Permian Brachiopods
of West Texas, I
G. ARTHUR COOPER
and
RICHARD E. GRANT
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY • NUMBER 14
SERIAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
The emphasis upon publications as a means of diffusing knowledge was expressed
by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, In his formal plan for the Insti¬
tution, Joseph Henry articulated a program that included the following statement:
“It is proposed to publish a series of reports, giving an account of the new discoveries
in science, and of the changes made from year to year in all branches of knowledge.”
This keynote of basic research has been adhered to over the years in the issuance
of thousands of titles in serial publications under the Smithsonian imprint, com¬
mencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and continuing with
the following active series:
Smithsonian Annals of Flight
Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology
Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics
Smithsonian Contributions to Botany
Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences
Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology
Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology
Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology
In these series, the Institution publishes original articles and monographs dealing
with the research and collections of its several museums and offices and of professional
colleagues at other institutions of learning. These papers report newly acquired facts,
synoptic interpretations of data, or original theory in specialized fields. These pub¬
lications are distributed by mailing lists to libraries, laboratories, and other interested
institutions and specialists throughout the world. Individual copies may be obtained
from the Smithsonian Institution Press as long as stocks are available.
S. Dillon Ripley
Secretary
Smithsonian Institution
INTERNATIONAL ROOK YEAR • 1972
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY • NUMBER 14
Permian Brachiopods
of West Texas, I
G. Arthur Cooper
and Richard E. Grant
C-3 23 Z7Z
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS
City of Washington
1972
ABSTRACT
G. Arthur Cooper and Richard E. Grant. Permian Brachiopods of West Texas,
I. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, number 14, 231 pages, 39 figures,
23 plates, 1972.—The first of a projected six-part monograph on the brachiopods
of the reference area for the North American Permian in the Glass, Guadalupe,
Diablo, Delaware, Hueco, and Chinati Mountains of West Texas and adjacent
New Mexico, this introductory volume recounts the history of geological work
in the area, the development of the stratigraphic framework in the Wolfcamp,
Leonard, and Guadalupe Series, and the basis for age assignments. It also ex¬
plains field and laboratory techniques for collecting and preparing silicified
fossils by means of acid, and it presents detailed measurements and lithic de¬
scriptions of the stratigraphic units in each mountain range in terms of the
current nomenclature. The paleoecologic implications of the various rock and
fossil types are interpreted, and the problems concerning large scale conglomer¬
ates, bioherms, and shell heaps are considered. The faunal composition of each
stratigraphic unit in each mountain range is set forth as documentation for a
local zonation of the brachiopods, intra-regional correlations, and age determi¬
nations with reference to the worldwide time scale for the Permian. There are
brief accounts of each locality from which fossils were obtained. The full
locality listing and the literature cited for the entire monograph are included
in the present volume. Plates and line drawings illustrate the techniques of
collecting and preparing fossils and the nature of certain stratigraphic units
and lithic types; they diagrammatically depict numerous cross sections and
correlations. Detailed maps indicate the exact positions of collections of fossils
in the Glass Mountains. Taxonomic descriptions will appear in subsequent
volumes.
Official publication date is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and
is recorded in the Institution’s annual report, Smithsonian Year.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Cooper, Gustav Arthur, 1902—
Permian brachiopods of West Texas
(Smithsonian contributions to paleobiology, no. 14)
Bibliography: v. 1, p.
1. Brachiopoda, Fossil. 2. Paleontology—Permian. 3. Paleontology—Texas. I. Grant, Richard E.,
joint author. II. Title. III. Series: Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian contributions to
paleobiology, no. 14
QE701.S56 no. 14 [QE796] 560'.8s [564'.8'097649] 72H1218
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D. C. 20402 Price $2.25 (paper cover)
Contents
Page
Introduction 1
Field Work . 4
Collaborators . 7
Acknowledgments . 8
The Glass Mountains (Sierra del Vidrio) .10
Building the Collection . 13
The New Laboratory. 13
Selecting the Blocks . 14
Silicification . 14
Kinds of Silicified Fossils .15
Processing the Blocks . 17
The Tubs . 17
Preservation of Specimens 19
Transporting Specimens .20
Storage of Specimens . 20
Collections Supplementing the Glass Mountains Specimens.20
Problems in the Study of Silicified Fossils. 21
Photographing Silicified Specimens .23
Stratigraphy of the Glass Mountains.23
Collecting Program . 23
Previous Work .24
Revision of Part of the Glass Mountains Sequence. .24
Pre-Permian Sequence - Gaptank Formation .25
Uddenites- bearing Shale Member. 25
Uddenites- bearing Shale Member Northeast of Wolf Camp Hills. .28
Other Gaptank Localities.29
Wolfcamp Series . 29
Neal Ranch Formation .30
Gray Limestone Member of P. B. King . 32
Westernmost Area .32
Central Area . 33
Eastern Area .33
Relationship to the Uddenites- bearing Shale Member.33
Dark Shales with Scattered Limestone Layers.34
Beds 3-4 of P. B. King.34
Beds 5-8 of P. B. King .34
Biohermal Limestone, Shale, and Cobbly Conglomerate . 35
Area West of North Tributary .35
Shale and Thin Limestone Sequence (Section above Bed 14 of P. B. King).36
Outside the Wolf Camp Hills .37
Lenox Hills Formation .38
In the Lenox Hills.38
In Dugout Mountain . 39
East of Lenox Hills to Iron Mountain .39
In Leonard Mountain .40
In Hess Ranch Horst . 41
Immediately North of Hess Ranch House .43
Skinner Ranch Formation .44
Decie Ranch Member .44
In Dugout Mountain.44
111
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Page
Wolfcamp Series—Continued
Skinner Ranch Formation—Continued
Decie Ranch Member—Continued
In the Lenox Hills.44
In Hill 5021 . 45
Poplar Tank Member .46
Sullivan Peak Member .46
Dugout Mountain Member . 47
Skinner Ranch Formation Undivided .50
Hess Formation .52
Lenox Hills Equivalent .53
Skinner Ranch Equivalent.55
Schwagerina crassitectoria Zone .55
Fossil Bed of P. B. King ( — Taylor Ranch Member) .56
Above the Taylor Ranch Member .56
In Leonard Mountain . 57
In the Hess Ranch Horst.57
Facies Relationships .57
Leonard Series.58
Type Section of the Leonard Formation.58
Cathedral Mountain Formation . . .59
In the Type Area .59
Leonard Limestones of P. B. King in the Lenox Hills . 60
YVedin Member .61
In Leonard Mountain.62
In Dugout Mountain Region .62
In Old Word Ranch ( — Split Tank Area) 63
Road Canyon Formation .64
In Hills North of Leonard Mountain 65
In Old Word Ranch Area . 65
In Sullivan Peak Area . 66
In Gilliland Canyon . 66
Northwest of Dugout Mountain 67
Guadalupe Series .68
Word Formation . 68
China Tank Member ( = Second Limestone Member of P B. King).69
