = * "as a 3 n thickness, aud one of the most persistent and characteristic 3 of the Vespertine. With this Should probably be counted 500 of andelyng more argillaceous flags, giving a total of 560 feet 1e lower member of thé strata in this section. The middle mem- 0 feet thick, is characterized by the predominance of gray sand- es containing coal. The upper member consists almost entirely of es 8, with a thickness of about 250 feet, giving the group a to- hickness of 1,160 feet. Although the author does not altogether vith Prof. haere j in his measurements, he thinks that they show 2 siderable thickening of the red overlying strata to the south. n oe County there is great contortion and disturbance of the ata. To the west of this they have suffered much from erosion, and wonly the lower and middle members. The Vespertine of Mont- y County is treated at great length. The two areas of Brush u rai and Price’s Mountain, separated from each other by a nar- y belt of Lower Silurian limestone, are described, and a detailed sec- of the lower and middle members of the series exposed at Brush untain is given. The lower member shows a thickness of 930 feet, d the middle member is 670 feet thick, but the upper red member is 1¢ h better displayed at Price’s Mountain, where it has a thickness of o ‘tanies , The conclusion drawn by the author from the facts stated is “ that has been a very marked thickening of the Vespertine as we pro- d from north to south through the State, accompanied by an increase the amount of coal contained in it. Thisincrease seemsto belargely aed of the supposed Catskill beds. It is in conformity with i w of increase which holds good for all the strata fromthe Devonian y nd including, the Lower Barren Measures of the Upper Coals.”! it few species of plants were found, but these were marked by the BP cvatior of individuals exhibited. The most important were forms yidodendron, Paleopteris, and Triphyllopteris, and one specimen of WORTHEN, ASHBURNER. 113 In 1878,? C. A. Ashburner, reported the followin g section across south- no E untingdon County.’ Feet. ee retorone, Lower Productive Co al Measures, Alleghany River series 256 CIT ville Conglomerate (= Seral Conglomerate) .....----.----- * 7 *, 7. A 6 ir ee SDL a" “a” ad LT 7 oe eo th ee RY ne et PS ee ee eee A eae ae oo 3 Fe coe Sey, a ae Ptaae ek 2 eer Be RROn wea 2. r e ay) Alia Te | im Laat igi ; fs \ Lopes iu 114 ‘THE DEVONIAN AND CARBON! FEROUS. é; ; a | eS bane, nO aie Ee X. Pocono (Vespertine) sandstone. aera ae ae? : ‘ A; Ws iy Voges * Xd. Upper gray sandstone group 2.2... .cee se cece se nce sen nee 610 ei dy ‘ Xo. New River coalséries;. 2... csc. has sd oe me Cee eee ae Xb. Middle Conglomerate group...... /...-...2----- woteeeee OCW apa Xa. Lower green sandstone group. .-..- Bg. 0.25 \aeee Brats ig ch IX. Catskill (Ponent) Old Red sandstone. VIII. Lower Devonian series. - $6 Deansition Petes: st. ia. sade ee ees ery! VII. D. Chemung - a Olive (Vergent) shales.........-..-.....%. VIII. C. Portage (Vergent flags) ..... Seat waalseecs eon a bee Baty, > c Genessee (Cadent, upper) alates -0.. meses VIII. B. Hamilton.< b Hamilton’s Cadent Shale. 2) oo ee VIII. A. Upper Helderberg Corniferous (Postmeridian) limestone ~. WII, Oriskany (Meridian) sandstone.-..>. Jc - sens. te eeaw hb eceus lndean ve apes “ Ete. through the Lower Paleozoic. a In 1880 Mr. Ashburner completed and’ published his report? on th e ‘geology of McKean County. During the reconnoissance survey in 1876 he had collected a large number of fossil specimens. He was unable to arrive at any “satisfactory conclusions as to a systematic divis of the strata.” He “finally decided to group the strata by a study of their lithology, and on this basis to seek to make a connection wi th sections in those portions of the State where the structure had been clearly defined.”? Asa result of his studies he publisheds as one of the sheets, Plate x13 - “4 During the construction of this sheet he indicated the groups 0 of rocks by letters “ A, B, ©.” After it was finished he determined, ig comparison with the sections of adjoining counties, the correlations, and the highest, A, he called “Pocono,” B “Catskill,” and C “Chemung.” In this report the Olean Conglomerate formed the conspicuous base of the Pottsville Conglomerate series, or No. XII of the old classifi » tion. This was, for Ashburner, the base of the Coal Measures and v was the equivalent of the Ohio Conglomerate.‘ +) Below this conglomerate he reported a series of 500 to 800 feet of 1 roc which he was-obliged to correlate with the Mauch Chunk shales (X - Pocono sandstone (X), and Red Catskill (IX) of other parts of the State; but the few fossils obtained appeared to him so mingled and to range Iam thoroughly convinced that these rocks hold a fauna which is essential] unit.incapable of subdixision, and that this fauna is See y of a Subcarbonifer us age.° 'Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Report of Progress R: Bepart on McKean County, and its geologi ical connections with Cameron, Elk, and Forest Counties, by C. A. Ashburner; pp. 371, 1880. 2 Report of Progress R., page 29; also see page 292. . 3A series of columnar sections constructed from surface observations and the records of elev wells situated between Bradford, in McKean County, and Ridgeway, in Elk County, showing the tion of the Lower Carboniferous coal beds to the Bradford oil-producirg sand and the thickeni R the subconglomerate rocks. J.P. Lesley, State geologist; Chas. A. Ashburner, assistant geolo og is A. W. Sheafer, aid. _ 4 Report of Progress R, pp. 56, 62. ” *Tbid.; p. 30. 4 .. e, mest CARLL, LESLEY. 115 7 1 western Pennsylvania the development of the oil industry far- 1ed a meaus of geological correlation not before accessible. The great nt ber of oil wells distributed over large areas in western Pennsyl- V ia (and since then wells have been drilled in almost every State in the Union), where the records were preserved and studied, furnished data of levels attained by particular formations under the irene a Mr. John F. Carll, one of the geologists of the second geological survey yf Pennsylvania, collected these data, coordinated them, and elaborated fr om tle records a classification of the formations. His results are con- Pic ined i in Reports of Progress I, II, III, and IIII.! In the first of these 7 re Siete (L) the origin of the name ol ads is explained. In the early di piling for oil in Venango County, the drillers, recognizing these sands 1 their wells in Oil Creek, distinguished them by the term oil sands. pret the higher ground was perforated the sandstone layers supposed ) lie above the horizon of the three oil sands of Oil Creek were called « mountain sands.” % _ Thus it came about that the series of shales and sandstones, akout 850 or 400 feet thitk, containing the three petroleum-bearing sands of Dil Biseek. Venango County, were named the “ Petroleum Measures of Peuauco, or Division of the Three Sands or Oil-sand group,” and the rocks above, up to the base of the Conglomerate No. XII, were called «Mountain sand group or Barren oil measures.” 1 this report the following equivalences were proposed: _ First mountain sand — Upper Berea grit, No. X. ; ‘Second mountain sand = Lower Berea grit? “the fact of the conspicuous development of the three sand layers in e wells of Venango County suggested.the name ‘ Venango oil-sand group,” which was definitely proposed and defended by Mr. Carll in is third report.’ I Prof. Lesley, in his letter of transmission, says of this report: 2 e main feature of the report is the settlement of the true character of the Venango oil -s sand group as a distinct and separate deposit, with characteristic.marks distin- shing it from the Paleozoic formations of a preceding and a succeeding age; the Reesitistion of the group into three principal and other subordinate ayans of ally sand, holding more or less oil and gas; the local variability of these sands; f singular persistency beneath long and narrow belts of country; their change te barren shales elsewhere, and their independence of other oil-bearing sands and shales of an earlier and of a later date.® . M *, Carll proposed the name “ Garland Conglomerate” for the low- st member of the Carboniferous Conglomerate series in the part of the es Vo a * o, ~ 4 L? Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Rept. of Progress: I. Report on Venango County, by J. F. Carll: eology dround Warren, by F. A. Randall; notes on the comparative geology of northeastern , northwestern Pennsylvania, and western New York, by J.P. Lesley, 1875, pp. 127. Report of oil well records and levels in Venango, Warren, Crawford, Clarion, Armstrong, Butler, y J. F. Carll, 1877, pp. 398. Report on the Venango, Warren, Clarion, and Butler oil regions, by J. F. Carll, pp. 482. 1880. Report on Warren County, by J. F. Carll, pp. 439. 1883. Is, p. 130. ept. of Progress, I’, pp. vi, vii. 7 e! = : oe ; wi oe a Pes 2 Cae ‘< ace, D ars 116 "THE DEVONIAN AND Sr hah bah) ~. State siaaiot by him. He ee | it with the Olean Co tigtoink : of McKean County, the Sharon Congiomerate of Mercer County, the Ohio Conglomerate of Ohio, and the Second Mountain sand of the oil 7 wells. Pie ‘‘ Sub-Garland sandstone” was used for Mr. ‘Aenburners Bs Sub. olean” and Mr. White’s “Shenango sandstone.” In chapter vi the author, by. _ the application of the methods of correlation suggested by his experi- a ence with oil well records, determined the Panama Conglomerate of a Chautauqua County, New York, first, to be older than the Olean or Garland Conglomerate; second, to be neither of the Venango oil sands; A and third, to be of sab age by lying below the horizon of the Ve- nango oil ‘aaa group.” * > a He pointed out the important distinction that the pebbles of the Pans | ama Conglomerates are almost always lentiform or flat in Shape, while | the pebbles of the higher Carboniferous Conglomerates are irregular] y spheroidal.* ae By the same methods he argued that the place of the Salaniaked Con-* glomerate is above the Panama Conglomerate.‘ Again, he correlated _ . the “First Mountain sand” with the Conoquenessing sandstone of 4 ; Butler County and the Kinzua Creek sandstone of McKean County; the “Second Mountain sand” is a synonym for the Garland Conglom- : erate; for the ‘Third Mountain sand” of the earlier reports of the oil men, he proposed the name ‘ Pithole grit,” which he considered ; equivalent to the Berea grit of Ohio? a The author prepared the following generalized section of the formation | from the Upper Barren Coal series of Greene County, Pennsylvania, — a down to the Corniferous limestone, which will show his interpretation . of the series as the result of a detailed study of oil well records :° ed oe Upper Barren Coal Measures, B. | Greene County group, from top to Washington upper limestone... Upper Barren Coal Measures, A. Washington County group, extending to Waynesburg aah ier a e 2. Upper Productive Coal Measures, to base of Pittsburg coal......-.:...- | 3. Lower Barren Coal Measures, to top of Mahoning sandstone........... 4. Lower Productive Coal Measures, to top of Conglomerate No. XII....-. 5. Mountain Sand series, to base of Olean-Garland-Ohio sii mamas $ 6. Crawford shales, to top of Venango Oil group ;.........-............-. 7. Venango Oil group, from top of “ First Oil Sand” pe bottom of the Third OU Band? ci. on oc ep nccbok Wiese eee MeeBEn ey = cane Pte 8. Interval between the Venango Oil group and the Warren Oil dete ae 9. Warren Oil group-s2.82 525 5 wee sy- blevue see eee aie eetee lS obs oS ere NE 10. Interval. .... Pon bee cl ned oc eacn mine ioe pee ee i nab Ske camedis 11. ** Bradford Third Sand”. ...-...~:-s)< densa eee ORIEL wee pieeinsh- kp cee 12. Interval between the Bradford ‘‘ Third Sand” and the Corniferous lime stone, commencing in the Chemung and including the Portage and Hamilton groups of the New York Geological Survey........---.---- 13, -Corniferovis Tintestone: ...... ..5 ete ee ss ee oe eee 1 Rept. of Progress, T3, p. 13. 2 Ibid., p. 77. 3Tbid., p. 60. 4Tbid., p. 79. 6 Ipid., p. 82, and chapter 8, p. 91. ‘Rept. of Progress, III, pp. 156-164. tz ei : ‘ » 2s a se Te < ph le vice CHANCE. . 117 Pottsville Conglomerate No. 12 was subdivided into upper, mid- nd lower beds, called “ Johnson’s Run rocks,” “ Kinzua Creek sand- »,” and “ Olean Conglomerate.” He e correlated these with ‘Homewood sandstone,” “Conoquenessing a om stone,” and “Sharon Conglomerate” of the reports Q, Q’, Q’, and QQ And he proposed to drop the name ‘Garland Conglomerate” asa ynonym for the Olean Conglomerate of Mr. Ashburner’s report on 3 ae County? _ In the chapter on the Panama Conglomerate Mr. Carll defended his fc tie opinion that the Panama Conglomerate is not equivalent to any nember of the Venango group but stratigraphically is below it, against view published by Mr. White in Q‘, that the Panama represents Third oil sand of the Venango oil group. Mr. White claimed the € eq io ivaleney upon evidence of fossils. Mr. Carll objected to the recog- D ye n of the Venango group as Chemung, on account of the absence of y Chemung fossils in any of the members of that group as seen in » Venango County sections.’ Mr. Carll’s method was based upon BpenEY of the persistent parallelism of strata. While for short dis- tances and in certain directions no doubt the dominant character of the str, " could be traced, often this theory utterly failed him, as he con- fes eo in a foot-note on page 205, where, discussing the relaiiens of » sub-Olean and Salamanca Conglomerate across Warren County, ae © says: is metimes no trace of the particular sand rock sought for could be found in proper la ce, and instead of it other massive pebbly strata would obtrude themselves, 100 vot t too high or 100 feet too low to fit into the {places where, according to our theory « af 1X istent parallelism of strata, they ought to belong. os: report V® Mr. Chance discusses the ‘‘ geology of northern Butler an d parts of Beaver, Lawrence, and Mercer Counties.” Aside from the failed geology the most important contribution toward the develop- ant of the classification of the Pennsylvania rocks was his analysis of Esai Measure Conglomerate, No. XII. The following table exhib- ‘3 it: Mercer group, coals. Conoquenessing group, sandstone, Sharon group, coal and shales. Ohio Conglomerate. * = ( Homewood Sandstone. Al Measure Conglomerate, No. XII. a =Beaver River series. | pt. of Progress I‘, 1883. id., p. 185. -, p. 195, et seq. bid., p. 205, foot-nete. 5 Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Report of Progress V. Report on northern Butler County; and cP er report on the Beaver and Shenango River Coal Measures, by H. M. Chance, 1879, _ €Ibid., p. 188. Part Second, ‘A Special Study of the Carboniferous and Devonian ~ _@ ae ade eS op ate bed ky eas { ANG ay eke? 4 cial, “ wih Vy ae : . < f paix . gras ae aie te gis: 4) r AS ima oe : 118% #60. >. ae DEVONIAN AND cannoxtPEROUs eee ona ane Another table shows the difference between his interpretation and d that of Mr. Carll: Sia a ; ie ; Homewood Sandstone. ..... 22. woes ce ewe nse | No. XII, aMootdine to Mr. Chance, Beers PROUD oe Sos coe ge pieced seen eee 30 Feet. an Connoquenessing group.........---------+-- 155 > 265 ) Bs ITT SOB Na adn ie aS oon a ha howe Soop aye py ‘ig: “ Sharon Conglomerate (Ohio Conglomerate)... 40 435 pay No. XI, aceorde pheton upper-shales ... 62.6.2. sdccee cee eee 3 8 Sharon upper sandstone..... ation ca oan ne eee 15 170 Sieron middie shaleg, . ..... 26 eccicn ene» c= mee 75 : Sharon, lower sandstone...........---..--.-- 50 : = Feet. Crawford upper (Cuyahoga) shales ...........- Leene tea ee ichawenge canes - 133 Berea grit (Third Mountain sand of oil men, Carll) .... 2... 2-22. 2225 cone enenne ce x Crawiord lower (Bedford red) shales: .2..iov5 aga ee ls eos Soe sane saee +. oe a . The last three members of this table, Sha seed to gether, were called — “ Crawford shale group” by J. P. Lesley.' In the Report of Progress, G+,? Mr. H. Martin Chance pubushall as 4 strata along the West Branch of the Susquehanna River.” At the 5 time this report: was written the Coal Measures series had been fairly — % wellstudied,the Conglomerate as a base was established, and the eastern section had been particularly well surveyed, classified, and compared BS a with that of Ohio. The northwestern sections of the State had been ~ examined and great difficulties had been found in identifying the a . ous members. Dr. Newberry, in the third volume of the Geology of Ohio, had re- — ported “that the Vespertine connects throughout this gap with the Waverly, but the Umbral and Catskill do not reach Ohio.” eee Mr. Chance says that— oH a The Mauch Chunk red shale, No. XI, and the Red Catskill, No. IX, diminish in Si thickness rapidly from the Alleghany Mountains westward, so that in a few milesthe _ latter entirely disappears; whereas the Pocono (Vespertine, No. X) thins gradually 4 ' for a few miles, then maintains a nearly constant thickness for 90 miles, when itrap- idly loses its lower half by a rise in the Chemung floor at the oil-sand shore line and again stretches away tothe west, with anearly constant thickness, fer 100 miles ; or more. yea Among other causes productive of erroneous identifications in the northwestern — counties, insufficient paleontological data may be mentioned. The lines of demark- — ation between Subcarboniferous and Catskill and between Catskill and Chemung — fossil horizons are not uniformly drawn by paleontologists, and as—from the condi- — tions essential to the growth of shellfish—it seems certain that there must (at some i ; points) be an overlapping of the fossil fauna of one formation into that above if, ‘the structuralist can not accept unquestioningly an identification supported by paleon- tological evidence alone. : 4 ‘ =] " ae ‘ His correlations are well expressed in detail in a “Table showing the _ 114, See foot-note, p. 224. “ ?Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Report on Clinton County, by H. M. Chance; including a description ie u of the Renovo coal basin, by C. A. Ashburner; and notes on the Tangascootac coal basin, by F. Plat, ie pp. 183, 1880. . 3Tbid., pp. 79-174. ee - CHANCE; STEVENSON. 119 1 ed nomenclature of the Carboniferous and Devonian rocks of err Be cinsylvania and Ohio.” - af Eastern Pennsylvania. Western Pennsylvania. Ohie. VA Coal Measures...-... Coal Measures .......... -Coal Measures. “""2 XII Conglomerate ...-... Conglomerate series...... Sandstone and shale with coals 1, 2, 3. XI Mauch Chunk red aR ES Red or dark shales. Upper (gray) Pocono ....Cuyahoga and Berea grit. Lower (red) Pocono=oil- § Bedford shale. ; sand group. 3 Cleveland shale. BEMIS PLL 66 ose vane -ADSCNE. ccc. occee seceen Absent. X Pocono sandstone Chemung .......... Chemung Hols bhakes i one St A ae Hise dhnine VIII< Hamilton .......-.. Hamilton (?) : Ps Corniferous lime- Corniferous.......... .---.-Corniferous lime- stone. stone. i Be onmler to explain the difficulties in correlating the deposits below rreat Conglomerate, No. XII, Mr. Chance assumed that there was asin during the deposition of ‘the Catskill rocks, the western limits ~ hich swept approximately through Potter, Cameron, Elk, Jeffer- m, Armstrong, and Westmoreland Counties; that along this line, or mewhat westward of it, a sudden rising into shallow water, or to e line conditions, prevailed in the Catskill and Pocono time. This tplains, as he thinks, the accumulation of oil-sands along such a shal- w bottom, while further out the Catskill deposits were forming.! Mr. Stevenson,” in 1887, presented some new views regarding the cor- on of the Umbral at Vespertine in the southern extension of the ppalachian province. He stated that Prof. Roger’s division of the ywer Carboniferous into Umbral and Vespertine, seems correct for e eastern side of the Appalachian area, but in southern Pennsylvania oe rema there are variations worthy of study. The Umbral deposits in Pennsylvania consist of red shales and shaly mdstones, and were afterward called by Prof. Lesley the “Mauch hu n nk. Ma? . s limestones first noticed in Maryland increase rapidly in thick- ani. T he Vespertine consists of sandstone and shales, with occasional coal am 8, and varies in thickness from 1,300 feet in Huntingdon County Je D 0 feet in Fayette County. wing to the faulted condition of the rocks in southwest Virginia, ) 1 sections of Lower Carboniferous rocks are shown from the Ten- | * Be > line to Giles County. The rocks do not change materially until € come within 75 miles of the Tennessee line. In this direction the espe rtine thins out more rapidly than the Umbral rocks, which in ula ski and Biand Counties contain streaks of coal. In Smyth County, it A v’ gram is given illustrating this view ov p.114 of the Report. D nson, J.J.: Notes on the Lower Carboniferous groups along the easterly side of the Appa- in area in Pennsylvania and the Virginias. Am. Jour. Sci.,3d ser., vol. 34, 1887, pp. 37-44. oye ra us = a ee =e Pe = _* ¢ yy ‘ 7 * : es Sas ie’ 7 ‘ *4 r ”) Ri ous 7 ue ah xi nT TL. 1 4 2 ea: ee the Umbral, as well as ie aN ese is eandaiay noticeable, hile the increasing limestones form the most important feature. = ia ad : The Umbral of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the Virginias is equivalent t o th Chester and St. Louis groups of the Mississippi Valley, and it may include the K Seo kuk; while in the Vespertine must be sought the equivalents of the Burli gton, a isinasitigin: of the Kinderhook. In 1888 Mr. Stevenson, as one of the members of the Amerigan O mittee, prepared a report on the Upper Paleozoic (Carbonic) pire = International Congress of Geologists. In this report the classification and synonomy of the Lower Carbonic is given as follows:! GREENBRIER. < Synonyms and local subdivisions. Vindestinania XI, Umiral, most of ; Mauch Chunk, most of; ‘Shenango shale ’ Ohio . .. ; Maxville limestone.. Waverly group, in part. Virginia XI...-.-.. Greenbrier group. ; = Tennessee. - Mountain limestone. Alabama... §°"""~" Siliceous group. Indiana...... Mountain limestone. — ys 7) Chester group. , a Pere St. Louis group. non Keokuk group. Nova Scotia..-_-.-. New Brunswick.. > Windsor group. ~ Newfoundland .-.. ! POCONO. Synonyms and local subdivisions. — group. Pennsylvania X, Vespertine, Pocono ........-.0+---- ---} Mea group. Oil Creek group, in part. Wh Te nnn oe cape e cme te wekodes spagedeeaseepe mae eee .--- New Rivers Cuyahoga shale. : Ohio: Waverly group, in part ......... ine Cale eb aee Berea —— rit. Cleveland shale. aoe a Absent, or represented by the lowest beds of the ee yroup. Se ND Gl See PE EN EL Knobstone group, in part Wieden. 5. es sk SRM Sate Pe Stee Ne 2 pets Se OE Burlington group WGwS. -22. dsc a SS SS eee eee Kinderhook g TOU) ?. +? Michigan salt group. Michigan .-.--. --..---. +--+ --+--+ 022 2+-- 2022+ paowinneete™ S ; Marshall group. New York... 2... <:.. putin Ce telue bee ae wath rx degree De 1dstones. Mets Réctis i 3. se eee Se i Re 5, at enews ene === Horton astern Quebec... . -. 2 24. . eo be eee eee Pade Ta Bonaventure 1See Report, D, pp. 7, & fa “ th» \ bk wy ee eS « 7 ~ oo a F 4 it jaa ’ CHAPTER VI. ( EMUNG-CATSKILL PROBLEM: THE HISTORY OF THE DIS- J SIONS CONCERNING THE CORRELATION OF THE CHEMUNG NI D CATSKILL FORMATIONS IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE a .LACHIAN PROVINCE. in the year 1862 the discovery by Mr. J. M. Way, in the rocks of anklin, Delaware County, New York, of fish bones, in association Shemung fossils, raised doubt as to the validity of the correlation the deposits. The rocks had previously been considered as Catskill, id Red sandstone. The fish remains discovered were regarded as aracteristic fossils of the Catskill group. The marine fossils found the same rocks had been regarded as typical Chemung fossils. Sol. EB. Jewett, then curator of the State Museum at Albany, an- yee that “From my investigations I believe there is no Old Red iC one in this State.”! The letter communicating this determina- s dated “ Albany, September 20, 1862.” 5 same facts led Mr. James Hall to the following judgment: 0 investigations, combined with those heretofore made, have forced upon me viction that the greater part of the area colored on the geological map of New 1s Catskill group, is in fact occupied by the Portage and Chemung. ? = it inti we ascend the slopes of the Catskill Mountains and rise to an elevation of at st 2,000 feet above tide water, we find no rocks of newer age than the Chemung.® bn w becomes necessary to restrict the term Catskill group to the beds formerly 1 as x and xi of the Pennsylvania survey.* rh $ announcement, as Alexander Winchell wrote® in a letter to s D. Dania, dated December 10, 1862, produced “a sensation ameng dg ists, ” and led to discussions euiendin g over a number of years. Satter Winchell spoke of Jewett’s announcement’ of disbelief Muststence of the Catskill group in the State of New York, and le i his own disbelief in its existence as a distinct group, and his Tou . Sci., 2d ser., vol. 34, p. 418. Also 15th Ann. Rep. State Cabinet of Nat. Hist., Albany, the C l group of New York, by Prof. James Hall. A letter addressed to Principal Daw- d te i Albany, October, 1862. Canadian Nat. and Jour. of Sci., new series, vol. 7, p. 377. Iso a Hall. Remarks on absence of Catskill gronp in New York.” Albany Inst. 1. 4, 1863, pp. 307, 308. il, Alexander, on the identification of the Catskill Red Sandstone group with the Chemung or to J. D. Dana). Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 35, 1863, pp. 61, 62. +. Sci., vol. 34, p. 418, 121 _ almost universal generic identification, establishing fully the equiva-" | - with the Hamilton and Chemung groups. Am. Nat., vol. 4, 1870, pp. 563-565. ee ec 3 RE? Ge ee. ee = eae ee ee ee: 2 Are - * £ re, fa 122 THE DEVONIAN AND ‘cannoxsrEno 8. sore ie York when hie had previously Sinan his over of the equiv = lency of the Marshall and Chemung groups, and of their common Car- — boniferous character. Since that time the confirmation of his doubts — led Winchell to include within the Marshall (Chemung) group he Ong Red sandstone of New York. In his researches among the rocks of this age, the writer found an . lency of the Chemung, Marshall, Ohio, Rockford, Burlington, and ‘$f Chouteau strata. He gives as eviaenes that these sociales are all of Carboniferous age: “ First, the fact that of the 135 species now known ~ from the yellow sandstones of Burlington no less than 40 ascend into. the base of the Burlington limestone, while 2 rise to the upper portion — of it, and 1 recurs in the Coal Measures; second, the fact that of the — known species of this horizon, at least 9 occur in the Coal Measures, or 4 upper part of the Carboniferous limestone; while third, multitudes of species are clearly the local pigmonmalilidae of Hisdoncas: and American — Carboniferous types.” Mr. Hall’s declaration in the Canadian Naturalist — ‘*that large areas of the rocks of New York hitherto regarded as Che- mung, do really fall within the limits of the Hamilton group,” is said to account for the Devonian aspect of some portions of the Chemung — fauna, as heretofore understood, and, Winchell adds, “tends to con-— 4 firm a broad generalization, and complete the adjustment of American — to European Paleozoic formations.” 4 : Mr. James Hall? in 1870 announced that he had previously repactaaa the so-called “Montrose sandstone” (of Pennsylvania) and “Oneonta — sandstone” of Vanuxem as lying above the Chemung rocks. The pane” views were held by Mr. Mather, who made the Montrose and Oneonta — series equivalent to the upper part of the Catskill rocks. Further ex amination proved this conception of their relations to be erroneous and brought out the following parallelism of the groups in the eastern and — western parts of the State: Old Red sandstone of Tioga, etc. : Catskill Mountain sandstone: Chemung group. _ Chemung group. ; Portage group. Oneonta group. 1 Hamilton group. Hamilton group. The Oneonta sandstone does not occur in the central part of the State, ; and its western extension has not been traced beyond Chenango County. — In 1875 Mr. Hall* again referred to the age of the Catskill formation, — In 1870 it was the prevalent opinion that, contrary to the author’s” A statements, the Old Red sandstone did not exist in New York State. — - 1 Regarding the development of Wee views on the correlations here announced, see the chapters ‘ ; on the Waverly Problem. Fa > 2 fall, James: On the relations of the ear: Sandstone and Montrose Sandstone of Vanuxem 7 - 3Qn the geology of the southern counties of New York and adjacent parts of Pennsylvania; espe- . cially with reference to the age and structure of the Catskill Mountain Range. Am. Assoc., Proe., vole 24, pt. 2, pp. 80-84; Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 12, 1876, pp. 300-304. ; tien - \ _. HALL. 123 ther examination proved its existence, as well as the occurrence of her formations. From these additional facts a map was constructed, ored to represent the difterent formations. The Catskills consist of series of nearly parallel synclinals and anticlinals, with a southwest id northeast strike, running from the base of the Catskill range “to 8 western limit” of the red rocks in Chenango County. This con- ue s to the western part of the State, but before reaching the bound- y so western New York and Pennsylvania, it probably thins out tirely. In the southern part of New York State the synclinals show s of the Coal Measures, while others are cut down to the Chemung. 3 author states the difficulties that have arisen in determining the at on of the Chemung and typical Catskill. In some localities the iemung fauna runs above its apparent horizon, and even mingles hh Carboniferous forms. This fact is especially important when we fempt to determine the limit between the Devonian and Carboniferous rmations. Inthe section exhibited which runs across the Catskill ige from Schenevus to Glasco, the Portage and Chemung rocks have hickness of over 2,000 feet, the Red Rocks of the Catskill about 3,000 ot t, and the Reesrtine beds about 800 feet. He stated in 1880! that he found long ago that the Catskill Moun- © ; is of New York consist of Devonian rocks of Chemung and Catskill ocl $, resting unconformably on Silurian rocks. Mr. Arnold Guyot his observations found that the highest points of this region were on ide Mountain, 4,205 feet, and the Panther, 3,828 feet above tide level. 3 to structure, the beds show weak plications whose axes are parallel ih those of the Alleghany system, but the mountain ranges were at ht angles to the system, or from northwest to southeast.” This pmaly is explained by erosion. ‘The general level descends west- ‘he work of the Second Pennsylvania Survey had been conducted, ‘to 1880, or up to the time of preparing the reports published in 1880, the plan that correlations could best be made by lithologie and atigraphic means. Frequently one meets with expressions of lack confidence in the evidence offered by the fossils. a correlation of the Coal Measures and as far down as the Catskill fossils were not discovered frequently enough to serve as satisfac- | y means of correlation. In this case lithologic character, thickness, 1 stre igraphic order were the data which by aid of actual altitude of rata in individual sections enabled the geologist to trace dominant tions from one township to another and from county to county. t wi Peke work progressed, different geologists having charge of groups es vo or three counties, the correlations at the edges of contiguous ities were constantly presenting disagreements. e formations, where fossils were not present stubbornly to resist gs all, Tames : The geology and topography of the Catskill Mountains. Am. Nat., vol. 14, 1880, 2-613. 3p. | 124 THE ‘DEVONIAN, AND. CARBON! sk + 5G Sagi ee of nomenclature. In the case of Laie zones as desde diffie mer became more apparent as the final eoneenenie were Sterna: and Chestnut Ridges. He gave a cineca section of ska rocks. as ol D- served in the gaps, as follows: . 1. Shales and thin gray sandstones. ..........-..----- --- nth in Sek ans oe ee eee 2. White to reddish-gray sandstones with some shale........---..----.----- oe 3. Reddish-gray micaceous sandstones with red to gray and olive shales...... pe 4. Red to gray shaly sandstones with gt i eis and shales -..2. 03.05 rey After a description of the rocks, and a discussion of their pel 8 he concluded by saying, that, “as the lithological characters of t . rocks are much like those of the Chemung, and their fossils, | ot animal and vegetable, are unquestionably of Chemung age, the roel ks themselves must be Chemung, probably representing the Lower Che: ‘mung;” and that “ the great Catskill group has so far thinned out t A it is represented only by its upper or gray member, the Vespertine « 2 0 Pennsylvania.” a The Pennsylvania reports published in 1880 gave little indication ¢ the true nature of the errors of correlation of the Upper Devonian. 2 the Report of Progress G’,? the imperfection of the theory of “ “¢ persi ent parallelism of strata” became evident. The author. classified the deposits examined as follows : ie" Pottsville Conglomerate, with 8 feet of slate ‘al sandstone below it in a sec bic tion a Susquehanna Gap. Af Mauch Chunk Shale, No. XI, 150 feet, Pocono group, No. X, 353 feet. The Pocono-Catskill group, 400 feet thick near Loretto. Se Catskill, No. IX, varying in thickness from 1,800 to 4,500 feet. The base of the kill is fixed as the lowest horizon at “which the scales, teeth, and boi es ¢ Holoptychius oceur. + The Catskill-Chemung group, section between Rupert and Catavissa, y 077 : The base of this group was the lowest red bed. Chemung, near Rupert, 2,443 feet thick. Hamilton, at Little Fishing Creek, made up as follows: . - « Gohekoe alate 11. Sc cohec ola weue eee ee ae Sa Es, eh eae oF op oe 0a Tally limestone .-22.) 4.5 52 Jie eee Brae ie. S. eee 1.2 Ota «6 in Fate ung kacee eee SPIES ee ae ae ee Marcellus shale ......... é xe hie oket eee ited Pa Sn 2b Kido aces eit «sen This is called the “ Northern type.” e ; 1 Stevenson, J. J.: The Upper Devonian rocks of southwest Pansiayt aula. Am. Jour. Sci 4 ¢ ser., vol. 15, 1878, pp. 423-430. or. 2 The geology of the Susquehanna River region in the six counties of Wyoming, Lackawas ni zerne, Columbia, Montour, and Northumberland, by I. C. White, 1883, S Dir h Saale Sata Se Soi a Si ade ls | 125 Feet, 2, 922 Pao Cusco a dsb sGucwae woe weedesesebouseecccecs 65 . a wee ec eww sce e wes Cee wes Peewee ewe ees ee ewes case 300 Ps Ledge’ black slate, immediately below the Pottsville ty-three species of » UP s 4 ae a. >> * Se 4 t 7 : . a cs ee lM | ate 2 AES a sy we * ' . ; Prat 7 rere Sie ew fr sy se ang ag “ 126 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONI EROUS Bk x oe ee To * the topsyturvy appearance of the three Species of Spirifora outside of Pennsylvania have been found (1) never in any but ‘Chi rocks; (2) confined each to its own horizon; and (3) always in a order from above downwards ;”! and also to the high reported ran e of — several species. The objections were so pointed that the State | cooley gist, J. P. Lesley, closed his letter with the statement that “ the start a ling fossil species of this report will therefore be regarded by the pale e- ontological reader as only provisionally verified,” ete — eS. Two things about the report were out of the ordinary and expected line of opinion, The author, though partly recognizing the lithology as worthy of consideration, based his classification of these ‘ subcon- glomerate” rocks on the evidence of the fossils and secondly he classified _ the rocks according to the evidence and not according to the standa ard 8 as they existed in New York State. He was forced to recognize two “transition” groups in order to suit both kinds of evidence. This sat- isfied neither the lithologic nor the paleontologic schools of geologists.. The identification of fossils may not have been accurate in all cases, but the result of later studies has clearly shown that the real difficulty was not in the identification but in interpretations which were brought out by the facts. The minute and exhaustive field work of the second Pennsylvania survey had shown beyond the possibility of contradictic n that geologic formations vary within wide limits in their lithologie character and in their thickuess, and constantly, so that sections a fey V miles apart may present very little in common, although known to be ) stratigraphically correlative with each other. This had led to the full adoption of the idea that the parallelism of strata must be made by actual tracing of the strata from place to place, and that identificatio nD by lithologic likeness was impracticable over any considerable inter\ val of space. Paleontologists, however, still clung to the theory of | the ) strict uniformity of sequence in faunas. a The ‘‘ canonical” opinion of the “ highest authorities” in oie n- _ tology was that the order of sequence in species of fossils, establishe¢ by the facts in one well authenticated section of deposits, furnished a standard that could be implicitly relied upon in the correlation of other sections. When it was reported that this established order was not preserved, doubt was naturally cast upon the identification of the | fos- sils. \ a The Pennsylvania geologists did not seem to be aware of the i impor- tance of the facts, but they were correct and the error lay in the theory of the paleontologists, ae Mr. Claypole,’ in defense of his tateneinee embodied in the Pennsyl vania report, and criticised by Mr. Hall in the preface of the sa me volume, quoted from an article of Mr. Williams’s, i in which are recorded ed observations confirming his statements in Report Gt . * — * 1 Rept. of Prog. G’, p. Xx. | 2 Ibid, p. XXVI. 3Claypole, E. W.: On the vertical range of certain fossil species in Pennsylvania and New Yor! Am. Naturalist, vol. 19, pp. 644-654. a : “a i —_- 4.) er) > us acy “ es ¥ ’ fe a ae : ers - y} 'y <<" 1 Fe, e — c - ag as a ie a iti za vow ‘aoe wa y niki é ; Ge | . pal. So) OLAYPOLE. . 127 fee: Gulenncement was made of the discovery of a distinctly lton fauna, all the species of which had been heretofore consid. iS strictly Hamilton species, in arenaceous shales several hundred above the Genesee shales, at Ithaca, New York. It is separated the typical Hamilton fauna by four distinct faunas; those of the imestone, the Genesee shale, the Spirifera levis ited called rat? ame State "ea pa and a fauna described in this paper from ee sha fauna, but seitautis a later stage of it. This black shale od by the author as “a single continuous fauna.” He says: ance in the rocks of central New York in three separate zones, called the = the Genesee slate, and the Ithaca Shales is regarded as evidence of ted incursion, eastward of the conditions which were continuous over some the interior of the Devonian intercontinental sea, where the three New peti enitod by « one continuous series of Black shales. eran faitigas in the relations of the ocean and continental bitindiones by tropical eons of the ocean were advanced ita ak occasioning the ~ aba the etuvoag fauna was dominant over the northeastern United ooks being a: in the arctic latitudes received a Hamilton fauna ; and 1ed in ae measure ‘Be differences of environment, bathymetri- nditions, temperature, purity of water, etc., so in the past, it is sed, similar differences in the faunas will be found to mark deposits were made at the same time, but under different conditions. a the second place since oscillations are known to have occurred rents | are supposed to have existed in the ancient as in the oceans, according to the theory it is reasonable to expect a r less constant change of the conditions of environment at any ar geographical position, and consequently a shifting backward ard over it of the faunas during the accumulation of the sedi- rr nce of Faunas in the Devonian Rocks of New York, by H.S. Williams. Proc. Am. Ass. #30, pp. 186-191. forth as the ieeataiank of a general law. Investigations in the same line were extended by tl the seine ward from the meridian of Cayuga Lake, New York State, across State, northwestern Pennsylvania, and the eastern part of Ohio. — rocks studied were of Devonian and Lower Carboniferous age, and | problems were the same over which the i Iai orrag geologists we ere struggling. g In 1883, Mr. Claypole! reported that the Catskill group of; New You rk 2 had hitherto been considered as non-fossiliferous, and as separating tli , characteristic Devonian and Carboniferous faunas. Further examina - tion, however, proved that these rocks contained a scattered fauna consisting of fish and plant remains. From a study of these depo ts in central Pennsylvania, the author reached the following conclusio nS 3 (1) That the lower portion of the Ponent Red sandstone and shale (Catskill) is | less barren of organic remains than has been supposed. (2) That Holoptychius and Bothriolepis are not exclusively Catskill fauna, and (3) That the Ponent group differs from what it is generally understood to be, the contained fossils indicatin a that there are Chemung and also Carboniferous faunas included in rocks call a7 FE Ponent.? + Mr. Claypole,’ during the same year, communicated several other papers bearing more or less upon the general discussion. : In the same year (1883) in which Report G’ of the second geologi survey of Pennsylvania appeared, the manuscript of Bulletin 3 of t U. 8. Geological Survey * was furnished, though. not published till t 1e following year. es The bulletin is a ee: upon the constitution, the order, and rela “ of a coal bed at the Barclay coal mines in saute Bradford Count Pennsylvania. — Ca : , 1 Claypole, E. W.: On the occurence of fossiliferous strata in the Lower Ponent (Catskill) group o middle Pennsylvania. Am. Nat., vol. 17, 1883, pp. 274-282. ee 2Tbid., p. 282. y 3 Claypole, E. W.: Note on the occurrence of Holoptychius about 500 feet below the recognized top of the Chemung group, in Bradford County. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., vol. 20, 1883, p. 531. On a mass of Catskill rocks, supposed to exist on the nofth bank of Towanda Creek, near Frat Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., vol. 20, 1883, pp. 531-533, 535. : On two small patelind of Catskill, represented near Leroy, on the map in report G, of the sae survey of Pennsylvania. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., vol. 20, 1883, pp 533-534. ’ On the Kingsmill white sandstone. Am. Phil. Soc., Proc., vol. 20, 1883, pp. 666-677. pa. On the equivalent of the New York Portage, in Perry County, middle Pennsylvania. Am. Phil. § Soe Proc., vol. 21, 1883, pp. 250-255. On a large crustacean from the Catskill group of PannkyVaiela. ‘Am. Ass. Proc., vol. 32, 1883, p.2 4On the fossil faunas of the Upper Devonian along the meridian of 76° 30’, from ‘Tompkins Coun in iY; New York, to Bradford County, Pennsylvania, by Henry 8S. Williams. A notice of the general results, embodied in the bulletin, appeared in Science, December 28, (Comparative Paleontology of the Devonian formations, Science, vel. 2, Dp. ipa: jor utive faunas were algo examined particularly as to condi- onment with which they were originally associated, as indi- the lithologic character of the deposits. The Scope of the y be i indicated by the following quotations : Teg ation of species into faunas, the blending of one fauna with another, the abu idance of particular species, variation in form or size or modification of chi aracters, the extinction of old and the initiation of new forms—all these ch 6 most delicate tests of change in the physical conditions, the record of stit utes the geological history of the earth. ci yrrect | solution of this problem the laws of geographical distribution form nt an elementas geological sequence. The attempt to apply such principles study of tog Devonian and Subcarboniferous deposits is no simple task, but ‘y ry fact tha vt their faunas offer so great variation and difference in their combi- i - kes this series early + os for = purpose.! "e +"> * x * ae it pplain that over any particular area the faunas shifted back and | thes advance of geological time. Hence I was led to the simple conception @ as ontinuing on intact as long as the favorable conditions for its life con- ting its habitat with the elevation or depression of the land, with the - retrocession of the coast line. In such shifting and change of condi- > species }after another may drop out and become extinct; others may suffer a “modification, and, what is still more important, the mada appearance of eer take place in the midst of the normal fauna—forms new to the local- or entirely new, so far as our knowledge of the fossils can tell us. Merely ation of the new forms in the fauna we can gain no clew of its origin, r of its relations to allied forms of other faunas may enable us to decide is @ modification of some older form or the forerunner of a new type, ra » later Seological ghage.* mers xi ree ° od . z following | is a summary of the order and general relative position of the faunas » Genesee slate to the Barclay coal, which my present ee a leads me to Dor be na group ithe, distributed through approximately 1,300 feet of strata, ares by the intrusion of the Ithaca faunas and several sub-faunas. Cher lung fauna, occupying at least 1,200 feet of strata, with perhaps two sub- and driven out or destroyed by the presence of the conditions marked by the of red and gray Catskill rocks. in the limits assigned to the Portage group in the western part of New York believe should be included for this meridian all those deposits lying between s Fog almost totally barren, so far as known. ge between this series and the tr ue Chemung is stratigraphically indis- rus hens the arenaceous deposits after passing the line, and the appearance -colored sandstones in the midst of softer argillaceous shales, in which iron ac : 1U, S. Geol. Surv., Bull. No. 3, p. 6. 2Tbid., p.& - 80——9 3 b a ee A By et “~t | ab meg inet a. ha gt oe ~ ity EY eee iT Beste in Maret: celle tage a. * “% oe ; | YPOLE. 131 i Tiedimonts has been going on simultaneously with the its of the Waverly formation.”! bjection to such terms as ‘‘ Chemung-Catskill” and “ Cats- us did not come to light in this controversy. The names do res ent the facts they were intended to represent, i. e., that Ent sedimentation did not change synchronously for even sd areas, and to attempt by the use of nomenclature to make ision a lines of the chronological scale precisely coincide for the f ay ljoining States will often unnaturally strain the facts. 