Willis Ranch Member ( = Third Limestone Member of P. B. King) .69
Appel Ranch Member ( — Fourth Limestone Member of P. B. King) .70
C.apitan Formation . 71
Faunal Zones in the Glass Mountains.71
Parenteletes .71
Spyridiophora-Glyptosteges .71
Scacchinella .71
Orthotichia 74
Antronaria . 74
Teguliferina . 74
Institella .74
Hercosia .74
Hercosestria .74
Rugatia .74
Peniculauris .74
Liosotella-Paucispinifera . 74
Yakovlevia .74
Spiriferella .74
Facies in the Glass Mountains 75
Limitations of the Discussion 75
Conglomerates 75
Sandstones . 77
NUMBER 14
V
Page
Facies in the Glass Mountains—Continued
Shale . 78
Carbonate Facies . 78
Dolomite . 78
Limestone . 79
Organic Accumulations in the Glass Mountains . 79
Bioherms . 79
Difficulties in the Study . 80
Pennsylvanian .80
Wolfcamp Series .81
Neal Ranch Formation .81
Lenox Hills Formation .82
Skinner Ranch Formation . 83
1. Decie Ranch Member. 83
2. Poplar Tank Member . 83
3. Sullivan Peak Member. 83
4. Skinner Ranch Formation Undivided. 84
Hess Formation (Taylor Ranch Member) .84
Leonard Series .85
Cathedral Mountain Formation (Wedin Member) .85
Road Canyon Formation .86
Summary . 87
Shell Heaps .88
Organic Accumulations Outside the Glass Mountains 89
Sierra Diablo . 89
Delaware Basin .89
Guadalupe Mountains .90
Chinati Mountains .90
Fossils in the Various Facies. 91
In the Conglomerates.91
In the Quartz Sands .91
In the Shales.91
In the Limestone .91
In the Bioherms .92
Scacchinella .92
Her cos ia .92
Hercosestria .92
Teguliferina .93
Derbyia .93
Coscinophora .93
Bioherms at Different Levels . 93
Uddenites- bearing Shale Member .93
Neal Ranch Formation. 93
Lenox Hills Formation.93
Decie Ranch Member 93
Sullivan Peak Member.94
Taylor Ranch Member.94
Cathedral Mountain Formation 94
Road Canyon Formation.94
Sierra Diablo and Guadalupe Mountains 95
Paleoecology .96
Paleogeographic Setting . 96
Sediments of the Wolfcamp Series . 97
Lenox Hills .97
Skinner Ranch . 98
Sediments of the Leonard Series . 99
Cathedral Mountain . 99
Cathedral Mountain in the Split Tank Area . 99
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Page
Paleoecology—Continued
Sediments of the Leonard Series—Continued
Road Canyon .100
Sediments of the Guadalupe Series.100
Epifauna .101
Accidents of Settling of Larvae .102
Color .102
Malformations .103
Pathology .103
Borings .104
Faunas and Correlations of Glass Mountains Formations .105
Gaptank Faunas . 105
Wolfcamp Faunas .107
Uddenites-bearing Shale Member .107
Age .108
Correlation .108
Neal Ranch Formation .108
Age .109
Correlation .110
Lenox Hills Formation .110
Skinner Ranch Formation. Ill
Decie Ranch Member.Ill
Poplar Tank Member .Ill
Dugout Mountain Member .112
Sullivan Peak Member .112
Skinner Ranch Formation Undivided.113
Hess Formation .114
Taylor Ranch Member.114
Leonard Faunas .115
Cathedral Mountain Formation .115
Wedin Member .115
Correlation .116
Road Canyon Formation . 116
Correlation .117
Guadalupe Faunas. 118
Word Formation . 118
China Tank Member .118
Willis Ranch Member 118
Lenses Between Willis Ranch and Appel Ranch Members 118
Appel Ranch Member .118
Capitan Limestone Formation 119
Stratigraphy and Fossils of Other West Texas Areas .119
Hueco Mountains . 119
Hueco Canyon Formation. 119
Cerro Alto Formation .120
Alacran Mountain Formation 120
Sierra Diablo .120
Wolfcamp Series . 120
Hueco Formation. 120
Lower Massive Bone Spring Formation.121
Leonard Series . 121
Thin-bedded Bone Spring Formation 121
Victorio Peak Limestone Formation . 121
Cutoff Shale Member 122
Guadalupe Mountains and Delaware Basin 122
Wolfcamp Series .123
Leonard Series 123
Guadalupe Series . 123
NUMBER 14
Vll
Page
Stratigraphy and Fossils of Other West Texas Areas—Continued
Chinati Mountains .125
The Cibolo Formation .125
Transition Zone .126
Lower Brecciated Zone .126
Zone of Sponge Spicules .126
Thin-bedded Zone .126
Yellow Dolomitic Limestone .126
Ojo Bonito Area .126
Register of Localities .126
Altuda (15') Quadrangle .127
Hess Canyon (15') Quadrangle .127
Monument Spring (15') Quadrangle.128
Guadalupe Peak (15') Quadrangle .128
Van Horn (30') Quadrangle .128
Location of Canyons in Carlsbad Caverns West (15') Quadrangle .128
R. E. King Localities .128
Kansas University Localities (Moore) . 135
United States Geological Survey Localities (USGS) .135
American Museum of Natural History Localities (AMNH) .135
United States National Museum Localities (USNM) .138
Glass Mountains Localities by Formation (USNM) .165
Guadalupe Mountains and Sierra Diablo Localities by Formation (USNM) .166
Chinati Mountains Localities by Formation (USNM) .166
Literature Cited .166
Plates .185
FIGURES
1. Map of Glass Mountains . 11
2. Diagram of riker mount for delicate specimens.20
3. Diagram to show etching of block to produce perfect specimens .22
4. South front of Wolf Camp Hills .27
5. Sections of Neal Ranch Formaion of P. B. King compared with those of Jarvis, Ross
and Cooper .31
6. Section through Hess Ranch Horst .41
7. Section through Wolf Camp Hills and Hess Ranch Horst . 42
8. Section 0.5 mile north of Hess Ranch house . 43
9. South front of Lenox Hills on Decie Ranch .45
10. South front of spur on west side of road to Sullivan (Yates) Ranch on Decie Ranch. . . . 46
11. Section through hill east of hill 5021 (Decie Brothers Hill) . 47
12. Cross section of hill west of hill 5300 (closed 5250-foot contour) . 48
13. Diagram showing probable correlation of Dugout Mountain Member within Skinner
Ranch Formation. 49
14. South face of Leonard Mountain .50
15. Northeast side of Leonard Mountain .51
16. Correlation of Lenox Hills Formation in Hess Ranch Horst with same formation in
Wolf Camp Hills .54
17. Section through Wolf Camp Hills to Old Word Ranch .57
18. Section through Leonard Mountain .58
19. Comparison of Ross’s members of Leonard "Formation” with Skinner Ranch and Cathe¬
dral Mountain Formations of Cooper and Grant.60
20. Section through hill 5250 (closed contour) just west of hill 5300 to Sullivan Peak . 61
21. Section through Dugout Mountain to hill with Capilan Formation in northwest cornet
of Monument Spring quadrangle. 63
22. Section of Cathedral Mountain Formation 0.5 mile east of Split Tank . 64
Vlll
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Page
23-25. Revised geological maps: Dugout Mountain area; Lenox Hills area; Leonard Moun¬
tain area.72, 73
26. Diagram showing facies in Glass Mountains . 76
27. Paleogeographic setting of West Texas Permian . 97
28. Correlation chart of West Texas Permian .106
29. Localities in area northwest and west of Dugout Mountain including part of Sierra
del Norte .139
30. Localities in Dugout Mountain . 141
31. Localities in Lenox Hills .143
32. Localities between Sullivan (Yates) Ranch road and Iron Mountain .144
33. Localities on Leonard Mountain .146
34. Localities on Leonard Mountain and hills to north .148
35. Localities in vicinity of Hess Ranch house .149
36. Localities in Wolf Camp Hills .151
37. Additional localities in Wolf Camp Hills .153
38. Localities in Old Word Ranch area .155
39. Hess Ranch Horst area.157
PLATES
1. Acid laboratory, National Museum of Natural History; immersing limestone block;
profile of Wolf Camp Hills from southwest; Sierra del Norte from east; Sullivan Peak
from south .186
2. West side of Leonard Mountain; south face of Wolf Camp Hills; east end of Lenox
Hills at Sullivan (Yates) Ranch road .188
3. Hess Ranch Horst from west; Hess Ranch Horst from east; Lenox Hills conglomerate at
Leonard Mountain; Road Canyon Formation southeast of Sullivan Peak .190
4. The "Uddenites saddle”; Uddenites- bearing Shale Member, Wolf Camp Hills; mosaic
in Neal Ranch Formation, Wolf Camp Hills; Neal Ranch Formation and Lenox Hills
Conglomerate in Wolf Camp Hills .192
5. Bioherm with Coscinophora in Sullivan Peak Member, Dugout Mountain; Neal Ranch
Formation, west end of Wolf Camp Hills; Road Canyon Formation south of Sullivan
Peak; Decie Ranch Member in Lenox Hills (west end) .194
6. Southwest face of Leonard Mountain; Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Mem¬
ber) on southwest side of Dugout Mountain; east side of Leonard Mountain .196
7. Wedin Member southwest of hill 5300, Lenox Hills; clay slide; panorama of Lenox Hills
from south .198
8. Hess Formation east of Hess Ranch house; south face of Leonard Mountain; panorama
in Sierra Diablo, showing Victorio Peak. 200
9. Taylor Ranch Member south of Old Word Ranch; Poplar Tank Member in hill 4801;
Decie Ranch Member in Lenox Hills (west end); blocks wrapped for shipment 202
10. Hill 5021 (Decie Brothers Hill); same from south; west knob of same; Decie Ranch
Member in Dugout Mountain 204
11. Conglomerate in Sullivan Peak Member in hill 4801, Lenox Hills; Scacchinella bioherm
on Leonard Mountain; polished section of biohermal limestone from Neal Ranch For¬
mation, Wolf Camp Hills; conglomerate in Sullivan Peak Member, hill 4801, Lenox
Hills .206
12. Giant crinoid stems in Sullivan Peak Member; Lenox Hills Formation at south end of
Lenox Hills; hill 5060 in Wolf Camp Hills; small pebble conglomerate in the Cathedral
Mountain Formation near Old Word Ranch site .208
13. Hill 4861; conglomerate with Perriniles in same; thin-bedded limestone in Road Canyon
Formation at Old Word Ranch site; east face of Dugout Mountain 210
14. Type section of Willis Ranch Member in Road Canyon; Appel Ranch Member on Appel
Ranch; sandy Willis Ranch limestone in Gilliland Canyon; bench capped by Willis
Ranch Member in Gilliland Canyon .212
15. Appel Ranch Member north of Appel Ranch; Road Canyon Formation in hill 5453;
foothills of the Sierra del Norte showing location of bill 4861; Sullivan Peak with lens
of Willis Ranch Member (USNM 731u) in foreground .214
NUMBER 14
IX
Page
16. Bioherm in Gaptank Formation south of Arnold Ranch; bioherm in Sullivan Peak Mem¬
ber in hill 4801; bioherm in Neal Ranch Formation tn Wolf Camp Hills; bioherm in
Road Canyon Formation in hill 5779, north of Skinner (Iron Mountain) Ranch.216
17. Hercosia bioherm in Cathedral Mountain Formation southwest of Old Word Ranch site;
massive bioherms in Road Canyon Formation south of Sullivan Peak; bioherm in Road
Canyon Formation north of Leonard Mountain; Coscinophora in preceding bioherm. . 218
18. Hill 4801 in Lenox Hills; bryozoans in bioherm in same; large bioherm in same; large
crinoid stems in large bioherm in same.220
19. Bioherms in Skinner Ranch Formation, south side of Leonard Mountain; Heliospongia
in bioherm in Taylor Ranch Member northeast of Hess Ranch house; hill 4752 on
Montgomery (Conoly Brooks) Ranch; Scacchinella bioherm on north side of Hess Ranch
Horst .222
20. Road Canyon Formation at USNM 702c; Scacchinella bioherm in Lenox Hills Formation
on southeast side of Leonard Mountain; bioherm with Collemataria, 0.5 mile east of
Split Tank; bioherm in Cathedral Mountain shale near Old Word Ranch site .224
21. Geopetal structure in bioherm of Road Canyon Formation at Old Word Ranch site;
bioherm in Poplar Tank and Sullivan Peak members in hill 5300; profile of Lenox Hills
from southwest; Dugout Mountain from northeast; Hess Ranch Horst from south ... 226
22. Bold face of El Capitan, Guadalupe Mountains; Hegler Member in Delaware Basin;
Lamar Member on D-Ranch; bioherms in Cibolo Formation, Chinati Mountains.228
23. Cibolo Formation along Sierra Alta Creek, Chinati Mountains; biohermal limestone
with Scacchinella on same creek; bluff on same creek showing thick “Breccia Zone” of
Udden; Rader Ridge in Guadalupe Mountains .230
Permian Brachiopods
of West Texas, I
G. Arthur Cooper and Richard E. Grant
Introduction It was with this impression in mind that Cooper
The Permian rocks of West Texas and nearby
New Mexico are regarded as the standard to which
all correlations in the Permian of North America
are referred. The reason for this importance is
partly historical: the presence of the Permian in
North America was recognized first in the Guada¬
lupe Mountains (Shumard, 1859, 1860); and the
Guadalupian fauna was monographed at an early
date (Girty, 1909). The continued increase in in¬
tensity of study of the Permian of this area, how¬
ever, is due to the excellence and completeness of
the exposures and the great abundance of many
different kinds of fossils.
Monographs on many groups of fossils from the
Texas Permian recently have been published,
making this fauna one of the best documented in
the entire Paleozoic. Among these, in addition to
Girty’s, are Miller and Furnish (1940) on the am-
monoids. Batten (1958) and Yochelson (1956, 1960)
on the gastropods, Newell and Boyd (1970) on
some of the bivalves, Finks (1960) on the siliceous
sponges, and R. E. King (1931) and Stehli (1954)
on the brachiopods. King’s (1931) Glass Moun¬
tains monograph documented 185 species in 47
genera of brachiopods, a large enough fauna to
give the impression that nearly every significant
brachiopod was known.
G. Arthur Cooper and Richard E. Grant, Department of
Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smith¬
sonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560.
made his first trip to West Texas to obtain repre¬
sentative specimens of some of these well-known
fossils for the national collection. The process of
etching limestone samples in acid, however, freed
enough new material to suggest that further re¬
search along these lines would be fruitful.
After the first sample taken in 1939, it became
apparent that the Glass Mountains were a veritable
treasure house that exceeded by far the richest
Permian deposits known—even the remarkable
Sosio Limestone of Sicily. Sampling in one year
usually yielded clues to sites for a further enrich¬
ing of the collection or it led to the need for more
specimens from old localities. For example, the
discovery of the Siphonosia pedicle valve led to
three additional samplings (about 24 blocks) of
USNM locality 721u in order to produce the two
brachial valves now in the collection. These were
needed to complete a generic description. Such
collecting yielded generous, often overwhelming,
suites of the commoner species, but it also revealed
rarities that could have been obtained only by
chance, or not at all, by any other method of
collecting.
The same may be said for the stratigraphy.
Originally there was no intention to make any re¬
vision of the formations as laid out by the King
brothers. Theirs was a remarkably complete and
excellent piece of work, but the present authors’
and colleagues’ persistent search for fossils from
all levels and the scale of the collecting made it
clear that some revision was necessary.
1
2
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
We had not intended originally to redate any
parts of the Pennsylvanian or Permian successions.
Our complete corroboration of Robert King’s Per¬
mian elements in the Uddenites -bearing Shale
Member of the Gaptank Formation led us inevi¬
tably to the same conclusion reached by him, i.e.,
that this portion of the sequence is Permian. Our
philosophy of dating parts of the section is not
based primarily on newcomers in a sequence, as
motivates some stratigraphers, but it is based
rather on the preponderance of the faunal evidence.