35 | 5 Report of Progress F’ was published.? In this report the ation adopted i in Mr. White’s Report G7 was more fully elabo- Mr. Claypole’s classification is as follows: ‘ woe Mau ch Chunk red shale, 10 Ba i. formation, including— ed v Upper beds. pit 3 _ Dellville sandstone. ©, SG oe - King’s Mill shales. $he __ King’s Mill sandstone. C Hs familton pent, including— Hamilton Upper shale, 200 to 300 feet. Hamilton (Montebello) sandstone, 500 to 800 feet, . tN Hamilton Lower shale, 400 to 500 feet. foie limestone and black shale, including Marcellus black shale, 100 feet. ii - Marcellus upper iron ore, 2 feet. Marcellus limestone, 50 feet. Marcellus lime shales, 50 feet. Marcellus lower iron ore, 2 feet. ] . Upper Helderberg (Corniferous) group. (Absent.) { any sandstone group. ivi: ion line between the Chemung group and the Catskill is not sional red beds occur below the line he sets, and Chemung 8 5 Wiliams read a paper on the classification of the Upper De- ones of ekeavivania, Report of ne bY: ¥, A bishastenty Reporte on the Painesiit Perry County, describing the order and thickness of its formations and its folded and ture, by E. W. Claypole. Harrisburg, 1885. 12,73. Bcation of the Upper Devonian, by Henry Shaler Williams, Am. Ass. Ady, Sci. Proc., y ag oh are formations which by their fossils indicate not. Aas Re SN Se re ea 132 “TILE DEVONIAN AND “CARBONIFEROUS, pape “ County, New York. The individual faunas were studied in their stratigraphic order in th various sections, and their relative positions in the sections were show nD to exhibit a shifting back and forth of the faunas during the depositior a of the sediments. ‘The faunas were classified and the recurrent stages” of each were given names from the dominant fossils, characterizing them as follows:! ~ _ 2 | A is the Hamilton fauna and its immediate successors. ; a The middle Devonian fauna (A) was traced above the horizon of the Genesee ° shale in the following successive stages: . Al, the Paracyclas lirata stage. A 2, the Spirifera levis stage. A 3, the Strophodonta mucronata stage. A 4, the Atrypa reticularis stage. A 5, the Leiorhynchus globuliformis stage. A 6, the Tropidoleptus carinatus stage. A 7, the Spirifera mesostrialis stage. Ra Aé + is a second recurrence of the Tropidoleptus stage, found above the Ch he-- mung fauna and distinguished by the variety Owegoensis of Spirifera mareyi, a characteristic variety of the granulifera type of Spiriferas. B is the black shale fauna, beginning in the typical or first stage of the Gon esee shale. In the fauna of the black shales : B, the Genesee stage of Lingula spatulata. B 1, the second Lingula spatulata stage, in Portage shales. B 2, the Lingula complanata stage of the ‘‘ Ithaca group.” / B 3, Lingula spatulata , third variety, in the Cleveland shale. B 4, Lingula complanata, second stage, in Chemung shales. C is the fauna of the green shales of the typical Portage group. C 1 is the Cephalopod stage, with Goniatites and large Cardiada@. C 2, the Lamellibranch stage, with Cardiola speciosa, etc. C 3 is the Portage sandstone, generally barren. - D isthe Chemung fauna associated with brown argillaceous shales, flags, 1 ‘4 calcareous sandstones. a The faunas of the brown shales and sandstones of the Chemung deposits were q classified into the following stages: ” D 1, the stage of Orthis tioga. D 2, the stage of Strophodonta cayuta. D 3, the stage of Athyris angelica, D 4, the stage of Rhynchonella contracta. : D 5, the stage of Spirifera alta. All of these stages, except the first (D 1) are characterized by the presence of some S variety of Spirifera disjuncta) = Sp, Verneuili). = E is the fauna of the flat pebble conglomerate. ._ aa F is the fauna and flora of the Catskill grays and reds, ' i In the Catskill rocks the fossils are very rare, but there are two stages (F 1) of the 2On the classification of the Upper Devonian, by Henry Shaler Williams, Am, Ass. Ady. yey Proc, . vol, 34, 1885, pp. 225-227. Cr ee < e ' er xg se - WILLIAMS. 133 ere Ne d grays and (F 2) of the typical Catskill. So far as fossils have been ifficulty in defining them. that Holoptychius and several allied fish, Conrad’s Cypricardia angusta ants, are found in both alike, but further investigation will be necessary any clearly distinctive characters in the fossils. tly fauna G appears to be distinguished into three stages in other parts of inthe region comprised in these sections the stages are recognized more hhologic than by their paleontologic characters. The general fauna may she Syringothyris fauna, o G1, the Bedford shale stage, nh G 2, the Berea grit and sandstone, With a G 3, the Cuyahoga shale and sandstone. E Lis the conglomerate (Olean and equivalent). J is the Barclay coal beds. | oy studies ite following principles of correlation were de- 18 C. Pah a are so great that the attempt to determine ietleow by single b ly identified fossils will certainly lead to erroneous results. ' doin altitude and the geographic position of rock strata should be pre- fined, a as well as the lithologic character of the strata th emselves. And for ra rt la ie seats and adopted by all geologists in the country. de The fact that species composing the faunas and the total faunas themselves as of the actual inhabitants, and if the change, within a few feet of strata, is al entirely distinct group of species, the evidence should be taken as pointing to on8 derable shifting of condition of the bottom. If in such case each fauna is stinet, the means of tracing the geographical distribution and modification hand. If mingled, then the collection, though made at the same locality, will au 180. Two such faunas meet at Owego, Tioga County, in distinct strata, but S which are of similar lithologic character. One is a remnant of a prevailing n fauna, the: other is an eastern and late stage of anew fauna. 2 The classification of the rocks may receive local geographic names; the ition of the biologic series should receive names derived from the names of ages defined by families, periods by genera, and epochs by species, or some- that kind, and these periods or ages will always adjust themselves to future isae the classification of the particular formations the follow- clusions were reached, viz: e Devonian black shales occur in the strata from the Genesee shales upward, ing with the normal deposits of the Portage and Cleveland shales and sand- and peeibly. a with modifications of the faunas, but run out at the - : Rea AEC at rN és ay Pekan: f ey aA # 134 | THE DEVONIAN AND CARBO. ees ate za PS eee (2) The Portage sobs and faunas are local, the characteristics 0 f each ‘ si recognizable east of the Cayuga section. #4; Ste (3) The typical Portage formations of the Genesee section have quite a dif set of species from the rocks occupying the same interval in the Cayuga section, farther east the same interval is filled by rocks es the Catskill, called the bette sandstones, etc. _ the Chemung fauna in the absence of some of its most characteristic species. (5) The modified stages of the Hamilton fauna appearing above the Genesee shal are confined to sections east of the Canandaigua meridian. (6) The Catskill deposits of Chenango and Otsego Counties are intrinsisally! distinguishable from those of the higher stage called Catskill, but appear at a lo position, stratigraphically, in the interval occupied by the ‘“ Ithaca group” of the Cayuga section, and by the middle part of the Portage group of the Genesee secti e but paleontologically they are immediately preceded by stages of the same general fauna. (7) The dominant and most characteristic species of the py ee Be oan appea ar stratigraphically earliest in the more western sections (D 4 of Girard and Chautauqn This stage i the fauna appears in the upper part of the Chemung group — e appears, oy it is there represented by only a few specimens in the very upper stra ta just before the final incursion of the Catskill deposits.! t 1Op. cit., p. 234. a n! oS ° a . ; ai aig le Vals E LOWER CARBONIFEROUS OR MISSISSIPPIAN SERIES: THE VELOPMENT OF THE NOMENCLATURE, AND CLASSIFICATION E LOWER CARBONIFEROUS FORMATIONS OF THE MISSIS- N Y PROVINCE. by finding coal beds containing plants sitios to those of the a sures of Europe; but ihe determination of the lower and limit its and the classification of the Carboniferous formations 9 ers of gradual development. =] 7° rons “was bimtinply different. A considerable series of lime- s and calcareous shales, and a few sandstones intervene between rm tiation of the Silurian and the base of the coal-bearing strata ‘These rocks contain rich and varied fossil faunas, and their tion _and classification constitute one of the most important ; he base of the series in some parts of the province, but in ons they are missing. The formations resting upon the De- Nejad these occur, and in other places upon the Silurian, are los sterized by fossils of Carboniferous age, and have heretofore gone :. the names ‘“ Mountain limestone,” ‘‘ Carboniferous limestone,” boniferous,” and “Lower Carboniferous.” No one of these satisfactory, and as these formations are bound together by a n general fauna and constitute a conspicuous feature in the of this region, it is proposed to call them the Mississippian ‘This series may be defined stratigraphically as that series of prevailingly calcareous, which occupies the interval between the an system and the Coal Measures, and is typically developed in eS forming the upper part of the valley of the Mississippi , viz, Missouri, Illinois, and Iowa. The name is aslight modifica- rt fc orm and usage of a name proposed by Alexander Winchell in ‘The Marshall group, etc., Am. Phil. Soc., Proc., vol. 11, p. 79. ; . 30 n American geology. Rocks containing Devonian faunas are he FEY, san Val 136 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIF He proposed ‘the use of the name th: Miscisatppl yeneiean ser Mississippi group” “as a geographical designation for the Carbo ous limestones of the United States which are so largely devia lin the valley of the Mississippi River.” ie At the time this was written the Chouteau group of Broadhead was aS - correlated with the Chemung group of the New York geologists, and ‘one of the important results of Winchell’s paper was the demonstration that the Chouteau group of Missouri, the Kinderhook group of Illinois, ‘ the Waverly group of Ohio, and the Marshall group of Michigan were different types of a single formation of more recent age than the Che- mung group of New York. Bi - As the Carboniferous age of the Chouteau and Kinderhook fannas i ae 3 fully established, it appears entirely appropriate to extend the limits of the Minsisaloplon series so aS to include all the formations contain g Carboniferous faunas from the top of the Devonian to the base of the e Coal Measuses. I have already proposed the use of the name in this sense in recent reports to the State geologists of Arkansas and Missouri. As the nature of sedimentation # greatly determined by the geo- graphical relations of ocean to shore lines, a brief description of the geographical conditions of the region during the upper Paleozoic is here appended. Mi At the opening of the Devonian period the Archean continents al nucleus of the Northeast had been increased by a considerable border - of Silurian formations. The borders of this land mass roughly defined extended from near the mouth of the Mackenzie River southeastward to Lake Winnipeg, and as the line approached Lake Superior it was” diverted westward, to what extent we do not know, as the more recent deposits cover the see, The shore line appears again running across the northeast corner of Lowa, thence eastward across Illinois, and chelal ; suddenly bends northward, forming a great bay, taking in the peninsu-— lar part of Michigan; Sighs eastward across Ontario, northern New 5 York, and around the Catskill Mountains into New Jersey ; thence with P some interruptions southwestward, forming an eastern duien si the ) Appalachian basin. The Cincinnati uplift was probably an island for part of the Devon. n- ian period, and the Ozark uplift of southeastern Missouri formed an- other large island, which probably remained above water throughou qi the Carboniferous. Other islands may have furnished shores of erosion - farther to the south and west. Thus from the beginning of the Devon- ian till the time of the general continental elevation which initiated th a Coal Measures, the central part of the United States was a vast ocean | basin. The sedimentation about the margins of this basin was prévail- / ingly arenaceous and argillaceous, the formations are more varied, anda it is in these margins that we find the best development of the Devon- ian system, both stratigraphically and faunally considered. As we. approach the central portion of the basin the sedimentation is preval - 5%. oe te le ue Lae Wo Mil * et OR eee A aa, Gil le 2.) ie ee Noten Sane BR a a is ual itr. Epi nbs! Pie tat oe ‘ ae as eget NUTTALL, ‘OWEN. 137 ee a, nna th the strata representin g the Devonian system be- in amount, and less varied in composition, and contain a | and, finally, in Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, and ess other fossils, is all that represents the complex stratig- paleontology of the Devonian of New York. The “Black ss assumed an important role in the correlations thet 0 saiicssion Delsercore in our literature to the limestone cS of the Mississippi Valley as a formation possessing common char- st ics. These limestones he rightly interpreted by recognizing in 1 fossils of Martin’s Petrifacta Derbiensis. It is not probable it he , any more than many geologists who immediately followed him, x Ds nized the distinction between the true Carboniferous limestones thers of Silurian and of Devonian age. The fact that the lime- which he described as forming the calcareous platform of the ; ‘The first and second annual reports were published in 1839.! | n th ne first report Owen gave the general outlines of the system then ise in. in Europe as expressed in De la Béche’s Manual, and constructed on representing his interpretation of the rocks “ along a line from a3 aute running southeasterly toward that part of the Alleghany yhich divides Tennessee from North Carolina,” thus: - Bitum minous coal formation. td lou atain limestone. tgs auwacke. Crystalline and inferior stratified rocks. f a Geological Reconnoissance of the State of Indiana made in the year 1837 in conformity of the legislature. By David Da'e Owen, M. D., geologist of the State, pp. 34, 1839. port of a omeeioel Survey of the State of Indiana made in the year 1838. By David es aga Spey 138 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS, eet eee or, and the succession there is interpreted as follows: Le Coal formation. Seams of coal associated with beds of sandstone, shale, olay; an ‘ ; limestone. 1. Oolitic limestone. 2. ee strata, Siliceo-caleateous series with Seoaktonl be ods of clay i Subcarboniferous } 3. Black bituminous aluminous slate. - x STORD coca as |" Fossiliferous and inferior strata of the Subcarboniferous group L 4 consisting of (1) Fossiliferous bed of Ohio Falls. (2) Wat lime and variegated strata. (3) Sand or burr stone. (4) I Blue ish or brownish limestone. = On page 25 the rocks of the State are sisasuied into three for ma- tions: ; ne 1. A bituminous coal formation. . 5 2. A limestone formation (similar to the Mountain limestone of Europ eal a geologists). uM 3. A diluvium. In this report the Carboniferous group is restricted to the coal bes ing rocks, or what is now called the Coal Measures. All the fossiliferous rocks below the Coal Measures were called $4 ‘Sul tb carboniferous.” The author said: . ” To this group may with propriety be applied the name Subcarboniferous, as ind li- cating its position immediately beneath the coal, or Carboniferous group of Indiana; [and in a foot note], ‘‘ The fossils generally coincide closely with those of the Carb on- iferous or Mountain limestone of Europe; but as no perfect seams of coal have ever yet been observed alternating with these deposits in this country, and as most of its fossils differ decidedly from those of the coal formation, it would seem to preclude the possibility of including it, here at least, as some European geologists do their Mountain limestone, in the Carboniferous group. * * * I prefer designating it xy the term ‘‘Subcarboniferous,” which merely indicates its position beneath bc boniferous group without involving any theory.! In the second report, published the same year, Owen briefly reporte details for various counties of the State. The “ Encrinital strata | of Harrison County” are said to “correspond to the ‘incrinital’ of Dr. Troost” of the “well known iron region of Tennessee.” ‘The rock ks below the fossiliferous strata of the Falls of Ohio were correlated ° witht the “ Cliff strata” of Dr. Locke, of Ohio, and “ most of the rapide aa falls in the State are produced by these cliff rocks.”’ And in the d 3- cussion of the rocks near Lockport and near Delphi, the author ) marks : a The whole of the rock formation which I have just been describing I consider as \s belonging to the strata inferior fo the black bituminous aluminous slate, including part, if not the whole, of the Cliff strata. “tae In the latter part of the report a comparison is made between the geological formations of Indiana and those of Ohio. = Ls ? eae ss acd OWEN. 3 139 ia yer Missouri, northwestern Kentucky, and Ohio, thus :! aa Saat INDIANA, OHIO. me 3 one (of Troost) ........... = “Conglomerate” of Locke. t fre sstone of the Knobs. ........ = Waverly sandstone rock, which caps the a hills bordering on the Scioto Valley, : Ohio. lacl k slate at the base of the Knobs = The shale stratum in “the base of the hills capped with sandstone, bordering Ms on the Scioto Valley.” ceous and argillaceous limestone, = Cliff rocks. ni g falls and cliffs in Madison inty, on the Ohio River, and on the ver Wabash, etc. $ siliferous limestone...-.....---- = Blue fossiliferous limestone. e whole of the series above described, from the bottom of the coal formation ward, that is, the Subcarboniferous group, has received the name of “‘ Galenif- limestone ” from some geologists, because it has yielded in a few of the West- 28 an abundant supply of galena. r 1e next contribution Owen made was his report on the mineral lands e United States, which first appeared as a Presidential message to He ase of Representatives in 1840.? is we glance over the introduction to this document we find that n regarded all the stratified rocks, from the Coal Measures down- Bane the “Blue Fossiliferous limestone” (Cincinnati lime- , a8 belonging to the Mountain limestone of the English geolo- _ For the States of Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee this ss nm limestone was represented by him under the following sub- sions > Pr oniromitel limestone, light-colored limestone, sometimes oolitic. ce Fine-grained sandstone in Knobs. = Black bituminous shale. Fy, Thick beds of yellowish limestone, Cliff limestone of the West. : Blue fossiliferous shell limestone in thin beds with marlite. ase the Cliff limestone was dominant in Iowa and Wisconsin, he other members were absent or greatly diminished, as in the ase of the Blue limestone, so that in Iowa and Wisconsin the follow- st cereus were observed :* eS entremital limestone. ; nx © liff limestone. » 3lue limestone. Ge ol. Sar Ind., 2d Report, pp. 39-45. di hava of the United States. Message from the President of the United States in reply to sta . m of the House of Representatives, February 6, Lae. House of Representatives, Execu- Document No. 239, Twenty-sixth Congress, first session.’ 01 ion a geological exploration of part of Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois, made under instructions ie Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, in the autumn of the year 1839, by D. D. n, M. D., principal agent to explore the mineral lands of the United States, pp. 9-160. d., diagram 4, op. p. 14. ae Searem 5. 140 _— THE PRE: ‘AND 7 meee ke The sandstones elder the blue limestone were regarded ase lents of the Old Red sandstone. % ‘2m Another table exhibits the follo wing classification of the” roe ks 0 Towa and Wisconsin: ; rh eGoal formation. 22 <. 2.3 «cewste vetegy Lageewetaltes4ODOl) Shale; per mie slaty ol clay YE with ironstone, ( Cliff limestone. “a Blue fossiliferous adele a Alternations of red and white Old Red formation(?)....---c+ s-ece< ecee--e cleo | Been and Magnesian li Bes Red sandstone.(?) ‘= John Locke, in a report accompanying Owen’s report, stated that I e had used the term “ Cliff limestone” in the Ohio report (1858), adopting it as a provisional name “ from the inhabitants on the Miami above I Day- ton, Ohio.” He gave a list of synonyms :! Galeniferous limestone, Featherstonhaugh. c Cornutiferous limestone, Eaton. Magnesian limestone, Keating and Shepherd. Mountain limestone, Ohio Reports. Cliff limestone. = The name “ Cliff limestone” is adopted in this paper as a synonymor us term for the ‘‘Scar limestone” of Phillips’s Geology as it appeared i D the seventh edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. rhe This report was printed on the 4th of June, 1840, without the acco m- panying charts, sections, and illustrations, and transmitted to the House of Representatives. It was revised, and the public edition wai iS ordered. by the Senate to be printed June 1, 1844. The executive doc - ment of the House (No. 239) appears to be the first edition unrevis ed, and there were ordered printed (February 25, 1843) 5,000 extra “copie for the use of the House. Some important revisions first appearing in the Senate document t are as follows: ‘First, a modification of the classification, expressed in a table givin a comparative view of the correspondence between the New York a English surveys, modified from Hall’s table of formations in the Fi Report on the Fourth District of New York, published in 1843. In: table of the 1844 edition the “ Blue limestone” is the equivalent of ; Trenton limestone, Utica slate, and Hudson River groups of the N: York system. The “Cliff limestone” was recognized in part as the _ equivalent of the Clinton group, Niagara group, the Onondaga, and the Corniferous limestones of the New York system. The “ Black slate” ” O! f Ohio and Indiana was the equivalent of the Marcellus shale of New York, and the Waverly sandstone and “ fine-grained sandstone of t ie tobe ” were considered as the equivalents of the Portage and Che- Carboniferous or Mountain limestone formation... “Mineral Lands of the United States. Message from the President of the United States in 1 repl y a a resolution of the House of Representatives, February 6, 1840. House of Representatives, Ex. I No. 239, Twenty-sixth Congress, first session.”’ ; Report on a geological exploration of part of Iowa, Wisconsin, and | Ilinois, made under inst tions from the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, in the autumn of the year 1839 ), by D. D. Owen, M. D., principal agent to explore the mineral lands of the United Stares, pp. 116, 117. — : OWEN, , 141 Z ~ Owen subsequently changed these last two correla- note? Owen mentioned Hall’s substitution of the term Nia- Clift limestone,” and on page 28 of the same document he Pieccaly be noticed were we not See gee for it. In the yom of the report, the table giving the rocks of Iowa ane 2 aes jebutemporancoas with the “shell beds” on the Falls of the Sa l as representing by their fossils the Onondaga, Corniferous, pad. Hamilton groups of New York. F the RE cits bald othe ocean csc cc cesses ou- ; Coralline beds. as ae - oe a ee oe ae Lead-bearing beds. 7 a Soasile of the region under consideration proves that the Cliff Iowa and Wisconsin is, in point of fact, the American equivalent of the 6 mehens of part of the he eae formation of Murchison. L eument 407, page 23. remarked upon the pernasy of the Cliff limestone of America with the Scar limestone 407, XXVIIIth Congress, first session. pp. 27-32. ’ called Archimedes beds. f th “hea document. “3 2g i... . Ais wait bak ‘7 2 sah sr cae Se. 2s tna 3 ea a mae He ae 142 THE DEVONIAN AND. caRBONTPERO a8. Di of Murchison.! And the identification of the foals sof Pes Cl stone in Iowa, Falls of Ohio, and Ilinois, with species of the Ono1 Corniferous limestones, Marcellus shale, and Hamilton group 0 York, was strictly in accordance with the statement above quoted. — I tind no evidence in this report of the recognition of the ] Blael shale. m The name *“ Subcarboniferous hive? thus introduced by C in the Indiana reports of 1839, was again used in the second editic the “* Mineral Lands,” and in his final report of 1852 was adopted a name for the lower division of the Carboniferous rocks of lowa. Owei considered it the equivalent of the Yoredale series and the Lower a limestone of the English geologists. = As we shall see elaborated beyond, Swallow retained the old namé ‘Carboniferous or Mountain limestone” in the Missouri reports of 18 Hall in the Iowa reports of 1858 retained “Carboniferous limeston In 1859, in volume 3 of the Paleontology of New York, “ Great Car iferous limestone of the Mississippi Valley” is used. Owen in the] tucky report of 1856 continued to use “ Subcarboniferous limestone,” and Worthen in the Illinois reports of 1866 and later used Owen’ name ‘“Subcarboniferous.” Thus the name became established i American literature. Not only is it inappropriate for the purpose: 0 which it is applied, but it is evident that it was introduced as an ex pression of confusion and dissatisfaction with the correlation at- tempted. It probably never would have appeared except for the erro: neous correlation of the “Cliff limestone” of the Mississippi Valley with the “Scar limestone” of England. ‘Scar limestone” was Se wick’s name for the Carboniferous limestone of the Lake district Yorkshire; “ Cliff” was the American name for “Scar,” but the “ limestone” of the Mississippi Valley was found to be, some of it cer tainly, not Carboniferous, and all of it below the coal-bearing strata, and ms prefix ‘“‘Sub” was attached to indicate these facts. «ea Although we have come thoroughly to understand the application 0 | the name, the substitution of the Mississippian series for it will not it is believed, do violence to the honor of the early geologists or to t he rights ot the present and future geologists who will adopt the no: 0 clature best suiting their purposes. i In 1847 D. D. Owen and J. G. Norwood published a paper enti “Researches among the Protozoic and Carboniferous rocks of Cen Kentucky, made during the summer of 1846.” ‘This was noticed in th American Journal of Science. : Saha The reviewer remarked:? reas gs ce 4 Most if not all of the groups of rocks which occur in New York, from the Genesee slate to the top of the Catskill range, are deficient or obscurely marked in the 1 and the Carboniferous rocks rest almost immediately on the schistose beds w represent the Genesee slate; whilst our black slate, and the underlying shell be 1See Geol., Fourth Dist. New York, p. 20. 2 Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 5, 1847, p. Me Gari ee gt tre, tree oe ‘ o> a Sale. ee ; ae -VERNEUIL, OWEN. 143 io with the Goniatite ieeetone of Rockford, Jackson County, Indiana, eis shales of Perry County, Tennessee, are the representatives of the om of Europe. wer further states: “(The Knob region, Indiana, Kentucky, e, Illinois, and Ohio, above the black slate, they show to cor- o the Carboniferous rocks.” ! L7, M. de Verneuil called attention to the necessity of changing ra the Cliff limestone and Blue limestone of the Ohio reports. ir di CC ” he elaborated the same idea.* | 6 year, after a visit to this country, M. Verneuil published paper in the Bulletin of the Société géologique de France,° lism of Paleozoic rocks. This paper is discussed in a pre- a Tr (see p.68). M.de Verneuil’s most important contributions Cor a of the Mississippian series were his positive recogni- f the ma erenly group of Ohio as Carboniferous, and his demon- oy, we eo of ae aiferous age. ve em report did not appear till 1852, but he presented an ab- t of its contents before the American Association in 1851.6 After ng te lower and “metalliferous rocks” of these States, he men- Z E L by : a Becsons formation which he called “Devonian.” This ced. d westward to Iowa City, thence southeast to the Mississippi agen runs on the extreme eastern margin of the coal from. dy River the Carboniferous rocks bear south through Sd Disdate reviewed I have not seen.—H.S. W. r la géologie des Ktats-Unis. By M.Ed.de Verneuil. Soc. géol. France, Bull., I, vol. 4, O % suivi d’un tableau des espéces fossiles communes aux deux continents, avec l’indi- tages ou elles se rencontrent et terminé par un examen critique de chacune de ces es. £ <7 France, Bull, , I, vol. 4, PP: 646-709. Iowa, and Minnesota, in the years 1847-1850, containing a synopsis of the geologic feat- untry. , Proc. Amer, Agsoc., vol. 5, 1851, pp. 119-131. =! . , & a ae ack hd ie Bap al ane m1 if ph iS % “3 } ced a> M ety Dau ee ae wR * % : eke . : : de $ 4 ‘ . oa me x ae ibs 2 ee Ee ” 2 . 144 THE DEVONIAN AND Sena ei i ieee Sats visions—( 1) an upper siliceous, 100 feet (2) middie anitaaene 1b ae : (3) lower calcareous, 100 feet. The tnididils division carries the coal, the coal layers having a thickness of four or five feet. | Passing from the mouth of Lowa River to that of the Des Moines, t the e ‘¢Subcarboniferous limestone” occurs “with no coal seams.” Theret the Mississippi passes through a corner of the Illinois coal field. The lime- stone thins out here and the Coal Measures rest on “the limestones ot t Devonian age.” At the junction of the Missouri and Mississippi, * Car T- - boniferous limestone” is found which just underlies the lowest work- able seam of the Illinois field. Bo In the same year, in association with B. F. Shumard, Owen published ed. some statistics regarding the fossils obtained during the survey.! e. " The authors found in the Devonian rocks of these States 49 species ss included in 26 genera, and in the Carboniferous 120 species, included in 49 genera. “s ‘¢Of the above genera 5 are peculiar to the Devonian and 36 tot ne Carboniferous.” * * * ‘Hight genera are common to the Siluriar and Devonian, 19 to the Silurian and Carboniferous, 10 to the Devonian a and Carboniferous, and 9 are common to the three systems.” a Two-thirds of the 39 species from the Devonian rocks between Park c- hurst and New Buffalo, on the Upper Mississippi, are identical vy those found ‘in the coralline beds of the falls of the Ohio at Touisvill and Charleston Landing, Indiana. ‘Thirteen species are identica with European forms.” Twenty-four of the 120 Carboniferous species found mainly, in Iowa, ’ are identical with European species. While over one-half of the Bra a- chiopoda are identical with (“can be referred to”) European species only two out of 52 Crinoids are common to the two countries. | a Polyparia are most abundant in the Devonian, while Acs ar e most numerous in Carboniferous rocks. Mr. H. King,” in 1851, published a paper in which he poatn nahn upot n a section running from St. Louis southwest to Iron Mountain and Pilot ‘Knob. He observed that above the so-called ‘* Mountain limestone ” or ‘‘Yoredale limestone,” upon which St. Louis stands, occurs a coal bed having an average thickness of 4 feet. This coal deposit is not an oa liner of the Iilinois coal basin, but a continuation of it. Passing over the southern point of this basin, we meet again the “ Mountain lime- stone ” which the author for convenience named “ St. Louis limestone ; ” he considered it, both from its position and fossils, as strictly Carbon- iferous. Its thiiirike was estimated to be between 500 and 600 feet b. 1Qwen, D. D., and B. F.Shumard: On the number and distribution of fossil species in the Paleo- zoic rocks of ae Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Am. Assoc. Proc., vol.5, 1851, pp. 235-239. aa 2 King, H.: Some remarks on the geology of the State of Missouri. Am. Assoc., Proc., vol. 5, 185 “pp. 182-199. oy KING, CHRISTY. 145 DS iéstond occurs a siliceous sandstone, from 40 to 100 feet we , which rests upon the second important coal deposit of Missouri, , sisting of two beds, sometimes thinning out to a single bed, resem- ing very much the upper deposit near St. Louis. This is again laid by another limestone, some two or three hundred feet thick, a of Devonian aspect,” but with the majority of its fossils Garton: us. All that portion of the State lying northwest, north, and east > line starting on the western boundary of the State, near the raters of Sac River; thence northeasterly to the junction of the e and Osage Rivers ; Ghonce to Warsaw and northeasterly to the is souri River, a few ides west of Jefferson City to Salt River, is “aegis as “ Carboniferous.” From thence the line runs south to the issouri River, to a point opposite our starting place. Mr. D. Christy,’ in 1851, gave account of the Goniatite limestone of kford, Indiana. The author, having senta few Goniatites from Rock- iio M. de Verneuil, was informed by him that they were “‘ Carbonifer-_ sl identical in age with the supposed Mountain limestone of elgium and England. Dr. D. D. Owen, who had also presented him te 1 some Goniatites from this founity had reported that they came om the Black slate beneath the Cliff limestone. But further exami- ti ion proved, as was suggested by M. de Verneuil, that they came 0 m the “ Goniatite limestone.” ; the vicinity of Queensville unmistakable evidence was found that :. s “central in the Black slate” and “above the Cliff limestone.” ence “should the European classification be adopted, this would re- aire us to bring down our range of Carboniferous rocks to within 30 Fs of the Cliff limestone.” Tn a note which appeared in the Proceedings of the American Agso- , stion 2 Mr. Christy reported that “M. de Verneuil had remarked in one his letters that these Goniatites, in the structure of their septa, present curious blending of the forms of the Carboniferous and Devonian niatites, which makes them exceedingly interesting; hence his uxiety to ascertain their true geological position.” This note reveals to us the method applied at this early date by de rr peel in the correlation of geological formations. He already appre- ated the historical (or perhaps chronological will more accurately ress it) relations of the morphological characters of fossils. fossils were not merely “medals of creation” to him, they were jains of organisms which had lived; similarity suggested genetic tionship. n 18 52, Owen published his final report. 2 hristy D.: On the Goniatite limestone of Rockford, Jackson County, Indiana. Am. Asggc., -, Vol. 5, 1851, pp. 76-80. m. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Proc.,vol. 5, p. 180. Re cat of a geological survey of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, and incidentally of a portion of 8 ca and Tennessee, by D. D. Owen, United States geologist. ~Bull. 80——10 ” o Ms sa BE. os, » oo eee “ ome ’ . ~AA. 2% * Benn vy Z re y J 7 "| g a ents: * a > Pass. €,. *: 146 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROU % iS mee ‘The following generalized section of the « Subearboniferoa ‘lime stones of lowa” appears in this report.? ae \ ( J. Upper concretionary limestone ........ Perit titi) e’. Gritstones—contains Lepidodendra, Calamites, etc -.....-.. 5 | d'. Lower concretionary limestone—Lithostrontian, ete., com- ze : | Sat white, usually ais i es Cpe Sie in places, i in ; cluding the more evenly bedded imestones of St. Loui " Upper series. with Melonites, etc att! aati Obs ale’ bee aeeeemenen Ss 30 .| v. Gritetone. <3. 0) vis. spe mageaeiees so t= 4s enten Sia een b’. Magnesian limestone—reticulate corals and Terebratula Hoyssit .-, = =a ao 2 van nne ee ate sewnasecensuncnnne fences a’. Geodiferous bed -<. --=- «2 wenn 2oSans enhances ee eee 30 jf. Archimedes limestone, a thin bedded, light gray limestone— 8 | Spirifers, Terebratula Royssii, Orthis, ) ey e. Shell beds—gray crystalline limestone, Spirifer striatus, — cuspidatus, rotundus, Productus punctatus, and semireticu- _ latus, O60. .0y sass who's ate epee eee p12 evan . d. Keokuk cherty limestone .: 2. s2.-2..)-- bbe eueec eee aee eee 15 c. Reddish brown Encrinital group of Hannibal, Mo., alter-— nating with bands of chert, at base white, crystalline, ig Lower series. 4 and semi-oolitic—Productus cora, Spirifer cuspidatus, etc. 70 | b. Encrinital group of Burlington, top brown and flesh ; colored encrinital limestone, with Pentremites and Crin- oids, various beds of limestone, argillaceous and magne- _ SIGN 2... ew ckde cel ks bop eukea samen see en ae a. Argillo-calcareous group, Evans’s Falls, at the top a fine- grained buff siliceous rock, containing casts of Chonetes, aa Posidonomya, Allorisma, Spir ifer,and Phillipsia ; Middle, — ( ash-colored, earthy marlites....,.......scseesen cess eeed 70 Subcarboniferous limestones. ~ The author described under the name “ Cedar River limestone forma tion” the limestones of Red Cedar and Iowa River Valleys, Iowa, : and referred them to the Devonian age.* On the map the legend classifies this “formation of Cedar Valley y” as follows: | - c. Upper Coralloid limestone. Hamilton and Onondaga limestone.....< b. Middle shell beds. — a. Lower Coralline beds. The author recorded no evidence of the Black shale in the State reported upon. a In the fall of 1855 G. C. Swallow, as State Geologist, published tl ‘first and second annual reports of the Geological Survey of Missouri Fi The first annual report was made in n 1853, but was merely a short 2 ay Fe $ ial os rd a pe ‘ : i chi es hd ie ri” Pe wf my TH FIRST ‘MISSOURI REPORT, 147 Se Feet eee ; eet. vege et” Upper Coal series........... 275 4 8 r Coal Measures, e....< Middle Coal series .......... 225 . ia 5, Lower Coal series. .......... 140 Carboniferous Jf. Ferruginous sandstone.... 195 “yr Bithinttensoa.. ov q- i sb limestone ...... 200 Mountain limestone |": Archimedes limestone... 200 . i. Encrinital limestone ..... 500 j: Chouteau limestone...... 70 - Chemung ...... Nap sandstone and IV. = h ~a ap GUAIOE oo chad dwacuu toed 75 ‘ “Devonian l. Lithographic limestone .. 60 a. p. Hamilton group.......... 50 Oe m. Onondaga limestone ..... 75 joal Measures is overlaid by d, Drift, and the Onondaga lime- derlaid by Delthyris shaly ee The term “ Ferruginous stone” appears to have been first applied here in a technical sense lefir ne od by Prof. Swallow! and first applied to the rocks in the bluff t Oreek, Sulphur Springs, near Osceola. St. Louis limestone a= San as a paeneral term, and was technically applied by ig Owen Pause De scatoa by Owen in 1852, who spoke of the Encrinital ap Hannibal, Missouri, which was also Swallow’s typical locality.? S vallow applied the name “Chemung” to the group of strata s the Chouteau limestone, Vermicular sandstone and shales, graphic limestone. It is placed stratigraphically at the base arboniferous system. In a foot-note he says :° 1 some difference of opinion respecting the system to which this group be- t ify we make a division of the Missouri rocks into Devonian and Carbonif- e line of separation most distinctly marked is between the Encrinital and ntear limestones. rp eae later a new section begins with the following: stem 1) Y, Devonian.—Two formations of this system exist in Missouri: Hamilton Onon laga limestone. . Meek stated in his report that the stratigraphical position of j, k, l, l, “taken in connection with their organic remains, leaves little n't doubt that they represent the Chemung group of New York,” Ba far from considering it a settled question that we should not ry u Dp > the Devonian so as to take in the Chouteau limestone.” A a iS a4 ” Neither ab chen, Swallow nor Mack 1 was fully satisfied in them i in the Devonian. But it was James Hall who settled the ; aoe 61, 02 2Ibid. pt.1,p.101. *Ibid., pt.1,p.101. 4Ibid., pt. 2, p. 103. - - © es Ven Ly ge Gece Bats ae ed $i TE Te se 1460 THE DEVONIAN. AND " CARBONIFEROUS. feo tion of the Waverly with the Cieatine: ; Later, ene Mr. M ba become better acquainted with fossils, he corrected the mistake. posed it in 1855, the name Kinderhook group would ys been 8 fluous. : In the report of the Geological Survey in Kentueky,? mide in J aud 1855, by D. D. Owen, principal geologist, and printed in 1856; “Anvil Rock ” is named and defined. ~. The name is applied to a massive sandstone separating the | tone Coal Measures from the Upper Coal Measures of southwestern Ken. tucky. The title isa popular one originally applied to an immense mass of the sandstone, which has somewhat the form of an anvil, in Uni 0 D1 County, Kentucky, a figure of whichis given.’ The name was extende 2 to the eae: formation of which this rock was a part. . ' and RT Ree IRS which together are regarded as capresettie | ‘Millstone grit.” The * Subcarboniferous” includes ‘Archimedes lime. stone” of the Dismal Creek section and “limestones with. been isi tes and Archimedes” of other sections. The author‘ subdivides the *‘ Subcarboniferous” into— 1. Archimedes and Pentremital limestone. ; 2. Lithostrontion or Barren limestone group. 3. The lower part of this is more argillaceous and may constitute a third. sion. < 4. Subcarboniferous sandstone (Jefferson and Bullitt Counties), This is thi Knob formation. Under this lies the “ Black Lingula shale,” ‘“ Cora: ine _ Falls limestone,” “Chain Coral and Magnesian MeapaORa Ls and Blue) Shel - limestone marl.” 3 In 1856,° in the Subearboniferous limestones near Warsaw, / E Worthen discovered the remains of fish in considerable abundance, am later two other beds were found lower down in the series. i _ The upper fish bed is situated in the Lower Archimedes limeston the fossil remains consisting entirely of palate teeth. At the be this limestone is the middle bed, in which the more abundant ret are mostly jaw teeth, with a ash palate teeth and spines. al The lower bed was first observed in Quincy, Illinois, near the top the Burlington Crinoidal limestone, and subsequently in Hend 7 County, Illinois, and at Augusta, Iowa. As the fossil remains in bed are much smaller than those mentioned above, the author inferre 1See Geol. of Iowa, vol 1. ; 2 Report of the geological survey in Kentucky, made in 1854 and 1855. ie D. D. Owen, pi geologist, Frankfort, Kentucky, 1856. 3 Tbid., Pl. 101, opp. p. 45. x 4Tbid., pp. 81, 82, 89, 90, 91, 95, 97, 98. 5 Worthen, A. H.: On the occurrence of fish remains in the carboniferous limestone of Illinois Assoc., Proc., vol. 10, pt. 2, 1856, pp. 189-192. : “a Fadl Tost = he - ‘ rae: Ste JAMES HALL. 149 sarboniferous fish increased greatly in size during this pe- | ) southern extension of the Pentremital and Archimedes ne into Tennessee and Alabama, these remains are exceedingly ae a: Bie ¥ a" Tames Hall! read a paper before the American Association, tof which was published in the American Journal of Science. was “to show that there are certain well marked subdivi- h ne Carboniferous limestone of the Mississippi Valley.” 16 appears to be a preliminary account of chapters which sr in his Report on the Geology of Iowa. lowing table are expressed the correlations which he pro- Ww ing the “true order of superposition among the different f the i limestone series :” al Measures. ke uskia Sisectone, or Upper? - § Kaskaskia and Chester, St. Mary’s, himedes limestone. Missouri. ee 0 brown, or ferruginous sand- piers St. Genevieve, Missouri. Be- 18 ens the limestones tween Prairie du Rocher and Kaskas- | fon ana St. Louis. kia, Illinois. ouis limestone, teege Ft con of ; St. Louis; highest beds below Keo- nary | limestone.” kuk. Alton; St. Genevieve. ceous bed,” Warsaw or f ; Warsaw and above Alton, Illinois; 6 | Archimedes limestone. Keokuk, Iowa. ian limestone,”—Spergen Hill, Bloomington, Iowa, A xe, soft shaly or marly bed with geodes of quartz, chalcedony, etc. ‘i gy Se g Lower Ar. of Keokuk, Quincy, Illinois, ete. is 01 shes, cherty beds 60 to 100 feet. Rapids above Keokuk. a Burlington, Iowa; Quincy, Illinois; Following the ‘“ Chemung” occurs alight gray or brownish white crin- — oidal, suberystalline limestone called the “ Burlington limestone.” Upon this comes the “Keokuk limestone,” a shaly grayish or bluish erin-— oidal limestone, which the author regarded as an equivalent of the Ar. | chimedes limestone” of Owen and the “ Siliceous group” of Tennessee. | The Keokuk is followed by a geode bed and this by the ‘ Warsaw lime- 4 stone or second Archimedes limestone,” which is ‘*a magnesian lime. stone, shale and shaly limestone, thin-bedded and arenaceous,” and aft fs. this a ‘‘ coarse yellow calcareous sandstone and some pebbles of quartz.” Next comes the “St. Louis limestone” of Swallow or “ Concretionary ti : limestone” of Owen. This is a precciated, ash colored limestone, and sometimes subecrystalline and granular in texture, becoming more com. 1 Report on the Geological Survey of the State of Iowa, embracing the results of investigations mado during portions of the years 1855, 1856, and 1857, by James Hall and J. D. Whiting, vol. 1, Albany, 1858. 8vo., XV, 724, 4, aud 30 pp., 29 plates, plate of section, and 2 maps. ‘ 2 Tbid., p. 89. 3 Tbid., pp. 89-90. Us ip ; % JAMES HALL. 153 eto Or 1 going southward. Hall speaks of “the brecciated character of ‘northern exposures of the St. Louis limestone,” and of the “ more s diagonally laminated limestone of gray to white color” in the : ‘ Riienn part.! 7 - St. Louis, along the valley of the Mississippi, from Prairie du r to Chester, the series dipping gradually southward exposes the ‘St Etouis limestone,” with the “ Ferruginous sandstone” resting on it, id above this the “ Kaskaskia limestone.” Hall observed the fact at the limestones thin out toward the north and upon their inclined iges are followed unconformably by the Coal Measures. He drew om this the inference that a contraction of the borders of this sea at north began with the deposition of the Carboniferous limestone; that $ was consequent upon the uplifting of the older rocks at the naipthe ; ‘he limestone of the UpperCoal Measures in Ohio is traced westward, ne ( a regarded as represented by the Carboniferous limestone of the ocky Mountains. Previously, in the Report on the Mexican Boundary, Be Hall had recognized the fact that the Rocky Mountain region must Si been an open sea at the time the Coal Measures were being de- Osited in the Mississippi Valley and farther eastward. The oscilla- on B dating the time of the Carboniferous limestone was mainly up- mn for the Upper Mississippi basin, and during the Coal Measures rthen shows’ that the same region was gradually sinking, causing | higher Coal Measures to extend farther northward than those below. “ the classification of the rocks of [owa it was quite natural that ie New York series should take a prominent part in the nomenclature. Ithough fossils were considered in the correlation, the erroneous inter- stations, as well as the reports themselves, show that the lithologic haracters of the various rocks were considered of chief importance. 