It is unfortunate that our references to sedi-
mentology must be generalized because this is a
very important part of the picture of the Glass
Mountains geology that bears on paleoecology.
With the modern advances in sedimentology, this
subject in the Glass Mountains will require a mono¬
graphic treatment of its own.
Another modern approach neglected by us is a
statistical study of the species. The collections are
too large and our time too short to have adopted
such methods for the approximately one thousand
species described. Even with a statistical approach,
the paleontologist is obliged initially to sort all of
his collections into the units he believes are the
proper and natural species. Because our sorts have
been made with great care, we believe that most
of our species are well and accurately defined.
Doubtless, in some instances, the reader will differ
with our choices. It is a question in any paleonto¬
logical study as to how fine species should be drawn.
If we have erred, hopefully it is on the conservative
side.
Although this monograph is of gigantic propor¬
tions, it is doubtful that our sampling of the
mountains is complete. The sixty or so square
miles occupied by the portion of the Glass Moun¬
tains sampled by us contains many poorly accessi¬
ble layers not yet visited. The limy lenses just
above the Road Canyon Formation, for example,
in the hills north of Leonard Mountain almost
certainly will yield many new species when col¬
lected in detail. Furthermore, bioherms are fau-
nally so varied that any new one discovered will
probably yield new species. The Delaware Basin
south of the Guadalupe Mountains offers great
possibilities for collecting, as do the Sierra Diablo
and Apache Mountains. We have not exhausted
the Glass Mountains for future paleontological
exploitation.
As noted above, our correlations are based on
the preponderance of evidence as indicated by the
brachiopods. These are our primary concern, and
our dating and correlating are based on them. The
appearance of a single genus in the column is not
regarded of significance unless other geologic or
faunal data give supporting evidence. In some
instances our views are in accordance with those
expressed by proponents of the fusulinids and am¬
monites, the two groups most used in correlating
Permian rocks. In other cases, however, the brachi-
opod story does not parallel that of other animal
groups. The fauna of the Uddenites -bearing Shale
Member is an example. The ammonites and fusu¬
linids, according to Ross (1963a), argue for a
Pennsylvanian age, but the brachiopods indicate a
Permian age. To cite another example, the Gray
Limestone Member of P. B. King, Ross (1963a:6)
contends that the fusulinids indicate a Late Penn¬
sylvanian age, but the brachiopods clearly are
Permian and so are the ammonites. Bostwick
(1962) has anticipated the Permian age of the
Uddenites -bearing Shale Member by his discovery
of Schwagerina in this member.
Our work in the Glass Mountains is a demon¬
stration of the value of extensive paleontological
study in stratigraphy. Collecting in Gilliland
Canyon we sampled the mapped Lower Word
Limestone (=First Limestone of the Word of
P. B. King) in an effort to fill in our knowledge
of that part of the column. Abundance of
Waagenoceras led to the suspicion that something
was wrong. On dissolving several large blocks of
limestone from the questionable bed (USNM 723t),
we recovered an excellent Willis Ranch Member
fauna. Other examples of such findings were the
discovery of a Cathedral Mountain fauna in a
conglomerate mapped as Word, the discovery of
the Leonardian elements of the Road Canyon
Formation, and the tracing of the Willis Ranch
remnants in the Word Shale after the member had
disappeared as a continuous carbonate layer.
Lenses discovered below Sullivan Peak (USNM
73lu) and near the site of Old Payne Ranch
(USNM 732s) indicate this level.
One problem has plagued us, as it has been wor¬
risome to all paleontologists: What should be done
NUMBER 14
3
about fossil names based on types now lost and
with indifferent stratigraphic data? It is only nat¬
ural that paleontologists rely on previous work,
but when this reliance is without critical exam¬
ination, misconceptions and errors can be perpetu¬
ated.
This situation is particularly true of the species
from the Guadalupe Mountains described by B. F.
Shumard. The specimens were collected by his
brother G. G. Shumard on the expedition that set
out to obtain water by artesian wells along the
32nd parallel under the direction of Captain John
Pope, United States Corps of Topographic Engi¬
neers. These fossils were important because B. F.
Shumard recognized them as Permian in age at
a time when this period was poorly understood
and uncertainly identified in the United States. In
1857 the Pope Expedition collections were pre¬
sented by the Smithsonian Institution to the St.
Louis Academy of Sciences (B. F. Shumard, 1858:
108, 113). Unfortunately, all of the specimens later
were lost in a fire; thus, Shumard’s types are gone.
His descriptions are good, his illustrations of the
few specimens figured are bad, and most of the
described specimens are unfigured; and, finally, the
locations are highly generalized and the stratigra¬
phy restricted to presence in the “dark limestone”
or the “white limestone.”
Confusion is confounded by subsequent authors
who have tried to interpret Shumard’s descriptions
and, in some cases, have established genera on
Shumard’s species. The case of Crania permiana
Shumard, described in detail herein under Cycla-
cantharia, illustrates the point. Shumard’s species,
from the White Limestone (= Capitan Limestone)
was identified by Girty from the Word Formation
of the Glass Mountains. On the latter, R. E. King
(1931) made the genus Prorichthofenia. Neither
Girty nor King had any knowledge of Shumard’s
species other than his description. Inasmuch as two
different genera occur in the White Limestone,
it is now impossible to say what Shumard’s species
was and what King’s genus really is. Under the
circumstances, it seems best to retain the combina¬
tion Prorichthofenia permiana (Shumard) in the
literature as indeterminate.
The case of King’s genus Uncinuloides is similar
and was adjusted by Cooper and Grant (1962). It
seems best to us to recognize these combinations as
“literature names” rather than to indulge in guess¬
work regarding their anatomy, stratigraphy, and
locality. Some of Girty’s species are of this sort. His
collections were derived from many sources, some of
which had erroneous or careless locality descrip¬
tions and stratigraphic information. Many of his
specimens came from float. We have been unable
to establish with certainty the location of Coman¬
che Canyon (USGS 3763) in the Glass Mountains.
This leaves most of his Glass Mountain specimens
without any sure stratigraphic or geographic data.
Enteletes dumblei Girty and Leptodus americanus
Girty have been widely identified, but the identi¬
fications are generally inaccurate and misleading.
Productus meeki Girty from the Glass Mountains
is a fragment having the body spine arrangement
of Grandeurispina, but the shell outline is un¬
known as are its geography and stratigraphy. There
is no value whatsoever in trying to save such names
that are so equivocally based. It is far better to
make a new name on accurately documented ma¬
terial. This at least assures future workers refer¬
ences that are reliable. In accordance with these
views, we have not used some specific names, which,
perpetuated, would make mischief.
In correlating we have not used early appear¬
ances as absolute criteria for age determination.
The appearance of abundant Parenteletes and occa¬
sional Diplanus in bed 10 of P. B. King of the
Gaptank Formation are definite Permian elements,
which, taken alone, would suggest an Early Per¬
mian age for beds now regarded as of Canyon age.
But these two genera are diluted by a host of
characteristic Pennsylvanian types. The same is
true of the bioherm (USNM 700g) south of the
Arnold Ranch in rocks of Virgilian age. Here occur
Scacchinella and Limbella, the former the most
primitive species of the genus, the latter smaller
than usual. Both attest to an early appearance
relative to the Permian. All of these Permian pre¬
cursors and others of certain Permian affinity occur
commonly in the Uddenites- bearing Shale Member.
Not only are typical Permian genera present, but
many of those inherited from the Pennsylvanian
such as Meekella, Hustedia, and Tropidelasma are
Permian in their expression rather than Pennsyl¬
vanian. Thus, the evidence of actual Permian types
and progressive Pennsylvanian forms gives the
stamp of Permian.