8 Worthen stated in the First Report on the Geology of Illinois, in gard to the beds in Indiana, Iowa, and Missouri, which had been re- rred to the ** Chemung group” of New York, the identifications were made purely on lithological grounds.” It was this dominant idea, ae should be some similarity in the character of the rocks of the Tesponding zones in separate regions, that led to the importance of « «Ferruginous sandstone” of the Missouri and, later, of the Iowa = in, the ‘ Siliceous group” in Tennessee and Alabama was regarded imp isis because probably representing a corresponding Siliceous our }in the English classification. he Carboniferous or Mountain limestone” was distinctly recognized e upper Mississippi region, and a “ Millstone grit” was needed to t the system as interpreted.in England. It can not be denied that t masses of limestone or of sandstone can be traced satisfactorily pundreds and may be thousands of miles along the geological out- but this expresses only the fact that, for long geological periods, 1 Geol. Surv. Iowa, Rep., p. 105. ’ Geology of Lilinois, vol. 1, p. 50. foe .* Kbid., p. 117. 4 Tbid., p. 109, 154 ‘THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. ne the general relations of oceans and sontatends remained. yee the same. When, however, the attempt is made to trace the sul sions and to correlate series and stages and the lesser zones of the logical classifications by lithologic means, then the inadequacy of method becomes apparent. As we look over the history of the work o geologists in America, we find the majority, and for the field I hav specially studied I am inclined to say nearly all, of the erroneous cor relations are directly traceable to a too great dependence upon litholo The following exhibits the classification of the Carboniferous lime stone of Lowa, Illinois, and Missouri as it was understood by Hall In 1858.! COAL MEASURES OF IOWA, ILLINOIS, AND MISSOURI. _medes limestone. Pentremital lime- Mary’s, Missouri. stone. Lower arenaceous beds of passage. ~ é V. Gray, brown, and ferruginous sandstone te Ste. Genevieve, Missouri. Below VI. Kaskaskia limestone, or Upper Archi- oe askia and Chester, Ilin ois. St. overlying limestone of St.Louis and + Prairie du Rocher and Kaskas 1a, Alton. Tllinois. 3 Abrupt passage. % IV. St. Louis limestone, Concretionary | Gr dae og beds below Keokuk, Alton, St limestone. / Louis, Ste. Genevieve, Prairiedu Rocher r Passage arenaceous or indistinct. s III. Arenaceous bed, Keokuk and north-) wri ow and Alton, Ilinois. Binds ini ward. Warsaw limestone or Second " ; s tonand Spurgen Hill, Indiana. Opposit haere oii limestone. Magnesian Fort Madison, Mount Pleasant. Passage soft, marly, geodiferous. Geode bed, Keokuk, Nashville, Iowa, 3 Warsaw, Illinois. “a II. Keokuk limestone, Lower Archimedes oe okuk and Mount Pleasant, limestone. Archimedes limest oa bir eed Bealiser, © sete cay, rien Quincy, Illinois. Hannibal, Misson . Passage cherty limestone, 60 to 100 feet. } eae eayes Keokuk, Iowa. Qui ; I. Burlington limestone ....-.---.------- ; ag ETE ney Quincy, Illinois, 4 La Oolitic limestone, sandstone, and shale of => Chemung and Portage groups of New See at ie Falls, Town. 2 Hat ] tg York. In 1859 Mr. A. H. Worthen! reported the psruashdcs of a terest flora in the Chester limestone group. } While constructing a section of the Ohio Bluffs he discovered, in 185 in the middle of the Chester limestone of Pope County, a bed of ¢ careo-argillaceous material containing fossil plants. The for af not present a single species in common with the Carboniferous. Amon the plants he found representatives of the genera Stigmaria, Sigil Knorria, and Lepidodendra, but of species quite distinct from those i the Coal Measures. ; «“ This fact seems to indicate the close proximity of an. ancient 1 Geology of Iowa, p. 109. 1Worthen, A.H: Remarks on the discovery of a seessliel flora in the Mountain in o Illinois. Am. Assoc., Proc., vol. 13, 1859, pp. 312, 313. ; ro — Sie 4 Oe ota axis.’ This is evidently the true explanation. aot ap as he called it, ‘‘Subcarboniferous,” that is, was below Carboniferous formations,” not one of them. 1860 Sydney S. Lyon‘ recognized three divisions, viz: ‘*(1) Coal es, (2) Millstone grit series, (3) Subcarboniferous series ;” but latter, the lower or “‘Subcarboniferous series,” he follows the IS usage introduced by Owen, for we find included under this . not only the lower Carboniferous rocks, but all from the “‘Black ’ to the “Catenipora beds,” inclusive. ‘“‘ Subcarboniferous series” © the rocks below the Millstone grit is a modification of Dr. usage. Owen proposed the name “ Subearboniferous limestone,” ppl ed it in about the same sense in which Mr. Lyon applied the Subcarboniferous series.” Mr. Lyon restricted the use of the ogy of New York, vol. 3. 2Thid., p. 53. STbid., p. 58. n of the Stratigraphical Arrangement of the Rocks ot Kentucky. Trans. St. Louis Acad. a Pp. 612-621. 7 | ») Sew ‘oe ~ i SAPS PShs ass s Sa a gd Se lly or pene ee oe vine re: Nese % ies, AS ra as Ae es 156 THE DEVONIAN “AND CARBONIFE 43) 2]. Rec as te Are ae he eric a ae ee fonitier term to thie limestone high: Prof. Hall called “ Cart 0 limestone.” Gh scr sage Mr. Lyon’s classification was as fetiowas : Feet oid PMORSUEOE <2 hc. ou cp ae beab ob cuceele nee aeuae re 1, 200 PATGH BADUSHORG .b26~ 0b 6 ccs ede Shae tea eee 40-100 Poarth ‘limestone... sl sie. Sawa tac wee eee 10- 40 | Beds of colored clays ......--- 61S cope ie aca ate eee OEP OL GUMGELONE Oo. sagan da vec elealc hue Be eee oe ee LO auivd lintoatone se Lo} Seite eke wees 25- 50 Ainnrinous Bhale * i255 2 bs ees cep eee ee - Q- 53 > Millstone grit series. ATE MANASTONG 5.2 GS Lesa bc lapcletene es eee 25- 40 Bopond- hitisetene jos 5 ool. 'Fb. seb peek sk wees 25- 50 Second sandstone... .. 226.052 cccce AP os - 75- 90 Pureh WMCALONG, «= ionic cipiid sha cene SuceEEoeEee 15- 20 BATA BONUGLONE, -\, sce Men Gake oe eo eae oe eee 10- 30 a, Cavernoas litmestOne--.. 2. 5 a en wii Lo 2 RO Re ee ee, ee ie el os PGR PORE fe yh ee Py ae Se Ser ‘ _ Pi at Af 7 4 . 7 LITTON, ware, ROGERS. 157 _ ES. ake wal by the fact ce Swallow and Meek, in the Mis- rt of 1885, placed the sae eye the “ Devonian, BS val: ow re iskably Devonian, and for him to correlate pee, in the vith the Chemung necessitated placing them below the Carbon- system hence he used the term “ Subcarboniferous” to sepa- BSE | se deposits from the Carboniferous system above, whereas the ern 1 geologists included the Subcarboniferous limestone in the miferous system to distinguish the lower series, which was under e carbon- bearing Coal Measures. } A. Litton? i in 1860 reported some statistics regarding thickness of a its derived from a well boring in St. Louis. lese: rip ‘tion of the boring is given, beginning in the St. Louis lime- and penetrating to a depth of 2,199 feet, passing through the ‘C ones, cherty rock, and shales of ‘the Carboniferous system, 650 he red marls and the shales of the “© Chemung,” the limestones, s, sandstones, etc., of the Hudson River, Trenton, and Black River , and finally the magnesian series. The welt soft sandstone £ ae of 4, 505 feet is considered as the ine aise sand- antic cal E xpecies, in some gases with those above the Beilin et iime- e@ He suggested (p. 225--6) that although the so-called Chemung of Iowa may be geologically equivalent to the Chemung of New Rovers, SS eaiitin g upon this paper,’ remarked on the gradual from a gare to a Carboniferous fauna on Deseine west- m Sites j & Brothers’ ptaplia at in 38 Roaik Missouri. St. Louis Acad. Sci., Trans., 8 50, pp. 80-86, plate. ions upon the geology and paleontology of Burlington, Iowa, and its vicinity, by Charles ept., 1860. Boston Journ. of Nat. Hist. , vol. 2, pp. 209-235, ston Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. 7, 1861, p. 320. ih hey are not contemporaneous; migration of the species westward — 158 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. , iy oe BULL. § jr ae He would ¢orrelate the calcareous and associated beds below: th | lington and possibly all below the Keokuk with the Ponent or Ca and Vespertine, represented by 6,000 feet of ee in the Ap. chian region. He adds: es} Butall such attempts at synchronizing distant deposits must be limited to a general and vague result, even when corresponding fossils would seem to mark simultaneous: origin, and we must not forget the large agency of migration, and the long lapse of of years, which in many cases may have been required for the extension of a hving race . into distant submarine settlements. j . Messrs. ©. A. White and R. P. Whitfield, in the introduction to their paper ” on the Chemung rocks of the Wishiadpol Valley, which is mainly: ys descriptive of species, state their reasons for recognizing the “ Che- mung”in Jowa. They say the Hamilton group of New York is recognized — in Illinois and Iowa as a reliable Devonian horizon by the fossils ; that the Chemung offers changes even in short distances. In northeastern. Ohio they hold that there are few if any species common with those of New York, and the fauna in western Ohio and Michigan is still dif. ferent, but still the Chemung age of each is maintained. Itis thus ap: parent that to these authors the correlations in the West were based — upon relative stratigraphic position, the generic relations of the fossil 8, together with a not unremarkable similarity of lithological characters, FE: Some species of the “« Chemung” of Burlington, Iowa, are said to be the same as those of the ‘* Chemung” of Ohio, “ which rocks can be traced continuously to New York.” Notwithstanding an unmistakable resemblance to Carboniferous fauna, they refer them to the Chemung of New York, explaining tha ‘‘a direct continuity of strata of the Chemung of New York can be Di traced from that State to those of Ohio.” Thus it appears that Messr: S. White and Whitfield, relying upon the correctness of the determi nation of continuity of strata claimed by Hall in 1842 were led to put : aside the evidence of fossils, and to explain the differences as due “ ' geographic causes. Messrs. Meek and Worthen, in their discussion of this question, made the want of specific identity the chief reason for separating the Bur- lington rocks called “* Chemung” from the Chemung of New York,‘ a and J their reliance upon the Carboniferous aspect of the fossils led then correctly correlate the formation which had hitherto been called ‘ Che- a mung.” st Messrs. W. H. Niles and Charles Wachsmuth, > maintained that the a — 1 Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. 7, 1861, pp. 321, 322. : 2 Observations on the Rocks of the Mississippi Valley which have been referred to the Gheomente grot ap of New York, together with descriptions of new species from the same horizon at Burlington, Towa. By R. P. Whitfield and C. A. White, Boston Soc, Nat, Hist., vol. 8, 1862, pp. 289=306. “i 3Ibid., p. 290. 4 Robidiks on the age of the Goniatite limestone at Rockford, Indiana, and its relations to the “sae slate’ of the teatern, States, and to some of the succeeding rocks above the latter. By F. B. Meek x and A. H. Worthen. 1861. Am.Jour.Sci., 2d ser., vol. 32, pp. 167-177 and 288. 5Evidence of two distinct Geological Formations in the Burlington Limestone. Am. a our. Sei, vol A 42, 1866, pp. 95-99, poe Bia ar eet ert a ot + : ~ we , \ ; +4 » set 4 at { “NILES, WACHSMUTH. 159 iced lim estone is divided into two distinct formations, which they i. Lower” and “Upper Burlington limestone. ” The two », but the distinction chiefly depends upon the different kinds ids found in the two divisions. In the lower section its upper ecome interstratified with beds of chert, and the uppermost n a of chert forms the division between the two sections. The below this cherty bed are smaller, less coarse in their general , and the ridges, spines, etc., are never so prominent as in the of tl the upper division. The inference is, that circumstances not ; 80 favorable to the growth of these animals during the depo- ee still ly in size and more prominent in feature. A “ ae is also found between the Upper Burlington and the ie = ¢ A OF the upper beds of ‘obs the Lower and hehe: Burlington ic sail which was unfavorable to the growth and life of the inhabit- i, for as the chert appears the crinoids seem to have declined, 7 : ine distinct. Lists of some of the better-known spe-. onferen are appended, arranged under the names of the : pon of sorts of the Geological Survey of Illinois,’ by Mr. i . Worthen as Director, began with vol. 1. in 1866. Lal classification of the rocks of Illinois, the New York nomen- tu » was used for the subdivisiops of the Silurian and Devonian ae eam Descriptions of Vertebrates, by J.S. Newbury and A.H. Worthen. 1866. ns of Invertebrates, by F.B.Meek and A. H. Worthen. Description of Plants, by Leo Geology and Paleontology. 1868. Geology, by A.H. Worthen. Paleontology, by F. B. A. % . Worthen. Geology and Paleontology. 1870. Geology, by A.H. Worthen. Paleontology, Vertebrates, ra. and Worthen. ane by aa nd Worthen. fe Geology and Paleontology. 1875. Geology, by Worthen, G. C: Broadhead, E. T. Cox. Pale- yy O. St. John, Worthen, and Meek. “Geology and ne 1883. Geology, by A. H. Worthen. Paleontology by A. H. eater tae gS aS r 2 ie 1 he Ba sip ie —- eee "DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. es with some madiipabions:: og In classifying the Carboniferous rocks, Worthen included the Me Ba Coal Measures” or “ Millstone grit” in the Coal Measures. ‘They are seen in the southern part of the State, but not in the more northe bay part, where the Coal Measures proper or “ Upper Coal Measures ” out: crop. They are terminated by a sandstone called the “Anvil rock sandstone” (Owen), upon which are some limestones regarded as equive lent to the *“* Great limestone of Pennsylvania.” 2 (dae 4 Worthen adopted the name “ Subcarboniferous limestone” for the rocks between the Black slate and the Coal Measures and Conglom: erate. ; The following expresses the classification of the upper Paleozoic rocks of Illinois as interpreted by Mr. Worthen in 1866 :3 EES “a 4 >) Coal Measures and Millstone pees -Coal Measures, 600-1 ,200 feet and ‘Conger te. ( Chester group, 500-800 feet. | St. Louis group, 50-200 feet. Subcarboniferous ....---s.---s«seess-ece-ss arcs .< Keokuk group, 100-150 feet. | Burlington limestone, 25-200 fee - (Kinderhook group, 100-150 feet. 4 ( Black slate, 10-60 feet. i. PIOVOMIAN hoe. fo Biss Se ieee Ue ee ees Devonian limestone, 10-120 routs’ ) Oriskany sandstone, 40-60 feet. — Devonian aad Silurian. oo. 506k. cee ue ok te oe eee ne ae ee Clear Creek a ne a. Mr. Worthen in the first report considered the ‘“ Clear Creek li ring 7 stone as equivalent, in its upper part, to the base of the Devonian. 7 1e name “Chester group” is proposed by Worthen for the **Chester lim e- stone” and the underlying “ Ferruginous sandstone” of the Missour Reports. The * Warsaw limestone” (Hall) of the Iowa Report, Mr Worthen united with the “St. Louis limestone” of Missouri to form the ‘St. Louis group.” He also united the § “Geode bed,” the “« Keokul k constitute his “Keokuk group.” The “ Siliceous group” of Tomuest” and Alabama he regarded as a southern extension of this same “. kuk group” of Illinois. The author further pointed out the fact that the— : . : , i coal field, and that all the upper members ds the ialothbok group thin. ou ir that direction, and are replaced by the grit stones forming the lowest member o. tl series; and in Ohio these grit stones occupy the entire horizon from the Congle ate to the ‘‘ Black slate.’ . The name “ Burlington limestone” was adopted with substanti ton, lowa. It was not recognized outside the States of Iowa, Llin and Missouri. It is famous for the great abundance of crinoids, which are found in beautiful preservation about Burlington. z 1See Geol. Survey of IIL, vol. J, p, 40. 3Tbid., vol. 1, p. 26. 2 Tbid., p. 61, et seq. puzay ~ 4Ibid., p. 101. ~ 161 Diss in the course of a discussion on the geological posi- a ( the Goniatite beds of Rockford, Indiana.' Its original applica- 3 to the rocks between the top of the Black slate and the base Burlington limestone as seen at Kinderhook, Pike County, Illi- : In the present report Mr. Worthen further defined the group, . “ees ae reference to the Carboniferous.’ He defined it as in. C. saa docka’ of the Iowa Report, that part of the « Wastin a sand- one 7 of Ohio which overlies the Black slate of that region, and the yoni: 28 limestone’ of Indiana.”* ly division of the Subcarboniferous in Gortinestaen Indiana ate thern Ohio, where it constitutes all the so-called ““ Waverly sand- stone. ” The Kinderhook group of Worthen constituted the lowest m Tr of the Carboniferous system of the upper Mississippi province. fe. Worthen correlated “a series of dark blue, green, or chocolate re | shales, passing locally into a black Uses ony shale: of west- | ra which were correlated with the Corniferous limestone 8 r York by their fossils. 1e southern part of the State a sandstone was observed which 1 Bea identified with the Oriskany sandstone of New York. This was first observed in the neighborhood of Jonesborough, Union a y yy ,, Illinois.° he second volume, published in 1866, slight changes were made t ee classification and nomenclature. The introduction was by rs. Meek and Worthen. Th e e classification preferred is as follows :" { Upper..Carboniferous period. Coal Measures, Millstone ICUS ei lg Sieh Sadan ae ee oa be np aena 5 = ee kd anes 1, 200 Chester group- ....---. 800 m......... | Lower..Mountain limestone or Ln Fs thie cade tube hae = Subcarboniferous oni. mid inked Sop eet 168 : Burlington group. -... 200 period .......-.-<.---- f Kinderhook group..-. 150 228. 8Ibid., p.109. SIbid., p. 121. "Geol. Surv. Il, vol. 2, p. VIL, 4Tbid., p.119. *Ibid., p. 124, > oe ew, he J Ar i ae r . - SNS 3: Seats ts or MO enna ae ee Pe tet oe : gen a foes ‘i Sie. ates ye weit eh Se eA te phaes 1s 162 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBO ROUS. Aok sores v3 Bibs is ; ies Soe Fmaaaie tin ~~ Genesee division (* Black sli ( Hamilton vakaee grayish shale). ..--.....-- Hamilton béds 2... 5 c.cn0o-sec be 4 Devonian system.. { Upper Helderberg period. Corniferous id Onondaga beds — j Oriskany, upper bed ..-.......----. Af | Oriskany period..< Oriskany, lower beds or Clear Greck = 4 TPE: -siee's2 5s te bee rd oie s 20 Silurian system ..---. Lower Helderberg nertaa: In this table the use of the term ‘“Subcarboniferous” as mea n ing below the coal-bearing strata is clear. The recognition of the absene of upper Devonian is to be noticed. In the Oriskany the upper che we part only of what was originally included in the “ Clear Creek group’ is placed in the Devonian. The lower part as it arrives at Bailey’ landing, Perry County, was correlated by its fossils with the « Shal Ly limestone of the lower Helderberg group.”! a * The authors, after the proposal of the name “ Kindochonke gro ip, examined the rocks in Ohio and concluded that the “ Waverly sand stone” or more properly ‘ Waverly group,” is of the same age, and sug gested that it may be necessary to adopt the earlier name. Still Q) think it wise to retain the local State names until exact paralielist n be established. meh The third volume was published in 1868. The authors of the Geol BY besides A. H. Worthen, were H. Engelmann, H. C. Freeman, and H.M Barris. The paleontology was by Meek and WY eee In ‘this repor there are descriptions of sections for several of the counties i in they ern part of the State. ) The fourth volume was published in 1870. Bradley and Green the place of Engelmann and Freeman. The paleontology of vertebr was by Newberry and Worthen; of plants, by Lesquereux. “ Lows Carboniferous” and “ Onalecnsisanaiten system” are used toe cover th upper and lower divisions of the Carboniferous. | The fifth volume was published in 1873. A. H. Worthen Be Hall were the geologists, and Messrs. Meek and Worthen the pa O tologists. In this report the nomenclature is “Carboniferous system and ‘* Lower Carboniferous system.” | i, The sixth volume was published in 1875. The cedlogina cae Worthen, Broadhead, and Cox ; the paleontenecists, Messrs. Onest as f John, Worthen, and Meek. ae The seventh volume was published in 1883, Mr. Worthen, the ) gist; paleontologists, Messrs. Worthen, St. John, and S. ASH Addenda appear in this volume, written by Messrs. Wachsmuth a al Barris. : I have noticed no particular change in the geological 1 nomen¢ clatt 1Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 33, pp. XI-X, Rr: —_ “efes ENGLEMANN. 163 ther of the last two volumes. They are devoted to the elaboration e details of geology in the counties and to paleontology. Mr. ‘Henry Englemann,' in 1868, described the Lower Carboniferous f ‘mations of southern Illinois as follows: . eiaaslying the Coal Measures in central Illinois, lowa, and Missouri, were distinguished the following formations: aad ae ___1. The Ferruginous sandstone. 4 2. The St. Louis limestone. 3 - 3. The Warsaw limestone. 4, The Keokuk limestone. _ 5, The Encrinital or Burlington limestone. & e Farther south the “‘ Kaskaskia or Chester limestone” was found be- “tween the Coal Measures and the Ferruginous sandstone; and heavy “masses of sandstone (‘Millstone grit”) were observed next below the Coal Measures, and also beds of sandstone intercalated with the Chester limestone. ' The author discovered that in the extreme southern part of Illinois ‘this upper division of the Lower Carboniferous attains a much greater and ‘more varied development, while the lower subdivisions seen far- the north are lost or merged into one. He subdivided the series as follows: i Le ‘Coal Measures. SB. Millstone grit, reaching a thickness of 500 feet, with a seam of coal far above Ss » middle dividing it into Upper and Lower Millstone grit. oc. Strata corresponding to the Chester limestone and Ferruginous sandstone, and consisting of alternations of siliceous, Archimedes and Pentremital limestones, of Re 98, aud sandstones, attaining a maximum thickness in Johnson County and ad- oining counties of 1,000 feet. The different layers of limestones and sandstones are described in r detail. DD. The St. Louis limestone, with a thickness of 200 feet or more. - Some of the layers have an Oolitic structure. Underneath this are shales siliceous slates, and some black laminated slate,’ considered by goo authorities as of the age of the Chemung group. Below these are re sll marked Devonian strata. ES The general features of the geology of Tennessee were defined in 3 various reports of Gerard Troost, and some of the names which 2 been preserved were proposed by him. n 1869 appeared Safford’s ‘Geology of Tennessee,” which elaborates ) oe begun by Mr. Troost, and presents a systematic classification : n rlemann, Henry: On the Lower Carboniferous system as developed in southern Illinois. St. Acad. Sci., Trans., vol. 2, 1868, pp. 188-190. : s, in which, as is quoted on a previous page, the name ‘‘ Chester group,” was proposed to include fo: mations which had previously gone under the names ‘‘ Kaskaskia limestone,” “ Ferruginous one,” and ‘‘ Chester limestone.” slemann, who was at the time of writing this paper (1868) one of the geologists on the survey te ee ; ay i ack x is r ay Pray oes a , 164_ i mH DEVONIAN, AND: CARBOD IFER P20 Reve r 728 ‘ I. bans os 2 bees 3 Hapa Px OR eae +. Ue ie CRS she's 3 . " of the formations in unison with: the correlations and nomenela a neighboring States. : Bit F a 2 . In Mr. Safford’s! report the upper Paleozoic tetieee of iRetines shatply defined above and below. It rests, with very slight u formity, but with unmistakable interval, upon Upper or Lower Silu rocks, and is capped, with more aistinet interval, by the Cretaceous or later rocks. The classification proposed by the anthors iS as follows: — 10. Cretaceous. By x 2 Upper Coal Measure Se B.. Coal Measares ii. o. i ce ae ot ep erect signee beam ee es Conglomerate. fy ‘ Lower Coal Measures ; Mountain limestone. Beka wer Carboniferous i. Jock ace ons ele me Spite oes beak ; Siliceous group. em 7. Black shale. 5 . F z, Silurian—either “6. Lower Helderberg; 5. Meniscus limestone, Dyestone grou] 1p; or 4. Nashville,” as the case may be, etc. ‘ The lowest member of this upper Balad terrane is the Re Shale,” a bituminous black shale with grains or nodules of pyr which is widely distributed, and, whenever present, is a valuable strati. graphic bench mark. In the eastern part of the State it rests on 1 the © ‘Nashville, or Dyestone, or Meniscus formation;” farther west, on 1 opposite side of the central basin, the subjacent peiiaiiet is “Menise z 3 Dyestone, or Lower Helderberg.” West of the Cumberland tableland it is not solely a black shale; it thins on going westward, and at its top, in a lighter colored shale, is a thin layer of argillaceous fetid concre- tionary bodies called ‘ Kidneys,” and taking the place of the lower layel or is a stratum varying from 1 to 15 feet of dark gray fetid sandstone, co on taining the same Lingula seen in the typical black shale. This charac- ter of the formation is seen in Wayne and Hardin Counties. | ‘he author considered this to be the equivalent of the Devonian, and par- r- ticularly of the Genesee shale of the Hamilton Period of New York The highest rocks seen underlying this were referred to the Lowel or Helderberg division of the Upper Silurian. The black shale throug oh- out the book is spoken of under this name and not as Devonian. 3) y he black shale formation is in some places associated with a sandstone layer containing the same Lingula, varying from a few inches to feet. (Wayne County.)? Above the black shale is also seen in ple a layer of “kidney concretions.” It is defined as “a thin layer argillaceous, very fetid, concretionary bodies called ‘kidneys”” T are in a bluish shale and vary in size from an inch or less to 2 fee diameter. In the more eastern sections this black shale rests on “Nashville” (Sumner County) “ Niagara or Dyestone group” (De k and Maury Counties); farther west, on the “‘ Meniscus limestone” or | derberg (Wayne and Hardin Counties), Wherever it occurs it is ov lain by the “Siliceous group,” or else is the top rock. The pee of unconformity is thus shown to be below the black shale formation. — et CK 1 Geology of Tennessee, by James M. Safford, State geologist, Nashville, 1869. z 2 Tbid., p. 157. ‘a 8 Ibid., p. 331. ares % ts ie Ley thal 4 $ v Ke ry My 4 tS rn F* Par 7 ay ok) og. Seth pe ties £0 Pot en ot > ae Tey aa I | Se % 203) ee nd he . 03 ay ; ee bec bat 5 Sat 2 SAFFORD'S: GEOLOGY OF TENNESSEE. 165 or C Poe esis? or “Formation VIII,” is primarily defined : This, as the author remarks, ‘is the most useful division K ha made, so far at least as the consideration of the topo- a | and Stalag features of the State are concerned. ‘4 Qn ie formations according. to their prominent otieaphis fea- ‘To take them in detail: Safford’s “Siliceous group” (8a) em- tA ‘aa stratum.” The name is suggested by the fact of the 7 tean fosiber” and an upper or “ Titthagtroution bed.” Fron ly of the characters distinguishing the two it is evident that the e e of the Lithostrontion in the upper member is chiefly relied D the lithologic characters not presenting any constant distinction, d the author states that no division is practicable in East Tennessee.’ ; acters are mentioned as pertaining to the “ Lithostrontion a? he fossiliferous character of the cherts and the liberation of oxide iron in the decomposing of the cherts. The author also thinks the 7 mer mbers: become one below Huntsville, on the anticlinals of Ala- Land characterized throughout by Lithostrontion Canadense. ie ‘and Miiionri paddification, and the *“ EAteoatroition bed.” he ates 8 with the “St. Louis limestone.” The ‘“‘ Mountain limestone” avy group of limestones and shales, the latter constituting in re gate about one-fourth of the mass,” including a sandstone near 36 which in the northern part of the State is 40 or 50 feet thick. rmation reaches its maximum thickness in the southern part of te (720 feet), decreasing going northward until near the Ken- iky line it is reduced to 400 feet. The limestones are often argilla- ‘ ns, sometimes oolitic, but rarely cherty. The fauna is considered ivalent to that of the Kaskaskia limestone (Hall) of the Northwestern fes (=the Chester limestone of Worthen). Thus the name “ Moun- stone” is used in a restricted sense. a0 logy of Tennessee, by James M. Safford, State geologist, Nashville, 1869, p. 338. *Ibid., p. 347. 3 Ibid., p. 340, * Ibid., p. 352, 54, . 7 \ < y ~ bh PR Se ay a ee re Pe ee bout the same rocks as were previously defined by Troost under — raat We be 4s 5 * he ‘ ae (PTs = OOS EL Ge a, ae i Ra This Soe agp ene. ee Te eee aids. che re ‘ ee es SO int Std Spee pies Maat ae Ss 166 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS,, eee b ab, strata represented within the State. Above the Silurian 1e follows: | eee has = 1. Black slate formation, at the eae : . ; fad 2. Siliceous formation, or the series of cherty limestones, : 3. The Argillo-limestone formation, called the Mountain limestone, aa 4. The Lower Coal Measures, separated by 5, The conglomerate from the 6. Upper Coal Measures. Fossils were reported and were used in correlating ‘the sae for- mations, but the subdivisions were much less finely drawn than in hie nois, Missouri, or lowa, where fossils were more abundant in iy Mis- 7 Sissippian series. Ee a - The classification of the Lower Carboniferous formations into’ two : groups, the ‘‘Siliceous” and the “ Mountain limestone,” is worthy of attention, but until the faunas are thoroughly studied this can not | be nctcciened as final. A comparison of the various faunas reported fro me the “ Subearboniferous,” or ‘ Lower Carboniferous” formations of the te interior had already demonstrated considerable difference in the asso-— ciation of species in different parts of the area, but of the marine faunas the line which appears generally more sharply drawn is that between (a) the St. Louis (and, where present, the Warsaw,) and (b) the fauna next below, as the Keokuk and Burlington. - In the reports of the second survey of Iowa,! some modification of ina classification proposed by James Hall in 1858 is seen. Mr. White re- - ported in volume 1 the following classification : we tp he (Upper ....- Bein See sae one ee cae | coat Measures. .....- ve Mid@le 202520 Ale ieee «----- 200 : (Lawertul ho eabes nm als oe _. 200 Carboniferous... 4 St. Louis limestone .............--- ) Subcarboniferous.... } Keokuk limestone ........... - eg 90 Burlington limestone - .... Sore -- my ‘ Kinderhook beds - wep a cane eee eee 175 Devonian ..... .----Hamilton ...........-. Hamilton shales and limestone... .... 200 UMP Aie: 2.405 ee sh sha oe ae chew Ate eee Niagara limestone....-..----. ‘eae ie 4, Mr. White referred all the Devonian strata of Iowa to a single fo mation, the Hamilton group of New York, and did not recognize ¢ representative of either Upper Helderberg or Chemung. The Carbon- iferous system is present in only the two members, which he calle led “ Subcarboniferous” and “Coal Measures.” He used “ Subcarbon- iferous group” as synonymous with the old terms “ Carboniferous lime- stone,” ‘“‘ Subcarboniferous limestone,” and ‘“* Mountain limestone.” In the subdivision of this group and its nomenclature he crs follow : the first and second Illinois reports. Mr. F. B. Meek? wrote a report on the Spergen Hill fossils in 18 ! Report on the Geological Survey of the State of Iowa to the Thirteenth General Keaeni¥l bly 1870, containing results of examinations, etc., made 1866, 1867, 1868, and 1869. By Charles A. W M.D. Vol. 1, 1870. Fah he ? Meek, F. B.: Spergen Hill fossils identified among specimens from Idaho, Am. J our. Sei., 3 vol. 5, 1873, pp. 383, 384. ‘ i. _ FIRST MINNESOTA REPORT. 167 : er Hill fossils found at Bloomington, Tud., at about the ho- of the Lower Carboniferous series, are miniature representatives mown larger species, belonging for the most part to the genera of als, Blastoidea, Brachiopoda, etc. They are crowded, together in 2 numbers, but finely preserved, in this locality, and a few have n found at the same horizon in Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri, but | ein such numbers, or in any locality west of Missouri or Lowa, until . Me eek discovered hundreds of these little fossils in a small, dark- ry mass of crumbling limestone, brought by Professor Bradlee from aho. The fossils belong to about 17 species of the same genera found 4 bergen Hill, and of the species about one-half were undistinguish- e from the Spergen Hill forms. mn the first annual report of the Survey of Minnesota! a chart? is pre. ated with some modifications in the classification and correlations of ) Missisippian series. _ » Carboniferous system is represented on the chart, although noth- | g representing it is recorded for Minnesota, and is divided into the pewing groups: _ Permian. Coal Measure. 3 _ Carboniferous conglomerate. - Subcarboniferous. Tt 1e Subcarboniferous group is made up as follows for North America: Chester limestone. St. Louis limestone. me, Keokuk limestone. ii oniferous...... Burlington limestone. ee Marshall formation. -..Marshall sandstone. Mississippi formation { ‘Th ee Resasinni formation” is the equivalent of the “ Mountain estone” of Europe and Tennessee. The Marshall formation ” is the equivalent of the “‘ Kinderhook ” of aand Illinois and of the ‘‘ Old Red sandstone” of een ae ie Devonian system is made up as follows: Groups. Formations. Strata of North America. Huron shale. Hamilton ......-.--Hamilton.. -- Hamilton limestone. Corniferous Corniferous limestone. Onondaga limestone. Upper Helderberg - Schoharie grit. Cauda-galli grit. Oriskany sandstone. Oriskany ..-- y le usage of “ Mississippi” as a name for the limestones of the Sub- Ph peetericn: and Natural History Survey of Minnesota, by N. H. Winchell, State Geologist, : tof geological nomenclature, intended to express the relation of Minnesota to the great geo- jeri ties of the earth, and the probable equivalency of some of the names the formations have d in the various States and in Europe, opp., p. 40. — ee wo Fe ers ante, p. 135). The « Marshall fomuniion ” ig "alee maton to classification proposed by Alexander Winchell. As the whole Cat iferous and all of the Devonian except beds with a very meager f are wanting in Minnesota and the author does not explain the reaso for his departures from ordinary usage, it is useless to make further . m ment. . In 1873 two reports? were published upon the geology of Missou i, under the directorship of Mr. Raphael Pumpelly. ‘a In the first of these reports the work consists of material previou unpublished, mainly details of county surveys made before 1861, the maps and charts having been struck off prior to 1861. Pages 1 to 110 are by G. C. Broadhead, 111 to 188 by F. B. Meek, and 189 to 323 by B. F.Shumard. The nomenclature is substantially the same as that of t @ first and second reports of G.C. Swallow,1855. > Bs In Mr, Shumard’s report on Sainte Genevieve County,? a classification a: is given which deserves attention. | \ Be : Opposite page 292 is an engraved chart entitled “ Vertical section oi f strata observed in Sainte Genevieve County, by B. F.Shumard.” _ The part of this chart referring to the present discussion is as fol- lows: ° : Hard siliceous limestone. ...-.. wei ae - e. Coal Measures. Dark purple and drab shale........ : a4 Micaceous sandstone.......--cccccea bes 2 2 h. Archimedes limestone or Kaskaskia limestone.......--. 5 36, - BONASIORS 46 UF a: So ba PE ees Same pee aaa ER isp & s = | Ah’. Archimedes limestone...-...---.- er ste ‘ | ‘5 |g. St.Louis limestone......... a kk GeLe oh eits bene eRe S ° go 50 hi! Oolitic. limestone’... 2.0 nc 5_04 hoes ene eee ee i it is a comparison of allied but dissimilar series. e Catskill and Conglomerate problems are discussed in a former pte - Some of the problems associated with the Kinderhook and bien u groups have been considered in the chapter on the Missis- es a ) i ‘0 n series. In the present chapter I propose to consider the prob- sociated with the correlation of the Waverly, the Marshall, the iF ve shale” and the Goniatite limestone formations, and secondarily BP icinderhook and Chouteau. In the first chapter is discussed the velopment of opinions and nomenclature concerning these formations eg 1843, and in the chapter on the general correlations of the forma- Paavtward from New York to the Mississippi Valley, this devel- ) nent is traced onward to about the year 1851. g . he succession of strata in Michigan as published in 1838~41, ar- ange ae descending eet, as compiled from Dr. Houghton’s aimed iS, is as.follows :! | XXX. Recent Alluvium. - XXX. Ancient Alluvium. : -XxIx, Erratic Block and Diluvium, " XXVIOL Tertiary Clays. eae: Brown or gray sandstone, - XXVI. Argillaceous iron ore. XXV. Coal strata. XXIV. Red or variegated sandstone. - XXIII. Gray or yellow sandstone. F e 0.008 Shales and coal, Lower Coal Measures, XXII. Blue compact slaty sandstone. ____— XX. Gray limestone or upper lime rock. a XIX. Fossiliferous ferruginous sandstone. ae _ XVIII. Kidney iron formation. _ XVII. Sandstone of Point aux Barques. _ Xvi. Clay slates and flags of Lake Huron. XY. Point au Grés and Manistee limestone. XIV. Soft, coarse-grained sandstone. eLiT.. Black bituminous, aluminous slate. XIf. Limestone of Lake Erie. D. Corniferous limestone; C. Thunder Bay and Little Traverse Bay limestone (f-a); B. Black bituminous limestone; A. Blue limestone, XI. Mackinac limestone. _ X. Polypiferous portion of Upper Limerock. IX. Pentamerus portion of Upper Limerock. VII. Lower limerock and shale. VII. Sandy limerock. VI. Upper gray sandstone. Y. Lower or red sandstone and shale. IV. Mixed conglomerate and sandstone. Ill. Conglomerate. II. Metamorphic rock. I. Primary rocks. st Biennial Report. of Progress of the Geological Survey of Michigan, etc., Lansing, 1861, pp. 12, is classification No. XVIII is made the lowest bed of the Carboniferous. ‘ . pee Are jh Fs ne eid NES . 176 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFERC bees z : fe Nain 73 In 1851 Biatias Whittlesey! gave an n exhibit of the: trat in New } ; Ohio. and Kentucky, reckoning from the Conglomerate downwar the “Cliff limestone:” — - | ae tion is the equivalent of the Chemung, Portage, Hamilton, and J cellus. The author suggested the name “Protean group” * for rock mung, and Hamilton rocks of New York. Am. Assoc., Proc., vol. 5, 1851, pp. 207-221. and lower Coralline beds. (See Ibid., p. 215.) of the De dd Silurian in New York in 1838. (See New York Geological Survey, second Oe: RB of Tennessee. (See. ante, p.165.) Canranrnwnwnre . Chemung group, 1,200 to 1,500 feet. in . Portage group, 1,000 feet. P . Genesee slate, 23 to 150 feet.* . Tully limestone. . Corniferous limestone. 1 2. Thick bedded argillaceous sandstone, 13 feet. 3. Black shale, 13 feet. a 4. Grinéstone grit, 38 feet.2 . : 5. Fine-grained sandstone, thin and thick bedded (‘‘ Waverly”), with red, sean an d green shales interstratified—flags and ripple marks—strips of ironstone and i iron rust with fossils. Lower part—“ black slate” of Ohio Reports: thickness to Cliff limestone probably 400 feet. (This embraces 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the New York column.) “§ 6. Cliff limestone. ‘ i Kentucky. Falls of Ohio, by Dr. Yandell and Shumard, Arranged by fossils. 1. Carboniferous limestone (Mammoth Cave). 2. Button Mould Knobs. 3. Bituminous black slate, 104 feet; in Tennessee (Owen and mgner, 8 to 51 fee A. Encrinital beds, 8 feet. 5, Water-lime beds, 12 feet. 6. Shell beds, 16 feet. . 7. Coralline beds* (upper and lower), 40 feet. 7 8. Catenipora beds, = ‘‘ Niagara.” 9. Pentamerus beds, “ Blue limestone,” ‘ Clinton,” *€ Carodoc.” . Ash-colored shale, 110 feet. ee 4 Lb New York (after Hall). Chautauqua County, — . Classified by fossils. api Old Red sandstone, very thin. Hamilton group. : Marcellus shale. % Onondaga limestone, Onto. Chagrin Falls, 18 miles east of Cleveland. Classified by external characters. Conglomerate. According to Hall in the New York Reports, No. 5 of the Ohio s see. 1 Whittlesey, Charles. On the equivalency of the rocks of northeastern Ohio, and the Portage, 2No.4 is seen at Euclid, Newburg, Independence, ete. 87. M. Verneuil placed the division point separating the Silurian and Devonian between the u 4 The name “‘ Protean group” had eee already used by L. Vanuxem for a series of rocks at the a -"? j et) es agian ON THE MARSHALL GROUP. 177 0. 6. ative of the BiAGlomerntes of New York State. The “Cliff 37 he thought should be divided on biologic grounds. The : comgeid known as the ‘ Waverly” should for like reasons rocks of ie Ohio coal field consist of sandstones, shales, lime- Ss of coal, and bubhrstone. The limestones and sometimes Bs s contain exclusively marine faunas, while the sandstones con- ° ) sean flora. The alternations of marine and terrestrial were noticed in a vertical distance of 700 feet. The faunas 0 4s contained i in each formation were described in detail.! oh James Hall? began to see the incorrectness of his correlation n vee to 1870 Alexander Winchell wrote several papers anes the correlation of the Marshall group of Michigan. The fossils in offen remains belonging to the genera Goniatites, Nautilus, Or- ne »t pee raphon, Nucula, Solen, Myalina, Chonetes, etc. The upper ~ } Am. Assoc., Proc., vol. 6, pp. 301-304. Catskill group of New York.” By James Hall. Canadian Naturalist and Jour. of Science, 1. 7, 1862, p. 381. of the rocks lying between the Carboniferous limestone of the lower peninsula of Michigan tones of the Hamilton group, with descriptions of some cephalopods supposed to be new ‘a9 y Alexander Winchell. Am. Jour, Sci., vol, 33, 1862, pp. 352-366. 178. THE DEVONIAN AND carnoniFERo sandstones were called the ‘‘Napoleon group” and the ‘ie bee wr shall group.” Mr. Winchell traced the course of the outerops of AS 8 | groups to the northeast and west and spoke of their being overlaid. Dy the Michigan Salt group at Grand Rapids and vicinity and underlaid in the southwestern counties by a considerable thickness of argillaceou is Strata. In Huron County the “Huron group” of gritstone, green shales, and bituminous shales is found beneath the Marshall sandstone, and farther north the Hamilton limestones precede this group. a The descriptions of supposed new Cephalopods comprise ten species of Orthoceras, seven of Nautilus, one of Cyrtoceras, and eight of Goniatites. In a paper! published in 1863 Mr. Winchell stated his conviction that a comparison establishes “fully the equivalency of the Chemung, Mar- | shall, Ohio [i. e., Waverly], Rockford [i. e., Goniatite limestone], Bur- Ration [i. e. , Kinderhook, and Chouteau strata.” iq Further eiventiontien modified this conviction, as we shall see beyond. | In 1864 appeared another paper.* This was devoted to a description _ of certain western rocks near the line between the Devonian and Oar; boniferous systems and their contained faunas. ‘The paper shows an extended net-work of identification among the fossils from States wes id of Pennsylvania.” Theauthor identifies also “ four western species wit h those in the supposed Carboniferous conglomerate of western New York,” two of which species are regarded as being at the top of Chena g pile of western New York. He inclined to the view that since there appears no close resemblance between the Chemung of New York and western rocks, the ‘‘Carboniferous conglomerate” of western Non may be the eastern prolongation of the western sandstones and sha at least of the fossiliferous portions of them, and that the Chemung of f New York must be classed’ with the Devonian rocks. ‘“ Ninety-fou o species are described in this paper, of which thirty-six are described as new species, and two are made the types of new genera.” This brief outline is followed by descriptions of the species. ‘i The view that the so-called “Chemung” of the States west of New York should be correlated with the “Carboniferous eee rata 4 system was expressed by Meek and Worthen in 1861.4 | In 1870 Winchell completed his studies of the correlation of the Me ae shall -group,® and published an elaborate memoir upon the subject. | In the appendix are cited ninety papers on the geology of the rocks under consideration. He opened the paper by a reference to the “ controver sy ) which has long existed in reference to the age and equivalents of t i strata lying between the Corniferous limestone and the limestone of th 1 Winchell, Alexander, on the identification of the Catskill Red Sandstone group with the Chen an, ng. Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 35, 1863, pp. 61-62. : 2 Tbid., p. 62. @ 3 Descriptions of new species of fossils from the Marshall group of Michigan and its suppe sed equivalent in other States, etc., by Alexander Winchell, Phil. Acad. Sci. Proc., vol. 17, 1865, pp. 109-15 4 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 32, 1861, pp. 167-177, 288. 5 The Marshall group: A Memoir on its geological position, characters, and 4 2eceanaie in United States. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., vol. 11, 1869, pp. 57-83, and vol. 12, 1870, pp. 385-418, =~ a ze! or the eahitis of “History of j ath and opinions,” with Hildreth’s paper, 1836,” and citing the views of the chief s to the discussion up to 1869. Then follows a tabulation of éctions, as then interpreted, in the several States, including onding sections of the States of New York, Michigan, Ohio, a Biol, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee. He then G Wr al } ‘and lithological erounda,” and remarked that ‘ the identity ck shale can not now be mistaken.” He referred to its at ated position above the Hamilton group in Michigan, Kentucky, 3 , and below the Rockford Goniatite beds in Indiana. He a was unrepresented in Missouri. In Michigan it may be the art Rat his Huron group, and in bee York he fea a the typical BE citeos conglomerate was next taken as marking “a orizon which can not ordinarily be mistaken.” The Parma alent to the carboniferous conglomerate.” Lithologically he ‘alan means of ee ene the coal ye tage of Ohio from ch an, from the “ Parma conglomerate,” which he aed higher in B 8 cale above the carboniferous limestones of the interior; and after sussing the fossils underlying or associated with the con glotmepaten: er Seer ctigiations, particularly those of the Second Pennsylvania ; have thrown clearer light on the relations of these several nerates.* hird conspicuous formation which Winchell sought to correlate o Carboniferous limestone series” of the Mississippi Valley. ot-note® the author proposed the name “ Mississippi limestone or ‘Mississippi group” for the “Carboniferous limestones of ed States, which are so largely developed in the valley of the pi.” My adaptation of this name and proposal of the name shall group: A Memoir on its canes oot characters, and equivalencies in the es. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., vol. 11, 1869, p. 57. Jour. Sci., vol. 29, 1836, pp. 133-136. Chemung conglomerate,” the “ Catskill conglomerate,” and the so-called ‘‘ Carboniferous ,” near Panama. Pennsylvania Survey Reports III, by J. F. Carll, 1880, and Report R, by C. A. Ash- : n. Phil. Soc., vol. 11, p. 79. re? » J > * 5s ~_ a “) eee”. wal ab OY . > A q * — TE Eee RP Ne ee es Pe rate of Michigan the author considered as “stratigraphically = lt wh “a = % = . : ; , ° * . aod i i (nS 7a Som e %, _ - ti x" iS HA Poy . . a TP LD i beet Lod Lhe, 33 ugh a : ra MSs < o-, eu. ee re Ms , 180 ‘THE DEVONIAN AND ) CAR ONIFER Bass, >. 2 > ae 6 4 i Sey . = “ Ss i oy oar i Py we, 15s Ox: = pk ee ra erie ‘‘ Mississippian series” for the formations grouped andar e names Sub- _ carboniferous or Lower Carboniferous are given in a ‘previous ¢h ; This ‘‘ Mississippi limestone series ” of Winchell includes the 1 in the Mississippi Valley from the “ Burlington” up to the “ Kaskas of Iowa, and in his usage it does not include the “ Kinderhook” or “Waverly.” But to be of practical use the series should extend from | the base of the Carboniferous, i. e., including the ‘‘ Goniatite beds,” th ‘¢ Chouteau series,” the “ Kindorhabk: ” the “Marshall,” the “ Weverly y : upward to where the marine fauna ceases at the approach of the co glomerates or similar deposits heralding the appearance of coal. _ a In discussing this group, Winchell only identified, with little argu: ment, the ‘“‘ Carboniferous limestone” of Michigan, ie iS Knobstones? of Indiana and Kentucky, and the “ Siliceous group” of Tonneetad with the ‘Carboniferous limestone” of the Mississippi Valley, m¢ including here, however, the formation next to be considered. 7 The rocks between the “ black shale” and the “ Mississippi li m stone” above presented greater difficulties, because of the radical lithologie differences of the various outcrops representing them. Th 1€ several formations are the ‘“ Waverly” and * Gritstone” series of Ohic the Chemung and Portage groups of New York, the “ Marshall sand d- stones” of Michigan, the “ Yellow sandstones,” called in the earlie report * Chemung group,” of Iowa, the “ Rockford limestones” of I. nois, and the ‘Chouteau limestones, Vermicular sandstone and shale the Lithographic limestone ” of Missouri. a The general equivalency between the Waverly and Gritstone serie: of Ohio and the Portage and Chemung of New York had been asserted by James Hall, and, following his authority, had been the usage 0: geologists for years. From this position Winchell both departed : an¢ advanced. In Michigan he recognized below the Marshall sandstones and above what he regarded the equivalent of the Genesee shak 20 New York, some 500 or 600 feet of argillaceous rocks, more arena ou and tabee. to the north. These, which he called the “ Huron gr he considered as the equivalent of the Portage and a of west ern New York. cS. In Ohio, below the Waverly series, he found the extension of hi Huron group [what is now called the ‘“ Erie shales”, equivalent t t a | Portage and Chemung of New York. On similar grounds, which ar lithologic and stratigraphic, he identified the argillaceous beds aboy the black shale in Kentucky with his Huron group. He also = re to a similar horizon the “ bluish, slightly micaceous sandstones of th yellow sandstone series of ieee the blue shales below the lithogr. limestones of Missouri, and possibly the Illinois shales doubt referred to the Genesee by Prof. Worthen; ” and having thus, on] ical grounds, found what he thought to be equivalent formations represent the Chemung and Portage of New York, he presen : ay WINCHELL ON THE MARSHALL GROUP. 181 ap 0 Michigan on paleontologie grounds, the equivalents rocks of New York. ontological part of the paper is given a catalogue of the ‘States, with references to the place of publication of the s of the species. Four hundred and sixteen species are rate ra No attempt is made to determine or eliminate synonyms, stri bation of the species by States is indicated. As the author his argument he first speaks of the fauna of the Huron group, udes from a comparison of the species that it is hice to e€ aa: to determine whether the overlying Marshall group included with the Huron shales as equivalent to the upper ; ee Ohemung of N: ew York. His first argument for 1) aw group of Michigan with (2) the Gritstone and Waverly down he Chocolate shales of Ohio; (3) the Goniatite limestone of southern Indiana equi) alent. sandstone in northern Indiana; (4) the Kinderhook group of } — sandstone series of Iowa, at Teast down to the bluish shales ; ; clans had been practically sohohuraiea for all except all group by previous writers. ain fi formations have ‘‘a Carboniferous aspect,” a fact le Verneuil had long before pointed out upon his first glance ecies then known of the Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and soul Sy | next section announces that “ the fauna of the Chemung group sent a Devonian aspect.” This fact had been recognized for thirty S, ¢ and the Chemung of New York had been the recognized typical r Dev Or ian for all correlations in North America. 1 VE proposes the question “Can the Marshall and Chemung ped 2” Hlaborate citations of principles of paleontologic e made and prolonged argument to prove that this is not | fobs = and to reach the conclusion that the NRO RES must remain © oup must ies admitted within the boundaries of the Car- $system according to the present nearly unanimous judgment geologists.” oint which is the gist of the whole argument is made in the headed “ Parallelism of the Catskill and Marshall.” The ory is that the Catskill group of eastern New York instead out or disappearing be lack of sediments in western New " ~~) a ras te tea - vs oh - ok — nt oe vidi / 1! es De ae tS eh Ly Ps : ‘ | | See o es 182 ; THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. et yee 9 York is absent in consequence of subsequent donddatin: te yee ni ‘Old Red” is not necessarily all Devonian in age; that in the Mars’ : are some species which are considered as ‘‘ having near analogues in che Old Red of Scotland;” that the Catskill, although identified as the equivalent of the Old Red sandstone of Scotland and Wales, is younger than that part of the Devonian represented in New York by the Chemung and its equivalents in Europe, and as the Marshall has been show! n to be not the equivalent of the Chemung in New York, it must be, the author argued, the representative of the Catskill. At the close a table of geological equivalents is given. The part it of chief value here is that expressing the author’s interpretation o! 0) of the equivalents of the Marshall group of Michigan, which consists of the ) _ following, immediately overlying the Huron group, in ascending order: i (1) Huron gritstones, bluish or greenish gray, fine grained, regularly bedded, 15 feet (2) Marshall sandstone, reddish, yellowish, olive, obliquely laminated, highly ferru- ginous; the iron often a rudely concentric, concretionary arrangement; in places calcareous, highly fossiliferous, 160 feet. (3) Napoleon sandstone, pale buff, often conglomeratic, obliquely laminated, thic ok bedded, 123 feet. Followed sigs by the Michigan salt group. According to the table the equivalents to these are, in New York, upper part of Catskill group, including “‘ Carboniferous conglomera a and “Chemung conglomerate;” in Ohio, ‘‘ Waverly series, in pas rt (the ‘“‘Chocolate shale series” and the “ base of the Waverly series” : correlated with the Chemung and Portage of New York); in Indiana the “Rockford limestone” and * Williamsport gritstone;” in Illinois, the “Kinderhook group;” in Iowa, the * Yellow sandstone series 5’ Missouri, the ‘‘Chouteau lmestone,” ‘ Vermicular sandstone,” — shales, and “Lithographic limestone;” in Tennessee, part ‘of “Siliceous group” and the “ Siliceous shales,” and in Europe the “ Old Red sandstone” of Scotland, “ Yellow sandstone” of Ireland, and th ‘¢ Westphalian schists.” In 1871 appeared the Report of Progress of the Geological Survey y 0 Ohio.! Two of the chapters have matter of interest in the present discnsall Or a One by Mr. E. B. Andrews,?; a second by Mr. M. C. Read.’ id The formations discussed in Mr. Andrews’s article are the “ Ohio b black shale” or “Huron shale,” the “ Waverly sandstone,” the “ Maxvill limestone,” the ‘ Conglomerate” of the Coal Measures, and the | | 00: Measures. 3" The Waverly sandstone is divided into three parts. The middl i coarse and often a conglomerate; the division above, a fine- -grai ne sandstone, and that below sandstones and shales, with interstra tifie 1Geol. Survey Ohio, Rep. Progress in 1870; Columbus, 1871. we ‘7a 2Report of Labors in the Second Geological District during the year 1870 in Coal : fos district, pp. 55-251. ) * (ae > 3Sketches of the Geology of Geauga and Holmes Counties, pp. 463-484, po) a8 ag h. * & ea ‘ ay na <) f se) gos ANDREWS AND READ. 183 ta 03 les. The fine-grained sandstone lying above the Wayerly rate was first investigated in the vicinity of Logan, Hocking y, and thence received the name of ‘“ Logan sandstone.” The tl th ickness of the Waverly formation is about 640 feet. Fucoid are abundant and in the Logan sandstone in addition to these are three varieties of an unnamed vegetation. ‘Maxville limestone, lying directly above the Logan sandstone, is id by a few feet of soft, coarse sandy shale and 40 to 50 feet of a minated sandrock. Above this is a coarse sandrock rich in im- se of Lepidodendra. A considerable collection of fossils was | ned from the Maxville limestone at Newtonville, Muskingum Th ty. _ A list of species and genera is given, of which eight species Y Jhester types and two are identical with species from the St. Louis hh H Sirus Coal Measures Conglomerate is seen resting upon the Logan per Waverly over limited areas. In general where there is Max- ny Coal PilGekren Conglomerate is found, but the coal, with its superin- ibent_ shales, rests directly upon the Logan sandstone. This valuable section ds to verify deductions made elsewhere in regard to the Waverly conglomenes Plaibicioincrate. At this place no Maxville limestone was found resting upon . of the Logan group. Mi Read reported that in Holmes County the ec rocks observed I elor x to the Waverly sandstone, the ravines sometimes cutting down y 200 feet into it. The Conglomerate appears above the Waverly Prairie Township, and has a maximum thickness of 18 feet, with ils s which Mr. Meek determined to belong to the Carboniferous forma- ‘pointing to the deposition of a Subcarboniferous limestone which been cut out or removed by the agencies which brought in a deposit e Con glomerate. Generally in the county the Conglomerate is want- and i is represented in places by a thin layer of coarse sandstone out pebbles, sometimes by hard, compact, white siliceous rock a ches in thickness and filled with Stigmaria, and sometimes the beamed a Fae A Tei - aAe EE Sait xek Diy EN Pe | : Wa SSE Pr he Ae ane ene Bo See Bee 184 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROU: aes = Paes aes a a, us ik The following is a tabular expression of the classification ne oat v' 4 bs \ CU , Upper Barren Measures (?) se ere ene een erewn Caeeaene eer ene sae eee eaeeee ecnces sola bg tawar Coal Measures ..~ <4 6.2.20 25s edocs sce eu emake sh ae as Sep oe ee ee Conglomerate. .......----- 0-00 2-222 cee ene cen ee ene ne wenn ne cee e eee e ewes ene e Maxville limestone (near Newtonville, Muskingum County, 15 to 20 feet thick, z and 8 to 10 feet thick in the counties south). geek “a " ; Cuyahoga shale............-.. Gien'eons kipke ah eee amen ewe gag Ys ardl BK. it PT BENG os 6 nies via ine es Kamm age bathe os eeeeee eee - Ciiedionee while (2005 te Gee SN Sie ee ene 5 f Waverly group, ORVEIMD BRAG 3 cies 2 su, Oe akan ewn Shag debe wee ten Baie ay J + a Erieshald (Choniing).’. 062.583.7025) coed eb beatae wa aeee ens e : The ‘ Chemung” of New York is considered to have thinned weatuuwl t and to be represented in the Erie shale. The Catskill, according to the author’s view, thins out and does not appear in Ohio. ‘The Vespertine of Pennsylvania changes its character on passing westward, and is the Waverly group in Ohio. The Umbral of Pennsylvania pied: disap- pears, or is blended with the Vespertine. The Carboniferous Con- | glomerate is traced as far as central Ohio. The “ Maxville limestone” — of Andrews furnished fossils which were submitted to Mr. Meek, who — identified them as Chester and St. Louis species. _ es *In the year 1878 Mr. L. E. Hicks published two papers concerning ct the Waverly group. In the first he stated that considerable discussion — had arisen in attempting to synchronize sections in southern and cen- tral Ohio with a section at Cleveland, upon which Newberry has based iz his subdivisions. The Cleveland section, in descending order, is as follows: oa Onyahege SBAlG | cs 4st spn Sao eee on open es dyakongh Monn be ecne ine .- 150 to ~ 4% Métew Prt. <3) cs wagons koues keene gee dee eee Be of Lune oaiee erate rit | 0 Boediord Shale 326 wad ses c'sek cue nas coke ee Ree NERS RAE E SE gotcha aabebe Cleveland shale .. ie. o:2 cose. cee ences} Summ oon anes pe Gee Re eee ieee 21 to an The Cleveland shale is the only formation which retains its typical i characters in central and southern Ohio. It holds a distinct fauna and, in some places, bears a close resemblance to the Huron shale. “But the two never exist together in immediate contact.” The persistency of the — Cleveland shale has been demonstrated by its discovery in Delawaeag County, southern Ohio.' - aa In the second paper Mr. Hicks reported that in central Ohio five dis tinct members of the Waverly group are found, in descending order, as” follows: . Feet. op acing ahales :. i .2 aac ace swandese were cane rik esie as Lh es de> Lek ge ee 100-16 0. 3 4. Black Hand conglomorate, or Granville beds ....- ere d'v< oie ad B Raceoon halos. ..,. -<.-<-s0--s evaceskeee Ree ee oars eee 2.*Bunbary black slate. .... .. 000 noses se gucnuse tL Oneee Ree cs eke Somes r 1. Sunbury Calciferous sandrock ...2.. [22g ibes othe wcew eens acca uneane Sakis ate 1 Discovery of the Cleveland shale in Delaware County, Ohio. Am. Jour. Sci.,3d ser., vol. 16, PP. a The Waverly group in Central Ohio. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 16, pp. 216-224, A, — ir - s ORTON ON THE WAVERLY. 185 i cecints mainly of soft, fine-grained shales, well exposed on ‘River - No. 4, best seen at Hanover and Black Hand, consists sandstones an conglomerates containing fucoids, with com- ab sandstones and shales at the base. No. 3 occurs along Rac- eck in Franklin and Delaware Counties, and is composed of 1€ ali shales filled with nodular masses of iron ore. No organic except fossil sea-weed have been found in this deposit, No. 2 - fossil remains of fish and corresponds very closely with beds he n n and southern Ohio. No.1 is made up of compact and shaly “ ead Deton,2 in 1882, ina sith on the bituminous matter of e ck shales, further discussed the classification of the Waverly. -the author’s examination of the various black shales outcrop- cant and neighboring States, he concludes that the Huron and ley eland shales of Newberry, separated in the eastern part of wa as all of Devonian : age. For this shale he proposes to retain e name “ Ohio, Black shale,” applied to it by N. 8S. Shaler in the Geol- Tapa of Kentucky, The author recognized a second shale of similar Sana oon called it the “Berea shale.” It immediately over- Berea sandstone and forms the roof of most of the quarries of ous 3 sandstone. These three black os the Huron and Cleve- eo Q A i Jour. Sci., ~ ser., vol. 24, pp. 171-174. ee , vol. 1, p. 156. A Ty ey Pte Ag Le ac hn ee er nde, z - i i a ae Gs LRG, ; i ' 3 Ee 5 phos A 186 THE DEVONIAN AND. CARBONIFEROUS,, 3 er in great abundance. Dr. Dawson had previously ohiaeved the bodies, and recognized them as the spore cases of some lycopodiaces plant, and named them Sporangites Huronensis.' The author supposes that the great accumulations of gas and oil t have been found in the Devonian and Subearboniferous formations @ Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio are to be traced to the further distillation or decomposition of the bituminous matter, particularly the spore cases originally deposited with these black shales, a theory whic ch was first outlined by Newberry,? although the presence of the spore cases was then unknown. ‘To the spore cases the author would attrib- = ute the chief supply of bituminous matter. % | In 1883 H.S. Williams? reported the discovery of a fauna in the midst of the upper Devonian rocks of New York, having a decided d carboniferous aspect, but closely related to a fata heretofore know a in America only at the base of the Mississippian series in Iowa. : At the base of the Chemung group at Ithaca and High Point, Naples aS) New York, the author found a fauna which is strikingly similar to a fauna found at Lime Creek, xear Rockford, Iowa. Although the gen- eral aspect of the fauna is Carboniferous, yet the occurrence of several of the species in the Chemung rocks requires consideration. The Lit ne Creek fauna was ascribed to the Hamilton group in 1858 by James Hall, but it was afterwards, in 1873, by him and by R. P. Whitfiel refer ned to the “ Chemung group.” : By a close comparison of the faunas and minute and accurate ex: ination of the specific relations of these faunas to each other, the aut or is convinced that the deposits of Lime Creek, Iowa, and all depo: carrying a like fauna, are not Lower Carbonsteraan but are “ geolog equivalents of the Chemung of the East.” wah, a Mr. 8. Calvin‘ took exception to the conclusions of Williams concern ing the “strikingly Carboniferous aspect of the Lime Creek faut a . claiming, after an examination of the fossils, that they exhibit rath nel a Devonian and Silurian aspect, and Williams® replied. ja The importance of the discovery consisted in the recognition of t ra of the fauna, which is Carboniferous in its aspect, in America before close of the Devonian in New York. The recognition of the same in Iowa proved the appearance there of a fauna of true upper Devon a age; that is, more recent than the Hamilton and older than the ty y pice J Kinderhook faunas of the Mississippian area. >: 'On spore cases in coals; by J. W. Dawson, LL. D., F.R.S. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 1, Pp. 2 Agricultural Report of Ohio in 1869. 3’ Williams, Henry S.: On a remarkable faunaat the base of the Chemung group in New York, 4 Am Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 25, pp. 97-104. ‘Calvin, 8.: On the fauna found at Lime Creek, Iowa, and its relation to other geologlonts Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 25, 1883, pp. 432-436. 5 Williams, Honry S.: Equivalency of the Lime Creek beds of Iowa. Am. Jour. Sei, 3a 6 25, 1883, p. 311. oa i _ HALL, ORTON, HERRICK, 187 { oe has ice. found by a study of the fossils that they represent the ipper ‘member of the Chemung group. Above them occurs a series of ‘ossiliferous shales of unknown thickness. The correlation of this of rocks was studied by Mr. C. E. Beecher, who prepared a section ee 1,500 feet and a list of fossils characteristic respectively } tho Sard of a well in Cleveland, Ohio, Edward Orton? deter- d the thickness of the shales below the Berea grit. his well was commenced about 760 feet above tide-water and about %.. pete the Berea grit. The first rock ge was Bedford shale, hor | has Batis abundant use of material from other regions for com- ison. The result is that we have a valuable series of the successive as of the Lower Carboniferous formations of central Ohio, which serve as standards in all future work in correlation. _ great mass of the paper is devoted to specific descriptions ; the results of the study are given in volume Iv.‘ ection is divided into three parts or divisions by two conglom- | hese are subdivided into ten zones, and at the close a list of 321 “94 is given with the particular position or range in this scale of ti: Note on the intimate relations of the Chemung group and Waverly sandstone in stern Pennsylvania and southwestern New York. Am. Assoc., Proc., vol. 33, 1884, pp. 416- Edward: The record of the deep well of the Cleveland Rolling Mill Company, Cleveland, m. Assoc. Proc., vol. 34, 1885, pp. 220-222. ck, C. L.: A sketch of the geological history of Licking County, accompanying an illustrated st carboniferous fossils from Flint Ridge, Ohio. Denison Univ., Bull., vol. 2, pp. 5-68, 144- Ms pp. 13-110; vol. 4, pp. 11-60, 97-123, 1885-1888, with numerous plates illustrating the fossils. av EE Ee en a ee ea ea Fe ae =e ii oe he ré. ays \ ape fa ea ey _ % . < bs sane a ™ - ais +> e en it” See aR pais?» pies: 1B eee “THE DEVONIAN AND - CARRONTPBROU 3, ee ee Res ae ! The following classification’ modified from nna of Mr. - Bawa Irt is given by the author : pee | on BAe ols Logan... --n-ear- 0 Ariat iis 1p _Cuyahoga or Waverly series... 4 (Conglomerate II.) ...-.....-------- ‘ a Kividerhool? 52 2h 20 a ercetn -d ot sree eeee Ae (Conglomerate I.) .....-...-------.- ). ra ( Waverly shale 3 voe 2s. . teeta : Berea or Transition Series | Berea shale .........- as oh Belt Ss nae 200-400 (Western equivalent ofupper { Berea grit.......----....--.--------- ‘30h. BO60R Chemung). Bediord shales. <2. « des thse hceut-oea ae aad . Cleveland shale (local) ..........--2. 22... bin: _Erie shale.—Eastern or typical Chemung, lower part..........---.---.----- The classification adopted in his tables is as follows: ia Ill. Keokuk and Burlington groups, Upper Waverly (Upper Logan), separated into three zones in th@ table, but into five on p. 100 of the picts. and there amon tig 0 ‘4 80 feet of thickness, or not over 125 feet. x II. Kinderhook (part or all), middle Waverly. . a7; Bas, This is subdivided into two zones in table, but into four zones on p. 101 ; the: upper- : most of which is Conglomerate IT; the thickness, 52 feet, without thn Compton 2 erate, which is but a few inches or foot in the specific cases given. a ' I. Transition zone.—Devonian, in part equivalent to Chemung and Portage. ‘ ye Z _ The upper zone of this division is the Conglomerate I, 18 inches thick in one of the sections. In the table five zones are mentioned, on pages 100 and 101; seven zones are given, about 350 feet in thickness and not over 500 feet. fer % Below this is the Bedford shale, 51 feet (Hamilton facies in Chemung association), * _ with the Black or Hamilton shale next below. B 4 - He concluded that his middle Waverly “is representative of the Cate skill,” but is not strictly equivalent to it. a The “* Berea shale” is more than Orton’s black shales, So named, but “ the greater part of the shales below the Kinderhook.” yaa He did not consider it necessary ‘to conclude from the fact that the a. Erie shales are of Chemung, age that all which lies stratigraphically above the Erie is certainly later faunally than the top of the Chemun g~. as seen in New York strata.”? ae ; Above the Waverly group traces of the higher faunas were seen in the ‘‘ Maxville limestone,” east of Rushville. This ‘‘ Maxville lime- stone” fauna is correlated with the Chester limestone of the interior.® i The latest systematic classification of the rocks of Ohio is report ad in the sixth volume of the Geological Survey of Ohio.* _ This will ¢ ) = . Feet. ¢ Glatial drift. cc. cciccé even aukis Apes ad vere Baha eae 0-550 ie Upper Barren Coal Measures: ............-.--- ees. 500) 16. Upper Productive Coal Measures......-.....--c--- 4+ '250 - ae _ 15. Lower Barren Coal Measures.......-....-.---- 200 500 + Carboniferous. eA 14. Lower Productive Coal Measures..........---.---6 250 oa it Conglomerate group... ....00 coeme we cee eee 250 catalogue of Serta Niatsian fossils from Flint Ridge, Ohio. ae: Uuiv., Bull, vol. 4, pp. 1 21bid., p. 111: is *Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 21-23. 4Vol. VL, Economic Geology, by Edward Orton. Columbus, 1888, : .* , ha eee ae ee . _ sai he As ay Vay PRETO iat e.. ‘ ee putas: wee ee ae ee, jg ‘ : luge SS sake Ee ee ee CN ve ‘ , Se. TON CLASSIFICATION | OF OHIO ROCKS. 189. 1le. Logan gauss ie Se oe Kanne 0-350 i Ald. Cuyahoga shale............ 150-450 $ Subcarboniferous. group... + iic, Berea shale... 2.5.22. 2... 20-50 wane Oerea Qrit os oo. ss sees 3 3-160 lla. Bedford shale..........-... 50-150 J 10c. Cleveland shale. ni le...-.. 4 10b. Erie shale. ga. ak 2-300 10a. Huron shale. 9, Hi: amilt on Peale, Olentangy shale..........-....... 25 [ abba xs - eee an limestone, Upper Helderberg or Cornifer- | 0 aia luding West Jefferson sandstone ......... 75 J or Helderberg limestone, etc. ne In tl this. classification the Logan group is the equivalent of the Olive of Read, the Logan sandstone and the Waverly Conglom- of of Andrews. The “Berea shale” is a name proposed by Mr. for the « Waverly black shale” of the reports. The “ Waverly is differently delimited from the original Waverly group of the i d second reports, by the addition of the Logan group at the di ‘he exclusion of the Cleveland shale at the bottom. The rea- ome E - including the Cleveland shale in the Devonian was explained Or rton in previous papers. It is because of structural consider- ana of disputed questions, in all of shih the fossils to the right interpretation, while the apparent stratigraphy a ae aC es the Se accippian limestone. In 1860,? anumber of Gonia- d .d other fossils were described, and the author, Mr. James Hall, Fike limestones as Marcellus black shale. He had previously ted the black shale of the Southwest as Marcellus, and as the Marc s shale of New York in calcareous layers was rich in Goniatites, e infe are d that the bed at Rockford was the equivalent. ae shinee he said : lack Ridiile; which I somard as the continuation of the Marcellus shale, occurs mmediate neighborhood.* r nhs M1 arg REA Berg Le bes als ee 4! <*> ary me a ait mae 2 2 és ee ey 190-0 ee DEVONIAN. AND ‘CARBONIFEROU af ie eh In 1361, Messrs. ‘Mosk and Worthen. replied, ae gave r inter- pretation of the correlation. This paper, like that of M. de Ver neuer ay - was based upon the evidence of fossils, and it augmented the argu | ments of the learned French paldsabolentbt, The following is. an abstract of the paper. q Messrs. Meek and Worthen,! after carefully comparing fossils in the Illinois State geological collection with specimens from the Goniatite | bed of Rockford, Indiana, came to the conclusion that this bed was also” . _ represented in iilineia Missouri, and Iowa, and that its stratigraphic position is much higher than that given it by Hall. They found that — the black slate always occurs beneath the limestone, and that the latter is of the same age with the Chouteau limestone of Swallow, i which had been placed on a parallel with the Chemung group, because _ it contained many fossils found in other beds in the West referred by Hall to the Chemung group. A section is given showing the position of the Chouteau limestone 7 with regard to the other Western formations, beginning with the Bur- | lington limestone, which is acknowledged to be Carboniferous, and : extending down to the Hamilton group, thus: ae 7 1. Burlington limestone attaining a thickness Of, .0. 5.-..-42iaceee 2 Ghouteaw limestone +22... .25--- « phe a Sie yet Re sosd te oee omen 100 ~ x x 44 3. Vermicular sandstone and shale. -.... 2.2... .--226 ence cone 65 to 100 yl 4, Lithographic limestone (rather local)--.........---.---.----26 a BD. MC BI oad en's ee ne a kwh tet mee eee tee peice ee 30 to 40 6. Hamilton STOUP ---- 2-0 oneee eene eoee vocwes menses con nce oF ue 2 Numbers 2, 3, 4, are included by Swallow in the “* Chemung.” The , Black slate is ahown to come in everywhere above all the well -de- - fined Hamilton group beds, and the authors assert that as the Chou - teau limestone comes directly beneath the Burlington limestone and. considerably above the horizon of the Hamilton group beds of the West 6 as weli a8 above the Black slate, therefore its representative in Indiana, the Goniatite bed at Rockford, can not be referred to any part of the Marcellus shale at the base of the Hamilton group. Neither can the °) Black slate be said to represent the Marcellus shale, as that lies at the base of the Hamilton group, and the Black slate is always found above the Hamilton. The position of the Black slate, they maintain, is alll nearly that of the Genesee slate as suggested by M. de Verneuil. i The fossils of the Rockford limestone, including the Goniatites, were re considered by the authors as more nearly allied to the Carbonifer ou! forms than to those of the New York rocks; examples are given t prove this statement, and a section to illustrate the close relating ns between the Ghanian limestone (equivalent to the Rockford limestoall and the Burlington beds in Illinois. Reference is made to a paper of 1 Meek, F.B., and A. H. Worthen. Remarks on the age of the Goniatite limestone at Rock! Indiana, and its relations to the ‘‘ Black slate” of the Western States and to some of the succeedin rocks above the latter. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 32, 1861, pp. 167-177, 288. ft i : Pee Gas et? 4 Pat, ; ee “ f et <3 Pane. A : ‘fF ‘at. ’ Ne Py ee a OS | Sk eee z > et othe / ° rae * C0 oe ee ed Oe ae ; ed MEER AND WORTHEN. a ti arr dng in the Pastiigwn theaakabinc 15 hewrntaiccn their oe the beds below, referred by Hall to the Chemung, which, Sontag selina the Chouteau limestone of Swallow.” one ee wil. iis fossils of these rocks apparently identical with the Che- ung : forms, that they do not consider this identity proved, and find, me are undistinguishable from Chemung species, there are numer- rth ier fossils totally distinct from them, closely allied with Carbon- = aged and even identical with them. Mr. ©. A. White had in- st in Salt, with the Old Red of the Catskill Mountains.” But the I ors add that in that case they should not refer the rock in which he C Shemung forms occur to the Chemung, but either to the Old Red 0 ) the Carboniferous, as in using these names they refer to a period ti me, as well as toa group of strata, and they consider that the el ire ‘group of fossils is far more nearly allied to the Carboniferous than to the Old Red. In conclusion they affirm “ that the relations between the Chouteau bine | Burlington limestones in Missouri, Iowa, and Illinois, where both ig ir together, as well as of the affinities of the fossils found in the ( ormer in the States mentioned, and at Rockford, Indiana, show that it should probably be referred to the Carboniferous system, or, at any rate t at i it is much morerecent than the Chemung, and not equivalent ud Yew York rock.” Th n anote on p. 288 of vol. 32, the authors propose the name “ Kin- Jerhook Group” for “ the beds lying between the Black slate and the surlir ngton limestone which have heretofore been considered the equiv- 8 of the Chemung group of New York.” CO. A. White and R. P. Whitfield dissented from the views ed in the above paper in an article published in the Proceedings soston Society, the same year. Their chief objection was to ; rvations on the rocks of the Mississippi Valley which have been referred to the Chemung Yew York, together with descriptions of new species from the same horizon at Burlington, y C. A. White and RK. P. Whitfield. Boston, Soc. Nat. Hist., Proc., vol. 8, pp. 289-306. Re. em Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser. , vol. 33, pp. 422-426, 2a pe pia plu ie a Shae ells ice A eth el dS faunas of Ohio and Michigan,a still greater difference is seen. Yet It was dapnaned that continuity of strata had been traced, sedi in spite ) = (ar — ‘ *, & % ft 6g ra ii ci Bice ce: ap TE ox ar tox ve. pier’ eae Gay a eng “ ie - eee a, aN fig i “ z Ear Boat trey omraa AND ‘CARB( D1 1 OUR Er St ote the correlation of the beds lying between the horizon of th a: B shale” and the base of the Butieaayy limestone as be geeet: r i. Shange in the paleontologic characters, and between the gure fi we feel warranted in regarding them “as of the age of the Chemu group of New York, and, so far as-we know, no one has questioned it.!” They were ‘ponent that some of the species found at Borlingta and other places in the west of the same geological horizon are iden tical with some of those found in the Chemung rocks of Ohio, w1 rocks can be traced continuously to New York,” and, “ notwithstan ing their carboniferous character, we think shits relepemde to © Chemung of New York legitimate and proper2” They sccdissain M. de Verneuil’s correlation of the “Chemung” of Ohio as carbonifere us us by supposing that he was ignorant of the tendency to chauge on pees 3. ing westward, which they believed belonged to the faunas. They fu ther didiuaaliiod that “a direct continuity of the strata of the Chem Rocks of New York can be traced from that State to those of Ohi and that Hall considered that but for the Cincinnati axis the con- tinuity could be traced to the Mississippi Valley. They none the difference in faunas, but believed with Hall that a strate tinuity had been established. : When we examine the argument eritically, we find that the error was at the start, on passing from Chautauqua County, New York, to Ohio. LO VY i T i of the difference observed between the species in the Ohio roehis and d those of the New York Chemung, the belief in the identity of secant to a theory to account for the differents of fossils. a This is one of the best illustrations we have seen of the eas d at correlations by lithologic characters cannot be relied on, even when the continuity is affirmed by a careful geologist after a special survey. Whereas the testimony of fossils can always be relied on to the exter nt and with the precision which our ability to interpret them will pern nit. and the reason is not far to seek. Petrographic characters have no re lation to age. The characters of fossils are intimately associated wit the time and environment of the living organisms they represent. a ee vrs eee treu cas on the rocks of the Mississippi Valley which ack been referred to the Che group of New York, together with descriptions of new species from the same horizon at ip Iowa,” by C. A. White and R. P, Whitfield. Boston. Soc. Nat. Hist., Proc., vol. 8, pp. — viewed oy ‘“‘Anon.” Am,J our. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 33, p. 200. CHAPTER IX. 4 | THE PERMIAN PROBLEM OF KANSAS AND NEBRASKA, 1858-1886. a The determination of the upper limit of the Paleozoic rocks of America was a problem which did not trouble the students of the geological for- 1ations east of the Mississippi River until it had been suggested by studies farther west. The Carboniferous period in the Appalachian province was terminated by an uplift, which may have taken place "during the Permian epoch, as suggested by Messrs. Fontaine and White, but. stratigraphically the system was terminated by cessation of depo- sition, the result of the permanent elevation of the great mass of the eer deposits above ocean level. West of the Mississippi, at the yestern boundary of the outcrop of the Carboniferous system, in Ne- ‘be aska, Kansas, and Texas, and around elevated masses in Dakota and New Mexico, the Permian problem arose for solution. 4 _ The first annoucement of the discovery of Permian fossils was made in 1857, in a letter to F. Hawn, dated September 3, 1857, written by . B. Meek, regarding the identification of some fossils sent by the former to the latter for that purpose. Mr. Meek’s identification of the f forms was recorded in written memoranda in the Smithsonian Institu- tion January 19, 1858. Mr. Hawn had sent similar fossils to Mr. Swal- low, who reported their identification with Permian forms to the St. Louis Academy of Science in a letter dated February 18, 1858, which was read February 22. Mr. Meek communicated a paper announcing the discovery of fossils “indicating Permian rocks in Kansas” to the Albany Institute, March 2, 1858, and also in a letter to the Philadelphia A Academy of Natural aanes, of the same date.' Following these an- nouncements came fuller descriptions and other discoveries in other arts of the outcrop of the same terrane, made by J. G. Norwood, B. ?. Shumard, and others. D At the beginning of 1858, F. Hawn was United States geologist in Kansas ; G. C. Swallow was State geologist of Missouri; F. B. Meek as ddataing as paleontologist in the explorations of F. V. Hayden, mited States geologist in the Territories; J. G. Norwood was State pologict of Illinois, and B. F. Shumard was assisting G. C. Swallow nM issouri. sf the Coal Measures had been studied and pretty thoroughly classi- od. for all the States east of the Mississippi. Their marine fossils had pe gathered : in most of the States, and partially identified. 4 a 1 Am. Jour, sci., 2d ser., vol. 44, pp. 38, 39, io a Bull, 80———13 » . s als. A % ee? OS rei Re ey are ae ‘ 4 Tye A Te roan See TRON Tig 8. et re see : fi PT eee AN Ji Paey @ 194 ‘THE DEVONIAN “AND CARBONIFEROUS. cess ‘ Oe ey f \ The Periiek system had been named ann defined by Murchison ; in the report on the geology of Russia.! William King’s monograph of the Permian fossils of England was | published in 1859. Murchison’s idea of the ‘‘ Permian” was, that it was a system equiva. { lent in rank to the Silurian or Carboniferous, and that it was character- — ized “by one type of animal and vegetable life.” The question as to — whether this idea was a correct one did not come definitely before the — American geologists till a later period. When they discovered above — the Coal Measures fossils indicating a Permian fauna, the question was _ as to whether or not the Permian system was present in the American — geological series. 7 Those who took the most active part in the discussion were Messrs. " 4 | Meek, Hayden, Swallow, Shumard, Hawn, Maron, Geinitz, Norwood, Newberry, and C. A. White. ; The typical sections whence the fossils came were along the Kansas _ River in northeast Kansas, and in Nebraska and south and west of these (at that time) Territories. In Swallow and Hawn’s paper on ‘“‘The Rocks of Kansas”? is given the typical Kansas section made by | F. Hawn, consisting of—* | : Feet. Strata Nos. 7 | System I. Quaternary ---.---. ayn he. hus vee wees Nikole ee eee 169 1-3 System II. Cretaceous ...2.. 1-22. 2-222 pone none e pn enone 72 4-5 Rysipis LIT Trisssie(?).3 60-3522 s sebd ee bo ae AMA Y 20950 4203(7) 6-259] System III. Permian: { Upper Permian. 25212... bins cde aes spe as shoes 263 26-31 LOWE? POtMiAd. .cuw nies siete materia epee eben 507 _ 82-709 System IV. Carboniferous: | ‘Coal Measures, probably above the upper Coal Measures'of Missodti?)sc2cscilde. oe 1, 073% The section made independently by Messrs. Meek and Hayden, in- cluding about the same section of rocks, is published in their paper on “¢ Geological Explorations in Kansas Territory.” 4 The section is entitled “General section of the rocks of Kansas Val- | ley from the Cretaceous down, so as to include portions of the Upper) Coal Measures.” Forty strata are given, numbered from above down-) ward, 1 to 40. The point whera they draw the line between the Uppel Coal Measures and what may be called the Permian is at the top of their) stratum No. 11. No. 10 above contains well authenticated Permian) fossils; the locality of both sections is on Cottonwood Creek, in the neighborhood of Fort Riley. Most of the fossils reported as Permiat by Swallow and collected by Hawn were from the Valley of the Cone n wood and from Smoky Hill Fork. < ry 1Murchison, Verneuil, and Keyserling in 1845. The first announcement of the system was made in letter from Murchison dated Moscow, September, 1841, and published in the Perec Bees Magazin vol, 19, p. 419. 2 Trans. St. Louis Acad. Sci., vol. 1, pp. 173-197. j 4 3Ibid., pp. 174-175. a ‘Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phil., vol. 2, pp. 8-30, 4 / Pe eae yee se a ON rian B a ri a of oe MEEK, HAYDEN, SWALLOW, HAWN. 195 a ane Beaty discussions Meek and Hayden recognized only “the Upper Permian ” of Swallow as equivalent to the Permian of Europe; the “Lower Permian” of Swallow they considered as intermediate, and | - calied it “Permo-Carboniferous.” After a thorough study of the fossils i in 1865 and later, Mr. Meek dropped the term Permo-Carboniferous,” % and included all the rocks, except the upper zone of Swallow and the q barren rocks above and their equivalents, in the Upper Coal Measures. : e< ~The facts emphasized by Mr. Meek were the gradual coming in of the a - Permian faunas at the top of the Coal Measures, followed above by a series of barren ferruginous beds and magnesian limestones with gyp- : sum, and these followed by the Cretaceous. But all along this south- ‘ ' western border of the Carboniferous there was a gradual passage from _ the Coal Measures lithology to that of the Permian type above, with no _ stratigraphic break, and a gradual change in the faunas, the Permian _ types coming in daring the prevalence of Upper Coal Measure types, and. by degrees increasing in dominance till the latter had nearly ceased. There was nothing to suggest a distinct system except the European - classification, and in ignorance of Kuropean Geology no one would have thought to draw a line of higher value than separating two étages, be- _ tween the two sets of rocks. The correlation with the European Permian was made on purely pale, Ee veeoigineal ers. A TAbion from G. C. Swallow to B. F. Shumard was read before the _ St. Louis Academy of Science,' announcing the identification of fossils 3 collected by Hawn from Kansas. The letter states: | . - Allof the described fossils, with perhaps two exceptions, are identical with Per- tia species of Russia and England, while all of the new species appear to be more i nearly allied to Permian forms than to any other. At the same meeting a paper was read by Messrs. Swallow and Hawn.’ Mr. Swallow considered the evidence of identity of fossils as _ Sufficient to justify the decision that ‘‘the rocks are Permian.” % _ Messrs. Meek and Hayden‘ announced to the Philadelphia Academy _ of Science, March 2, 1858, by letter, the identification of fossils sent Mr. | - Meek by Mr. F. Hawn foi near the junction of Solomon’s and Smoky y Hill Forks of Kansas River, ‘indicating the probable existence of Per- oe rocks in Kansas Territory.” The fossils were in the form of casts in a yellowish magnesian lime- - stone, were ‘‘unlike any forms known to them from the Carboniferous Swallow, G. C.: Discovery of Permian Rocks in Kansas. Read February 22, 1858. St. Louis Acad. ‘Ss i., Trans., vol. 1, 1860, p. 111. | Shumard, B. F.: Discovery of the Permian formations in Mexico. Read March 8, 1858. St. Louis A ead. Sci., Trans., vol. 1, 1860, p. 113. _ Swallow, G. C., dad F. Hawn: The Rocks of Kansas. St. Louis Acad. Sci., Trans., vol. 1, 1860, pp. 173-175. This paper was communicated to the Society February 22, 1858. 8 re The Rocks of Kansas, with descriptions of New Fossils from the Permian formation in Kansas Territory.” This was published in full Jater, in the same vol. 1, pp. 173-197. §The same announcement appeared in the American Journal of Science, March, 1858. (Vol. 25, Pp. 305.) es 4Proc. Phila. Acad. Sci., vol. 10, pp. 9, 10. ies Y Sr : 4 e fr ee: . Cae bot) ha Rise: : . t 196 ‘THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. uuu 80, 4 system,” and were “very nearly allied to types considered character- — istic of the Permian of the Old World.” The letter states that when Major Hawn was informed of the identification, several months pre- vious, he reported that the bed from which the fossils were obtained - was above the well marked Coal Measures, “and seems to have been deposited upon an uneven surface.” | On the same day that this announcement was made to the Philadel- phia Academy, a paper entitled ‘ Description of new organic remains from northeastern Kansas, indicating the existence of Permian rocks in that Territory,” by Messrs. Meek and Hayden, was read before the — Albany Institute.! n. In this paper, which was read before the Albany Institute March 2, 1858, the authors announce that fossils had been examined by them, : received from Maj. F. Hawn “from near the mouth of the Smoky Hill Fork of the Kansas River, in a hard, rather compact, yellowish, brittle magnesian limestone.” They differed “from forms known to us inany — part of the Carboniferous system, yet were more nearly like Upper — Carboniferous than Triassic or Jurassic types. * * * Suspecting — this rock might represent the Permian system of the Old World, a — hasty comparison was made * * * which almost established the - conviction (six or eight months ago) that they belonged to that epoch.” ‘From the unquestionable relations of some [of the species] and the apparent affinities of others, taken in connection with the lithological characters and the stratigraphical position of the rock in which they oceur, we think there is scarcely room to doubt that ita is of Permian age”? These announcements of the Permian character of the fossils discoy- ered by F. Hawn in Kansas were followed later by the recognition of Permian fossils by B. F. Shumard from the white limestones of the Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico, March 8, 1858, collected by G. G. Shumard.* J. G. Norwood, April 5, 1858, announced to the St. Louis Academy that comparison of fossils found in the upper part of the sections in j Bureau, La Salle, and Henry Counties, Illinois, with those identified by — Messrs. Swallow and Meek, had convinced him that the upper beds of — his sections were of the same age as those belonging to the Permian © rocks of Kansas.‘ . . | / \ | ) | 1Trans. Alb. Inst., vol. 4, pp. 73-88. Also, Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 25, pp. 440, 441. 2 The following species are described: Monotis Hawni (p. 76); Myalina (Mytilus) perattenuata (p. 77), Bakevellia parva (p. 78), Leda (Nucula) subscitula (p. 79), Edmondia? Calhouni (p. 80), Pleu- — rophorus ? occidentalis (p. 80), P. (Cardinia) subcuneata (p. 81), Lyonsia (Penopeea) concava (p. 82), — Penpeea Oooperi (p. 83), Nautilus eecentricus (p. 83). 3See Trans. St. Louis Acad. Sci., vol.1,p.113; also March 23, 1858, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., vol. 10, p. 14. The description of these fossils is ‘Sublaned in the transactions of the St. Louis Peeyei ss of Sciences, vol. 1, pp. 387-403. 4Trans. St. Louis Acad. Sci., vol. 1, p. 115. See also Norwood, J. G.: The Permian in Dlhinois, Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 26, 1858, pp. 129, 130. Hayden, F. V., and F. B. Meek. [On the probable existence of Permian ‘eens in Kansas. ] (Read ;. March 2, 1858.) ‘Philadelphia Acad, Sci., Proc., vol. 10, 1859, pp. 9, 10. ; SWALLOW, HAWN, MEEK, HAYDEN. 