4
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Rather than regard the Skinner Ranch Forma¬
tion as Leonardian, we have placed it as the upper¬
most formation of the Wolfcamp Series. We do
this not only because of the large number of Wolf-
campian transients that finally rested there, but
also because of the presence of distinctive persistent
Pennsylvanian genera such as Kozlowskia, Fimbri-
nia, and Hystriculina. Most of the Pennsylvanian
and Wolfcampian genera fail to cross the boundary
into the Cathedral Mountain Formation of the
Leonardian, or if they do cross, as Spyridiophora,
Glyptosteges, and Torynechus did, it is evident
they failed to flourish and died off early in the
succeeding time.
Dating of the Road Canyon Formation has
proved difficult because its fauna has not only
many residual Leonardian elements, but also her¬
alds of the Word Formation such as Echinosteges,
Undulella, Paucispinifera, and Costispinifera. It
also contains exotics difficult to date, such as Horri-
donia, Ombonia, and Tschernyschewia. Although
Perrinites suggests Leonardian, the reported pres¬
ence of Waagenoceras (Miller and Furnish, 1940:
173; Clifton, 1945; and P. B. King, 1931:139) and
the few Word brachiopod genera mentioned above
argue for a Guadalupian age. Our opinion as to its
age is based on the overwhelming number of Leonar¬
dian forms and the termination of most of them
in, or at the top of, the Road Canyon.
Paleoecology is a youthful subject now receiving
the enthusiastic attention of many geologists and
paleontologists. Some dangers exist in the present
excitement. One of these is the ambiguity of views
that may result in interpretation of an ancient
environment of a stratigraphic unit based on its
sediments as opposed to the reconstruction of the
environment based on a study of the fauna. Large
blocklike masses may be interpreted by the sedi-
mentologist as exotic or moved blocks finally rest¬
ing in deep water. The same block may be regarded
as a bioherm, in place, replete with algae and shal¬
low water fossils. In the Chinati Mountains along
Sierra Alta Creek the brecciated beds of Udden are
interpreted as reefs (bioherms) by us, but Rigby
(1958) regards the same beds as reef slide debris.
Sedimentological and paleontological evidence
should agree where fossils are in growth position,
but may not agree where they have been trans¬
ported to form death assemblages. The fossils in
many of the Glass Mountains bioherms and zoti-
kepia are in natural growth position and, conse¬
quently, are reliable indicators of environment.
See the section “Organic Accumulations in the
Glass Mountains.”
Field Work.— Cooper’s first visit to the Glass
Mountains was in the fall of 1939, when he and
Dr. Josiah Bridge of the United States Geological
Survey spent five days collecting in the vicinity of
Split Tank and on the south slopes of Hess Canyon
(USNM 706). This visit was made for the specific
purpose of obtaining specimens of “Prorichtho-
fenia” and examples of the lyttoniidae, neither of
which was represented in the collections of the
United States National Museum at the time. The
nine boxes of limestone lumps collected, totaling
about 1800 pounds, were processed during the
ensuing winter and provided the incentive for an¬
other collecting effort the following year.
Cooper spent two weeks, in the late summer of
1940, alone in the Glass Mountains and collected
about 1700 pounds of small blocks to supplement
those collected in 1939. By now the great possi¬
bilities of developing a fauna by etching were be¬
coming evident.
In 1941, Cooper and Dr. Norman D. Newell,
then of the University of Wisconsin and now of
the American Museum of Natural History, spent
one month in the area collecting large blocks.
Although cooperation was necessary in the hard
work of removing blocks, Newell and Cooper had
different objectives. The former was interested es¬
pecially in obtaining pelecypods, while Cooper
wanted brachiopods. Blocks with conspicuous pele¬
cypods were, therefore, sent to the University of
Wisconsin. An understanding was reached between
both collectors that good specimens of the desired
phyla obtained in the etching of any of the blocks
would be available to each other.
American participation in World War II, which
began in late 1941, effectively postponed further
work in the Glass Mountains for several years.
An extensive party was arranged for collecting
in the Glass Mountains in 1945; this project was
in cooperation with Dr. R. C. Moore, then con¬
nected with the United States Geological Survey
as well as with Kansas University. Cooper was as¬
sisted by Dr. J. Brookes Knight, who was interested
in finding blocks containing gastropods. The party
NUMBER 14
5
spent one month working in all parts of the moun¬
tains and obtained more than five tons of blocks/
the solid core of material around which the col¬
lection has been built.
In 1946 Cooper and Dr. Preston E. Cloud,
then of Harvard University, spent two weeks in
the Glass Mountains as an interval in a more exten¬
sive collecting trip with main objectives elsewhere.
At this time localities, hitherto not extensively col¬
lected but from which the samples previously ac¬
quired showed promise, were revisited and larger
amounts were taken. A field trip in 1947 made
with Dr. Ellis Yochelson, United States Geological
Survey, had the same purpose and was an interval
in more extensive collecting farther to the west.
In 1948 Cooper and Dr. Alfred R. Loeblich, Jr.,
visited the Glass Mountains for about two weeks,
the chief object being to collect fossil sponges in
which Loeblich was then interested. Another short
visit was paid the mountains in 1949, again as an
interval in a collecting trip with main objectives
elsewhere. On this occasion Cooper was accom¬
panied by Mr. William T. Allen, museum aide,
and Dr. Alwyn Williams, a Commonwealth Fellow
studying at the United States National Museum. A
modest supply of blocks was obtained at this time.
In 1950 Cooper and Mr. Allen, accompanied by
Dr. Harry B. Whittington of Harvard University,
spent a month in the Glass Mountains. The time
was chiefly devoted to collecting from Wolfcampian
rocks in the Wolf Camp Hills. This expedition
took more than 100 blocks.
In 1951 Cooper, Allen, and Mr. A. L. Bowsher,
then of the United States National Museum staff,
went to the mountains with the specific purpose
of studying the stratigraphy of certain areas, par¬
ticularly the Wolf Camp Hills and to collect goni-
atites needed to help date parts of the section.
This party was successful in obtaining a large num¬
ber of goniatites from several levels hitherto not
collected; they also rediscovered an ammonite lo¬
cality of Plummer and Scott, which is difficult to
find because the old landmarks that had been used
to identify it have long since disappeared.
In 1952 Cooper, Allen, and Bowsher on their
way to New Mexico for a study of the Devonian
and Mississippian joined Dr. N. D. Newell and
party, who were camped at Pine Spring in the
Guadalupe Mountains. Five days were devoted to
making collections from the Cherry Canyon For¬
mation, the Capitan Limestone and its equivalent,
the Bell Canyon Formation. In the summer of
1953 Cooper, Allen, and Dr. Francis G. Stehli, then
a graduate student at Columbia University, made
more extensive collections in the Guadalupe Moun¬
tains and also spent 11 days in the Glass Moun¬
tains.
Trips prior to 1956 were primarily for collect¬
ing. Each succeeding visit was intended to make up
a proved deficiency or failure on a preceding one
or to follow a promising lead discovered in the
course of prior sampling. The collecting naturally
led to observations of the stratigraphy and, thus,
constitute a test of prior mappings. After 1956 the
visits to the mountains were made to test views on
the stratigraphy as well as to collect in new areas.
Again, laboratory reflections on the work of one
season indicated significant areas for further study
in the next.
In 1956, on the way to the International Geologi¬
cal Congress in Mexico, Cooper, Mr. L. G. Henbest
of the United States Geological Survey, and Dr.
C. O. Dunbar of Yale University spent several days
in the Glass Mountains. While there they were
joined by Mr. John Skinner and Mr. Garner Wilde,
both of the Humble Oil Company. The party
jointly studied Leonard Mountain and several
other areas of uncertain stratigraphy. At this time
the real nature of the Wolfcamp and Hess relation¬
ship on Leonard Mountain was established, and
much of the rock mapped as Wolfcamp was proved
to belong to the Gaptank formation.