197 | ley essrs. Swallow and Hawn,'in “The Rocks of Kansas,” 1858, gave a ‘section with 820 feet of ‘Permian rocks” above the ih Measures; and il ill higher, 4203 feet of Triassic(?). They enumerate 72 species as Per- om n; 30 of these are identified with species before described; others ts are Saouberally- referred to described species or are given new names. In the article in the American Journal of Science, Swallow? acknowl- oe that Mr. Meek first discovered the Permian character of the Kan- Sas fossils, and communicated it to Hawn September 3, 1857, and ver- ~ dally to a friend at the Smithsonian January 17, 1858, Bn: to Leidy the —-16th.of March, 1858, and he stated that Hawn first pened the idea ~ from Meek.? Messrs. Hayden and Meek‘ found upon more thorough study of section _ and fossils, and comparison with the Nebraska section, that only Swal- _ low’s Upper Permian of Kansas is equivalent to the European Permian, f and Swallow’s Lower Permian, with several hundred feet of what he re- garded as the top of the Coal ft in which Monotis was discovered by Meek, they call transitional and name “ Permo-Carboniferous,” or, | if it must be placed one side or the other of the line, suggest that it be pati in the Carboniferous.° 3 In a paper® read in May, 1857, Meek and Hayden presented a section q of the rocks of Nebraska in hich the base, of unknown thickness, is _ called “Carboniferous.” It is seen along the Missouri River at De Soto; _ and at Council Bluffs, at low stages of the river, fifteen or twenty feet _ of it are exposed. This part is a yellow limestone, with Fusulina cylin- q -driea and other Coal Measure fossils. _ Above this the section for five members is called “Cretaceous.” i “aie No. 1 is described as yellowish and friable sandstones with alternation of dark and whitish clays, seams and beds of impure lignite, fossil wood, impressions of dicotyledonous leaves, Solen, Pectunculus, Cyprina, ete. _ This bed is “not positively known to belong to the Cretaceous system.” ‘The authors correlate this No. 1 with f of the New Jersey sections fur- a -nished by G. H. Cook, “mainly resting the opinion upon stratigraphic and lithologic evidence.” Its correlation in the Alabama section is “ gan E of Alexander Winchell’s section. (See Table, beyond.) In the same paper is given a section of the rocks of Kansas furnished bbs Hawn. It is a compiled section, based upon his observations made Mi Reviewed Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 26, p. 115, and substantially the same paper read before the Am. _ Assoc. Adv. Sci., at Baltimore, lacking the descriptions, and printed in the Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 26, p. 182. — 2Vol. 25, p. 188. _ %See also Hayden’s paper, Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 44, 1867, pp. 32-40. 4Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 27, 1859, pp. 31-35. _ 5See also notes explanatory of a map and section illustrating the geological structure of the country iproeting on the Missouri River, from the mouth of the Platte River to Fort Benton, in latitude 47° 0’ N., longitude 110° 30’ W., by F. V. Hayden, M. D., Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., vol. 9, 1857, 109-116. “*Descriptions of new species and genera of fossils collected by Dr. F. V. Hayden in Nebraska Terri- we or ry, under the direction of Lieut. G. K. Warren, U.S. Topographical Engineer; with some remarks on ie t he Tertiary and Cretaceous formations of the Northwest, and the parallelism of the latter with those 0 f other portions of the United States and Territories, by F. B. Meek and F, V. Hayden, M.D., Proc. ‘4 Load. Nat. Sci., Phila., vol. 9, 1857, pp. 117-148. neat va. : dt > ; } wee | 198 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. —_—[uut.80. in the country east of the sixth principal meridian and between the — northern boundary of Kansas and the Republican Fork of the Kansas" River. In this section the lowest bed, m, a siliceous limestone, is re- garded as Carboniferous. The strata c to l, next above, are considered as equivalent to No. 1 of the Nebraska section. The lower part of these _ beds, f to l, is correlated with the Triassic of Marcou; the higher part a to e, with Marcou’s Jurassic. The Pyramid section of New Mexico, according to Mr. Marcon, is given, p. 132. The lower members of this section, ¢, d,and e, called Jurassic by Marcou, and /, called Triassic by him, are correlated with No. 1 of the Nebraska section.! In a second paper by F. V. Hayden,’ a strip of Permian is colored in Kansas between the Carboniferous and the Cretaceous, a little west of Nebraska City and west of Fort Riley, in what in the first map was col- ored Cretaceous. This change is based upon facts reported by Hawn.’ It appears from this paper that the insertion of No.1 of the Nebraska section of the Cretaceous was made upon the report of Hawn as to the species contained in it or below it, which belonged to genera character- istic of the Cretaceous.t— Upon examination of fossils derived from No. 1 they were found by Meek to be of Permian or Carboniferous types. The presence of the leaves of dicotyledonous trees was the evidence upon which the authors (Meek and Hayden) relied as positive indication | of the Cretaceous system. These occurred above No.1. The evidence for this correction apparently did not reach the authors in time to adjust the body of the paper. Meek and Hayden. Hawn. Marcau, Winchell. Cook. ; Pyramid Mountain ; _ Nebraska section. N. E. Kansas. Maw ak natensk Alabama. | New Jersey. Tertiary Miocene. Cretaceous NO: 6 ..c}t sso. hoc tete Utes Since eee A | A Permian or Cawr- e-l d boniferous No.1. e€ Bib 4 Carboniferous ..-.| = ™ | In the Judith River section a bed called “ No. 1 (?) is defined, and its true position was uncertain to F. V. Hayden in May, 1857.° : Bb. F. Shumard, in a paper® read before the Academy of Science, in — 1 Description of new species and genera of fossils collected by Dr. F. V. Hayden in Nebraska Terri- _ tory, under the direction of Lieut. G. K. Warren, U.S. Topographical Engineer; with some remarks on the Tertiary and Cretaceous formations of the Northwest, and the parallelism of the latter with those — of other portions of the United States and Territories, by F.B. Meek and F. V, Hayden, M.D., Proc. _ Acad. Nat. Sei., Phila., vol. 9, p. 129. ; 2 Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil., vol. 10, pp. 139-158. 3 See note, Ibid., p. 144. 4See note, Ibid., p. 145, 146, foot-note. *Tbid., vol, 9. p. 116. 6 Observations upon the Cretaceous strata of Texas,” by B. F.Shumard, State Geologist, Trans., aA vol. 1, No. 4, p. 582. J MEEK AND HAYDEN, NEWBERRY. 139 Bowls: i in 1860, correlates the lower Cretaceous beds (“Arenaceous id Red River groups”) with No.1, of the Nebraska Section ; in it are e recorded characteristic Grotaaceis fossils. O Seséra: Meek and Hayden! having examined the fossils and other “geological specimens collected by Lieut. G. K. Warren, topographical engineer in and near the Black Hills, Nebraska, gave the succession of P Bee losics! formations indicated by them. The main body of the Hills is granite, and superimposed upon it is— (1) A group of highly metamorphosed sedimentary formations. (2) A sandstone equivalent to the Potsdam sandstone of the New York series. - (3) Limestones containing fossils which are a mingling of Coal Measure and Lower "Carboniferous types. (4) Two red beds containing specimens of fossils closely allied to Coal Measure s veumean, These red beds may be of Permian age, though the fossils point rather to the : Upper Carboniferous series. It is not improbable that the upper bed may be Triassic - or even Jurassic. (5) Strata containing fossils of Jurassic type. The strata are argillaceous shales “ and various colored sandstones. _ (G) Beds regarded as belonging to the older Cretaceous, though a large portion of Z Kthen may be Jurassic. Above all these formations are in regular succession, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5, of the Cretaceous series of Nebraska.” Mr. Swallow examined a collection of fossils from the Upper Coal Measures of Kansas Territory, made by Mr. Hawn, compared them 4 with Permian fossils from Russia of Verneuil, and decided that the _ Kansas fossils are also Permian. On his journey to New Mexico, J. S. Newberry? found Permian fossils — in Kansas, and the beds described by Meek and Hayden as between the Lower Cretaceous and the Permian, which they state may be either 4 onan or Triassic. He also saw the same red or brown sandstone from which these gentlemen collected the fossil leaves which Heer and - Marcou pronounced to be Miocene, but which Newberry says are the a same which mark the base of the Cretaceous in New Jersey, Nebraska, _ and Kansas. And farther southwest he found this same sandstone overlaid by the same Cretaceous seen by Meek and eHayden surmount- _ ing it in Nebraska, these Cretaceous beds containing well known and ' admitted Cretaceous fossils, and also the very Gryphea relied upon by _ Marcou to prove the existence of the Jurassic, proving, if Marcou and Heer are right, that the Miocene is older than the Cretaceous and ; _ Jurassic. 4 In New Mexico Mr. Newberry discovered facts’ sustaining the pres- ence of the Trias there, as in the red gypsum-bearing marls containing _ eycadaceous plants, similar to those of the Keuper (Upper Trias) of Bore. In the letter‘ from B. F. Shumard, read by Joseph Leidy, to the he se. Ri A _ 1 Meek, F. B. ,and F. V. Hayden: Fossils of Nebraska. ‘Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 25, 1858, pp. 439-441. a 2Swallow, G. C.: On Permian strata in Kansas. Am. Jour. Sci., 2d series, vol. 25, 1858, p. 305. ‘x | Newberry, : J.S.: Explorations in New Mexico. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 28, 1859, pp. 298-299. On Permian rocks of New Mexico. By B. F. Shumard, Phil. Acad. Sci., Proc., vol, 10, 1859, p. 14, ae oe). ee 200 ‘THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. = [av1t.80. Academy of Science, Philadelphia, the undoubted occurrence of Per- mian fossils in the white limestone of the Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico, was announced. The collection consists of forty species, part of which are identical with the Permian forms of England and Russia. Below this limestone is a sandstone containing the same fossils found _ in the same formation in Missouri, Iowa, and Illinois, “but in New — Mexico scarcely a single species ranges from the Coal Measures into the Permian.” Sir Roderick Murchison,! in a letter to the editors of the eee Journal, expresses his surprise at the statement made by Mr. Marcou with regard to the term Permian, as given by Murchison, for the strata of the government of Perm, which term he considered a very improper one, and also that Murchison has included in his Permian a part, it not the whole, of the Trias. Considering this a serious charge, Murchison asked an explanation — 7 of Marcou of the grounds upon whichit was made, and this was finally given in the memoir noticed in this letter. Murchison objected strongly - to criticisms upon his work by one who had never been in Russia, spoke of the absolute distinction between the fossils of the Permian group and those of the Trias, whether we refer to the reptiles, fishes, and shells, or to the plants, but Mr. Marcou unites these two deposits in one natural group under the name of New Red sandstone. The author concludes by requesting the editors to translate into En- glish the last page of Mr. Marcou’s memoir, considering it the best argument against the adoption of that gentleman’s views that could be produced. | The editors gave the summary referred to, in which Mr. Marcou re- | gards the New Red sandstone, comprising the Dyas and Trias, asa — great geologic period equivalent to the Paleozoic epoch, the Carbon- iferous, Mesozoic, etc., and says that he restricts the limits ordinarily given to the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, and gives them proportions more in harmony with those of the Tertiary and recent epoch, in order to have a well balanced and natural classification. He considers the Car- boniferous forms of*life found in the lower beds of the “ New Red” as a kind of rear guard to the preceding organisms, and the forms found in the upper beds as precursors or advance guard of the Mesozoic pop- ulations. In 1859, Messrs. Meek and Hayden acknowledge their mistake? in having placed certain rocks of Kansas on a.parallel with No. 1 of Ne- braska section, having ascertained by their fossils, which are similar to the Permian of the Old World, that these rocks should be placed — lower, and the same was done with the lower 200 feet of Mr. Marcou’s — 1 Murchison, Sir Roderick J.: Notice of a memoir by M. Jules Marcou, entitled ‘‘ Dyas and Trias, or the New Red Sandstone in Europe, North America and India.”’ .Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 28, 1859, pp. 256-259. 2 Meek, F. B., and F. V. Hayden: On the so-called Triassic rocks of Kansas and Nebraska. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 27, 1859, pp. 31-35. WILL.IAD ua ay MEEK AND HAYDEN, NORWOOD. 201 I bepsen the base of No. 1 and the beds containing Permian fossils, and the rest of the Pyramid section, which he referred to the Jurassic, : 1s equivalent to the Cretaceous formations, Nos. 1, 2, 3, of Nebraska. *s The authors refer to their having considered No. 1 as a Cretaceous 4 formation from the presence in it of dichotyledonous leaves (Httingshaus- dana, ete.), while Major Hawn pronounces tiis formation in Nebraska, _ Kansas, and New Mexico, to be Trias, and they giye Newberry’s opin- ion after having seen the whole collection, affirming the correlation with the Cretaceous formations. They also speak of the beds between in | ee define their age with certainty. With regard 3 the Permian rocks © of Kansas, as classified by Swallow and Hawn, they are inclined to the _ opinion that the lower Permian of these gentlemen should be consid- ered asintermediate in age between the Permian and Upper Coal Meas- ures of the Old World, while the Upper Permian only, of their section, = ally represents the Beoaian rocks of Europe, and they propose the name of “‘ Permo-Carboniferous” for this intermediate series, but if _ this be not adopted, think it should be placed with the Carboniferous _ rather than with the Permian. / An conclusion, they state that there is no unconformability among “all the rocks of Nebraska and northeastern Kansas, from the Coal “Measures to the top of the most recent Cretaceous. _ Mr. J. C. Norwood,! writing to B. F. Shumard, President of the St, A bats Academy of eaietiod, March 31, 1858, spoke of having found in 185556 organisms new to him in the upper beds of the La Salle coal field, which he supposed to belong to the true Carboniferous era. But after the announcement of the existence of Permian rocks in Kansas by Professor Swallow and Messrs. Meek and Hayden, he reviewed some of these fossils found in Burau, La Salle, and Henry Counties, and became satisfied that the upper beds, at least, of the La Salle rocks are of the same age as those considered Permian in Kansas. The beds are composed of sandstones, conglomerates, magnesian limestones, ' slates, and red and blue gypseous marls, all of them resting wnconform- “he on the underlying beds. Thin seams of coal also occur, showing that if this formation belongs to the Permian period, the great proba- pty is that the upper beds of coal in several sections of the State are of f the same age. A section of the rocks at La Salle accompanies the I letter. . i 1864 M. Jules Marcou? wrote upon the section at Nebraska City and ors J. C.: Discovery of Permian rocks at La Salle, Illinois. St. Louis Acad. Sci., Trans., rol. 1, 1860, p. 115. *Marcou, Jules: Une reconnaissance géologique au Nebraska. Soc. géol. France, Bull, 2° sér., vol. ea ; : ne huss A lt Ps ‘ iS, * ads, 202 ‘THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. psu. 80, _— vicinity. He regarded the section Das dink dasa a in America “ la 2 partie supérieure du Dyas d’Europe.”! Of the section of the bluff at © _ Plattesmouth he said: “elles appartiennent 4 la partie inférieure du — _ Dyas.”? | " In Missouri he reported islands of Carboniferous in the midst of the — Dyas. ‘Two members of the Dyas were recognized, viz, the Rothlie- gende and the Zechstein. In regard to Brachiopods as a means of correlation, he remarked: Les plus mauvais fossiles dont on puisse se servir comme fossiles charactéristiques — des formations, et qu’en réalité ils ne sont méme pas du tout des Leitmuschel * * * 4 plus bas méme dans la série que les coraux.’ q Had he appreciated better the value of Brachiopods in making cor- relations his conclusions might have been more accordant with those of other geologists. | q This paper of Mr. Marcou was criticised in 1865 by Mr. Meek, 4 who. took issue with him upon almost every point made. Although the dis- — cussion was of interest at the time, its rehearsal here may be omitted _ without loss. | In 1866 Mr. H. B. Geinitz published his description of the fossils col-— lected by Mr. Marcou from the localities in Kansas and Nebraska named in the paper above referred to.° a There are mentioned in the work 99 species, 2 of them plants. Of these, 67 were found at the typical Nebraska City section, the zones of — which were called, from below upward, A, B, ©, D, by Marcou. Sixty- | ; three of the 67 species were from the zone C. Twenty-three species of. invertebrates and one plant from the Nebraska City section were © identified with already described “ Dyas” species of Europe. The — author says: “Die bei Nebraska-City vorkommenden Versteinerungen _ gehoren einer Zone an, welche den untersten bis mittleren Schichten | den deutschen Zechsteinformation (Oberen Dyas) entspricht.” ° A The Plattesmouth and Rock Bluff sections were thought to represent j a lower horizon, the “‘ Fusulinenkalk” or “ oberen Kohlenkalk.” a The bulk of the work, pages 1 to 72, is devoted to the description of the fossils and their comparison with typical species of the Carboniferous and Permian formations. Although the correlations of the author were based upon this paleontological study, it is impracticable here to discuss the merits of the identifications of species. } In the following year (1867) Mr. Meek made an extended review of 1Marcou, Jules: Une reconnaissance geologique au Nebraska. Soc. géol. France, Bull., 2° sér., vol 21, 1884, p. 137. 4 2Tbid., p. 138. 3Tbid., p. 146. 4 Meek, F. B.: Remarks on the Carboniferous and Cretaceous rocks of eastern Kansas and Nebraska, and their relations to those of the adjacent States and other localities further eastward ; in connection with a review of a paper recently published on this subject by M. J ules Marcou, in the Bulletin of the Geological Society of France. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 39, 1865, pp. 157-174. i § Carbouformation und Dyas in Nebraska, von Dr. H. B, Geinitz, 1866, pp. i-xii and 1-91, Plates ea V oti) 6 Op. Cit., p. 89. MS MEEK ON GEINITZ. 203 Geinity’s paper.' As a preparation for his criticisms Mr. Meek had thorough Studied the species obtained from the same localities, and pefore completing the article had gone over the sections from which they w ere obtained and examined the stratigraphy of the whole region where the rocks in question were exposed, from Iowa across Nebraska, Mis- fs ‘souri, and Kansas, collecting fresh materials. He also had access to the “numerous collections of the Smithsonian, among which were a consider- able number of European Permian fossils. He had the advantage of Mr. -Geinitz in his thorough knowledge of the Carboniferous marine fossils of the Mississippi Valley, comprising the fauna with which the fauna above had to be immediately compared. With such preparation he made a careful and critical review of the identification of species and genera made i in Geinitz’s work. The author ditfers respecting the identification both of genera and species from Geinitz, and suggests as explanatory of the unsatisfactory identifications made by Mr. Geinitz that the latter was ignorant of the Coal Measure fossils of America, and was there- fore not in a position to see the close relationship between the faunas ‘below and those which follow. Mr. Meek had previously noticed in the rocks called Permian by Swallow a mingling of Coal Measure and ‘Permian types, and calls attention to the frequent alternation of beds containing these two types of fossils through considerable thickness of Strata which must be regarded as typical Upper Coal Measures. He also remarks that Mr. Geinitz had only descriptions of species already ‘described in America, and had not access to the originals. In his ‘remarks regarding two schools of observers among paleontologists and zoologists he defines the two classes as, “first, those who give wide latitude to genera and species, and second, those who restrict both genera and species within more precise limits.” In commenting on Astarte Nebrascensis (p. 179) he remarks: ‘At any rate, specific iden- ification and even generic references of such shells can be admitted only provisionally until the hinge and interior is known.” On page I 183, commenting on Khynchonella angulata Linneeus of Geinitz, he writes : I hope I shall be excused for adding here that the practice of positively identify- ing species from widely distant parts of the earth upon such merely superficial points of general resemblance, and thus complicating and vitiating all conclusions respect- ing the geographical and geological range of species, can not be too carefully ) wvoided. “The conclusion reached in this paper regarding the Permian problem S$ to the effect that the rocks in Nebraska from which the so-called p ermian fossils have been obtained contain also a much larger number Miia ricteristic Coal Measure fossils, and therefore that the rocks 2) shove the mouth of the Platte River called by Marcou “ Mountain imes stone,” those of Plattsmouth and Rock Bluff called ‘‘ Lower Dyas” on oa marks on Professor Geinitz’s views respecting the Upper Paleozoic rocks and fossils of south- 2 Nebraska. By F. B. Meek, Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 44, 1867, pp. 170-187, 282-283, 327-339. 204 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. | Com 0 by Marcou, and by Geinitz placed in part in the upper ff Mountain limestone,” and in part in the Upper Coal Measures and the ‘Upper | Dyas” rocks of Marcou and Geinitz at Wyoming, Bennett’s Mill, and 4 Nebraska City, with possibly the exception of C Lod D of the lating place, belong to the horizon of the Upper Coal Measures. C and D — he thinks may be equivalent to the “ Permo-Carboniferous” of the — Kansas section. a All through this region the fossils of the Upper Coal Measures are F found either associated in the same stratum with those of Permian type. or in strata intercalated between beds holding the other fauna; — and the Coal Measure fauna becomes by degrees less conspicuous and — the Permian types more dominant on passing upward. Mr. Meek — maintains that the critical study of the fossils confirms the view pub- . lished by Hayden and himself in 1858 regarding the rocks of Nebraska — and Kansas, that— 7 there is in this region a gradual shading off from an Upper Coal Measure to 2 Perninell fauna through a considerable thickness of strata forming a somewhat intermediate © group, which is called the “ Permo-Carboniferous series ;” also there is no defined break between the intermediate series and the Permian above, or the Coal Measures below.! He further adds: Under such circumstances it must be evident that all attempts to canpelate partic-— ; ular unimportant beds here with minor subdivisions adopted in Europe, where a dif- ferent state of things obtained, must necessarily fail. Mr. Meek recognized in his early studies in the section along the © Kansas River certain beds containing a fauna which he identified then, — in 1858, with the Permian, i. e.: Stratum 10 of the Cottonwood section. — Above this were some more or less Barren Measures of 100 to 200 feet thickness, containing gypsum, followed by rocks of unmistakable Cre- taceous age. In his early studies the rocks immediately below this unmistakable Cretaceous bed he had, in conjunction with Mr. Hayden, called “Permo-Carboniferous.” This paper of 1867 which refers beds in Nebraska to the Upper Coal Measures evidently considered only these © ‘¢Permo-Carboniferous” rocks of his early classification. The question in dispute was as to whether the rock should be divided, making a Per- mian system distinctly separate from the Carboniferous below. This ~ Meek positively objected to, his argument being that there was a gradual - mingling of the higher faunas with the Upper Coal Measure faunas, and a gradual transition of the deposits from the lower horizon to the upper without break, and without any marked change in paleontology or lithology. z Mr. Marcou,?” in 1868, wrote that i in Nebraska the *‘ Dyas rocks” form the bluffs on the Misaculi River in the counties of Nemaha, Otoe, and Cass. The rocks differ from those of the Carboniferous upon which they rest. They consist of clays of red, green, and blue colors; of Remarks on Professor Geintz’s views respecting the Upper Paleozoic rocks and fossils of sout A - eastern Nebraska. By F. B. Meek, Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 44, 1867, pp. 338-339. ?On the Dyas in Nebraska, by Jules Marcou. St. Louis Acad. Sci., Trans., vol. 2, 1868, pp. 562-504. 4 - a Sages HAYDEN. 905 yhitish, gray, and yellowish limestones; of dolomites, and yellow and Tay sandstones. % A section of the Dyas taken at Nebraska City is given. The fossils collected were determined by Mr. Geinitz, of Dresden, ae Many of them are said to be identical with species found in Jurope in the Zechstein or Magnesian limestone, as Serpula planorbites, E Rchizodus Rossicus, Allorisma elegans, etc., and the new species are very nearly allied to Dyassic species of Saxony, Russia, and England. The author speaks also of Carboniferous species, the Brachiopods espe cially, which pass into the Dyas. -F. Y. Hayden, in a paper on the Geology of Kansas, reviewing- " Swallow’s Preliminary Report of the Geological Survey of Kansas,} objects to Swallow’s statement that “the lower Permian strata rests y unconformably upon the upper Coal Measures.” He questions the _ accuracy of Swallow’s determination of species, in the paper of 1858, 4a and he states that Mr. Swallow has identified fossils coming from a ‘single stratum as equivalent to species of the Carboniferous, Permian, / ‘Trias, and Lias, and holds that the community of genuine Garbontfan 3 “ous fossils with those of Permian type indicates that no break, such as pooner would presume, occurs. _ Hayden remarks further that in the few cases of Permian types | - occurring down in the genuine Coal Measures in Kansas “‘ they appear ' in particular layers similar to the Permian rocks in composition, and alternating with the other beds containing only carboniferous fossils, much like Barrande’s ‘Colonies’ in the Silurian rocks of Bohemia.” He remarks upon the claims to discovery of the Permian in Kansas, and defends Meek, whose announcement of the fact was first mentioned in the records of the Smithsonian Institution, the date being January | 19, 1858. ‘Again Mr. Swallow, remarking on Meek’s notes on the Geology of - Kansas,” goes at some length to show that he first discovered and published as a conclusion the fact that certain rocks were Permian, and makes much point of the fact that Meek claimed only that the fossils sent by Major Hawn “indicated the existence of Permian rocks,” and it is stated that at the Baltimore meeting Meek ‘still. doubted whether there really is any Permian system.” _ his caution on the part of Mr. Meek shows that he saw the true. ‘state of the discovery, and maintained that the presence of certain fossils of Permian type did not indicate certainly that there was a rep- resentative of the Permian system in Kansas and Nebraska, while 4 Swallow had no doubt that the fossils must indicate the presence of the system. The fact is conspicuous that during this discussion Mr. 2 leek speaks almost every time of “rocks containing fossils of Per- mian type,” or words to that effect, rather than “ Permian rocks,” - ia 7 te Ss 1Am. Jour. Sci., 1867, 2d ser., vol. 44, pp. 32-40. 2Trans. Acad. Sci., St. Louis, vol. 2, pp. 507. 2.06 ‘THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. —_— (v1. 80, } | \ : indicating his clear perception of the difference between identity or q resemblance of fossils, and absolute correlation of horizon. It may — be noted in passing that the solution of this problem, as in other differ- — ent cases, was by United State geologists; the wide comparative meth- — ods of Hayden and Meek led to clearer views than those attained by — the local State geologists, Swallow and Shumard, although the latter | had closer familiarity with the country and opportunity to get a better view of the local facts. 4 Swallow reported his section along the south side of Kansas River — as follows (according to Meek and Hayden): Cretgeoone : 5 ec: cete oe Sep ee cee ae cee Pen eee aes == Cretaceous. ? Triassic Gyps. Sh. Marls, 388 feet ...-...----- ce. Pais vee == ? Triassic. S Upper Permian, 141 feet... 2. -ce-06 se -ces -s2-0+- 25-0252. == “* So-called Permian, 1m Lower Permian, 563 feet... oJ ssins kins cer doemeben ac beuberen = Permo-Carboniterous. | Oprbonilorous 250255. ooh uw koe teh Sete toaeaet aeed cee == Carboniferous. Swallow stated that if his lower Permian is not Permian there is no © Permian in Kansas, ete. (p. 521), and defended the “unconformability.” — He stated that Messrs. Marcou, Agassiz, Heer, Geinitz, Shumard, — Swallow, Hawn, D’Archiac and others differ from Messrs. Hayden and ~ Meek on the point in question (p. 522). The whole article is contro- — versial and adds little to the settlement of the problem, but brings out — clearly the attitudes of the disputants. a The appearance of Permian types in the midst of rocks in which the — majority of the forms are typical Coal Measure forms, is taken by Meek — ‘and Hayden as evidence of the earlier appearance of Permian types — in these regions of America than in those of Europe. In the final report of the Hayden survey of Nebraska,' Mr. F. B. Meek gave a description of the fauna and fully described the correla: ; tions of the Permian in Nebraska. i He holds in this paper, in opposition to the view of Geinitz, that the — rocks of eastern Nebraska do not belong either to the Lower Cretaceous — or to the Permian. The terms Upper, Middle, and- Lower Coal Meas- — ures are used to express parts of the Coal Measures not clearly divisi-— ble by fossils. He-does not use the term “Lower Coal Measures” as — meaning below the Mountain limestone? He proposes the naine “ Platte — Division” for the upper part of the Coal Measures as exhibited about — the mouth of the Platte River, at Bellevue, Plattesmouth, Rock Bluff, — and Nebraska City. This he estimates to be two or three hundred feet thick. His Division B outcrops at Nebraska City, Bennett’s Mill, and | Wyoming; Division C at Nebraska City, and he says that between 0 and B there is no paleontologie or constant lithologic break. The rocks of the Bellevue section were referred by Marcou to the mountain — 1 Meek, F. B. Report on the Paleontology of Eastern Nebraska with some remarks on the Car- — boniferous rocks of that district (pp. 81-261), constituting Pt. II. of ‘‘Final Report of the U. S. Geol. Survey of Nebraska and portions of the adjacent territories, made under the direction of the com- mission of the General Land Office” by F. V. Hayden, U. 8. Geologist, Washington, 1872. 2 Ibid., page 84. MEEK. 207 __ limestone series. The Plattesmouth section Marcou called New Red. ! The section at Rock Bluff follows that of the Plattesmouth section from 1, 2, 3, upward: this latter section Marcou had referred to the _ Lower Dyas or New Red. The Cedar Bluff section the author correlated _ with the part of the Rock Bluff section lying above No. IX. This was _ calied * Upper Permian” or “Dyas” by Marcou and Geinitz. Meek _ thinks that both Marcou and Geinitz determined the Dyas, in some cases at least, on lithologic instead of paleontologic grounds. Meek uses the names “ Lower Carboniferous,” “Millstone grit,” and Coal Measures” to indicate the three grander divisions of the Car- _ boniferous System, with ‘“ Permian” and “Dyas” for the still higher member. “Mountain limestone” is used also for Lower Carboniferous. - The name “ Permo-Carboniferous” is applied by Hayden and Meek to _ rocks in Kansas, equivalent to Division © at Nebraska City. All the other sections along the Missouri he regards as certainly belong- _ ing to the Coal Measures. In Kansas, the division between Permian _ and Carboniferous is arbitrary, not founded on physical or paleonto- logic break. Permian rocks in Kansas were first announced in the Transactions of the Albany Institute, vol. 4, 1858. Later investiga- tions led the authors to consider the so-called Permian as merely tran- _ sitional from the Upper Coal Measures.!_ Meek thinks that facts indi- cate that these fossils belong in the Carboniferous or Coal Measures, and that there is no abrupt break between the Carboniferous and Permian. Mr. Meek’s Review of Professor Geinitz’s paper, 1867, and this _ Nebraska Report of 1872 practically closed the debate on the Permian _ problem of Kansas and Nebraska. ___. Mr. F. B. Meek had been for several years associated with Mr. Hay- den in the collection, study, and description of the fossils of these and neighboring Territories. Messrs. Swallow, Shumard and others had examined and reported their identification of fossils from Kansas, which they defined as new species or referred to European species of the Permian age. A collection made by Mr. Marcou had been sent over to _ Mr. H. B. Geinitz, of Dresden, and there figured and described by him. But Mr. Meek had examined the sections thoroughly in connection with Hayden, and had made an exhaustive study of the fossils, com- _ paring them with European specimens, and studying fully the litera- _ ture of the whole subject. His paleontological work exhibits a degree of precision of observation, broadness of thought, and thoroughness of study surpassing any of his predecessors in America, and all com- _ bined with scrupulous honesty. Leaving out of the question the dispute as to the real discoverer of _ the Permian, which provoked considerable discussion and, apparently, 8 ill feeling, the Permian problem was more purely than any that had 4 1See Meek’s paper, Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 44, p.'170 and p. 331, in regard to the misidentification of i ate. _ 208 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. Fonte an previously arisen in America a paleontological one. The discovery of some fossils by F. Hawn in Kansas, some of which were sent to G. Co. 4 Swallow among Carboniferous species for identification, and others of S| the same species among Cretaceous forms to Mr. Meek, led to the dis- — covery by both Swallow and Meek of their Permian character. Mr. q Swallow appears to have made the first printed announcement of the “Permian rocks,” although Mr. Meek had previously announced the ’ ~ identification in private letters, and a few days later Messrs. Meek and — Hayden defined the same fossils as ‘indicating Permian rocks” in | papers read at both Albany and Philadelphia. | The fossils in question were identified and described by Swallow, — Geinitz, and Meek separately; and the argument for the presence of ~ the Permian system of rocks in Kansas and Nebraska and New Mexico, — made by Swallow and seconded by Geinitz, Marcou, and others, was, that in the rocks were found a number of species identical with species — characteristic of the Permian rocks of Russia, Germany, and England. — Mr. Meek, supported by Mr. Hayden and others, maintained that — the rocks lying above unmistakable upper Coal Measure rocks in this — Territory, contained fossils of Permian type, in a few cases showing ~ possible specific identity with European Permian species; but that — there was a gradual passage, both lithofogical and paleontological, from the Coal Measures to the beds containing these Permian types. — After obtaining abundant material and giving it exhaustive study, Mr. © Meek found the identifications of Swallow, of Marcou, and of Geinitz — unsatisfactory. He recognized many species of Permian types, but only a few that he was able to regard as identical with the Permian — fossils of Europe. In his report of 1872 he identified from the so-called _ Permian of the southwest seven genera which had not hitherto been | reported below the Permian of Europe, but in the same beds he identi- fied sixteen genera not otherwise known above the Carboniferous. He _ called attention, however, to the fact, that of the seven genera several — are closely related to forms occurring below; secondly, he found several — 4 of the species, which are confessedly of Peeratinn type, still lower and in | association with unmistakable upper Coal Measure faunas. In his list © of the species in question in Nebraska, amounting to one hundred and ~ twenty-two, only thirteen are named which have not been discovered ~ in the Coal Measures of some of the other States. Besides this ming- — ling of species and genera, and their passage upward in such large ~ numbers, he found evidence neither of sudden change in the lithologic — character of the strata, nor of stratigraphic break, and his conclusion — is, that these rocks belong to the Coal Measures, ‘‘and that here we have no abrupt break between the Carboniferous and Permian” (p. — 133); “that all these strata under consideration along the Missogri, — that have been referred in part to the Mountain limestone, in part to the Permian or Dyas, and in part to the Coal Measures, really belong — i a te eae as | — TGF Me W. DAWSON. 209 true ar Measures,” with the exception that the Permo-Carbon- be recognized in Bed C of Nebraska City. tactically closed the debate, although it did not solve the L problem. The debate was ended, because the evidence was y clear that the rocks and fauna referred to the Permian, were able from those below by no stratigraphic or paleontologic break, etrographically only by differences such as are recognized in two tions almost anywhere in the geologic series. The question er they be called “ Permian” or “Coal Measures” would be set- one way by those who considered it of chief importance to estab- uniformity i in the geological nomenclature of America and Russia; ) natu ral classification of American rocks, : 1¢ application of the name “Permian” to these rocks was purely al, and as was stated several times during the debate, the class- ag Beertion as to whether the Permian shall be ranked as ste 2m — from the Carboniferous, is still an open one, and bids can isa sai ae from that i in the Mississippian province. e: ~ The author, however, thought the deposits undoubtedly Car- 18 8, and Lower Carboniferous, but that they assume some of the _. Tidal currents were recognized in the Carboniferous, cutting out chan bate et | ed a ree yi. ey ii é at Fee — ae = 2 ae ite eta 210 ‘THE DEVONIAN 6. CARBONIFEROUS. ey 4. Sp - > Sree modifications more characteristic of the true Permian faunas of Bur follows: 22> Marine in adaues indicate eens puriecaaten’ ;. coal eden > formed during the greatest elevation, and the condition of Millstone grit and the newer coal formations was intermediate between these two. | ~ nels called “tidal channels.”? The author also recognized that Devoniz and Silurian rocks were above the water during the deposition of the 3? rocks of the Coal Measures of Nova Scotia, so that the coal deposits - are more or less separated from each other. 5. The flora was regarded as identical throughout the whole Middl. le Coal Measures, and the Lower, Middle, and Upper may be distinguished La by their plants. Dawson also held that the flora of the Lower Coal Measures of Nova Scotia is wholly Carboniferous, and that the flora « of the Chemung, Vergent, and Ponent, IX and X, of Lesley, is decidedly Devonian. The author recognized, not 25,000 feet for Nova Scotia Coal Measteel 3 but Logan’s measure of 15,570 feet for the Jogging, and for the Middle a Coal Measures, 1,000. Hie mentioned the fist ahenee England it is the - usage to apply the term Lower Coal Measures to the lower part of whe ut he called the Middle Coal formation, that is, above the Millstone grit. He quoted Geinitz in identifying the divisions of the coal formatio S by plants. His Lower Coal formation is the Lycopodiaceous Zone or Culm of Europe; his Middle Coal formation is the Sigillaria and Stig- maria Zone; the Upper Coal formation is the Zone. of Oalamitons C . _ Geinitz. <> el Mr. C. A. White wrote in 1874 that Dr. L. G. De Koninck ae iden ti- fied many of the species from the Coal Measures of Springfield, Illinois S, with Lower Carboniferous species of Europe, and Geinitz had identified d species found in the Upper Carboniferous of Nebraska as Fern ni The mingling of faunas thus indicated, the author held, is due tot e fact that while the region in which true Coal Miancisen were be ig deposited were little invaded by the seas during the whole Carbo ous period, America was occupied in some places by the sea, which accounts for the wide distribution of marine faunas as compared those of Europe. Chronological development is also proved by ° he similarity of the floras of the two countries, as has been pointed ou by Dr. Newberry and Mr. Lesquereux. The next four papers give additional information upon. the Permia a and Permo-Carboniferous formations of Kansas and Nebraska.‘ 2 Coal belonging to the Lower Coal Measures is found in markets quantities in Osage County. It is well exposed on the southern si d of Neosho Valley, running erage Miami rey. BL a. Coal } Hee . ‘Sipe. San ke eee verte 2P, 133. , ’ SP. 125. : 4 Broadhead, G.C.: The Carboniferous rocks of southeastern apes Am. Jour. Sci., mo 188 vol. 22, pp. 55-57. a% ‘bE ig ee oh ’ BROADHEAD. 911 aha occur west of the Verdigris River, and are soon covered by Ps vii rocks. The western limit of the coal is along the line between eenwood and Woodson Counties. Ms “The Permian rocks are found along a ridge running through Cowley and Chautauqua Counties and southern Kansas, which is known as the “ Flint Hills,” having an elevation of 1,600 feet above sea level. he Permian rocks rest conformably on the Carboniferous, rendering it : Simcutt to draw any absolute line between them. It is estimated that A the Permian has a total thickness of 1,500 feet in southern Kansas, while the Upper Coal Measures are about 500 feet in thickness, con- sisting mainly of sandstones and limestones, ‘In a second paper' the same author further reported: The valley t raversed by the Neosho River is in the lower part of the Middle Coal Measures, which are only productive in the southern extension, but “northwardly, in Osage County, coal is mined belonging to the Lower XY easures, showing ‘an uplift of Lower [Middle?] Coal Measures, flanked to the east and west, as we proceed northwardly, by the Upper Coal Measures.” In Neosho, Wilson, Labette, and Montgomery Counties we find sand- jones in even, flag-like layers, 50 feet thick at Thayer, Neosho County, rhere’coal is extensively worked. Many fossil plants are found in the coal, including Calamites, Lepidodendron, ete. 4: ‘2 Johnson and Wyandotte Counties limestones and calcareous shale beds of the Upper Coal Measures with molluscan remains are recog- a9 zed, corresponding with similar beds in Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri; and at Eudora, Douglas County, is found the Plattsburg limestone of Missouri, containing many beautiful Bryozoans. Above is is a gray limestone abounding in Syntrielasma hemiplicata, its in- te ag lined with clear crystallized calcite. A little higher is a lime- stone containing Fusulina cylindrica. _ The Productive Coal Measures are found in the eastern tier of coun- ies south of Miami County and include valuable coal beds. In Miami and Anderson Counties the upper limestone is surmounted an oolitic limestone. In Woodson and Greenwood and the north- sast part of Elk Counties there are about 50 feet of coarse brown sand- “ one, almost without fossils, with only occasional fragments of fucoids d Cordaites. In the southeast, near the line of Cowley and Chautauqua Counties, ° the “ Flint Hills,” so called from the numerous fragments of flint rewn over the surface. These hills include the Permian rocks of s, reaching a thickness of about 500 feet. A section of the rocks a can, showing 19 divisions of strata, the upper 12 of which are of en type, and the remaining 7 belong to the Upper Coal Measures. vi al of the Permian layers abound in Fusulina. They are mostly Re . d a Vv 1 Carboniferous rocks of eastern Kansas, by G.C. Broadhead. St, Louis Acad, Sci,, Trans., vol, 481-493, 1882, wa ys. ' ’ ‘ag pee Sk i ae a PPL GI Se Eas AY Ta "4 gee : i: Te Re ae Bins a Soars ' at A a Det ee Sere on Pa aa8 As PERE Fe 212 THE DEVONIAN AND ‘CARBONIF OS. “a ULL, 80. ; Sa A Poa ue an limestone, shaly, magnesian, or cherty, while the lower layers a arenaceous. ; The highest coal series is seen in Greenwood County, its posi a: ion : being about the base of the Permian or ue of the true Upper Coal al e Measures. _ 3: BPs One thousand five hundred feet of Pérnitah: beds in southern Kansas 1s are assumed. In this region it is the newest rock below the Quater, a nary. It rests conformably on the Coal Measures, and there is no bs c oe decided line of separation between the two. +o ss The Permo-Carboniferous was identified in southern Kansas by Mr P. : F, W. Cragin, in 1885.1 | * ae The most interesting feature of this region is the occurrencé cin a lan ge stratum of gypsum. This is considered as a Permo-Carboniferous de ‘a : posit. This horizon is entirely different from that of the gypsiferous : | deposits represented in Barber and eastern Comanche Counties, which is considered as Mesozoic. em ’ In 1886, commenting upon the Carboniferous and Permian rocks of Nebraska, in the American Naturalist,? L. E. Hicks describes a series of limestones and marl]s in Nebraska evidently distinct from the Coal ’ Measures. They are blue, yellow, and buff in color, and have a- total thickness of about 200 feet The dip at Big Blue River from Beatrice to Homesville is southeast; at Indian Creek it is west. Of the 123 species described by Meek from the Coal Measures, not more than 10° or 14 entered into the Permian. The author uses the term “Permian” 7 provisionally for these limestones and marls. | * \ 1Cragin, F. W.: Notes on the geology of southern Kansas. Washburn College Lab. Bull., vol. 1,1 pp. 85-¥l and 112. a «) 2Hicks, L. E.: The Permian in Nebraska. Am. Nat., ‘vol 20, 1886, pp. 881-883; abstract in . Assoc. Proc., vol. 35, pp. 216, 217, ‘ im CHAPTER X, IAN AND CARBONIFEROUS CORRELATIONS IN THE WEST- ERN AND NORTHERN PROVINCES. : Rocky Mountain region and the western part of the United ee in ee North America are large tracts of territory which ahhh of Siiict. parts of the world or their upper or lower pee gEpeiso reference tolimits. The literature concerning these vs oe is composed of massive granite rocks; then follows a series of sf metamorphi rocks. pee these the Silurian period is represented K a Bier, but many inde were sbnied in the Cretaceous. Jurassic thins out to the southward, as do the Red Beds or sup- jassic. In the far north the Carboniferous rocks are often 500 ti on in perenne, and from 500 to 1,000 feet thick as far south prevail farther ae The Carboniferous rocks become of a red ceous character, with a few layers, from two to ten feet in thick- of a whitish or yellowish limestone. Dr. Hayden could find no to separate the Red Beds from the Carboniferous, and concluded o possibly all be of that formation. The Potsdam sandstone 213 ’ eo ies r | eRe awd 55 , ay er 214 THE DEVONIAN AND carno PEI ous dae B. 80. atom thins out entirely south of ‘the Red Buttes on’ the North P latte. TI he Carboniferous seemed to rest directly, hones not contra u mn -% the metamorphic rocks. a The conclusions drawn from the SbRFEAHONE made were that all the | : formations of the west undergo more or less change in both their min- — eral and fossil contents in their extension toward the west and south, and that the Potsdam sandstone and Jurassic beds present more re markable changes than any of the others. F In 1868 Mr. F. B. Meek examined several lots of fosiila collected i in i British America, some of which he found to be new; these he described — and figured. Others he identified with already Sec es fossils, and by oF these correlated the formations in which they occurred with formations _ ‘in other parts of the country. The localities are on tlie Clearwater — River, near its mouth into the Athabasca; on Laird’s River, near Fort — Resolution ; on Slave Lake, and several igoaliies along the Mackenzie — : River Watley to old Fort Good Hope,.and one a fumen on Poeeemy | River. . a From the study of the fossils the following conclusions were reached oe % That.along the Mackenzie River and its tributaries, between the Clear- ie water and the Arctic Ocean, ‘no Carboniferous or characteristic Silurian formations are seen,” and that there is “a continuous stretch of Devo- nian rocks, mainly of the age of the Hamilton group, extending from. Rock Island, [l., in a northwesterly direction to the Arctic Ocean, a distance in a ent line of nearly 2,500 geographical miles.” 4, ES The great general similarity with frequent specific identity in the” faunas from the extreme ends of this line, the author considers, _ ‘‘strongly corroborates the generally accepted opinion that climatic — conditions, if not uniform over the whole world, were at least little, if — at all, influenced by differences of latitude eS 3 paleozoic epochs.” | 3 F. i. Bradley reported in 1872? the discovery of a few small trilo- bites of Quebec group age, in the base of the mass of limestones over. lying the central granites of the Teton Range in Idaho. These li me- stones continue up to the typical Carboniferous. The Quebec group i S about 400 feet thick, partly argillaceous, blue, and. mostly pebbly. Above this group are 600 feet of a magnesian limestone, drab to buff color, which Bradley correlated with the “cliff” limestone of the Mis 2 sissippi Valley; and over this he found the true Carboniferous. | \ > an In August, 1872, Professor Tenney * found corals in the Wahsate - Mountains, southeast of Salt Lake City, in a dark bluish lime ne nine or ten thousand feet above the sea. His own opinion that 1 th @ rs corals were Devonian was confirmed by R. P. Whitfield, who referre ¢ oe d rol Meek, B. F.: Remarks on the geology of the valley of Mackenzie River with figures and descript 01 Ke of fossils, etc. Chicago Acad. Sci., Trans., vol. 1, 1869, pp. 61-114, and plates. 2Bradley, F.H.: On Quebec and Carboultirnel rocks in the Teton Range. a Jour. hs 36- ries, vol. 4, 1872, pp. 230, 231. ’Tenney, Sanborne: On Devonian fossils in the Wahsatch Mountains. ae Jour. Sci., 3d 8 vol. 5, 1873, pp. 139, 140. a a es ‘aa # a 4 » ra RICHARDSON, GILBERT. 215 the fecior. _ They were the first fossils of the Upper Helderberg period di 01 U ight to light from the range of the Wahsatch. ‘Mr. James Richardson,! in 1874, reported a few fossils from, and gave Faction, of Ballinac Island, consisting mainly of épidotic rocks; diorite, : and reddish limestones, carrying well preserved fossils of encrinites, rals, and brachiopods. He considered that the “ age of these rocks By either Carboniferous or Permian, most probably the former.” * © tn the third volume of the report upon the geographical and geologi- ca explorations and survey west of the 100th meridian, Mr. G. K. Gil- bert reported identifications of sections made in the cafions and other ] egions west of the Rocky Mountains.” In southern Nevada, the rocks of the Spring Mountain Range consist of fossiliferous limestones, with bands of sandstone of Carboniferous age. The strata seem to be conformable throughout the whole vertical ‘Tange. Again, in the Black Hills, Arizona, sedimentary rocks of Car- boniferous aspect were seen overlying a crystalline series similar to those | noted in Bowlder Cation. In Arizona the plateaus consist of Carbon- ay ‘iferous limestone (Aubrey limestone, Red Wall limestone). The adja- ¢ ce nt ranges show the Tonto sandstones. The exploration of the Colo- rado plateau system showed that the rocks which compose it range ‘from Eocene Tertiary to the Tonto group, which underlies the Carbon- -iferous rock of the Grand Cafion of Colorado. The next bench below that, named by Powell the “‘Shinarump Mesa,” is capped by a Carbon- iferous limestone extending from Paria Creek southwest to Aubrey Valley. Through this section the Grand and Marble Canons have cut their way. After giving a general topographical description, and at the same time referring to the geologic age of the rocks in general, the author ac is a series of twenty-one vertical sections, indicating physical char- a eters and thickness, together with fossil remains. These sections are finally correlated in tabular forms, thus giving a view of the whole 1 i ical range. Of the twenty-one sections given, Upper Carboniferous rocks occur in the following: DS igerron V. Jacob’s Pool.—The rocks consisting of massive sandstones, alternating wW ith gypsiferous cherty clay-shale and chocolate shale and cherty limestones, con- ming Productus Meekella, Pscudomonotis, Hemipronitis,: Aviculopecten, etc. Total t ickness, 3,750 feet. ae VI. Kanab Creek.—Physical character of rocks similar to those of Section y; additional fossils in cherty limestone. Fenestella(?) Spirifera lineatus, Orthis, onetcs, etc. Total thickness, 4,200 feet. Sk CTION VII.. Grand Caition.—Rocks similar to those of Section VI. Total thick- — 4,825 feet. . SE TION VIII. Aubrey Cliff, 15 miles southeast of Bill Williams Mountain, Arizona.— tocks, limestones and yellow-red friable sandstones. Total thickness, 2,100 feet. cris, James: Report on geological explorations in British Columbia. Geol. Survey Canada; Report of Progress for 1873-74. 1874, pp. 94-102. Report on the geology of portions of Nevada, Utah, California, and Arizona, examined in the years il and 1872, by G. K. Gilbert, A. M., pp. 17-187 of report upon the geographical and geological explora- ae is and survey west of the one hundredth meridian. 1875. ® a Se =f box me pais ey ne: ea oF ef Pe +4 eit A. saci eS : Dip ae rE DEVONIAN AND ‘capone cis Section IX. Aubrey ous, at Cation Or eck, north Arizona. Shae consist 0 nating sandstones, limestones, and shales. Total thickness, 2,360 feet. — i : SEecTION X. Carrizo Creek, north Arizona.—Rocks consist of yellow sandste 01 ig dark gray fossiliferous limestones. Total thickness, 1,420 feet. a SECTION XI. North From and near Camp Apache, Arizona. Par Se fe characters lar.. Total thickness, 2,260 feet. SECTION XII. Spring Mewston. Nevada. —Total thickness, 2,395 feet. ae a SECTION XIII. Ophir City.—Fossils numerous. Thickness, 1,975 feet. . . 3 phy ca The occurrence of Lower Carboniferous and Devonian rocks is son n ‘s what questionable, except at Ophir City. "The author also reported tl a ) discovery at the top of the ‘‘Aubrey limestone” of a few fossils sugges ing the Permo-Carboniferous of the Mississippi Valley. rye : The Carboniferous formations of northern Arizona and in the Gm nd Cafion were classified as follows: Aubrey limestone—Aubrey Valley, north APEOOS cee «Yi ceae cde ee | Aubrey sandstone—(no fossils except in an intercalated limestone below the — middle—a few Coal Measure fossils) ..... nine Che Sen wad ae eepmb eeu tee eee ) Red Wall liméstone—named from the red appearance of escarpments in Grand — iSRetLy » wcvec eda Oboes nes bas Baan 66 wide nike coos seep ek hk cies eee The above names were proposed by Mr. Gilbert and Mr. ‘Merve The middle of the Red Wall limestone furnished fossils which M rs Meek doubtfully referred to Lower Carboniferous. The upper portion, by its fossils, was correlated with the Coal Measures. | “a It is stated that Mr. Marcou, in the Geology of North America, ha d called the Aubrey limestone “ Permian,” the sandstone “Coal -Meas- ures,” and the Red Wall limestone ‘‘ Carboniferous limestone or Moun t- ain limestone.” Mr. Gilbert referred to the local character of the s : sed- imeptation in the Grand Cafion; that 75 miles westward he was una t to correlate the series in detafl; Mr. A. R. Marvine, in the same v ume, reported the identification of beds between the Black Mesa und the Sunset tanks as “ ? Permo-Carboniferous.” “a Mr. ice J. Brown reported i in Pancake Mountain a vein of coal ¥ which discovered west of the Rocky Mountains, unless some of the Utah ¢ 20 belong to this age. This vein is worked at the north end of this ral of hills, about 14 miles west of Hamilton. It has a thickness of fre 5 to 6 feet, with a dip of 40° to the west. ae In 1876, Mr. J. W. Powell presented a classification of the sedin me e ant i ary rocks of the Plateau Provinces.® “yi In this classification the Aubrey group of Mr. Gilbert is aividea in ito the upper and the lower Aubrey groups. The upper Aubrey g consists of sandstone and cherty limestone of 1,000 feet thickness, 1 Report on the geology of route from St.George, Utah, to Gila River, Arizona, examined in ] by A.R. Marvine, pp. 189-225. anda ogi of country saidetet thereto, by J. W. Powell. Washington. 1876, POWELL, KING. 217 on was also recognized in the Uinta Mountains. Below this by.t the author to we the equivalent in the Uinta Mountains sax Sar" tig” ape. The total thickness of the Carboniferous series amounts 0 feet. It rests upon the “ Uinta group,” which is not seen at ne: but i Is well displayed in the Uinta Mountains. ‘This : pper ead lower Miaidsainh limestone ” of his report, seen near : fi od Creek, he correlated with C and B of the Nebraska City 1S. ) as Gieatibed by Marcou and Swallow. Hiscorrelation was tially as follows: | Swallow. Meek & Hayden. Newberry. Upper Perm. Permian. Upper Magnesian limestone. _ Lower Perm. Permo-Carb. Lower na limestone. a region of the Rocky Mountains the entire Paleozoic series, ¢ aS Coal Measure beds and strata bearing Potsdam fossils, is d 1 within a section of from 900 to 1,200 feet thickness, the whole ely y conformable and resting Mindoedantie upon the Archean rocks. westward the series expands from 1,000 to 32,000 feet. The Mountain region represented Archean islands and shallows, and over which sediments were deposited, while to the west- — nn t of the Exploring Expedition from Santa Fé, New “Mexico, to the junction of the Grand and vers of the great Colorado of the West in 1859, under command of Capt.J. N. Macomb, 4°, _ Map and plates. Washington. 1876. Clarence: Paleozoic subdivisions on the 40th parallel. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 11, 1876, of sandstones and shales, termed the ‘“ Lodore group,” and —s Ss fF Se ee Sa 218 THE DEVONIAN ip ‘CARBONIFER (ore ward the Paleozoic ocean debtsniet over a ‘biked bolded bebo r continued to a great depth until it reached the western shore, i I tude 117° 30’. It is astriking fact that no unconformity has been fc fo | in the exposures studied between the members. of the regia from the Primordial to the summit of the Coal Measures. | ‘The author remarks that the key to the subdivision of the whe ole le Paleozoic is obtained in the Wasatch Range, where he observed a single section, of about 30,000 feet thickness, of conformable rocks, e: - tending from the Permo- Casbonifareia strata, conformably underlying the red sandstones of the Trias, down to low exposures of the | Ca 1m- brian, and he notes in their order, from the base of the Cambrian 1 ward, the important stratigraphic divisions, with their ‘Position init the New ite scheme. g The lowest division of the Series is composed. of three prominet nt terranes, the lowest a series of siliceous schists and argillites, from m 800 to 1,000 feet in thickness; next is a series of quartzite and antes . feldsitic strata, with limited beds of slate interspersed through it, and dark micaceous zones near the top, the whole in Cottonwood Caiion n reaching a thickness of 12 ,000 feet; the third terrane is a narrow zo ne of variable argillites, calcu susan: and thin, slightly siliceous limestones, whose extreme thickness is 75 feet. The only fossils fou nd in this division occur in the shaly zone and are of Primordial type. | The author includes the uppermost beds in the Potsdam epoch 0: ( B the Primordial period, and considers the whole underlying conform. able series as Cambrian down to the Archean. This Cambrian form 1a- tion varies in thickness, not reaching an exposure of over 100 feet t the extreme east of the field, while in middle Nevada the upper most thin, shaly member of this tetrane in the Wasatch Range is an im: mense body of dark limestone, 3,000 feet in thickness, carrying Pri mor- dial fossils throughout. A list of set obtained from the Cambria Series is given. Sop aa _ Above the shales of the Cambrian is a bed of limeetone having a maximum thickness of 2,000 feet in the Wasatch, which the au éalls the “ Ute limestone,” and which has yielded only fossils of the Qu group. In western Nevada the calcareous shales of the Potsdam the Quebec limestone have greatly thickened, and represent from 4 to 5,000 feet of continuous limestone, yielding fossils of ike Lo Helderberg, Niagara, Quebec, and Primordial. av ge a Overlying the Ute limestone is a quartzite from 1,000 to 1, ,500 feet thick, called by the author the “ Ogden quartzite,” fee its expo in the Ogden Cafion ; it is seen in western Nevada between the U and Lower Helderberg horizons, and is included provisionally within the Devonian system, being considered as the probable equivalen it of the Schoharie and Cauda-galli grits. z Next above is the “‘ Wasatch limestone,” reaching 7,000 feet in tl ol ness in the Wasatch and over 8,000 in middle Nev iales Its 1 ey ee ee a ET ee tee - KING. 219 der Eitice and Chemung groups. The fossils obtained from the Upper ne erberg horizon are mentioned, and those also from the upper mem- pers of the Devonian. The Gienedes and Chemung faunas of the Wah- ph limestone are followed by beds whose forms closely resemble ose of the Waverly group, but Messrs. Hall and Whitfield considered hem Upper Devonian. A fap of barren limestones occurs between the Vaverly and this fossiliferous zone, so that the thickness of the Wa- erly | is not definitely known, but in the Oquirrh Range the combined thickness of the Waverly aa Subcarboniferous can not be less than 1,000 feet. The remaining 4,000 feet of the Wahsatch limestone con- ain at intervals beds with RES Ee Coal Measure forms. The Wah- satch limestone, therefore, represents 4,000 to 4,500 feet of Coal Meas- s, 1,000 to 1,200 feet of Subcarboniferous and Waverly [Mississip- bat, and 1 ,000 to 1,400 feet of Devonian. _ Above the Wasatch limestone is found a bed of siliceous material ca sane the ** Weber quartzite,” from its typical exposure in the Weber ion. It is about 6,000 feet in thickness, with a few red sandstones at ithe base, deopsiona! limited fine beds of shale interspersed at three or four different horizons, and varied by thin sheets of conglomerate and rounded quartz pebbles. It is referred to the middle Coal Meas- s, though no fossils are found in it in this locality. Six thousand set: ‘ its minimum thickness; it reaches 9,000 to 10,000 feet in the O Oquirrh, The great terrane of sutton. with jupaieolaben shales and conglomerates, forming the body of the Uinta Range, is referred o this member of the series. : Baircriving it is a terrane of about 2 000 to 2,500 feet of limestones, shert beds, calcareous and aggillacedtis shales, and beds of calcareous sandstones and arenaceous limestones, a very variable series, and throughout carrying Coal Measure forms; and above this is another Variable terrane of argillaceous and calcareous shales and mud rocks, ith limited beds of limestone and sandstone, containing many ripple ma arks. It contains forms referred by Meek and Hall and Whitfield to 8 Permo-Carboniferous. Its maximum thickness is 500 feet. “« Aside from the intimation of a local shallowing at the close of the Wahsatch limestone in western Nevada, the evidences are all of deep- rater deposits till near the close of the Upper Coal Measure series, V rhe n ripple-marked shales make their appearance, and the Permian epositions thereafter seem all to be of a shoal-water character.”! T 0. the year 1878 Mr. Clarence King’s? first volume of the U.S. Geo- gical Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel was published. | ca » Va - a a 3 Le oe Pe ee, el a aero al | . . . - 7 Ste ary Ta. Peta aes ee? ee ™~ “ie Ay, Rvs ‘wy ee ; ‘ qs Basin province of the west was made by Mr. Arnold Hague in is as follows: 4 Sa te ‘, 3h ree ae eae 222 THE ‘DEVONIAN’ AND. “cannon ‘EROUS. =U | 3 ae . In the ane paper he zener te he gardin g these raya agen isaate Europe.” the ee continents.” : of these bade is frequently, and perhaps Pane nino Rac al the vicinity of the locality where the fossils are found, but there» no such break separating them from the Trias beds een And pike evidence, as well as the fossils, eotiileied the edinclaliba of beds as Permian from the Great Basin of Uinta and Arizona.” fossils found were substantially the same as those found by Mr. K In 1880 Mr. E. T. Cox? reported that the rocks about Tucson con fossils of Devoniap, Subcarboniferous, and Coal Measure species. rocks are semicrystalline, coarse grained, and easily decomposed. The most exhaustive study of the Paleozoic formations of the Gre , Vv < ad ae Pee Diamond Peak quartzite i. 0... ssicees pew sew.es Oo oe pals ol ae : White Pimo. shale: Jou t2. tes nce ence eee SSeee ae 9 Dahteicindead tt Ham 5 gc ne } Nevada limestone weewreeeesseeweesaeuee . Pipe aa ee eee oot === o x Silurian........ Lone Mountain inestone; CW .aee cope sess. ee oreees i 1“*Permian-Carboniferous overlap in the west,” (abstract), by G. K. Gilbert. Washington Phil Bull, vol. 3, pp. 105-106. 2Cox, E. T.: The Geology of Southern Arizona. Am. Nat. vol 14, 1880, pp. 541,542. : 3 Abstract of Report on the Geology of the Eureka District, by Arnold Hague. 3d Ann. Rep the U. S, Geo]. Survey for 1881-82, 1883, by J. W. Powell, Director, pp. 241-288. - oF 4 Monographs of the U. S. Geol. Survey, vol. 8, 1884. Paleontology of the Eureka District, bs Doolittle Walcott, PP- 1-298, Pls. I-X XIV, oe HAGUE, COMSTOCK. 223 . Peaindary line between the Silurian and Devonian is said to be a wbitrarily drawn, as the passage from the lower to the upper limestone is gradual, “with poorly defined lithological distinctions, and without, 8 yet, any paleontological evidences” for making sharp distinctions.) it below the Lone Mountain limestone (Silurian) is a plane of uncon- forty. | _ The Nevada limestone, although so thick (6,000 feet), offers no litho- lo logic or paleontologic evidence by which to divide it sharply into sub- : cr The fauna is rich and often well preserved, and contains species of the Upper Helderberg, Hamilton, and Chemung formations 0 Evew York. While there is recognized a lower and upper fauna, “many of the species show a remarkable range, and some of them “ have ' reversed their relative positions in the group as they have been known heretofore. Among the Brachiopods Orthis tulliensis, of the Tully ‘ limestone of New York State, is found at the summit of the Devonian . limestone, and Orthis impressa, a Chemung species of New York, at the base, associated with eastern Upper Helderberg limestone species.” ? _ The White Pine shale, in the White Pine district, carries a fauna _ which combines species ranging from Middle Devonian to Lower Car- _ boniferous in the east. The Devonian fauna described contains 102 _ genera and 225 species, and 94 genera and 79 species of these are iden- tified as common to Nevada and New York. Two species described ' from the Mackenzie River Basin were identified among the Eureka | Devonian fossils. The Carboniferous age of the Diamond Peak Quartz- _ ite 3 is determined by the occurrence of a Carboniferous Productus in an | intercalated limestone stratum 500 feet from its base. The lower lime- stone contains evidence of proximity of land in the presence of frag- cmnia of plants and pulmoniferous mollusks, but the fossils throughout the carboniferous deposits of Nevada are of marine species, and no “beds of coal-occur in them. The whole series of formations of the “upper Paleozoic presents strong contrast to anything seen in the east- ;, ern part of the contine nt, and the stratigraphy as well as the paleon- ‘t plogy furnishes striking example of the unreasonableness of attempts to unify the geologic classifications of the world. Mr. T. B. Comstock? in 1883 reported on the rocks of San Juan Re Colorado. _ The Devonian rocks of this region are “exposed near the summit of ‘the divide between Bear Creek and Cascade Creek and along a line Tunning parallelwise with the Animas Cafion, forming the cliffs along a 3 side of Lime Creek.” The outcrop occurs again at Silverton and near the head of Cunningham Gulch. Although the Devonian is not sharply distinguished from the rocks below, the fossils in the upper art of the limestone point definitely to a Devonian horizon. Mm = : Ze f, es Pt Abstract of report, etc., p. 265. > 2 Walcott: Paleontology of the Eureka District, p. 4. a ang B.: Notes on the Geology and Mineralogy of San Juan County, Colorado, Trans, g . Inst. Min. Eng., vol. 17, 1883, pp. 165-191. * a> X j ti47 ‘ ~ 290i SS) ne DEVONIAN AND" cA CARBON 2 us a ead | ‘4 oti Pan The Carboniferous rocks occur mainly i in the south western part, Lime and Cascade Creeks and branches of Mineral Creek. ‘The long to the Lower Carboniferous, and consist of ee al those of the Upper Carboniferous are tide up of 8 aahdatonealal 2 feet in thickness. Mr. C. D. Walcott? reported identifications in the Giant Cation « follows: si! of the Kanab C afion about nt feet of the Lower hei sandsti are well magia Evidences of Devonian rocks were noted rest feet i in eS Oe ; Mr. Frank Springer? reported that Burlin tio geologists, contrary ry to the ideas of others, have been inclined to divide the Burlington lime: ‘ stone into two parts upon paleontological evidence. This view is far. ther demonstrated by finding a similar occurrence in Lake Valley mining district in New Mexico, thus showing its extended range. ae Mr, A. C. Peale* in 1885 placed on record the first positive identifica- tion of Devonian strata in the Rocky Mountain region of Montana. ; Fossils were collected by the Hayden survey in 1872 from several locali- = ties in the Territory which Mr. Meek found to have a Devonian aspect, — but he regarded them as belonging to the Lower Carboniferous, as the ve contained no strictly Devonian types of corals, crinoids, or lamelli- 4 branchs. The author visiting the region in 1884, in company with Dr. ' Hayden, obtained a collection of fossils which he submitted to Mr. Charles D. Walcott,‘ who identified them as undoubtedly Devonian. ie Mr. Walcott says : ' ty: Of the twenty-three species of fossils given in lists 1 and 2, twelve are identhe with species occurring in the Upper Devonian of the Eureka district, Nevada. C va the others, two are Upper Devonian species in New York State, and Athyre irae ui occurs at the base of the Carboniferous in the Eureka district. 4 The remaining forms resemble closely those of the Lower Cathe yn- iferous of the Eureka district, ; 2 Mr. A. McCharles® gave account in 1887, of the occurrence of De a 1 Walcott, Charles D.: Pre-Carboniferous strata in the een Cafion of the Colorado, Arizona. . x x Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 26, 1883, pp. 437-442, 484. = $Seringer, Frank: On the occurrence of the lower Burlington ier in New Mextoo; Al ie Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 27, 1884, pp. 97-103. ‘a 3 Peale, A.C.: Devonian strata in Montana. Science, voi. 5, 1885, p. 249. 4Two lists of the fossils prepared by him are given, including in the first, Discina lodensie Hall Streptorhynchus chemungensis Conrad, Orthis Vanuxemi (?) Hall (?), Chonetes mucronata Hall, J ductus speciosus, Spirifera disjuncta, etc., and in the second are Streptorhynchus chemungensis Coni Ehynchonella Horsfordii Hall (2), ete. e 5 McCharles, A.: The footsteps of time in the Red River Valley, with special reference to the . spring and flowing wells to be found in it. Manitoba Hist.and Sci. Soc., Trans., No. 27, 1887, p. li Description of occurrence of Archean, Ordovician, Silurian, Deyonian, Cretaceous, aud Quat rnar, / a. 5) = ae ay ag) i c spots. A , 5 # mz re ys a" . . t eo ss ae ee . ve ; - oe ae _ M°CHARLES. 225 r Paleozoic formations in the valley of the Red River, ¥ “a. In the western part of the Red River Valley occurs | belt of Devonian rocks, but their exact extent is not yet dev onian fossils belonging to the lower part of the system . aml bowlders, probably transported from a distance by 15. CHAPTER XI. - THE ACADIAN PROVINCE : THE CORRELATIONS AND CL cr f CATIONS OF THE UPPER PALEOZOIC. en ACADIAN PROVINCE. a. vegia - 43 The name “Acadian pacha’ is applied geolagiatie wo the te including the New England States, and the maritime - rOViD Canada, i. e., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Cape Breton, and r Edward Island. Although at certain periods of geological ti me region was little other than the northern extension of the gi reat A) lachian province, it may be considered as distinct during the Ye’ and Carboniferous ages. Its western limit may be arbitrarily fi x the Green Mountains and the elevated hills just east of the Hi River. The name is an adaptation of Sir William Dawson “Acadia.”! The rocks under consideration find their typical 1 r tation in the region described in the “Acadian Geology.” oe Bes Si The Carboniferous and Devonian systems are both r repres an ‘this region by extensive deposits. The author had dey time to a personal examination of the formations an¢ special study of the plant remains. The second edition r slight modification of the first in the classification. . ‘The ; tion is an expression of the general features of the Upper Pal this part of the continent at the time when it was written » (As chapter x and the following chapters, beginning at page. 28, classification and description of the Carboniferous system ai are given a, Upper coal formation, 3,000 + feet. | . ; ‘, é > . 4 ‘ eens ON oe te ee we : Spuimesen 5a DAWSON. eat No Permian formations were known to the author, unless possibly he “4; upper coal formation may synchronize with the Permian of eae” or “unless represented by the lower part of the sandstones of Ngee Edward Island.” ? _ Below the Carboniferous the followin g series of rocks of the Devonian em are reported from near St. John, New Brunswick :° Mis Speck g ee hala, sintstones; aud conglomerates. ..-.......-.....sc0.--. 1, 850 e ai ile ‘River group—Upper part, conglomerates, sandstones, grits,and shales... 2,350 ‘ ere ae iddle and lower part, including the Cordaite shales in _ The upper part of the Devonian, correlated with the Chemung and z * Portage of New York, is reported i in the ‘ Gaspé sandstones ” of eastern “Tana. it was measured and tabulated by Sir W. EB. Logan in 1845 ; was examined and further reported by Lyell and Dawson in 1852 ce 1853. Mr. Logan estimated the total thickness at 14,570 feet 11 inches. cS. y -- Dawson quotes it (pp. 156, et seq.) in detail. An hcanet of the sec- tion is as follows : . ; Feet x? _ Division mapper GOR! formation... - 2... sass ce cees ccecseccccs Moa cesviaden 1,617 ~ ceeampeter-Cosl, lower part .5 2. <6 soes 22... one coe ends oe sene cee seee 650 3. Middle coal formation, upper part, including 23 coal groups...... 2,134 4, Middle coal, lower part, with 49 coal groups. ......--....---..2.. 2,539 5. Upper {itistone PRIOR shaw cine Vs peace enncwy aa PS eee nee ke Satta) aps ae : - Min |e ag ae i oe Pe cet ph LY id ; ue Ree ee a oa aoe feos e 236 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. Wo Fie z 5 ee | The section of which Mr. Lesley gave a full account is Soe e- ieee Luigan and Great Glace Bays on the east coast of ‘Cape - I It includes the ‘‘ Productive Coal Measures” of Cape. Breton with fi ve workable beds. In the North Sydney measures Mr. Brown has re- corded thirty-four seams, but only four of them are workable, varying 4 from 3 to 7 feet in thickness. 4 The author concluded that Mr. Brown’s eb ate of 10,000 feet for the ‘ _ Productive Coal Measures is too great. He added an analysis 0 of Logan’s “Joggin’s section” having “a vertical thickness of 14,57 , : feet,” and containing “ seventy-six beds of coal, and ninety distine te Stigmaria underclays,” and “‘ twenty-four bituminous limestones.” ae . In Dr. Dawson’s reply he took exception to Mr. Lesley’s views under. the following heads: (1) It is not safe to make comparisons betwee a | the greatly developed Coal Measures of Nova Scotia and the thinner » beds of the west; (2) The Coal Measures were deposited on the sides of the Silurian ink Devonian hills in separate areas and not over th ee hilltops; (3) It is useless to make comparison between even the Jog. gins section and those of Wallace and Pictou. ‘A fortiori, detailed comparison with Pennsylvania and more distant localities must fail; 7 (4) “The whole of the Coal Measures in the Joggins section belong to the Upper and Middle Coal Measures. It is quite incorrect to inden- | tify No. 6 of Logan’s section with the Lower Coal Measures ;” (5) “ Th ae flora is identical throughout the whole thickness of the Middle Co als ; Measures ;” (6) The flora of the gypsiferous deposits and marine de- posits of Nova Scotia is certainly Carboniferous, while the flora of the | so-called ‘‘ Chemung” is as decidedly Devonian. © Be - Ina letter! to the editors of the American Journal of Science, Daws on pombats the action of some geologists in referring certain rocks, hitherto 0. regarded as Upper Devonian, to the Carboniferous period, and gives: facts derived from his own study of fossil plants which, he thinks, bea ar strongly against this view. Of all the species of Haceatn land plants cS that have come under his observation, both of America and Europe, only an exceedingly small number are Carboniferous. In the Carbon- iferous system, in spite of numerous differences between the plants of the lower, middle, and upper divisions, “there is a grand unity of ne | _ fossil flora throughout.” But when the Devonian is’ reached, there re new genera and a distinct assemblage of species. The author speaks of but one exceptional case, which is that of beds at Akron and Rich- field, Ohio, regarded as equivalent to the Upper Devonian of N ew Yor In a small collection from these places he saw two species which w 4 identical with Lower Carboniferous forms, while the others, though having a Devonian aspect, were not identical with any New York Gaspé species. om While it may be, he says, that in the Pitsozoic period the range in time of marine forms exceeded that of terrestrial life, it would be a in 'Dawson, J. W.: On American Devonian. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 35, 2d ser., 1863, Pp. S008 ae: ri Ree >: ee ‘cae . i] ' : . fi ae “he, Lh “op ha ‘ 2 WIEtAMs.] J. W. DAWSON. 237 anomaly to have a stratum of rocks include one flora and a part of _ another almost entirely distinct and characteristic of another period. But he thinks the gap greater in Eastern America between the Defo- - nian and Carboniferous periods than it is elsewhere. The Ohio plants _ mentioned indicate passage beds, but in that case the author would _ Suppose them to be newer than the Chemung group, and wanting or _ represented by barren deposits in New York. In another paper,' which is copied into the American Journal of 4 Science, from the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society (with the _ exception of Part 11, containing desc: iptions of species, which is omitted), _Dr. Dawson speaks of the large number of species of the Devonian flora, more than 60, which he has had the opportunity of examining, from the collections of Messrs. Matthew and Hartt, Professor Hall, and Professor - Hitehcock, and notices the geological character of the localities in which they are found, with lists of the fossils found in each. The localities are in the States of New York and Maine, in Canada and New Bruns- wick. The rocks of St. John in New Brunswick, from which a copious _ flora has been obtained, are described in detail, and a summary given of the deposits. At the close conclusions are drawn from the observations recorded in _ the preceding part of the article as follows: (1) That the Devonian _ flora resembles the Carboniferous in its general character in the pre- _ valence of Gymnosperms and Cryptogams, and the generic types of the _ two periods are nearly the same. Of thirty-two genera described, only _ Six are peculiar to the Devonian period, though some are much better - represented in the Devonian than in the Carboniferous, and several ' Carboniferous genera are wanting in the Devoman. (2) A majority of _ the species of the Devonian do not reappear in the Carboniferous, but _ afew species extend from the Upper Devonian into the Carboniferous, _ establishing a passage from the earlier to the later flora. But this - connection is less close than that between the Lower Carboniferous and _ the true Coal Measures. (3) A large part of the difference between _ the two floras is owing to the different geographical conditions. (4) _ The conditions were less favorable to the preservation of plants in the - Devonian than in the Carboniferous period. (5) The Devonian flora, _ was not of lower grade than that of the coal period, but we find in it _ more points of resemblance to the floras of the Mesozoic period and of _ modern tropical and austral islands than in that of the true coal forma- tion. (6) The facies of the Devonian flora in America is very similar _ to that of the same period in Europe, but the number of identical spe- cies in the coal fields of the two continents is greater. These conclu- - sions do not differ materially from those of Goeppert, Unger, and Bronn, _ after consideration of the Devonian flora of Europe. Inaletter from Leo Lesquereux? the following points regarding cor- os Ty ae _ 1Dawson, J. W.: On the Flora of the Devonian period in Northeastern America. Am. Jour. Sci., vols. 35, 36, 1863, pp. 311-319, 41, 42. _ #Lesquereux, Leo: On the character of the Millstone grit or Subcarboniferous conglomerate in the far West. Am. Phil. Soc., Proc., vol. 9, 1863, pp. 198-204. ae” ae = - 238 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBON! F relations of Nova Scotia formations are recorded, it ing ; above mentioned : . Pee? the base to the top of the Boston Mountain, in J pete ie Cae _ Millstone Grit Measures seem more persistent and greater in thicl in Arkansas than in the Hast, and may be greater than has nee m out at Horsehead Mountain. From an examination of these secti the author thinks that the “‘ Nova Scotia basin is a separate mem of our great American coal field,” and agrees with Dawson that flora of both countries is apparently the same. But while Daw finds abundance of coniferous trees, and English geologists find t abundant in the Coal Measures of England, the author claims, in ¢ paring sections of the East and West, that he finds none in his wes: section. The increased thickness of the sandstones and shales. ‘of t the eastern deposits, in comparison with those of the West, and the ] loce cal variations, the author accounts for by the fact that they are shore forma- yo tions, and hence Dawson’s sixth objection is not applicable to weste ern deposits. The author in conclusion shows from Dawson’s own stat a ments that there is a gradual change throughout the flora of the Measures, and even from Devonian to typical Carboniferous plan while Dawson would claim there was a much less intimate connecti between Upper Devonian and Lower Carboniferous than is cies throughout the whole Carboniferous system. —’ 5: G. F. Matthew! in 1865 commented on the “ Fern ledges’ 4 of Lar n ter, New Brunswick, in the following way: 2 The Middle and Upper Devonian rocks are known under three j TC ou ups ae The * pee group,” No. 4 of LARS list ;. * me's River g gro iD U } a at, Be out Chinclotte: Gousty; awa says bat: “the plaat remains « ce the features of the Hamilton and Portage groups.” Professor Hi cock also reports Devonian areas in northern Maine. The thickn the Devonian sediments below the plant beds is about 5,000 feet. The Lower Carboniferous rocks extend over Kings, Albert, Westmoreland Counties, being about 100 miles in length, with var, width. They also occur along the Kennebeccasis Bay and in det iC areas along the Bay of Fundy. They consist mainly of limesto shales, and sandstones, associated with pyroschists resembling 1 he . & 1 Matthew, George F.: On the Devonian plant locality of the ‘‘ Fern ledges,” voatis Suih 3 New B wick, with a detailed section and notes on the fossils. Observations on the Geology of southern New Brunswick, sai L, W. Bailey jet al.], pp. 11-4 = ericton, 1865. ~ zt 7s Pi LLIAMS.] © J. W. DAWSON. 289 - of the Albert mine, and yielding Lepidodendrons, Cyclopteris, and other | Darbouiferous forms. The Carboniferous rocks, consisting of gray sand- stones and shales, cover the central and eastern part of New Bruns- a wick. © There is a slight nonconformity between the Lower Carbonifer- % - ous and the Coal Measures of about 15°. They also appear in West- - moreland County, and extend along the north shore of the Bay of Fundy. 1 Es _ Dawson! in 1866 gave an interesting discussion of the conditions of _ deposition of coal, in which the classification and thickness of the Aca- dian formations are stated. £ _ According to the estimates of Logan the Coal Measures at the Jog- 4 _ gins are 14,570 feetin thickness, the deposits of Pictou 16,000 feet, and those of Bape Breton, according to Mr. Brown, 11,000 feat, excluding _ the Lower Carboniferous deposits. The author arranged the Carboniferous series in the following groups: (a) Upper coal formation, consisting of sandstones, shales, conglomerates, and thin limestones, bearing numerous plant remains. _(b) The middle coal formation, or Coal Measures proper, containing all the coal cau. but no limestones. Plant remains are quite abundant. ¥ (c) The “‘ Millstone grit,” including the sandstones and shales, lying just below the 4 Coal Measures. It contains the trunks of coniferous trees. (d) The Lower Carboniferous marine formation. _(e) The Lower Carboniferous Coal Measures, or Lower Coal Measures. ‘The last two groups are equivalent to the ‘Subcarboniferous’ of American geologists.” But the author did not find in Nova Scotia any reason for applying any more explicit : term than *‘ Lower Carboniferous.” ‘There seem to have been three distinct conditions of deposition dur- ing the middle coal formation: (1) Deposition of coarse sediments, - alternating with clays, sands, and gravels; (2) precipitation of lime- Ecueisne and growth of corals and shellfish; (3) deposition of fine sedi- ‘ments and accumulation of vegetable nates between bituminous _ imestones and shales. _ hecondition of the Devonian rocks shows that there was considerable _ igneous action at the close of the Devonian period, and before the _ deposition of Carboniferous rocks, from the fact that they are partially _ metamorphosed by the effects of injection of igneous matter. _ _Theauthor thinks that the time of greatest depression was during the Ag deposition. of limestones; the time of greatest elevation took place _. during the formation of the coal beds, and the condition for the forma- _ tion of the “Millstone grit” was intermediate. These remarks apply _ to New Brunswick as well as to Nova Scotia. The local differences are of _ the same character as those of the Appalachian and western fields and those of Great Britain. _ ‘There is marked evidence of a disturbance during the Carboniferous a period, producing synclinal and anticlinal folds, similar to those of the 1Dawson, J. W.: On the conditions of the deposition of coal, more especially as illustrated by the coal formation of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc., vol. 22, 1866, pp. 95-166, Panty, including 1,009 feet of sandstone, 912 feet of shinies and clays, and 22° B Devonian poeta: me hence causing gregline dcpoele ul denudation, a condition very common in Nova Scotia. ik . The author has been unable to account for the separation between | the lower and middle coal formations, but thinks “it may include much ce of the ‘ Lower Coal Measures’ of Rogers in the Pennsylvania coal field.” He maintains that the order of sequence noted in the Carboniferous _ period has its parallel in each of the other periods of the Paleozoic | age, ‘‘each of which was characterized by a great subsidence and parti al ie “ reelevation, succeeded by a second very gradual subsidence.” A detail account was given of the stratification of the South Joggin S e section and discussed under three divisions : 3 (1) Logan’s section, 1,617 feet in vertical thickness on the shore 0: of Shoulie River. ‘eae (2) Ragged Reef and vicinity, 650 feet in thickness, emia the lo ; part of the upper coal formation. | Be (3) From Ragged Reef to McCavins Brook, 2,134 feet in thiekness, & a , & -” coal beds. This i is probably equivalent to the ** Upper Coal Measures” 3 of American geologists and includes also the ** Middle Coal formatiol » In 1867! the same author announced some recent discoveries in the Acadian provinces of British America. ' He said the discovery of aland ¥ flora in a series of rocks near St. John, New Brunswick, underlying unconformably the Lower Carboniferous, has proved the presence of © * rocks of the Devonian age. For this discovery we are indebted to. Messrs. Matthew, Hartt, and Bailey. With the flora were found ‘six ; species’of insects which have been described by Mr. Scudder. They — are the first insects found below the Carboniferous. Below the ei 4 nian shales and sandstones occurs a thick series of rocks embracing fauna of Silurian aspect. This division is termed the “Acadian series.” The labors of Mr. Davidson, Mr. Hartt, and the ts have brought ta to light fossils closely allied to Permian species. is The announcement of the correlation of Devonian rocks in 2 Maine was made by C. H. Hitchcock? in 1867. Abe : A series of slaty deposits in Washington County, Maine, was refe red to the “‘Lower Helderberg” and ‘“* Upper Devonian.” In the northe mn part of the State occur the representatives 0 of “ (Oriskany) Cauda.gall ee grit” and other fossiliferous zones of Devonian strata. ne A reconnaissance made for the government of New Brunswick? by Messrs. Matthew and Bailey, in connection with C. FI. Hartt, brought to light a wide distribution of Devonian rocks along the shore of St. John River. After describing the occurrence of the lower metamorp! 1 Dawson, J. W.: On recent geological discoveries in the Acadian provinces of eager Americ be Am. Assoc. Proc., vol. 16, 1867, pp. 117-119. ‘ 2 Hitchcock, Charles H.: Explanation of a geological map of Maine. In Am. ken Proc., woke 16, 1867, pp. 123. re *Matthew, George F., and Bailey, L. W.: Remarks on the age and palaces, of the nelamorias ic rocks of New Brunswick and pcr Am. Ass., Proc., vol, 18, 1869, pp. 179-195. . , HARTLEY. | 241 | Pooks. the authors gave a detailed account of the Siluro-Devonian formation occurring on each side of the granite ridges to the south of the Carboniferous. These sediments they divide into a lower and upper 3 division, ‘each of which is subdivided into two series. These occur _ chiefly in St. John, Charlotte, and Queen Counties. gray, yellowish and purple sandstone, 180 feet thick. They are locally _ calcareous and arenaceous. Southwest of Miramiche River the cal- Gareous conglomerate is much disturbed by eruptive masses. Refer- ence is also made to the Brighton outlier, which is situated between the north and south branches of Beccaguimac River, and contains Devonian plants. Although fossils of Devonian type have been found in this formation, in its physical characters it resembles the Lower ' Carboniferous rocks. Other small areas were noted to the northwest in Windsor Settlement. Dr. Dawson reports the following correlation and classification for Canadian Carboniferous rocks in 1873:! The Carboniferous rocks of Canada lie unconformably upon the De- _ vonian and Upper Silurian formations. The author classifies them as follows: : (A) Horton Bluff series, or Lower Carboniferous Coal Measures, consisting of hard sandstones, calcareous shales, with conglomerate and grit, bituminous shales, and underclays, with plants and coal seams, with fishes and footprints of Batrachians. (2) Windsor series, or Lower Carboniferous limestone and gypsiferous beds; _ marine and holding shells of the Lower Carboniferous period, containing limestones, _ mnaris, clays, and gypsum. (3) Millstone grit series, consisting of conglomerate, shales, sandstone, and thin beds of coal, containing Naiadites. Thickness 5,000-6,000 feet. (4) (@) Middle coal formation, and the (b) upper or newer coal formation. The Lower Carboniferous deposits of Gaspé and Bay Chaleur, New _ Brunswick, consist mainly of sandstones and conglomerate, with few fossils, while in southern New Brunswick the bituminous shales attain _ @ great thickness, as also does the Millstone grit. On Salmon River, _ West, Hast, and Middle Rivers of Pictou, the Millstone grit consists of chocolate sandstones and shales holding plants. Beneath the Mill- _ stone grit of Pictou, known as the “ New Glasgow Conglomerate,” - occurs a hard sandstone holding fossils, which Mr. Dawson regarded as of Devonian age. The author gave the following list of equivalents of the divisions pro- _ posed for the Canadian rocks, viz: I.