In 1957 and 1958 Cooper and Dr. R. E. Grant,
who was invited as collaborator, spent a month
each year visiting new localities and correcting
erroneous views on some of the old ones. Much
time was devoted to a study of the Hess Ranch
Horst and the related beds north of Hess Ranch
and on the north side of Leonard Mountain.
The main objective of the 1959 trip by Cooper
and Grant was to collect from the Bone Spring
beds of the Sierra Diablo. Dr. F. G. Stehli helped
the members of the party during their stay in
these mountains, and some exceptionally fine blocks
were taken. Some additional collections were made
in the Guadalupe Mountains, and a one day visit
was made to the Chinati Mountains. In the Glass
Mountains on this trip some sampling was done
6
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
in the First Limestone of the Word Formation of
P. B. King, a horizon that had been largely neg¬
lected.
The expedition of 1961 was primarily to settle
some bothersome problems of stratigraphy and to
collect more from the First Limestone of the Word
Formation, which had proved to be extremely rich.
This expedition by Cooper and Grant also in¬
cluded another visit to the Guadalupe Mountains,
again to collect additional blocks at certain key
places in the hope of improving representation of
some rare rhynchonellid and terebratulid genera
and species hitherto represented by inferior or
insufficient specimens.
The expedition of 1963 consisted of Cooper and
Grant with the addition of Mr. John L. Carter,
who had been engaged on National Science Foun¬
dation funds to run the acid laboratory and pick
the residues. The object of this visit to the moun¬
tains was primarily stratigraphic. Many places were
visited to test their stratigraphic level regardless of
faunal content. Special emphasis was placed on in¬
vestigation of the limestones of the Leonard on
Dugout Mountain and a comparison of them with
the numbered series of Leonard limestones in the
Lenox Hills. Discovery of an interesting discrep¬
ancy between faunal zones and numbers resulted.
In spite of the emphasis on stratigraphy, a large
supply of blocks was taken on this expedition. In
most cases single samples were all that resulted
from many of the localities, but they helped to
give more definite answers regarding age and ecol¬
ogy-
In April 1964 Cooper and Dr. J. T. Dutro of
the United States Geological Survey visited the
Glass Mountains for a few days on their return
from a study of the Devonian in New Mexico.
Their intention was to select some additional
blocks from USNM 721u in the hope of obtaining
more specimens of some rare species ( Siphonosia)
from that level of the Cathedral Mountain Forma¬
tion.
Grant and Cooper again visited the mountains
for three weeks in late March and early April of
1965 with several objectives: to verify the age of
the band of rock mapped as the First Limestone
of the Word on the west side of Gilliland Canyon,
which proved to have the fauna of the Third
Limestone of the Word of P. B. King, to make
additional studies of the Leonard limestones of
the Dugout Mountain area, and to obtain a few
blocks from selected localities.
In 1966 Cooper and his wife visited the moun¬
tains briefly to verify details of some of the bio-
herms and to consult with some petroleum geolo¬
gists. At this time small collections of ammonites,
fusulinids, and brachiopods were obtained from a
number of new localities. The section up Sullivan
Peak was also restudied.
In 1967 Grant and Cooper, accompanied by Dr.
George A. Thomas of Australia and Dr. J. B.
Waterhouse, then of New Zealand, spent several
days acquainting these visitors with the section and
collecting some areas hitherto not well studied.
Prior to the arrival of Thomas and Waterhouse,
Cooper and Grant measured and studied sections
along the east front of the Sierra del Norte. An
interesting development of the Road Canyon was
discovered at this time.
A short visit was paid in 1968 to the northern
part of the Delaware Basin to sample this area
for silicified fossils. A few days also were spent in
the Glass Mountains. On this trip Dr. John Rob¬
erts of Australia was a participant.
Following is a list of all the collections made
for this program in West Vexas:
Number
Party (in addition
Approximate
Year
of blocks
to Cooper)
weight (pounds)
1939
9 boxes
(small
lumps)
J. Bridges
1800
1940
7 boxes
(mostly
moderate¬
sized small
lumps)
None
1700
1941
30 -(- 4 kegs
N. D. Newell
7500
1945
360
J. B. Knight,
R. C. Moore
10817
1946
69
P. E. Cloud
5327
1947
28
E. Yochelson
3527
1948
64
A. R. Loeblich
9259
1949
57
W. T. Allen,
A. Williams
5093
1950
107
W. T. Allen, 9148
H. B. Whittington
1951
40
A. L. Bowsher
4000
1952
36
W. T. Allen,
A. L. Bowsher
3600
1953
33
W. T. Allen,
F. G. Stehli
5994
7
NUMBER 14
Year
Number
of blocks
Party (in addition
to Cooper)
Approximate
weight (pounds)
1956
22
C. O. Dunbar,
2057
1957
21
L. G. Henbest
R. E. Grant
2390
1958
40
R. E. Grant
5000
1959
95
R. E. Grant
10552
1961
102
R. E. Grant
14390
1963
157
R. E. Grant,
17000
1964
13
J. L. Carter
J. T. Dutro
1400
1965
56
R. E. Grant
6190
1967
53
R. E. Grant
7670
1968
74
R. E. Grant,
9900
1457
J. Roberts
144,314
Collaborators.— As indicated earlier, this pro¬
gram had humble beginnings. It was not intended
originally to monograph a fauna or revise stratig¬
raphy of the Glass Mountains when the first col¬
lections were made in 1939. These, however, proved
the potentialities of a study of the Glass Mountains
fossils, and the collections of the next two years
inspired the idea that a gigantic, fairly complete
fauna could be obtained by dissolving Permian
limestones. This meant that, not only the brachi-
opods, but all of the other groups obtained by the
solution method also should be monographed. The
method is the only one likely to yield a nearly
complete fauna.
In accordance with this idea, the extensive col-
lctions of 1945 suggested the possibility of enlist¬
ing the aid of a number of colleagues who were
specialists in the various phyla represented in the
Glass Mountains. At the outset, Newell and Cooper
joined forces, but after the conclusion of World
War II in 1945, Dr. J. B. Knight and others were
invited into the program. The general scheme was
outlined by Cooper and Knight (1946:625). This
original plan, like most ambitious schemes, has
since been greatly modified. The original personnel
involved are represented only by Cooper, Newell,
and Moore, with occasional others who can be in¬
duced to participate.
It was planned in 1946 that Dr. R. C. Moore
would undertake description of the corals, bryo-
zoans, and crinoids, each of them a gigantic task.
Although corals are not abundant in the Glass
Mountains, neither are they rare. The coral col¬
lection is large and includes many choice speci¬
mens. Bryozoans are legion; in places they make
up a large percentage of the rock and can be found
nearly everywhere in the area. They are obtained
in absolute perfection of colonial form, but the
inner details, revealed by thin sections, usually are
sporadically preserved. Mr. Gary Gautier of Kansas
University is now studying the Leonardian bryo¬
zoans. Crinoids are not common, but in places
microcrinoids are numerous. Well over a thousand
specimens have been taken, which are being studied
by Dr. R. C. Moore and Harrell Strimple.
Dr. Porter M. Kier (1958:889; 1965:453—456) de¬
scribed and illustrated a new genus of echinoids
and figured some of the unusual club-shaped echi-
noid spines common in the Word Formation
(China Tank Member).
Under the original arrangement Dr. J. B. Knight
was to have described all of the gastropods. These,
however, were obtained in such numbers that he
had to call for help. As a result, Dr. Roger Batten,
American Museum of Natural History, undertook
a study of the pleurotomariacean gastropods and
published (1958) an extensive monograph on them.
This is not his last work on the subject, because
new specimens are frequently obtained. He is still
at work on families not appearing in the aforemen¬
tioned monograph. Dr. Ellis Yochelson, now of
the United States Geological Survey, selected the
nonslit-bearing snails, the Bellerophontacea, Patel-
lacea, Euomphalacea, Trochonematacea, and sev¬
eral other groups. His studies have appeared as
two monographs (1956 and 1960). These two large
papers do not exhaust these nonpleurotomariacean
groups of gastropods, and many species are yet to
be described. Nevertheless, our knowledge of the
gastropods of the Glass Mountains has been greatly
advanced by these studies.
At first, all cephalopods were sent to Dr. Arthur
K. Miller at Iowa University. These, except for
the main body of ammonoids collected in 1951 and
later, were described with his characteristic dis¬
patch. The first of these was a description of some
exceptional ammonoids from the Road Canyon For¬
mation (Miller, 1945a) and the second described
some of the nautiloids (Miller, 1945b). Further
information on Glass Mountains nautiloids based
on silicified specimens was published in Miller and
Youngquist’s (1949) monograph on the American
Permian nautiloids.
8
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
The Wolfcampian part of the large collection of
ammonoids made in 1951, with later additions,
and placed in the hands of Dr. A. K. Miller at
the University of Iowa, was turned over to Mr.
Richard W. Moyle, an Iowa graduate student who
has prepared a monograph on them under the
direction of Drs. W. M. Furnish and B. F. Glenister.
Identifications obtained from Drs. Miller, Furnish,
Glenister, and Moyle have been added to the
brachiopod lists as a help toward stratigraphic
orientation.
Drs. Furnish and Glenister are restudying all
Permian ammonoids, including those collected
from the Glass Mountains in preparation for a
reevaluation of Permian correlations and a revision
of many of the genera.
The pelecypods, of which there are hundreds
from the Glass Mountains, are being studied by
Dr. N. D. Newell of the American Museum of
Natural History. Dr. Donald M. Boyd of the Uni¬
versity of Wyoming and Dr. Bruce Runnegar,
Queensland University, Australia, are collaborat¬
ing with him.
In the original plan, no provision was made for
study of the sponges, because few good specimens
had been taken at that time. In 1948 Cooper and
Loeblich made a special effort to obtain sponges
and achieved considerable success. Because remains
of these animals appear in most of the residues,
the collection finally obtained is large. The Glass
Mountains sponges, combined with those from the
Guadalupe Mountains that belong to the American
Museum of Natural History, as well as those of
the National Museum of Natural History (under
USNM numbers), were turned over to Dr. Robert
M. Finks (1960), who published a large monograph
on the silicious sponges. He is presently working
on the calcareous sponges.
No definite plans have been made for the study
of the trilobites, the collection of which is growing
slowly. Dr. J. Marvin Weller (1944) described a
number of specimens sent to him at an early stage
of the collecting.
A few other Glass Mountains species have been
described as special items. Dr. R. M. Finks (1955)
described a Conularia associated with a sponge.
Dr. Donald Fisher, New York State Museum, has
the scaphopods and hyolithids. Dr. Allyn G. Smith,
California Academy of Sciences, is describing the
chitons, plates of which are common at some local¬
ities.
We have enjoyed substantial aid from three stu¬
dents of the fusulinids, to whom we have appealed
for help from time to time. It has been our aim,
as far as possible, to document our brachiopods with
important occurrences of fusulinids and ammonites.
Dr. Carl O. Dunbar of Yale University identified
many lots from Gaptank, Wolfcamp, and Hess For¬
mations. Dr. Charles A. Ross also identified a num¬
ber of lots including those sent to Dr. Dunbar,
from Wolfcampian, Leonardian, and Guadalupian
rocks. Mr. Garner Wilde of the Humble Oil Com¬
pany, Denver, Colorado, identified many lots and
spent several days in the field with Cooper and
Grant locating collections in important places. The
names of many of the species identified by these
experts are recorded with the brachiopod locality
lists.
Acknowledgments.— In a project as large as this,
with its ramifications and collaborators, thanks are
due to many people for favors. Acknowledgments
are owing for official encouragement and financial
support, for permission from owners to work on
the several private ranches that cover generous
parts of the Glass Mountains and other areas, and
to colleagues who have given favors, specimens, or
other help.
First, we express our gratitude to* Dr. Philip B.
King, United States Geological Survey, for help
in locating the areas of best collecting at the be¬
ginning of the project.
This study never could have been accomplished
were it not for the enthusiastic support of Dr. Alex¬
ander Wetmore, sixth secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution. Dr. Wetmore took special interest in
the work of dissolving the blocks and came often
to see the growing collection. He authorized many
field trips to the Glass Mountains and financed
them from the Walcott Fund of the Smithsonian
Institution—for all of which we thank him.
It is a pleasure also to record thanks to Dr. Wet-
more’s successors: Drs. Leonard Carmichael and S.
Dillon Ripley, seventh and eighth secretaries, who
also authorized the use of Walcott money for field
work in the Glass Mountains. Other officials of the
Smithsonian to whom thanks are expressed are Drs.
A. R. Kellogg, A. C. Smith, and T. Dale Stewart,
former directors of the National Museum of Nat-
NUMBER 14
9
ural History, and the present director, Dr. R. S.
Cowan. Drs. R. S. Bassler and W. F. Foshag, former
head curators of the Department of Geology, ap¬
proved all of the proposals for work in the Glass
Mountains.
The United States Geological Survey has aided
the project in many ways: chiefly by allowing free
access to specimens in collections made by Geolog¬
ical Survey parties; by approving Grant’s requests
for field work in west Texas, and by providing
vehicles for several of the collecting and study trips.
In addition, the Geological Survey gave Grant
official time and administrative and logistical sup¬
port for a trip to the Salt Range of West Pakistan
to gather comparative Permian material, a project
that was an outgrowth of the west Texas project.
We thank three members of the National Mu¬
seum of Natural History staff for their assistance
in preparation of the illustrations: Mr. Jack Scott
made about one-third of the photographs, includ¬
ing those of the Rhipidomellida, Strophomenida,
and Spiriferida, amounting to more than 10,000
negatives; Mr. Andrew Wynne printed all of the
negatives, those made by Scott and the many made
by Cooper; Mr. Lawrence B. Isham made all of the
maps accompanying this monograph and the draw¬
ing illustrating some details of anatomy of some
of the specimens.
Acknowledgment is gratefully made to the Na¬
tional Science Foundation for financial assistance,
which permitted the attachment of Dr. R. E. Grant,
as co-author, on an original grant (G—3805) for
four years. Unfortunately, this period was not long
enough, and the grant was renewed (G—18680) for
two years. The new grant also permitted the addi¬
tion of four successive helpers to care for and cata¬
log the collection: Mr. George Hamilton, Miss Jane
Goodwin (now Mrs. James Ferigno), Dr. John L.
Carter, and Mr. Mohammad Ghahhari.
Mr. Leo Connors, museum aide, also assisted
in the sorting of the collections and picked many
of the residues. Dr. A. R. Loeblich, Jr., served as
field collaborator in 1948.
The good will of property owners in a study of
this sort is essential. Happily we were permitted
freedom on all of the ranches in the Glass Moun¬
tains, from Dugout Mountain to the Fort Stock-
ton-Marathon highway at Gaptank. Thanks are due
to Mr. John Catto and to Mr. Travis Roberts,
owner and foreman of the Catto-Gage Ranch on
which Dugout Mountain is located. The Decie
brothers, Zennis, Zeb, and Zoye, have been most
kind, cordial, and helpful throughout the many
years of collecting and study. This is true also of
the late Mr. Leonard Hess and Mrs. Hess, whose
ranch includes part of Leonard Mountain, the Hess
Ranch Horst, and other important places. Mr. and
Mrs. Hess welcomed us and helped us in every
way possible. Mr. W. R. Blakemore, II, of the Iron
Mountain Ranch (Skinner Ranch of the Altuda
quadrangle) has been most helpful with his per¬
mission and the use of a jeep, not only at Iron
Mountain, but also on the Corn Ranch in the
Sierra Diablo. Mr. David L. Allen now of Kyle,
Texas, formerly foreman of the Iron Mountain
Ranch, was also most helpful and cordial and took
a keen interest in our work.