—£quivalents of the Lower Carboniferous Coal Measures, or Horton series : y (1) The ‘‘ Vespertine group” of Rogers in Pennsylvania. ' - QQ) The “‘ Kinderhook group” of Worthen in Illinois. (3) The *‘ Marshall group” of Winchell in Michigan. (4) The “ Waverly sandstone” (in part) of Ohio. (5) The ‘‘ Lower or False Coal Measures” of Virginia. (6) The “Calciferous sandstone” of McLaren, or ‘‘Tweedian group” of Tate in 7 Scotland. - (7) The ‘‘ Carboniferous slate” and “‘ Coomhala grits” of Jukes in Ireland. a (8) The “Culm” and “Culm Grauwacke ” of Germany. : (9) The “ Grauwacke” or ‘“‘ Lower Coal Measures” of the Vosges, as described by Schimper. Dawson, J.W.: Introductory sketch of the geology of the Lower Carboniferous Coal Measures, and - Millstone grit, with the equivalent formations abroad. Geol. Survey Canada: Report on Fossil Plants of the Lower Carboniferous and Millstone grit of Canada. Montreal, 1873. Pp. 5-14. 246 ‘THE DEVONIAN. AND > camsomtmnons, oe I.— Equivalent of the rate Carboniferous Coal Measures, or én oni ~ (10) The ‘‘ Older Coal formation” as described by Eichwald. i aly Ye (11) The so-called ‘Ursa Stage ” of Heer ipolndes this, but he has sae tw velopment of these beds at Bear Island, Spitzbergen. II.— Equivalents of the Millstone grit are : : (1) The “‘Seral Conglomerate” of Rogers in Pennsylvania, etc. — ‘bie ay a a (2) The ‘‘ Lower Coal formation,” ‘‘Conglomerate,” and ‘ Chester groups o 0 f Illinois (Worthen). , men (3) The “‘ Lower Carboniferous sandstone ” of Kentucky, Alabama, and Virg nia. (4) The “Millstone grit and Yoredale rocks” of North England and the “ “Cu n- iferous rocks” of Devonshire. vt a (5) The “Moor Rock” and “Lower Coal Measures” of Scotland. . 9 (6) ‘‘Flagstones and lower shales” of the south of Ireland and “ Millstone eit be of the north of Ireland. ~- (7) The * Jungste Grauwacke” of the Hartz, Saxony, and Silesia. ‘ ms a The author also gave a short account of the distribntion of the Oa re boniferous rocks in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The equivalent: of the * Millstone grit” of Logan’s section at “the Joggins” - % thickness of mepes feet. This series is also found on the flanks of ; coal fields. Another noted area lies south of Mira’s ‘Hagia rt iS called the “ Horton Bluff series,” and similar outcrops were note i. Walton, Noel, Windsor, and Shubenacadie. . nee The ‘* Millstone grit series” is also well developed on Salmon Rive fi West, East, and Middle Rivers, Pictou. Beneath it, in Pictou Count yy occur hard sandstones holding obscure plants which the author regar As | as of Devonian age. Carboniferous rocks similar to those of the ‘ ‘ Resi ton Bluff group” were noted in Antigonish County, and also i in C: Breton. Mr, Alexander Murray reported in 1873 1 that the boundary of i Carboniferous area of Newfoundland “ may be traced from a little x orth of Cape Ray along the northwest flank of the ‘Long Range of Laurent Mountains up to the head of St. George’s Bay, where it was suppoi to cross over and, making a further stretch beneath the marshes t north, finally sweeps around in a westerly direction and crosses H Brook below Spruce Brook,” where it rests on Lower pbeancl It is there interrupted by the Indian Head range, but farther we again comes to view on the coast of Port 4 Port Bay, Long Poin in = valley of the Coal River. The total thickness i is aha 6,40 t rocks of Queens, Sunbury, and part of York paar | are to ie ered under three main divisions: ‘(1) Lower Carboniferous forma (2) Middle Carboniferous formation; (3) Upper Carboniferous is 1 Murray, Alexander: The Carboniferous series of N ewfoundiand. Geol. Survey Nowfour Report of progress for 1873. Montreal, 1873. Pp. 14-35, 42. ? Bailey, L. W., G. F. Matthew, and R. W. Ells: Report on the Carboniferous ayoletats 0 Brunswick, in the counties of Queens, Sunbury, and a portion of York. Geol. rat. of Report of progress for 1872-'73, 1873, pp. 180-230. . F Ex = e fay : s Middle Devonian times. a moat La. J hg ea oF! ew .; f - ROBB, HUNTINGTON AND HITCHCOCK. 247 arte In addition to the general outline and distribution of this series = deposits previously described! the authors, as the result of more recent studies, remarked that the Lower Carboniferous rocks of the coast series show many important. differences from the same deposits of the above-named counties. The gray Carboniferous rock of Daw- son’s “ Lower Coal Measures,” though seen in the Kennebeccasis Valley, _ is not known in the central Carboniferous area. The limestones So pro- -minent in Nova Scotia are much limited to small areas in New Bruns- _ wick. But the “red sandstones and conglomerates” are numerically SS iveaingat in both provinces. After giving a full account of the distribution and physical charac- _ ters of the Lower Carboniferous, the authors treated of the Middle and _ Upper Carboniferous series of the same region in the same manner, de- scribing numerous areas and giving sections of the same, together with notes on the fossil remains. The total thickness of the middle and upper formations is about 600 feet. The total area of the sameis about 98,540 square miles. One-third of this area is covered with coarse gray beds forming a part of the “Middle Carboniferous formation.” The ~ total area of coal seams is about 112 square miles. This area is proba- = bly much larger than the above estimate. Mr. Charles Robb, in 1873, reported that the Sy dney coal field covers : about 200 square miles. It is bounded by the Atlantic coast on three _ sides, and on the fourth (southwest side) by Lower Carboniferous rocks. | Messrs. Huntington and Hitchcock,’ in 1873, reported that the fos- & sitiferous rocks of northwestern Wains were first noticed by Dr. Jack- : ton, near Parlin Pond, and bowlders of this formation were found - seattered to the south as far as the mouth of Kennebec River. Fossils “were also noticed at Lake Brassua. The fossils obtained were recog- nized by Billings as characteristic of the Oriskany sandstone, and sub- petty the Cauda-galli grit was recognized on the shores of Moose- Aaa Lake. -Inconcluding the authors observed that: (1) The Oriskany sandstone, Paice can not be traced toward the White Mountains, was elevated before the deposition of the Devonian; (2) the thickness of the Oris- Kany i is five times that represented in Ponusyhianin, about 2,600 feet ; (8) the discovery of Helderberg limestone in new localities diese ' an extended submergence of eastern America in Upper Silurian and Mr. Charles Robb,‘ in 1874, attempted to clear up some of the diffi- - ‘Bailey, L. W., G. F. Matthew, and R. W. Ells: Report on the Carboniferous system of New - Brunswick, in the counties of Queens, Sunbury, and a portion of York. Geol. Survey of Canada: - Report of progress for 1872-73, 1873, pp. 204-206. _ ~ ?Robb, Charles: Report on the cual mines of the eastern or Sydney coal field of Cape Breton, Nova ' Scotia. Geol. Survey Canada: Report of progress for 1872-73, 1873, pp. 238-290. Map. _ SHitcheock, C.H., and J. H. Huntington: Geology of the northwest part of Maine. Am. Assoc., 4 - Proc., vol. 22, 1873, idl 2, pp. 205-214. _ 4Robb, Charles: Report on explorations and surveys in.Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. Geol. Survey a Canada: Report of progress for 1873-'74, 1874, pp. 171-178. \ > ft, ae Fh ee Ae ee Sree ee a ee we eee oie meein a tt f : nh ? = ,' 4 7 ‘A 4 3 , , es wy ne : eM wie x 2 culties in regard to the sisiie: of the members of the Productive Co Measures in various parts of the Sydney field. Accordingly a section extending from the supposed limit of the Lower Carboniferous for ma- tion at Point Edward and Sydney to its base is indicated. The rocks | consist of red and gray shales, with marls containin g nodules of lime as ‘stone and iron ore. The limestones often hold marine fossils of Lower Carboniferous types, also plant remains, fish scales, teeth, spines, and coprolites. The estimated thickness is about 4,637 feet. Onthe shore | opposite Point Edward the rocks are of the Millstone grit formation These rocks rest upon massive beds of conglomerate and sandstone, | which are prominent in Cape Breton coal fields. In constructing sec- x tions of a minute character the author finds that the difficalties’ are ’ caused by faulting. The rocks at Great Bras d’Or entrance appear - be analogous to the Millstone grit of the English coal fields, consist- s ing of sandstones highly colored by oxide of iron, and occas bluish gray, shaly, and bedded limestone. ees | In Mr. Brown’s section, on the northwest of avin Harbor, the « coal seams appear to run into the Millstone grit. Mr. Scott Barlow, in 1874, reported that the rocks of the Spring Hill coal field of Nova Scotia consist mainly of alternate beds of candela 3 blue argillaceous shales, fire clays, and coal seams. On the west slop a of the Spring Hill Mining Company a section was run having a total - thickness of 516 feet, about 12 feet of which are coal seams. A section is also given to the north of Spring Hill Mining Company’s west slope, 3 which has a total thickness of 918 feet 11 inches, of which 25 feet are coal deposits. The characters of the rocks are similar to those of aie former section. In the Old Pit, belonging to the same association, n = same physical characters ariiie mentioned are main tained, the tota ul thickness found at this point being 624 feet 64 inches, 36 feet of ae are coal seams. Be Mr. Walter McOuat,? in 1874, reported on the coal fields of Cumber- land County. The section siopindly examined by the author extends from the Chiegnecto and St. George Mines to the post-road from A herst to Truro. AS a result of his observations the following class cation was arrived at, exclusive of the Lower Carboniferous rocks seen at Black River, given in descending order: iq a : 1. Millstone grit, red shale, flaggy sandstone (gray and greenish) ........--. 1 >. Ronilembiase: cearse sandstone, reddish and brewnish shales ........--.-. ae 3. Middle coal formation, gray sandstone and Peers 2 probably the same as at f the Joggins. .....2 2-25 sien csn'c ds pheideset ocala ee eee ee ae ene ee gf 4, 500 4. Upper Coal Measures, gray sandstone with faise bedding........--..----. 1,000 5. Red shale, greenish sandstone, conglomerate, and arenaceous gray lime- “a BLOND < news nccses pus cun sesgus cuek seul gaunt eee aes Le eee 5, 000° County, Nova Scotia. Geol. Survey Canada: Report of progress for 1873-’74, 1874, pp. ae Ma ?McOuat, Walter: Report on a portion of the coal field of Cumberland County, Nova Scotia. Survey Canada: Report of progress for 1873-’74, 1874, pp. 161-170. Map. : DAWSON, ROBB. 249 i oe Dawson,! after giving various views that have been held in regard es the rocks of Prince Edward Island, in 1874 declined to separate the cS “Red beds” of the lower series hon the ‘*newer coal formation.” Prof. Geinitz, however, thinks that the fossils show “a decidedly Per- - Inian aspect.” The author, after a more extended examination of the i Py rocks of Kast River of Pictou, and in sections.west of Caribou Har- bor, concludes that “the beds which overlie the coal field of Pictou # ae extend into Prince Edward Island, and which constitute the upper part of the upper coal formation, nee such strong points of resem- _ blance to the lower part of the European Permian that they may be _ ealled “ Permo-Carboniferous.” In 1876 Mr. Charles Robb reported upon the area recently explored _ by him, lying along the Atlantic coast and including Cow Bay, Glacé __ Bay, Sydney Harbor, and Bras d’Or basins. Therocks are referred to the following formations: a I. Carboniferous limestone, Aber Il. Millstone grit. b' III. Coal Measures. ‘The section of Sydney Harbor extending from South Bar to Sydney ___ has a total thickness of 879 feet 7 inches, and is a continuation of the x “Millstone grit series” from Victoria Mines to South Bar, Sydney _ Harbor, having a total thickness for the Millstone grit of 3,275 feet. The rocks consist mainly of fine and coarse sandstones, marls, ‘iiel lime- - stones, micaceous sandstones, and bituminous calcareous limestones, d = — containing Sigillaria, Lepidodendron, fish seales, and Naiadites. — The “ Lower Carboniferous rock” from Point Edward, Sydney Harbor, - to Morrison Brook, consisting of yellow micaceous sandstones, red and Saji marls, Bisaico-bitiminous shales, and thin arenaceous lime- - stones, has a total thickness of 4,591 feet 10 inches. Sigillaria and _ Lepidodendron were found in the Bilis: while Brachiopods and patie) _ appeared i in the bluish gray limestones. : 4 The section of ‘‘ Millstone grit” from South Head to Mira Bay has a _ total thickness of 5,706 feet 8 inches, The rocks are of the same char- acter as in the section given above. The Millstone grit of North Head, - Cow Bay, is 537 feet 7 inches in thickness. Plant remains occur in the _ shales, mainly Cordaites, Asterophyllites, Neuropteris, Stigmaria. : __ The section of Millstone grit from Stubbart Point to Limestone Creek _ has a total thickness of 4,228 feet 5 inches. The rocks have the same Be gacel characters, except that the coarse conglomerates are more fer- _ Tuginous than in other sections. Coal seams were noted in the North Head section, varying from a few inches to 8 feet in thickness; the latter includes 18 inches of superior coal. The Millstone grit between _ Lorway and Sydney Harbor, consisting of argillaceous sandstones, shales, and thin coal seams, has a thickness of 2,619 feet 2 inches. vs S | me -1Dawson, J. W.: On the Upper Coal Formation of Eastern Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island initsrelation to the Permian. Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc., vol. 30, pp. 209-219 ; Canadian Nat., vol. 7, 1874, ‘new ser., pp. 303, 304. ; oe 250 THE DEVONIAN ‘AND CARBON — * No definite division line is drawn between the Coal easul and the Millstone grit. The limit of the Coal Measures - in th however, “is indicated by the occurrence of angular blocks of : sandstone scattered over the surface. The rocks consist of argil lac ceous, be Shales containing numerous fossil plants, and even large tree trunks; 1 and green marls containin 8 a few ee PMY and V waters 38 - an casts of Calamites, Cordaites, Sigillaria, etc., wil fainting the bik sistent member of the sas and seabed underclays charged with f some sixteen layers, with thick varying from one-half ak 6 2 t.” . The fossils of the limestones are similar to those of the Jt oggins 8 see “i tion,' and are of the genera Naiadites, heeciior and iene ange basins is as follows :? Cow Bay coal basin ....-. iesCea at cnas Ja ok ae ee ee ee NER | ees Wey eath. bc5 cae ee eee 2 sok Sse Bo See eteee ao : ee Sat PmMingan tfach. ... 2. . 62 oslo oak ace ves ice team nehaik aetna See ee Cis. Sydney mines........... A atapardds bina Ue bios Bie 3 Eee asinbnidiag See eees ies 30 Bre: 3 POGIATUTIO . oc Aq» won ods town sod boc heehee eee ie 28 9 | Gane Dauphin... os con 52 <6 cect cuueee veg des Aen ee a ee ae ite A oe sone 1B soe _In 1877, Mr. Hugh Fletcher? reported on explorations made ma in pane: Breton. sy 1. Carboniferous conglomerates. 2. Carboniferous limestone. : : 3. Millstone = conglomerate” of New Brunswick and Newinatnend: seca pais o Lower Silurian slates and sandstones, and has near the Coxheath I a vertical thickness of 1 890 feet 11 tne ee while from Watson grained pebbly vioasitbdieial | No distinct line can be drawn between the conglomerate and ask stone. The latter occupies a narrow strip along Sydney River, wid toward Point Edward, extending into the valleys of Ball and Leit Brooks. A section of this formation from the banks of the ‘Sydn u River is given. The maximum thickness is 1,041 feet, 6 inches. _ 1See Acadian Geology, pp. 173-181. e. ? Robb, Charles: Report on explorations and surveys in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. Geol. Sury of Canada: Report of progress for 1874-’75, 1876, pp. 166-266, map. = 3Fletcher, Hugh: Report of explorations and surveys in Cape Breton. Geol. Survey Canad Re. ee port of progress, 1875—’76, 1877, pp. 369-418, map. : Gs a Ns ae BAILEY AND ELLS, FLETCHER. 251 Bae “In the Millstone grit, consisting of two synclines, and underlying the Goal Measures to the west of Sydney Harbor, no workable seams of ~ eoal have been discovered. ‘The rocks consist mainly of greenish gray Ss: and white pebbly sandstone, sometimes falsely bedded with small areas __ of conglomerate containing Calamites and other plants. _ Mr. L. W. Bailey and Mr. R. W. Ells,' in 1878, reported on the Car- _ boniferous belt of Albert and Westmoreland Counties, New Brunswick. - The formations of this area are divided as follows: a Ss ae Metamorphic rocks of pre-Carboniferous age with intrusive syenite. 2. Lower Carbonifcrous formation, including the ‘‘ Albert shales.” A YY a 3. Millstone grit, formation, or lower member of the Carboniferous system. Bi or The “ Lower Carboniferous rocks” of Albert County are but the ex- ___ tension of those in Kings County, where they are followed by patches of SE “unconformable gray-rock of the Millstone grit series. The section in - Albert County consists of: (1) The “ Basal Conglomerate,” which is - sometimes wanting (thickness unknown); (2) calcareous, bituminous a ‘shales, including the ‘‘ Albert shales ;” (3) gray, bituminous, and mi- -eaceous oil-bearing sandstone; (4) re and gray argillaceous beds, wee alternating with conglomerates; (5) red and gray conglomerate, lime- om stone, and gypsum ; total thickness, 1,950 feet. Sections are also given from Pollet River, Mapleton, Baltimore, Al- _ bert mines, Beliveau, and Taylorville, showing the relation of the dif- _ ferent series and the system of faults. The series of Albert shales bears strong resemblance to the Horton Bluff series in its fossil con- tents, stratigraphical arrangement, and rock materials. The general i ‘structure of the Albert mine is outlined, with an account of the phys- - ieal and chemical characters of albertite, and the proofs given of the % vein structure of the Albert mine. he “Millstone grit formation” is recognized by its gray, and rarely pale purple color, and slight dip. It occurs in the southern part of _ Albert County, running parallel to the metamorphic hills, and showing __ evidence of denudation, even before the deposition of the succeeding Strata. The gypsum beds, which are quite extensive and pure, vary =in thickness from 30 to 50 feet. _ Mr. Hugh Fletcher,” in 1878, grouped the rocks of Victoria, Cape Bre- ton, and Richmond Counties in the following manner : 1. Syenitic, gneissoid, and other feldspathic rocks, 2. George River limestones. 3. Lower Silurian rocks. See 4, Carboniferous rocks. Carboniferous .... 5. Carboniferous limestone. ae 6. Millstoné grit. _Laurentian......- i a 1Bailey, L. W. and Ells, R. W.: Report on the Lower Carboniferous belt of Albert and Westmore- Pe Counties, New Brunswick, including the ‘‘ Albert shales.” Geol. Survey Canada: Report of _ progress, 1876-'77, 1878, pp. 351-395, map. 2¥letcher, Hugh : Report on the geology of part of the counties of Victoria,Cape Breton, and Rich- mond, Nova Scotia. Geol. Survey Canada: Report of progress, 1876-'77, 1878, pp. 402-456, map. ole —S dye shu cere . 5 } del od hs - ; - A Mos ny at wy 252 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS, ‘en We ba Division 4 occurs most largely developed “in the sonacd abi sae sion. of the Sydney Harbor basin, and on the Boisdale and Washa eck a Hills.” Division 5, which attains its greatest thickness on the Washa- beck peninsula, is characterized by prominent beds of limestone and. ay gypsum, accompanied by marls, sandstone, and conglomerate. Division _ 6 is “found on Sydney River and the eastern shore of Forks Lake, © 2 divided from similar deposits in the valleys of the Gaspereaux and — Salmon Rivers by the East Bay anticline.” Sandstones of this series E are found on Boulardrie Island. Plant remains are reported from the sandstones. é Mr. Fletcher, in 1879,' reported a series of rocks, supposed to be of Devonian age, as “ extending from Loch Lomond to St. Peter’s, and re- 4 appearing on Isle Madame and in Guysborough and Antigonish Coun- — ties.” They ‘“ beara very close lithological resemblance to the Connie at 7% shales and Dadoxylon sandstones of New Brunswick.” This seriesis also accompanied by intrusion of trap, such as Mount Granville and " Campbell Hill. ; ees: The *‘ Carboniferous conglomerate ” was found at Mira Bay over]; ot ing the “pre-Silurian felsites.” This is followed by limestones, and in — i f - turn is overlaid by the Millstone grit. The Carboniferous conglomerate = and limestone were observed also at Belfrey Lake, Salmon see an Grand River Falls, but only as small outliers. . The Millstone grit was recognized near Salmon River, sana a dined S. 46° E. 80°. A coal seam was found in these rocks near Catan Gut. : According to Messrs. Bailey, Matthew, and Ells in 1880,” the D De- vonian rocks of southern New Brunswick oceupy the isons areas: (1) A basin east of St. John Harbor extending through the enon Valley and northeasterly across the Black by tha (2) onan on be. ‘St. John sail Carleton, with possibly Bosades Island ; (4) area ea ’ of Spruce Lake; (5) an area extending from i genasat Harbor Lepreau Harbor, and including the Belas Basin, and a small area fi Chance Harbor to Dipper Harbor; also an area in the north of Cl lotte County and extending into Gassee County. — ; The estimated thickness of the Devonian rocks of the St. John Harbor series is 7,500 feet. Fossil remains of plants and insects occur in them. — J The Lovee Carboniferous rocks occur around the head of Grand Lake — and in the counties of Sunbury and Queens, on the south edge of the — coal basin. They also form the greater part of the valley of the Ken- | nebeceasis Bay and River. Although these ‘beds contain fossils: of ‘y Devonian types, they still lie unconformably upon the true Devonia 1 Fletcher, Hugh: Report of explorations and surveys in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. Geol. a Canada: Report of progress, 1877-’78, 1879, F, pp. 32. Map. 2 Bailey, L. W., G. F. Matthew, and R. W. Ells: Report on the geology of southern New Brunswick ia 4 ' embracing the ‘abate of Charlotte, Sunbury, Queens, Kings, St.John, and Albert, Geol. Survey . rpenia: Report of progress, 1878-’79, 1880, pp. 1D-26D, Map. 2 = J BARTON AND ‘CROSBY, DAWSON. 253 formation, and their physical characters resemble the Lower Carbon- ag _iferous rocks, consisting of red and gray conglomerates, brownish red ae. shales, bituminous sandstones, and limestones. Of the Middle Carboniferous there is considerable evidence that if it had ever attained any degree of development it has since been carried away by denudation, leaving only a shallow deposit in the great Car- boniferous basin which underlies the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and which is bounded by the southern shore of the Gaspé peninsula on the north | and by the Cobequick Hills and coast ranges of western Cape Breton eo on the south and east. Coal in thin seams has been discovered in this Bye formation by borings, extending over quite an area. It was found in q _ the Neweastle, Coal Creek, and Salmon River coal basins, having a usual thickness of from 18 to20inches. Other small areas were found in South Albert, as far west as Herring Cove; also about Quaco and _ Gardener’s Creek rocks resembling Millstone cut were noticed over- ___ lying Lower Carboniferous rocks. A small area was also noted in the north part of Charlotte County. Messrs. Barton and Crosby,! in 1880, reported that the Carboniferous rocks of Massachusetts are an extension of the Rhode Island series, and are mainly found in Narragansett Basin, which lies wholly within Norfolk County. This was determined by President Hitchcock. These rocks are well developed on the island of Aquidneck, and also form a broad semicircular belt reaching from Warwick and Providence northerly by Valley Falls to Wrentham, in Massachusetts, and thence easterly through Attleborou gh and Mans- - field into Bridgewater. _ __ The rocks of this series consist of a very thick, coarse conglomerate, conglomerates passing into green sandstones about 600 feet in thick- ‘ness, a series of carbonaceous slates including the true Coal Measures, ‘with few sandstones and red rocks. Very close connection can be traced between the Norfolk belt. and those at Wrentham. From a close examination of the Norfolk Basin the author is very doubtful __ whether coal will be found within its limits. Dr. J. W. Dawson,’ in 1882, classified the Paleozoic floras as follows: I.—Carboniferous flora : (1) That of the Permo-Carboniferous is best seen in eastern Nova Scotia, and > is represented by Dadoxylon, Pecopteris, and Calamites. " (2) The coal formation contains the greatest number of species, and is especially ‘* rich in Sigillaria and ferns. One hundred and thirty-five species have been catalogued from this formation. (3) Millstone grit: Here the species are limited. Dadoxylon acadianum is a Bs characteristic conifer of this formation. (4) Lower Carboniferous: The floras of this period consist mainly of Dadoxylon, Lepidodendron, and Aneimites. & 1Crosby, W. O., and G. H. Barton: Extension of the Carboniferous formation in Massachusetts. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 20, 1880, pp. 416-420. 5 2 Daweon, J. W.: Comparative view of the successive Paleozoic floras of Canada. Am. Assoc., Proc., a7 vol. 31, pp. 415-417; Canadian Nat., new ser., vol. 10, 1882, pp. 372-378. 254 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBON IIl.—Erian or Devonian flora: _ * Oy Gil ay a ae (1) Upper Erian (Catskill): The subflora is shiastialistesa: by Ri ge ner es teris and Cyclopteris (ferns). A “(2) Middle Erian, corresponding to the Hamilton and Chemung of “New ¥ contain most] y Dadox, agit ferns, and Lepidodendron. les esi 18 ee housie, which prove to be Devon ia species. Piosicudiy to 1879 ¢ rocks had been considered as Lower Carboniferous. ee. is Mr. R. W. Ells,’ in 1883, speaking of the geology of Gaspé peninsula, reported that at Grand Pabos, Province of Quebec, Lower Carbon- — iferous rocks are found lying upon Silurian rocks, and east of Little Pabos having a breadth of 24 miles. Another small area occurs : alee _ between Grand River and Brech &8 Manon. At White Head Carbon. iferous rocks were noted lying upon Devonian rocks. Rocks of L vonian aspect were found in the vicinity of Black Cape, and also” on Bonaventure River. Near Pércé Upper Devonian beds of some mag: - nitude were recognized, lying nearly horizontal. Examination show od that there were three series of Devonian beds: (1) The upper deposit, made up of conglomerates and sandstones; (2) the middle deposit a made up of sandstones, shales, and some conglomerates ; (3) the lower deposit, made up mainly of calcareous beds. The st pies series has a “Yes » Ng «4 a | +e 3 ade aS ness of the lower dinate of ths Devonian is enneneans as ‘abo feet. The series abounds in brachiopods, trilobites, etc., of whieh @ i list is given. ay Mr. dake Gilpin,’ in 1884, yogic: the Nova Scotian coal fi west synclinal folds are noticeable. They are not complioated by fa except when they come in contact with. pre-Carboniferous r¢ lated ise amounts of argillaceous and cathdtaegnele sadintentaayh The coal beds, fifteen i in number, are situated in the lower parr: of the sec a 1 Whiteaves, J. F.: Recent discoveries of fossil fishes in the Devonian rocks of Canuili, Am.. J Proc., vol. 31, 1882, pp. 353-356. re: ae 2Ells, R. W.: Report on the geology of the Gaspé peninsula Geol. Survey Canada: Bane ort of | progress for 1880-’81-’82, 1883, pp. 1DD-32DD, ‘ irk 3Gilpin, Edwin: A comparison of the distinctive features of Hove Scotian coal fields. _Britiah Assoe 7 Report 54th Meeting, 1884, pp. 712, 713. 3 : es ter PS een ene + open, DAWSON, PERRY, ROUTLEDGE. 255 % the lower 1,000 feet of the Coal Measures, with twelve beds of coal, they x - attain Saly a total thickness of 51 feet. The author naturally sales the ae Pecks whether or not the Cape Breton coal fields may not have had a 3 a - total thickness equal to the Cumberland and Pictou fields? a Sir W. Dawson,! in 1884, commented on ancient land floras, showing <2 how the floras of the Siieonstein or Erian period and of the Carbonifer- _ ous period present many points of likeness, and are very distinct from _ those of succeeding times. The conspicuous families are ERhizocarpea, re _ Equisetacee, Lycopodiacec, Filices, and Conifere. The changes which ___ have occurred since the Carboniferous consist mainly in the degrada- tion of the three first families, and in the introduction of new Gymno- sperms and Phenogams, the latter event marking the later Mesozoic «age. * In 1885 Permo-Carboniferous rocks were reported by Mr. Ells? as oe- curring between Cape Bald and Bay Verte. Their Similarity to rocks _ Of Prince Edward Island was noted. Rocks of the same character, con- _ sisting mainly of soft red beds, sandstones, shales, and calcareous con- _ glomerate, were recognized at Cape Brulé and between Shediac and B _ Cocagne Head. The Carboniferous area of New Brunswick is made up of four anticlinals. One is situated between Bathurst and Miramichi ; _ the second from Grand Lake to Richibucto Head and Miminegash ; the iS ileal passes from Shediac and touches the island near Cape Egmont; the fourth from Cape Tourmantine to Cape Traverse, Prince Edward Island. se o _ Specimens of Lepidodendron found by Mr. Joseph RB. Perry? ina graph- ite deposit in the coal mine at Worcester, Massachusetts, were re- _ ferred by Prof. Lesquereux to the very rare species Lepidodendron acu- ~ minatum of Goeppert, originally from the Carboniferous limestone of ~ ‘Bileia corresponding to the American “ Subcarboniferous.” The great - disturbance and working over of the rocks containing the Carboniferous deposit has transformed this deposit for the most part into graphite, = and in the specimen found the carbon is in the form of graphite, though Fie the scars of the plant are distinctly preserved. The Sydney coal field, Cape Breton, is about 32 miles in length by 6 oa ‘alten 3 in width, extending from Big Bras d’Or on the northwest to Mira _ Bay on the southeast. The four basins of which this field is composed are as follows, according to Mr. W. Routledge‘ (1886) : ‘aa 8 Sydney Mine section, with 25 feet 8 inches workable coal. _ 2. The Lingan Tract, with 39 feet 5 inches workable coal. 3. Glacé Bay section, with 55 feet 9 inches workable coal. 4. Block House section, with 24 feet workable coal. > Ps __ * Dawson, Sir W.: On the more ancient land floras of the Old and New Worlds. British Assoc., - -Report 54th Meeting, pp. 738, 739. Me es 2Ells, R. W.: Report on explorations and surveys in the interior of Gaspé Peninsula and Prince _ Edward Island. Geol. Survey of Canada: Report of progress for 1882-83-84, 1885, 1°-34°, maps. (Sep- arate in 1884.) ; “ is 4 Perry, Joseph H.: Note on a fossil coal plant at the graphite deposit in mica schist at Worcester, + Massachusetts. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 29, 1885, pp. 157, 158. _ Routledge, W.: The Sydney coal field, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, Am. Inst. Mining, Trans., vol. «14, 1886, pp. 542-560. a * - -, Seat no ee, sat ns at is ; wh Pe ae ge cae pa sg rr } — e ous. oe) ¢. * 4 ThA: Ve AGN “THE DEVONIAN ‘AND ‘cannoxrrEno In the region of Cobscook Bay Devontan rocks are reported | by F gS N.S. Shaler’ as lying to east of Moose Island, with nearly uniform ¢ e ste ern dips. The section at Perry may contain Subcarboniferous as Y wah as Upper Devonian rocks, but apparently the most important secti tion _ is bearing the greatest likeness to Devonian rocks, is on Moose Island. Here the black shaly deposits have a thickness of from 1,000 to i“ a feet. a Sea Mr. Frank D. Adams, in 1887, defining the coal- shawna BO * Canada, says the coal fields of Canada are confined to Nova Scoti bia e and Cape Breton, where there are three important basins, cima . Cumberland, Pictou, and Cape Breton Counties, respectively. TI coal basin in the Cape Breton field extends under the Atlantic Ocean. On account of the imperviousness of the strata overlying the anal Coal Measures they can be worked without any difficulty. The deepest t e seam of the Pictou coal field at the Dalhousie Pit is 363? feet in thick- — ness. The cvals of Nova Scotia are somewhat less bituminous than — those of Cape Breton. ose Sir William Dawson,’ who has contributed so much to the claboasaad tion of the Devonian and Carboniferous formations, in oup of his later A 4 heinal Survey of New York. On the eastern coast this is repieeie dL. a by sandstones and shales, and is compared with the Old Red sand. stone of Scotland and England. bel The beds abound in fossil plants and locally in aruda of fis) _ Pa Both plants and fishes are “ generically similar to those of Britain ; 4 { they are of “estuarian and littoral” origin; and the author consider ers them divisible into two series, characterized by cattenens genera ‘ | these organisms. ae | The only truly marine portion of the system in the Maritime Province is the lo wer part, corresponding to the Oriskany of the interior, and this may pena be Togs as an equivalent of the Downton sandstones of England. . The subdivisions of the Carboniferous bss gas are described follows : é 1. A lower series corresponding to the Tuedian of the North of England aad Cal lcif- erous of Scotland both in mineral character and fossils (the Horton series, of mw 1 = later papers). ‘. ge 2. A Carboniferous limestone, associated, however, with gypsum, and marly red sandstones, but having fosell remains for the most part specifically identical 1 Wi h those of England (Windsor series of recent papers). a 1 Shaler, N.S.: Preliminary report on the geology of the Cobscook Bay ist. Maine. Am. Jo at. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 32, 1886, pp. 35-60. 2 Adams, Frank D.: On the coal-bearing rocks of Canada. Brit. Assoc., Raper 56th Meeting, 1886 ce 1887, pp. 639-641. 3 Qn the Eozoic and Paleozoic Rocks of the Atlantic coast of Canada, in comparison with those 0 of western Europe and of the interior of America, by Sir J. William Dawson, K.C. M.G., — 888, Quar. Jour. Geol. Soc., pp. 797-817. The Erian or Devonian system, p. 813. The Carboniferous system, etc., p. 814, ‘ . “Se me > grit series consisting of coarse sandstones and shales with conglom- fred colors. ’ 2 or Productive Coal Measures, precisely riiecsgeae in character to those ar rboniferous series, perhaps suiesonnibisig in age to the Lower Per- nd, and consisting largely of Red sandstones with species of plants in Europe of the Lower Permian, but including no limestones. of the Carboniferous are on the whole similar throughout North pir the extreme West and locally in the Appalachian region; but ed undland, and New Brunswick they are more nearly allied | , except in the abundance of red marls and gypsum in the lower aoe 2% * “= yu Bont Peer et ir Ange - ye Ss Bets ca wide SS all ds 3b CPs, ea hg fas we i te ok = uf aw. ‘DAWSON, rat Pete hai ek eat ey: CHAPTER XII. CONCLUSIONS. When this essay was begun it was thought possible to prepare a thorough paleontologic definition of the systems and series under con- — sideration, The result has demonstrated that the facts are not yet — accumulated to make this possible, In the first place, the formations vi themselves are not delimited on the same basis in different provinces, — and, secondly, the fossils have been reported under so many different names that a thorough revision of the several biologic groups is neces- - sary before the various lists prepared can be scientifically correlated. - In the meantime such lists as Mr. Miller’s “American Paleozoic Fossils” will suffice for all practical purposes. At the outset it was thought — that an exhaustive review of all American literature on the Devonian — 4 and Carboniferous systems would be profitable. As the research has ; progressed it has become evident that this literature may be divided into three classes, viz: (1) Records of observations and facts; (2) dis-_ cussions of the relations and classifications of the facts; (3) contnaveal | sial literature. Although all the accessible literature has been con- — sulted, I have concluded that the first class can not be abstracted to. : advantage; that the third class has generally been more concerned in : the defense of personal opinions than in the elaboration of the truth, | and in many cases the controversy has been occasioned by imperfect | understanding of the views of others. For the present essay selection \d has been made chiefly from the second class of literature, written in a most cases by those exhibiting some acquaintance with the immediate — 4 local problem under discussion, and also with the opinions of others, — and with the corresponding formations in other regions. Another re-— striction was found necessary: To go into full details would have made _ a book so large that few would take the trouble to read it, hence when- | q ever practicable formulations of results ‘have been given, leaving the — student to examine the original works for details. For these various — reasons a ‘large number of the authors consulted, probably a large ma- . jority, are not represented here by quotations or title. a The territory discussed may be classified for our purposes into. the following geographic provinces: Acadian, Appalachian, Mississippian, — Michigan, Western, and Northern provinces. The Acadian province is — geologically isolated from the others, and has a history of its own. The 7 facts accumulated for the Northern province, extending from Manitob y : 258 CONCLUSIONS. 259 i Bt along the Mackenzie River to the Arctic and about the shores of Hud. au ~ son Bay, are too fragmentary to admit of generalization. The Western as province has not been worked up with sufficient detail to admit of other “oe than broad generalizations. The correlations in these three provinces ay were based upon purely paleontologic data. The other three provinces os are partly connected at their boundaries and roughly defined are great d I basins, in which the more recent Carboniferous formations are partially, ” at least, surrounded by the older Devonian rocks. ¥ The Appalachian province is separated from the Mississippian ae _ province by a geological anticline called the Cincinnati axis, extending from middle Tennessee in a northeasterly direction to near Sandusky, i Ohio, and thence across Lake Erie into Ontario, Canada. The Michigan fe Py _ province is connected with both the Appalachian and the Mississippian a: _ provinces by @ common band of Devonian rocks running from Toledo - across to the southern end of Lake Michigan. os In the center of the Mississippian province the Ozark Uplift occupies, * With Silurian and Archean rock, the southeastern third of Missouri and ten parts, of adjacent Illinois and hidhanaaas The western edge of this _ province is terminated by the overlying Cretaceous along an irregular sf * westward curving line connecting Omaha and Austin, Tex. The ‘ae northeastern or Acadian province is defined at the opening of the last : _ chapter and exhibits an immense thickness of Devonian and Carbon- - iferous shales, sandstone, and conglomerates, with little limestone, esti- * x mated at 9,500 feet of Devonian and 16,000 feet of Carboniferous. Ve “Along the eastern and northeastern ‘ialiieee of the Appalachian the _ thickness may be a third less, but the deposits are still arenaceous, with x some argillaceous shales and with little limestone. The arenaceous deposit decrease on going westward for the whole Devonian until in Towa the total Devonian is estimated at 200 feet of shales and Mag- we nesian limestone. The Devonian is represented all around the Michigan i province by considerable limestone in its early stage, running up into o en shales, then Lower Carboniferous sandstone and shales, and finally ae few hundred feet only of Coal Measures. Passing southwestward bs ne: the Appalachian province, or from Iowa and Michigan south- ae ward i in the Mississippian province, the Devonian loses the calcareous ee _ base and the arenaceous top and dwindles down toa black shale, varying ae - from one hundred feet or so in Kentucky to nuthing in Southern Ten- —nessee and around the western and southwestern margins of the Ozark 4 a Uplift. With this change from the complex Devonian formation of New _ York to the simple black shale of Tennessee there is a corresponding * change i in the Lower Carboniferous from arenaceous and shaly deposits pin Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana to limestones of over a thousand feet Ss thickness in the Mississippian province, separating the black shale _ from the Coal Measures. _ With all these differences in the stratigraphy there are corresponding 3 differences i in the faunas and floras, and as the ve have surveyed i J = ¥ k Z. . 2 G # FTC Ieee ec ahe — -_ sere = apt Bb Tr a BSP tS che rk AN thee ‘ ae me — (Te on 260 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. apo 80. the rocks and brought the facts to light the difficulties of eka, correla- | tion have been as great as the complexity of the facts. : In the historical development of the geology the northern part or seh Appalachian province was first developed; afterward, and by other — ; men, the Mississippian province was surveyed and interpreted. as . a . : 4 Among the numerous problems which American geologists have had to solve, I have selected a few to show the methods employed in corre- _ lations and the reasons why one method has led to erroneous and an- ce other to correct results. The object of correlation is and has been to. bring newly discovered formations into their proper places in already established systematic classifications. Hence in studying the princi-_ ples of correlation it has been necessary to deal mainly with the classi-— fications. The original classifications may have been founded on wrong principles, and in such cases, however correct the methods of correla-— tion may have been, the results were unsatisfactory. In the first stage ; of the history this was the case. The Wernerian classification was ; based on the supposition that the stratigraphic order of. deposits and the lithologic composition of the separate members had some natural q relation to each other. This is not the fact. It was on this account — that all the work of Amos Eaton, in New York State, though based — upon careful observation and accurate record of the facts, was a failure 4 so far as the correlations were concerned. After he had perfected the — Wernerian system, thoroughly adapted it to our facts, and provided wit : American translation, so to speak, of the German method, the fallacy — of the method was exposed and the whole of his scheme was abandoned. The New York rocks were admirably adapted to the construction of a correct classification of the Paleozoic systems, except for the highest member. For that the adjoining State, Pennsylvania, furnished what — New York lacked. For nearly half of the State the dip of the rocks is scarcely greater than 50 feet to the mile, and they are so regular that | numerous sections could be easily examined running through the same — series of deposits, the local variations noted, and, most important of — all, great quantities of fossils -were obtained. The result was that the | New York rocks for the Silurian and Devonian systems furnished. the | if standard classification for North America, and after 1843 (the date of & the completion of the final reports of the geological survey of the State y of New York) whatever imperfections might have been detected were a easily corrected by reference to the strata themselves. All mistakes — in correlations of these formations thereafter were the fault of the | method of correlation, not of the classification used. i. The Carboniferous rocks of Pennsylvania are mainly arenaceous ce . argillaceous, and marine fossils are rare in them. The classification that was developed was therefore one based chiefly upon stratigraphic and lithologic characters. Heroic attempts were made to trace the CONCLUSIONS. 261 pie faktclation became a problem of dip and thinning of the rocks, or + of number and thickness of coal-beds or of sandstone strata. The re- ae sult was that almost every State having Coal Measures had its own > classification of details, with the apparent Symmetry of a lower, a mid- _ dle, and an upper division. As far as a local coal bed could be traced SO far there was correlation. This method of correlation led to the hilary of “persistent parallelism of strata,” which was applied very considerably i in the second Pennsylvania survey, and to some extent in all the Coal-Measure areas. In Pennsylvania this theory was ap- a plied, and the resulting correlations were unsatisfactory in proportion ¥ to the distance the correlations were carried. It was not, strictly speak- Nei: correlation. It was rather an actual tracing of the strata from "h outcrop to outcrop by geometrical processes. The correlations were es a unsatistactory because in the clastic rocks which there prevail the a details of lithologic characters, as composition, fineness, or coarseness . of grain and thickness of strata, are not uniform, but vary considerably - even in a short distance. Occasionally there were fossiliferous strata ant the Coal Measures which gave a clew to the true position in the standard stratigraphic scale. _ In the Mississippian province the first attempts at correlation were with European standards. In this case there were two fundamental data upon which the correlations were based. These were the “Coal “Measures” and the “ Mountain Limestone.” The presence of coal beds De - in association with underclays and sands was taken as evidence of the ~ Coal Measures of the English geologists, and the finding of limestones es below these Coal Measures containing fossils determined to be identical 3 . with those described from the Mountain limestone of Derbyshire, in Martin's “Petrificata Derbiensia,” was the reason for calling the lime- stone “ Mountain limestone.” As far as the general correlation was con- 4 | Se the determination was correct, but when attempt was made to ~ push the correlation to details it was found impracticable to fit either the y - standard English seale or that already developed in the Appalachian province to these rocks of the Mississippian province. The result was ms that as the details were accumulated by geological surveys the geologists _ developed a classification and nomenclature of their own, in the same ie way that the New York geologists had done for their State. The chief 5 work accomplished in this province was the elaboration of the series be- ¥ tween the Devonian and the base of the Coal Measures, called “ Subear. BS boniferous ” and “ Lower Carboniferous,” which is so characteristic of 4 “this region that I propose to give it the name ‘‘ Mississippian series.” et The discussion of the facts determining the upper limit of the Coal Meas. ures, as seen in the chapter on the Permian Problem of Kansas and I) Nebraska, may also be considered as one of the results of the study of L this Mississippian province. ie _ One of the most instructive illustrations of the principles of correla- v _ tion i is seen in the determination of the base of the Mississippian series. (wee et eae + sb Gayot ty Pm Bak RRR i.e Sune i SA yee K ev 7 aia a * ‘fi. e Ae is *, , oak Ae? j 262 |THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS, —— puin. a0. a In this determination two distinct methods of correlation were exhib- _ ited. The geologists familiar with the standard sections of the New i q York system, and of the Appalachian province in general, ‘applied the?» 4 principle of “persistent parallelism of strata,” and, having gone care- fully over the ground, believed they had established beyond dispute the — correlation of rocks at the base of the Mississippian series with the upper member of the New York Devonian, i.e., the Chemung group. | ‘ae The “Chemung group” of Lowa and Missouri was originally thus de- _ termined, and was defended on this basis for a number of years against ry the counter evidence of fossils. When the fossils were studied and com- pared with the fossils of the Chemung of New York they were found to closely agree generically, but specifically there were very few cases of identity. To correct this discrepancy a gradual modification of the | species or combination of species constituting the local faunas was as: . sumed to have taken place coordinate with difference in longitudeon passing westward. The fallacy in this assumption deceived some ofthe | ablest geologists of the country, and for nearly twenty years general 4 reliance upon their authority stood in the way of the. acceptance of the — truth. 4 On the principle of establishing corrélation of horizon by identity or ay the fossils all the evidence went to prove that the so-called * Chemung” rocks of the Mississippi Valley were of Carboniferous age. M.de Ver- neuil so identified the specimens he saw when on a visit to this country ey. in 1847. D. D. Owen, one of the earliest geologists to study the rocks ong of this province, and others who followed him, recognized the ‘ Car- boniferous aspect ” of the fossils. But these identifications of the fos- _ sils were not generally accepted as outweighing the other evidence of — supposed correlation with Chemung rocks until the year 1861, when Messrs. Meek and Worthen established the Kinderhook group. The Kinderhook group was the result of pure paleontologic correla- tion, in which the fauna at the base of the ‘‘ Carboniferous limestones,” often in sandy or shaly strata, was distinctly recognized, by comparison a with authentic Carboniferous species of Europe, as of Carboniferous age. | The identifications upon which the name was applied were of Illinois — . fossils; the correlation included led to the correct correlation of the ‘‘Goniatite beds” of Indiana, and later of the Waverly group of Ohio, and the recognition of the “‘ Black shales” of the Mississippi province as the termination of the Devonian series. Although the correlation included the faunas of the Chemung of Iowa and Missouri, the appli- — cation of the name “ Chemung” there had become locally fixed tothe — particular rocks, irrespective of their supposed equivalency, and the — name was not immediately dropped. The fundamental error in the | Chemung correlation was made near the eastern end, on passing from an ‘Chautauqua County, New York, across to Cleveland, Ohio. Passing — py westward from Ohio the error was not noticeable, so that the identity of many Ohio Wawerly species with those found in the Western nei ‘a a Bs. CONCLUSIONS. 263 s . tke characters of fossils and their relations to each other, and perhaps gu still more to his firm faith i in fossils as the one reliable guide to true i “! correlation. The principle of “persistent parallelism of strata” is defective in : ~ several ways: (1) Although it has been often observed that a stratum _ continues for a long distance with but slight variation in thickness and _ character of material, the constancy of lithologic and stratigraphic _ character can not be assumed to be the case, even for short distances, -% y unless actually so observed. From this we deduce the law that “par- _allelism of strata” is not a safe means of correlation, although the eor- . relation once being established, the parallelism of strata is a valuable aid ‘in the recognition of the correlation for detached sections. (2) The errors made by this method of correlation occur at points b where the evidence is lacking, therefore it is impossible by merely going over the field a second time to correct such errors. (3) Even - en there is apparent continuity of a single stratum or of a series of similarly formed strata, for tens or hundreds of miles, this alone is not we evidence that the deposits at the two extremes were formed synchro- 3 nously. The correct interpretation of the continuity, in case the i ‘material is purely clastic, is more likely to be found in a gradual shift- ing of the shore line by rising or sinking of the land than in synchro- af nism of deposition. On the other hand, the correlation of geologic BY, formation by their fossil contents is (1) Always made upon actual . De - evidence, any errors of interpretation of which can be corrected by — - critical review of the evidence; (2) the particular form assumed by ey any organic structure appears : be determined almost entirely by two a gi factors, i i. e., heredity and environment; hence we may deduce the law ie that, given the locality and the ial lithone of environment, the fossil has i in itself the evidence of its geologic age. The precision with which correlations may be made upon paleonto- a, es evidence is determined by the knowledge possessed of the relations ___ of the elements of organic form to geologic age, so that a fragment of a fossil in the hands of one who knows how to interpret the evidence ae may furnish a more correct diagnosis of the age of the formation than ae bushel of fossils in the hands of one ignorant of the laws of organic 2 life determining the form of the structures produced. Boss 4 + * The lowest member of the Mississippian series in Illinois having been “defined as the Kinderhook group, it was a matter of simple paleonto- € i tego correlation to fix the lower limit in Iowa at the base of the a _ “Ohemung group,” in Missouri at the base of the formations later called - Chouteau group, in Indiana at base of the Goniatite beds, in Ohio at the base of the Waverly, and in Michigan at the base of the Marshall eee Immediately underlying these formations or their evident equiv- aes ts 264 THE DEVONIAN. AND CARBONIFEROUS. i big ee na alents in several of the States of the interior a black shale i is Sonsbions my ously constant. While the black shale was generally correlated as — | Devonian, its precise age has not up to the present time been wipro) fs. q napit That the black shale has not been satisfactorily correlated is shown ae by its retention of that general name in spite of its frequent correlation _ with other black shales of definite age, as the Marcellus and the Gen: sis 4q esee formations of New York. Ome As the terrane separating Silurian from Carboniferous thins out to ng the southwest, it is finally restricted to a few feet of black shale, butitis ‘not proved paleontologically precisely what part of the expanded series, : a called Devonian in New York and Ohio, is represented by this shale. } In the later work of the geologists of Ohio a certain symmetry in correlation is sought by uniting the black shales, up to and includin ee the Cleveland shale, into a single group and calling it the Ohio shale, — correlating this as the upper member of the Devonian system.! x Fi Prof. Newberry, in his monograph on “ The Paleozoic fishes of North ee America,”? classifies the deposits above the last prominent black — shale as Carboniferous, thus conforming with the general principle | of making the black shale the top member of the Devonian system. In the case of Prof. Newberry this correlation is not new, and was first advanced to make the classification conform to a theoretical order ‘of deposits explained under the name “circles of deposition”*® But | the tendency on all hands has been to accept this structural line of de- markation between the Carboniferous and Devonian formations. Still ~ further work upon the structural as well as the paleontologic features __ of these black shales will be needed to determine their true correlation. The subdivision of the Mississippian series is a matter of classifica- ‘a tion rather than correlation proper. All through the province varia-— tions in the stratigraphy are seen in the development of the local geologic structure. The structural or lithologic formations distinguish- re able over most of the province are as follows: ) Chester group, Worthen. Burlington limestone, Hall. St. Louis group, Worthen. Kinderhook group, Meek and Warsaw limestone, Hall. ) Worthen ; or P Keokuk group, Worthen. Chouteau group, Broadhead. These formations have been defined in their typical localities and the n, faunas as locally studied have been described, but in several cases dif- ficulty has been experienced in attempting to extend the classification ‘a over the whole Mississippian province. \ The difficulties have occurred most frequently in distinguishing be- ia tween Burlington and Keokuk faunas in the formations in western and 1Geol. Survey of Ohio, vol. 6, by Edw. Orton, 1888. » 2U.S. Geol. Survey, Monograph, vol. 16, 1889. he 3See a theory of circles of sedimentation, by J. S. Newberry, Am. Ass, Adv. Sci., , Proc., vol. 22, pt. 2, - - pp. 185-196, 1873, and on circles of deposition in sedimentary strata, Canadian Nat., new series, vol. 7, A@ pp. 163-164. or CONCLUSIONS. | 265 oe S Gelitinwestern Missouri and northern. Arkansas, in distinguishing in : Ms , a some cases whether a fauna is a Warsaw ora St. Louisfauna. The Ches- % ter fauna may be associated with particular conditions of environment. a ee On considering these several facts, it has appeared to the writer that my in classifying the formations of the Mississippian series the correlations if _ from a structural point of view have been carried too far and that an in- 3 crease in the number of lithologic formations will better express the e _ facts as at present known; whereas from a paleontologic point of view " the classification is too iniimta; and that a combination of some of the - formations will best express our present knowledge regarding their true _ relations. The practical application of this suggestion will result in “o> Sanpete new local names to structural Sociuit hens whenever the strue- Y Ue tara) characters are so divergent from those of the typical section that Sie Sn the correlation depends upou stratigraphic position above or helge, ‘some clearly recognized horizon for its validity. 2 . be Recent studies of the fossils, their original grouping into local faunas ss and their association in other parts of the province, have led me to rec- - ognize three fairly well differentiated faunas in the Mississippian series, jtierrabdivisions of which are believed to be local, and therefore very + bare i; ey ace oe Cao ay pC “The diligeme table sets forth the proposed classification and ravines ; clature: ; ? a - rene ys Structure scale. Time scale. ee aa ROG SERED Sack do's cS anh és aden jimoe ae 5 St. Louis stage .....-....---....-....----. ¢ Genevieve age, a Eco pt We ERM BORE. aye oe os vinnie ode oka Loe we . | Keokuk stage. SSIES OTS IIe E oR Sieg ia Mississippian series -- ; Burlington stage. .....{...22.02.50.2222... * Osage age. ge git ee Chouteau limestone......... Stet Kinderhook OR AN a ante Vermicular shale and sand- ie A age, - outeau age. St ales ’ cluding stone... ..---.------------ : ; Bye aE, Lithographic limestone. -... J , ‘The Chouteau age is the age of the Chouteau group of Broadhead. Buk “The Osage age is the age of the fauna of the Burlington and Keokuk ee formations, which are locally distinguishable, but in the sections on a; Me eee, western, and southwestern flanks of the Ozark Uplift are so blended that it seems impracticable in most cases to differentiate them. The name is suggested by the fact that the Osage River drains the region in which this confusion of the two faunas is clearly exhib- _ ited. The Genevieve age is the age of the fauna of the Archimedes ie - group of Shumard.? a The name is suggested by the fact. that Shumard first called attention ae if oe the union of the several formations in which the common fauna pre- a vails in his description of the geology of Ste. Genevieve County, Mis- i 15 souri. The name he applied was Archimedes group, but this is not a sat- Although the double sense is at once evident to us, the conception of the German geologists expressed in applying the name “ Gebirge” to a - geologic formation is not so far wrong as at first it would appear. It — was long ago learned that uniformity of nomenclature for MonsbENe of different continents is absurd. BS : Although some relation exists between the paiition on the continent, the distance from coast, and the size of the adjacent sea,as Guyot has — a Shown, geographic position of a mountain is the-one thing distinguish- ing it from all other mountains, and no consideration of similarity in : 5am mountains dispenses with the necessity of separate names for every local mountain range. Although eovered from sight, and with our - present knowledge difficult to outline, it is altogether probable that geologic formations are as completely separated geographically as are — 4 mountains. Any classification of formations which does not recognize — 4 geographic position as of primary importance is artificial, and in the - nomenclature regard for the geography must find a phic! if we would — be scientifically accurate. ! / a Having defined the geologic formations of a province, their cabins oe tion with those of another province can be made only by means of the ae fossil contents. This the experienced geologist has demonstrated. — , at History shows that the correlations which have best endured the test = of time were made regarding formations whose structural and strati- graphic features were elaborated independently of the correlation, and the correlation of which was based upon carefully collected and exhaust- 4 ively studied fossils. The records of structure, composition, and strati- ay graphic order, when based upon careful observation, are permanently — valuable contributions to knowledge, and their value is not increased © a by attempts to fit them into some established classification upon scant 4 | paleontologic data or hasty paleonlotogic comparison. a The classification made by. the field geologist should not be mee to conform to any standard, not even that of the adjoining county, unless — there is structural gridane of identity of formations. Correlation by - q physical means, i. e., inference from general dip, altitude, thickness, — a when associated with likeness of composition, is practicable for short distances and when made by experienced geologists, but eventhenthe determination is not absolute; contradictory paleontologic evidence in a the hands of an equally pene paleontologist should always be. Lainie ag precedence. **1 Geological Essays, ’’ London, 1799. ig coed | | CONCLUSIONS. 269 : ie “The undisputed correlations from one province to another, as from - the oo sections to those of New York, from the ra ALN to __ provinee, rest Leinaty upon biologic evidence—coal beds and masses of coral and erinoidal limestone are of biologic not geologic origin. Such _ correlations are generally satisfactory so far as they pertain to the gen- ; aes - eral equivalency of systems or series; but all attempts to correlate with Be precision the limits of such divisions or to establish uniformity in the aM _ subdivisions of two separate provinces has proved forced and artificial, and the history of American geology shows that after the deternianst- tion of the general equivalence of age, in matters both of classification zi and of nomenclature, little attempt has been made to attain uniformity with outside standards. Paleontologists have discussed the relations ~ between the fossil faunas of America and the European standards, but . Ped 2 py > — ; <'\y wy ~ * - the cases have been rare in which the differences have not been as con- Be apenoons as the agreements. ee The principles involved in correlations made by use of fossils are seaascly biologic and are intimately concerned with the laws of structure Ee and growth of the individual, with the effects of environment and geo- wo graphical distribution, with the laws of heredity and evolution, and sy + with the laws of relationship of organisms to each other and to geo- BS logic time. The discussion of these matters would be out of place here; Baas but it may be said that the great advance attained in the accuracy and a in the general methods of geologic correlation during the last twenty Bes years is mainly due to the changed conceptions regarding the nature hy of of the organic species. oie, ‘The Cavierian notion of species was entirely consistent with the no- . tion of sharply defined, uniform delimitations and “universal” forma- is tions. Each species was supposed to belong to one, and how it could a Bie. _ appear in two formations was not explained. The Darwinian notion of Re iy _ species is not consistent with sharply defined lines in the classification inate either of organisms or of formations. banger _ According to this notion the modification of organic form is conceived es as not an arbitrary matter, but as correlated with difference of environ- ‘an pe ment and of genetic relationship, so that the lesser variations of spe- _ Cifie form are of as great value to the modern paleontologist for pur- _ __ poses of correlation as is the identity of species. Comparison of allied S species in the same genus exhibits to him the rate and direction of mod- Re 2e ification taking place in the genetic history of the genus, and in the * % plastic or variable characters he finds a sensitive indicator of the _ stage of development attained by the race when the particular indi- _ vidual lived. Biological study shows him that fossils must contain in- - trinsic evidence of their geologic age independent of the formations in Be hich they were buried, and his chief work is to learn what this evi- dence is and how to interpret it. To such evidence the final appeal Be must be made in all cases of the correlation of geologic formations, ry ha a \ Je ie BS" ! : Fay ; ; net 7 7 : rf ’ : A F; ; . he a eae ‘ pe rad j } ‘ i ae a ; nt Pheer Werk os “f ¥ i ate ' . ¥ P i t - oe ee ee A 2 } 7 4 i. { . . ‘ - G (5 Ni 14 ; Ud Pate Mabe aed aoe sce ath tft a Apia’ hy a heiaraiie a deen 8 Ore 5 ts , i j = | ee ie : , a ' . . { 7 i \ ~ i Ne ey) SW Mert, Noite Mae } ies Si we iM arte MRE RA ¥ 1 ! 7 4 J : : ic oe H 4 . : A ) : ; , if 0 ) . ; > P : ; OM oA A. Page. " 209, 210 226 226-257 228 259 256 | MRINGS sane seen 231, 232 n coal measures, Nova Scotia-....-. 232 cay Mountains coal formations, _ Edward Miller of. ....- 2.22.2... 37 V al class CE 15 rica and Europe, de Verneuil’s com- parison of formations in.......... 67-71 rican and European rocks compared, 0 ee ee ae 72-74 logical antsey, formation ean ee tener enw ee oe eee e ee eee 24 nlogic systems, plan of dis- a eetniiieain aida’ < qt eos = wink 8 Bo on coal plants from Ohio. 92 ae 182, 183 ‘lds of Ohio and West Vir- MMA ol). cnc dup cess'a ss 91, 92 iiosed by D. D. Owen Sta 148 basin, ete ect pt 65 nies & es 60 pr hiat n | province, rocks of Sanh atane 77, 78 con; glomerates and Lower Carbonifer- =| by ous of...... ... 87-88 ah hai Cobscook Bay, Maine, N. S. Shaler. on Bae Devonian rocks of ......--.----.- 256 | Colorado, T. B. Comstock on rocks of San Judn County 2522 ose pee 203-284 257 1% Comstock, T. B., on rocks of San Juan BP gis County, ildenite isdec 2h cee 223-994 4. Conrad, T. A., classification by .......... 39, 45, 50 % correlation by ..u.5....5.2 op pee ae 39-40 9 fossils of transition. .......-.--.---.-- yp on Silurian and Devonian systems... 50-52 on fossils in classification .....-..--.. 0 BL Connecticut River, E. Hitchcock on for- vee mations of .......... 2-2-2 eese= 2 Connellsville, Pennsylvania, section ..... 95-96 Conglomerate measures, subdivisions of. 109 Conglomerate series proposed by W.M. 2 Fontaine. -;.:-.-..-csskaaaeeayo ae 98) Conglomerates and lower Carboniferous of Appalachian province......... 108-120 ¥ Gas Conoquenessing sandstone proposed . .._. 101 Conybeare, W. D., on Carboniferous sys- ‘s. VAGINT ¥ bets is sc cetebee clea Me. ec tae 15-16 soa on systems of rocks.....------.---..- 78 Bee Conybeare and Phillips on value of organic remains in determining forma- TIONS... - 0nd ia wee ness. c as sew nme «28 Cornelius, E., classification of ...... aes 23 Correlation, principles of ...11-12, 133-134, 268-269 WMOthOMeOl Yess succeed sec sn smoke eee (IO Frias use of fossils in ....-...... Fee a La ER Oe early attempts at ...........2eee0--0- ene ten Sp we. wee PAR ate INDEX. 273 Ps Page. Page. , principles of—Continued. Devonian fauna of New York ....127, 128-130, 186 rk with western rocks....... 59 Be INNER OIDs 6 Sete ae shh on dome aes 186 rocks of east and west....... 61-63, | Devonian period, Mississippi province in. 136-137 67, 72-73 . Rogers, rocks east and west.... 63 Owen, rocks east and west...... 64 rican and European rocks by de Nv hi accheaet GAtL se of fossil plants in............... bs 103 ; nango, BRIG ..00..-5-5.0s--.. 111 boniferous rocks of Pennsylvania EE 119 lvania survey .......--..----- 113-124 ithology and paleontology in.. 126 sippi valley, by J. Hall....... 149-150 MEP. os tin ss 173-174 ippian province. . ..171-172, 261-262, 265 can and European Permian. ... 195 va Scotia coal formations, by L. “osendal Se a 237-239 BEA > ait Note mind a tree 260 mntologic evidence............-.. 263-265 SE died nid canses dese cot 265 SEES. ge ss cesses cncaun 266 , on rocks about Tucson, Ari- PS tno vigelvcisscudes 222 in, Fr. W., on Permo-Carboniferous a aetna 212 D. A i. correlations in Acadia... 209-210 niferous system of Acadia.. 226-227 of Nova Scotia......... Pot rate mei aparisons of coal measures of : Scotia and United States... 236 s of Devonian and Carbon- iS See ee 2 36-237 sition of coal strata.......... 239-240 s near St. John, New Bruns- a EE ee oe 240 seins Pichoniferous rocks.... 245-246 sofPrince Edward Island.... 249 jozoio floras................253-254, 255 sification of Devonian and Car- 60 ode eee 256-257 Petites clase & 34 eee & - 66-67 eS rr 10 n of members of.......-...-. 76-77 nnsylvania, J. J. Stevenson on. 124-125 See ewan 128-130, 186 assification of ..........- fy Ene rahi 131-134 | 223 en) | h America..... SEE maccmwplncun, Gk—aoe EO) 227, 252-253 ne, C. H. Hitchcock on..... eS 240 . he. re fe Brunswick, Matthew, Bailey and Hartt on ..... S| Se 240-241 a J. F. Whiteaves on .......-.. 254 \ 6 N. S. Shaler on ........ ua. 256 Devonian and Carboniferous, line of sepa- THON OL wens eee ewe oe cae etd 174-175, 178 _ western and northern provinces...... 213-225 America, Chas. Lyell on.............. 229-230 J. W. Dawson’s classification of...... 256-257 Devonian and Carboniferous plants of Bova Bootie... ... 5.0 le.+dcsesadene 236-237 Dewey, C., onrocks of New York ....... - 42-43 Doornik, J. E., on fossil remains......... . 31 Drake, D., on classification ............... 23 Dutton, C. E., on Permian in Utah........ 220 Dyas and Trias, J. Marcou on ........... 200 Dyas in America, J. Marcou on .......... 202 E. Eaton, Aimos, classification of. 19-20, 24-25, 33, 46-47 system of naming rocks.............. 27 on Erie. canal rocks) ........-..0--s0e 27 geological nomenclature of North po ge eee Beer ne Piya ey 29-31 on coal formation in New York ...... 32-33 correlation of New York rocks ...... 34-35 on correlation of coal beds of Penn.. sylvania with those of Europe ... 36 correlations DY b... 5 dnc kab cc¥pckues 266 Ells, R. W., on rocks of Canada........... 255 Emmons, E., classification of.........-.-.- 56 Engelmann, H., on Subcarboniferous groups of Mississippi valley...... 163 Erie Canal rocks, A. Eaton on........ 5 -*- 2 me Falls of the Ohio, sections......... Rat Be 151, 176 Faunas, how modified by conditions...... 127-128 Featherstonhaugh, G. W.., classification of 35-36 On Coal GED ORltS: Wn on. wi snn eats cer eeee 38 Fietcher, Hugh, on rocks of Cape Breton .250, 251, 252 on rocks of Nova Scotia............-- 251-252 Fontaine, W. M., on conglomerate of Whee. ¥ inminta..225 66s. ewes ase 87 on Coal Measures of West Virginia.. 87-88 proposes Conglomerate series.....-... 93 on Vespertine of Virginia ..-........ 112-113 Fontaine and White, on fossil plants of Pennsylvania ..... ne ae ca tpriees ae 102-103 Fornations, nomenclature of.......----.- 9 Fossils, use of, in correlations.......--.-. 12, 31 identification of geologic deposits by. 18 Fossil plants in correlation ............-. 103 Foster,J. W., on rocks of Ohio ...... ee 177 Frazer, P.,on coal from Bath, West Vir- PIDIA onnve senses sececnecouccasess 99 G. Geinitz, H. B., on fossils from Kansas and Nebprask@iesoits6u- acme arp a ae 202 on fossils fromthe Dyas......-..-.20 205 Genevieve group proposed.......cseeeee 169 ‘ Page. Geographic provinces, limits of .....-.--. 258-259 Geologic systems, plan of discussion of... — 8 Geological opinion prior to 1835......--.. 13-21 _ Georgetown, Pennsylvania, section ...... 125 Gibson, J. V., classification of......-.....- 36 Gilbert, G. K.,on rocks of Rocky Moun- ais 5. Sebel ee dnn = vowel eet Ore ro on Permian of Rocky Mountain re- } Ft BUPARE earl Aras Bg SNES My i Beet 222 Gilpin, Edward, on Nova Scotia coal field. 254, 255 Goniatite limestone of Rockford, Indiana. 145, 189- 190, 191 Grammar, John, on coal mines near Rich- moni, Virginia? 0422 2.555 3.b ste 2s Grand Cafion of Arizona, rocks of.....-.-. 224 Granger, E., on vegetable impressions EOOM CINIOLS. 0's ince and wu ele 25 RSE WOME ous cae splesebewaace nes wwmaed 19 Greenbrier River, Virginia, section ...... . 112 Greene County, Pennsylvanla, section.... 116 > H. Hague, A., on Eureka district, Nevada... 222-223 Hale, J. M., on Coal Measures of Pennsyl- SUED Se ee wh a hie pipe nite rae icine are 86 Hall, James, classification of New York ROCK Bs cceees ieotieh =p unwenee nem e ees 40, 57 on Chemung of Ohio........--.. reenmadt © 8 on correlation of rocks of east and WIV OSE oe eat e ee cw ejo cate 61-63, 67, 72-73, 155 on ‘Waverly of Ohio ...-...¢..5.).-.. 62-63, 177 on Subcarboniferous in Ohio......... 62-63 — review of de Verneuil on strata of America and Europe............- 68-71 on parallelism of Paleozoic rocks of Europe and America............- 72-74 on Catskill and Chemung in New York ‘121-123 parallelism of rocks of eastern and WEBLOEN NCW YOLK cic nn cedcenince 122 on Catskill Mountain rocks.......-.. 122-123 on work of J. J.Stevenson...... wu--- 125-126 on Chemung-Catskill faunas ... ..... 130 | on rocks of the AGasiosteye Valley ...149-150, 152-154, 155 on classification of Carboniferous rocks of Iowa, Illinois, and Mis- BOUT Ce ones ee ean cbmc snag ose 154 on goniatite limestones of Indiana... 189 Hamilton, Pennsylvania, section ......... 124 Hartley, Edward, on Pictou coal field .... 241-242 Hawn, section of Permian of Kansas..... 197-198 Hayden, F. V.,on Permian of Kansas .... 205 on rocks of Rocky Mountain region.. 213-214 Hay den and Meek, on Permian of Kansas. 197, 198 Hayes, G. E., on rocks of western New® MGT oes. ee ate habie ested seer 38 ‘Herrick, C. L., on Waverly problem in DIG 1. sees in aide panne asian eet ee on classification of rocks of Ohio ..... —- 188 _ Hicks, L, E., on Waverly of Ohbio-....... 184-185 on Permian rocks of Nebraska ...... 212 Hildreth; 8. P., classification by .......... 38 Hill, F. A., on coal fields of Pennsylvania, 106 b] ENED, ©. H., on ¢ (England... on Cres of cyfoes notice of address by.-... EF Michigan 2 .2.<./i:.5.J-a08 succession of rocks in Michi; Hubbard, O. P., classification of Nev ? 8 Idaho, Spergen Hill fossils from...; Illinois, classification of rocks of... Illinois River, C. U. Shepard on roc the Upper........ wae Sense Indiana COMET: BSS: i Bt fos ils mes DARS, ec 5. < C. A. White’s clascification ot - Jackson, C. T., un rocks of Masse on determining the age of ro Jameson, classification of rocks - “= Jewett, E.,on Old Red sandston ee section of Permian rocks ix F, Mi aa i 5 on Pee er) we eeeee pecere eeeeeee King, Clarence, on fortieth porated Worthen..18.1 PRs Swale tem how established .......-.-.. 220. King, H., on rocks of Missouri ... rae Lake Huron, classification of rocks ' J Bigsby. Beis Fe wioedl See rs Lea, I., on foot-prints in Pennsylvania on ake of Prinee Edward Island INDEX. 275 lassif cation of rocks of Ohio, Penn- re sylvania, and New York ........- sheme of formations of Pennsylva- ‘a H om aa Ce eee eee ee eee ee eee ee Seesiver group .........,...-- burg coal region field of Glace Bay, New Bruns- ee OO ng es Ere 237-238 nnel, Virginia, section character of rocks, use of, in 111-112, 191-192 wee ew eee wwe eee ication of Ohio rocks ...... ease TO Up described on Canadian tormations.... issification by fossils c, J. J. Stevenson’s classi- er ee ed iferous of Pennsylvania... 108-120 boniferous formations of the onrocks ot Nova Scotia. . ian and Watboniferous of % «Classification by B. Perry on coal field ot h ew, G. F., on rocks of New Bruns- wic erie tnnsccnencacssence Page, Matthew, Bailey, and Ells on Carbonifer- ous rocks of New Brunswick .... 246-247 Mattbew, Bailey, and Hartt on Devonian of New Brunswick................ 240-241 Mather, W. W.., classification of ........-. 40, 55 McCharles, A., on Devonian of British PAMOMOGR. © shy ok ows Bacchi ceandeeased 224-225 McKean County, Pennsylvania, rocks of... 114 Meade, W., on anthracite of Pennsyl- CWE, ceatan. Seletete ealaln ls one AS ee te 29 Meadville group, members of ............ 110 Meek, F. B., on rocks of Missouri ........ 147 on Spergen Hill fossils ............... 166-167 on Permian fossils of Kansas ........ 193 fauna and rocks of Permian in Ne- pe ee Eee ee mee 206-207 on fossils from British Columbia ..... 214 review of H. B. Geinitz on fossils from Kansas, 600 225-02). ose, eets 202-204 Meek, F. B., and Hayden, F. V., on section of rocks of Kansas Valley.... 194-195, 197 on fossils from Permian of Kansas ... 196 on Black Hills of Dakota............. 199 on Permian of Kansas.............-.-. 200-201 Meek, F. B. and Worthen, A. H., on Che- WADE, dda vce sw anae cee visfone sa aaa 158 classification of...... aaa ss ete ak eee 161-162 on Goniatite beds of Indiana......... 190-191 McOuat, Walter, on Nova Scotia coal field 248 Michigan, coal formations in............- 41 D. Houghton’s succession of strata in 175 A. Winchell on rocks of.............. 177-178 Miller, Edward, on coal formations of Alleghany Mountains............ 37 Millstone grit of Pennsylvania and Eng- land compared ........... 5 nia 100 Minnesota, classification of Carboniferous BOGEG TR o. vena cnn dhanip eu ck saeteee 167-168 Mississippi limestone series of Winchell 179-180 Mississippi Valley, T. Nuttall on rocks of 23, 137 D. D. Owen on rocks of ....... 137-144 145-146 Owen and Shumard on fossils of..... 144 rocks correlated by J. Hall .......... 149-150 rocks of, compared with those of New WIRE s ce oe ee nee aaa a ee 155 H. Engelmann on Subcarboniferous of 163 Mississippian province, rocks of......... 77 sedimentation of.............. pte 135-137 GPO OE one hans 4s oe ak wee caw holes 259 COTPHIAtIONS IN: co... s4eaee a ass 20 261-262, 265 Mississippian series, name proposed..... 135 TOGKG. OE. «5c decode nes ancepepsede het bop 135-172 OlassHEStiOn OF. .\3 6c peewee cc ce cores 169 Givisions Of 2s saceewe wack sehen te 263-264, 265 Missouri, H. King on rocks of............ 144-145 generalized section of rocks of........ 147 ¥F. B. Meek on rocks of............... 147 G. C. Swallow on rocks of...........- 151 Swallow and Meek on rocks of.....-. 157 B. F, Shumard’s classification of rocks Tit, shee ack Cickdaabeeeonseaeemee 168-169 G. C. Broadheads blasalAckiten of TOCKS TR) a0nce ewes a aiecienec ass oe ele 169-170 Missouri and Iowa voal field....-......-- 144 Montana, Devonian rocks of...... btibdse ; 224 Morris, S. Fisher, on New River, West Virginia, con Hel: eR 99 Morse, J.O.,on Wernerian system....... ‘ 32 system of H. D. abd W. B. Rogers -. Murchison, R.I., classification of -....... 43-44 uniformity in .......-....- ia lee mikey on Permian.........--..22..-2.-se-<= 194-200 basis Of .. 22.22.22 -00eeeeeeeeeeeerees Murchison and Sedgwick on Carbonifer- OMS SYSUOM = tae ee ace sey eee ace 76 Murray, Alex., on Carboniferous rocks of Newfoundland..... aaish eke eiietatee : 246 N. Nebraska, Permian of...... ge A SB 193-212 Dyas Tooke iN -. 22... op 0 emp ewe poeces. 204-205 : L. E. Hicks on Permian of............ 212 bia Neate capita ale Ree ea ies, Nebraska City section..................-- 201--202 | Nuttall, T., on structure of gmp 4L* CIBtTIOG. 2.5. sctee ar: A oe 222-223 ’ Nevada limestone..... aus ¢hiccat br 223 Ox ‘Va _ Newberry, J. S., on coal measures of Ohio 87 ‘Veen te, on Permian rocks of Kansas ......... 199 | Ohio, E. Granger on vegetable, impres- @ornelatione Of ...2.).-2.+3 243 -2cnes 217 sions from ...... trees neat enone an Mountain linestone, subdivisions Flags Nevada, A. Hague on rocks of Eureka | Ap ree on rocks of New Mexico ..... ara 217 classification of rocks of......------++ New Brunswick, J.P. Lesley on rocks of 227 C. Whittlesey on rocks of..-.....-+-- _ G.F. Matthew on rocksof............ 238-239 A. Roy on coal field of...-«..--.-- + J. W. Dawson on rocks of ..-.-.-.--- 240 classification of Coal iis pt _ Devonian rocks of ..........-. 240-241, 252-253 C. Robb on rocks of.........--.----++ 242-243 J.W.F oster on rocks’ of.......- Bailey and Matthew on rocks of ..... 243-244 | Waverly series in. 177, 182, 183, 18 L. W. Bailey on rocks of ...........-- 244 | M. C, Read on rocks of ......-.- sata: C. Robb on Carboniferous rocks of... 244-245 Carboniferous system in..... seeane ® ‘Matthew, Bailey, and Ells on Carbon- L. E. Hicks on Waverly in -.--... oo - iferous rocks of......--..--..---- 246-247 Edward Orton on Waverly i in...... ai Bailey and Ells on Carboniferous in. 251 _ New England, C. H. Hitchcock on coal Lt! Ae Eee See ee 234 Newfoundland, Alex. Murray on rocks of 246 New Hampshire, C..H. Hitchcock on corals in ....-... dujs's pS eae¥ ane aves 243 New Mexico, Permian rocksin .......... 199-200 LS x) at Ce a - oe J. ‘Ss. ewe on Coal Measures of Ohio River, section on . Lapeer nr Ses seones Oil lake group, members of .....--.------ Oil and gas, Edward Orton on . Orton, Edward, on Coal Measures of on the Waverly of Ohio ......-.-.. eave T Burlington limestone in.............. 294 : New River, West Virginia, Carboniferous on oil and gas ....00--+.--.---0- sete eg POMS OD. dt bpecdaceiuaes Lsbiade 88 | classification of rocks of Ohio . conglomerateon..............-.-.- vin 93 | Owen, D. D., classification of . teeta eel on Subcarboniferous...-. eats serene correlation of rocks of iaat and ‘west: COR MOG . oh. sence apices idea 99 table of New York System...... ri New York, coal formation in..........-.. 32-33 D. Thomas on rocks of......-.-..---- 34]. 7 G. E-Hayes on rocks of western...... 38 | onrocksof Mississippi Valley.13 7-14 4,1 C. Dewey on rocks of ......--s:2..0-. 42-43 on cliff formation ......:---.. ee E. Emmons’ classification of rocks of 56 section of Subcarboniferous rocks « 0 fies O. P. Hubbard’s classification of rocks Towa....----~---+----- ee aS el Bre be eee Geet eae 45-46 on Saint Louis limestone weeeeeceeeee ‘W. W. Mather’ dantidcntien of em. Owen and N orwood- on rocks of Ken- My Fix RON Mal OGY RE OM ke te eee 55 ¥ tucky-<.<-sb0ee-t25..)- iw La 14s -‘L. Vanuxem’s classification of rocksof — 56 | Owen and Shumard on fossils of Devonian ~ : J. Hall’s classification of rocks of.... 57 and Carboniferous of Mississippi Br New York State survey, nomenclature of 42 Valley scene ceeeee cence reseme scan WOFK Of '...\.'S ie dacits fu cape ees -.--- 48-49 ‘ p New York system .39, 52, 53, 54, 55-57, 58-60, 260, 266 j correlated with rocks of the west-... 59. D. D. Owen's tabulation of ..........- 64 ig) ViRIOUL! Oil eo Lio a Bia te Ue --- 68-69 cation ae Weadits Ses aie teense cene Niles and Wachsmuth on Burlington Paleozoic formations, classification by Fa RIMBOBUOUG 654s selaa SoUR te Siwnbh on 158-159 PRM pS. ..:0..+dssake ahesden ae 277 | Page Page mations, etc.—Continued. Platt F., classification of, ete.—Cont’d. Aree 5 ok A ee 65-66 . new names proposed by....... ...... 96 , de Vernenil on... ........ 71 on fossils in Indiana County, Pennsyl- Pitas Dye Elatt:..<. iis cistets 94-95 MR tye See cee tht 97 the Mississippi Valley............ 152-154 | Poole and Dawson on Albion Coal Meas y Mountain Region .......... 213-225 La ee et aa i, 1 ea ea 232 atch and Nevada............. 220 | Portage=Waverly of Ohio........4...... 62-63 eZ0iC eocke PT OVAM Gs. ca taccecccckus 222-223 | Pottsville conglomerate, subdivisions of. 100 of Acadian Province ...... ghibancke tu 226-257 | Powell, J. W., sediments of Platean proy- untain, section ..... Ea ae 216 TIGRE Vee iu.cs waa w aches ne ekcs on ee ete 216-217 ‘ism of strata, doctrine of......... 261, 263 on Permian in Rocky Mountain A.C., on Devonian of Montana. ... 224 POQUR iy ah 2c Ds aueldn ak Snveho oeae's 222 Carboniferous System defined .. 81 | Primitive rocks of Jameson ............. 16 jeagerm in.America.............. 81-82 | Prince Edward Island, I. Lea on rocks of. 234 ( pa ie Gwnwwcicceves 78-79 J. W. Dawson on rocks of.......-.... 249 Lond ee Se 79-80 Staadiider 108-112 Land 2.2... snvecsecececcecccnacess 215 fanepii on Devonian of....... 124-125 | Richmond, Virginia, J. Grammar on coal aypole’s classification of MINES Of ...- 00+ --2- 2s serene eeenee 23 a 131 R. C. Taylor on coal field of.......... 37 Ph packs of............... 260-261 | Robb, Charles, on rocks of New Bruns- m WES ew Byanep cont Bold e ss seenenes 247, 248 ia survey, correlations by es Veet i4 on rocks of Cape Breton Sine Orn Sl a3 249-250 early views as to relations to Rocky Mountain region, during Carbonif- A AA el 79 erous time ..-.-...------------+-- 153 Wari Ye et a 193-212 Carboniferous and Devonian rocks of 213-225 fy Se ees 19g | Rocky Mountain Paleozoic rocks, C. King es ge Se 207-209 OR ncaee' + «to nam ge veke harass 217-220 ; White TEE 910 | Rocky Mountains, C. A. White on rocks a, L. E. Hicks on........... 212 pal aoeaperiy ae pada bale hca TE ee aaa < none... 220, 221 | Rogers, H. D., system of classification. ... 42 MP ghee ; 291 on rocks of Eady es op 4 i Mee correlation of rocks east and west.... ; Mountain ope gps on Paleozoic formations.............. 65-66 © : seemed Pata p ae scheme of classification of rocks of J. B., on coal fields of Massa- Pennsylvania .....-. vteeceeseees 83-85 aaa 255 on coal a ee of reve qa 85 ae ae ers, W. B., on passage from 0 , John, eo of Paleoante 20 oe ee fk uietans faunaic... cee 157-158 daa RR rtacticy onc... nain | on aansebalies ot rie ot eet ea ee BAW) fo ciar peje =P opie 5 cite oe vernon Re ge Loss de: F4 se Rogers Brothers, e use of fossils........ ; $.. se = ee Pi nomenclature of ...--<---+-.a--sscons t ng Sepa J. W. Powell on rocks o1g-017 | Routledge, W.,on Sydney coal field...... OBS F., classification of Paleozoic forma- Say, Angee, en Obie est Bellet e557 2 _ tions he ESS er ere 94-95 ys, oy he of well in Greene County, Penn- sylvania ..... Ls ae 69 +; % ‘oe a Saftord, J.M., classification of rocks of MENNGSROO woh tens daw dad aceon’ van 164-166 — = ee " « a ee w ws s 2 OL Sy pe eee ae AES 171-172 Sedimentatiom variations in...........- oS 174 Sedimentation of Permian rocks in Acadia 210 Sedimentation of Devonian and Carbonif- erous ...... Ce en aes 5 a ee 259 -Selin’s Grove, Pennsylvania, section ..... 125 Shaler, N.S.,on Devonian of Maine...... 256 Sharon conglomerate described.......... 109 Sharp, D., classification of the Devonian. 66-67 Shenango, members of ...........2....2-. 109 _ Shepard, C. U., on rocks of the Upper . Illinois MDINGIN G2 chose hate ne 7 cee ee _ Sherwood and Platt, correlations by .-.... 99-100 Shumard, B. F., classification of rocks of > Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri. 168-169 ‘ correlation in Kansas.............- 6 198-199 on Permian of New Mexico.......... 199-200 Silliman, B., on the coals of Rhode Island, BUG fot Seis pee tee ee, Cumann sete ce 29 on use of fossils in correlation ....... 35 ~ on work of W. Maclure.............. 49 ‘notice of address by ........ Saeed eo oun), Woe Silurian, adoption of name.....--...-...- 44-45 ‘Smith, W., on fossils in identifying crs strata .....-. ea ace cbecassscececens 18 ‘South Joggins, Nova Scotia section.. 997, 232, 240 Spergen Hill, Indiana, fossils of .......... 166-167 Spergen Hill fossils from Idaho.......... 167 Springer, F.,on Burlington limestone in ri New Mexico........... TS Fo ee 224 State surveys, where and by whom con- ' ducted »....- De eas tse wis waaieaeie 48 Saint Genevieve County, Missouri, section 168-169 Saint Louis limestone......-.........---. 150 Saint Louis, Missouri, well boring at -..... 157 Secondary or Floetz limestoneof Jameson 16-17 Sedimentation of eastern and western - Stevenson, J. J., on coal fields of Ohio, Gcihaisinin, and West Virginia. 89-90 on coal fields of Kanawha Valley, West Virginia -..-.-..----2---.20-- 20. 88-89 on formations of Pennsylvania ...... 98-99 correlations by ..-......- Pie Palin, ee gg - classification of Upper Carbonic..... 106-107 on Umbral and Vespertine strata.... 119-120 classification of Lower Carbonic .... 120 on Devonian rocks of Pennsylvania. 124-125 Stilson, W. B., correlation by ..... patented 24 Subcarboniferous, J. Hallon, in Ohio... 62-63 DD: Owenlon. .2s.da0 wiewe & Sea tec. 63, 138 BOOT CCTM Se. wc weswe vmecaswewes see 142 subdivisions of........-...... a ae 148 Subcarboniferous, A. H. Worthen on Dh- nois rocks of.........-.-.--.. 148-149, 160 Subconglomerate, divisions of ............ 109 Swallow, G. C., on rocks of Missouri ..... 151 on Permian fossils from Kansas .193, 195, 199, 205, 206 Swallow and Meek on rocks-of Missouri. 157 Swallow and Hawn, Permian section of MBN Gs Signal Ae hn ois hl oe 194, 195, 197 Sydney coal field, C. Robb on............. 247, 248 _ W. Routledge on......... a eee 255. System in classification defined .......... 80 ‘Tucson, Ariz., E. T. Cox on rocks Of vanes Taye: Richard, on Saat aapeate mi _ sils of Pennsylvania .... a Tennessee, G. Troost on rocks of J. M. Safford’s classification en Conrad ee Texas, Permian in................ sastens tos Thomas, D., on rocks of New York .... ja i ‘ Transition rocks of JAMOSOD. -.. Ls dvewen® Troost, G., on rocks of Tennessee........ on organic remains iu the Mississippi _ ny Valley ct tet seer ees eeneen sees eee T. Upper Carbonic, J. J. Stevedaouie classi-- fication of.0...2°0. as sae BOs | Upper Carboniferous sections in ‘Rocky: ul Mountains ....... b Sapa Aart ae ‘ Utah, Permian in..............--- fee Vanuzem, L., on value of fossils i in corre. lation). 2:2. iS oeeieiate cia SIS stl Sea nomenclature of ..-..........--.- on classification of rocks of -] York cee S af vals atintain ee he eee ae ae Venango correlated with Chemung. deP, Lesley OBC tahoe one Verneuil, Edward de,.classitication by.. correlation of rocks of America and EQrope ic. «sade tens naan on New York system ...... on Devonian of America... ccence, on Paleozoic formations of Ame ch, >") on rocks of Mississippi ae abt J.P. Lesley on Socha Fikisis W. M. Fontaine on Vespertine | on Kanab Valley, Rink oninch Sepanee on rocks of Eureka District, Nevad: af on Devonian fossils from Montana . on rocks of Grand ‘Caiion, Arizona eee Wasatch limestone .............. teneeeee Wasatch Monnteiis, corals from... aasene Secon em ee tenets a... Skis calateeee Waverly in Ohio. 62-63, 177, 182 183, 184-1 erent problem AP eee Aig veneeseees PEM owe ri ee BP ese GAME int? pases ee pe Oh ABE. 279 Go ete Page. Page. on fish remains from New Whiteaves, J. F., on Devonian rocks df SEEM > so tae ay AG «chen — 121 RPMRMNURS 21. At hoe Su act an spe wel 254 Pennsylvania, probable se- Whitfield, R. P., on fossils from Wasatch ae rocks in well of........ 96 BEG taitis) tah ius os geet conan ce 214-215 i fek watts ance EEL ae ae Sey) multe Pie shale coe. i acdc ccdsggnh o> ax 223 eaten “Ja 8 a ee ae 14 | Whittlesey, C., classification of Ohio Se 15-16, 19, 28, 77, 260 rocks..... dhe Vike eS Cae << ae ee 43 001 of geology............- 13 table of succession of strata......... 176 em of classification ..... 15, 16,19, | Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, on coal : : 28, 77, 260 WUIGS ONE i ane cases Bake e 26 ystem, remarks on...... «---. 82,38 | Williams, H. S., on Hamilton fauna in W Mz. Fontaine on coal PiGer MOR eicth oh elt ee es 127 Se NEE Se aan 87,88 | Winchell, A., on Catskill in New York... 121-122 , on rocks at Burlington, BOPPGIAUMN OL uwacks's fascicles doen 122 ee Re Pa 157 on Mississippi series or group........ _ 136 n of rocks of Iowa..... . 166 on rocks of Michigan ................ 177-178 yf feoidallod Permian Ady 210 table of equivalents of strata ......-- 182 f Rocky Mountain region.. 291,222 | Winchell, N. H., classification of Carbon- 1 coal fields of West Vir- iferous rocks in Minnesota. ...... 167-168 d Pennsylvania........... 90 | Woodward, H. B., on rocks of Pennine County, Pennsylvania, coal BDAY Jac ress clGe asks c eae 79° | Rg ae } 93 | Worthen, A. H., on Subasbouifetona-of of Pennsylvania....... 101 UMIRGIG! a dex oes cele aiacceme 148, 149 arboniferous of Pennsy]l- on flora of Chester group............. 154 Nee 108-112 on rocks of Illinois ........-...----++ 160-163 CO eee 110 Correlations: Gf \y-6 sa ae pe: mayest wf “vei ee Sh a dened d Lai il i sy ; S ee - re ‘a4 ow wt Hi mew ww ee aha =arore" Fuewaw a) La ogee Ee wewee=e " a> we — ; 1° wn Wali Wee tnt i) we API Wa ee o~ aqot-er' ae ueN-@ ee " " > “V* \ yen Wome we aye’ whe HEN ee Meas Wow tetas re tit - nee ware’ \ Noewsweweiet were SS a-w=arenne ’ Se eh Se hen eh ll 0 wit wre~tnw een v “4 weuse® Se eee unl Swownw enter y “* “ be lth tabled niet yeueweee ew re ere a ae a st has ethan ee +~ + kd i a i! pees eh vele | aed “erm re wee lb ow ewe ere saw rine mal Fea m ae t =v at min \ ° mn eet “- paired eee oe ee iy yaw “yor we? team Newey” w aera’ aysy eit an anne AN thes ‘ * ayo eu swow awenw" eure ee ied ad