The Split Tank area is one of the key collecting
places in the Glass Mountains. Mr. Carl Appel,
owner of the Old Word Ranch on which the tank
is located, gave permission to work in all parts
of his ranch. Smithsonian parties were also wel¬
comed when this property was leased by Messrs.
Fenstermaker, Charles L. Thomas, and Weir Hall.
The Wolf Camp Hills are one of the most inter¬
esting and geologically important parts of the Glass
Mountains. Here Smithsonian parties were not wel¬
comed by one of the lessees, and work there had
to be discontinued for some time. Mr. Bill Neal
and son, however, permitted parties to work there
on several occasions and good collections and much
information were taken from this place. The ranch
farthest east visited by us is that of Conoly Brooks,
who cordially gave permission for work to be done
on his property and, on one occasion, came out to
observe our efforts. Mr. and Mrs. R. A. Ligon of
Nickel Creek, Guadalupe Mountains, gave permis¬
sion to work on the former Hegler Ranch in the
Guadalupe Mountains.
We are grateful to Mrs. Loraine Love Johnson
and Mr. Russell White for their kindness in per¬
mitting us to work on their properties in the Chi-
nati Peak Quadrangle.
Two men who helped us immeasurably in our
work are Mr. J. N. Allebrand, formerly manager
of the Parkway Hotel in Marathon, Texas, and
Mr. Frank Wedin of Marathon. The former inter¬
ceded in behalf of museum parties on several occa-
10
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
sions and gave the use of the hotel yard for the
storage of blocks and a place where they could
be prepared for shipment. Mr. Wedin carted the
plunder to the freight station. Mrs. Frank Wedin
also helped with information on place names and
historical information.
Mrs. Walter Glover of Pine Spring Camp, Texas,
permitted us to work on her property and inter¬
ceded in our behalf with other ranchers. We had
the help of the officials of Carlsbad Caverns Na¬
tional Park on two occasions. We acknowledge the
permission of Mr. Wallace Pratt to work in the
McKittrick Canyon area, when he owned that
beautiful place.
We thank Mr. J. C. Hunter of Abilene, Texas,
for permission to collect in the vicinity of Guad¬
alupe Peak and Mr. Noel Kincaid, his foreman,
for help and information concerning the country
around Guadalupe Peak.
To all of these men and women, we give not
only our thanks but those of the Smithsonian Insti¬
tution.
In the spring of 1965, Peabody Museum, Yale
University, presented some blocks from the Glass
Mountains that were no longer needed.
Dr. R. C. Moore transferred to the Smithsonian
Institution 750 specimens of clean silicified speci¬
mens from the Glass Mountains from the collec¬
tions made in 1945.
Mrs. Josephine W. Cooper, wife of the senior
author, has helped the project in many ways: pick¬
ing and sorting specimens, translating descriptions
of genera and species described in Russian publi¬
cations, cataloging many of the specimens, helping
to solve bibliographic problems and to number
the plates. Mr. George Reed helped with typing
and checking generic names.
The Glass Mountains
(Sierra del Vidrio)
The fame of the Glass Mountains rests on the
fact that they are composed of one of the most
fossiliferous sequences of marine Permian rocks in
the world. They are, therefore, well known to
geologists and especially to the oil geologists who
have studied them to obtain better knowledge of
subsurface Permian. The mountains are reached
easily by good roads from west, east, and north.
Their western extremity lies southwest of U. S.
Highway 90, 236 miles southeast of El Paso, and
their eastern end crosses U. S. Highway 385 about
33 miles south of Fort Stockton. The mountains
trend in a northeast-southwest direction for about
35 miles, merging in the south into the Del Norte
Mountains and in the east they pass under the
Edwards Plateau. The Glass Mountains form the
northwestern and western sides of the Marathon
Basin, a lowland underlain by strongly folded
Lower Paleozoic, Pennsylvanian, and Permian sedi¬
ments.
The eastern face of the Glass Mountains is
formed by steep slopes and in places bold cliffs.
The relief along the mountain front is about 1,200
feet. Deeper in the mountains the relief is in places
2,500 feet above the village of Marathon, which lies
on U. S. Highway 90 a few miles south and east of
the mountains. The maximum elevation in the
mountains is 6,523 feet on the western side of
Gilliland Canyon, west of bench mark 4973. In
most parts of the mountains in which the collec¬
tions were made the relief is about one thousand
feet or slightly more.
Although the Marathon Basin and Glass
Mountains are in a semiarid region, the country
has wide areas of grassland. Consequently, large
ranches that have operated for many years are
located in and near the mountains. Good ranch
roads branch out through the hills and make most
parts readily accessible. This is especially true of
the mountain front and for four or five miles be¬
yond it in the interior. Where roads are not avail¬
able, it is usually possible to drive over the desert
floor with an ordinary vehicle.
The Glass Mountains area is well depicted on
three topographic maps. The extreme southwestern
part appears at the northern end of the Monument
Spring (15') quadrangle; the Lenox Hills area is
shown on the lower third of the Altuda (15') quad¬
rangle and the longest portion is in the middle
part of the Hess Canyon (15') quadrangle. The
contour interval is 50 feet, which permits the relief
to be shown in considerable detail. A good geologi¬
cal map, using the above quadrangles as a base was
prepared by P. B. and R. E. King and was pub¬
lished in 1931 (in P. B. King, University of Texas
Bulletin 3038). Aerial photos also are available for
these mountains.
30°I5‘ _30°25‘
NUMBER 14
11
\ APPEL
\RANCH
SPLIT TANK
lOLO^-- V -
WILLIS -C'
RANCH
SITE
OLD WORO RANCH SITE
X 5767
BILL NEAL RANCH
^(OLO TATLOR RANCH )
IESS RANCH
Leonard
SULLIVAN
(TATES)
RANCKrV
Mountain
^ ABM
5860\
SKINNER
RANCH
Cloy
Slide
lAltudo'
ALTUDA
QUADRANGLE
HESS CANTON
QUADRANGLE
POPLAR TANK
MARATHON
QUADRANGLE
MONUMENT SPRING
QUADRANGLE
DECIE RANCI
Marathon
RANCH
I03°25‘
I03°05
I03°25‘
I03°05’
Lenox
Figure 1.—Important geographic locations in the Glass Mountains (broken lines and italic
numbers indicate cros-sections figured in the text; BM= bench mark).
Many of the topographic features of the Glass
Mountains have not received names, a fact that
makes description of localities difficult; however,
several salient points have been named and should
become familiar to the interested geologist. On the
Monument Spring quadrangle, Dugout Mountain
(Plate 21: figure 4) forms an isolated cuesta on
the western side of U. S. Highway 90 and is the
western termination of the Glass Mountains. On
the opposite side of the highway, the Lenox Hills
(all in the Altuda quadrangle, Plate 21: figure 3)
form foothills to the mountains. Although the
name “Lenox Hills” actually refers to the hills
adjacent to U. S. Highway 90, these foothills ex¬
tend northeast to a conspicuous igneous plug called
Iron Mountain. On the north of the Lenox Hills
and separated from them by a broad valley is
Cathedral Mountain (Plate 1: figure 3), a bold,
scarp face capped by the thick Capitan dolomite.
The syenite plug called Iron Mountain is con¬
spicuous because of its reddish-brown color and
extremely rugged surface. Its igneous composition
and consequent contrasting weathering form make
it unique in the mountains and an excellent land¬
mark. It divides the region roughly into two parts
and occupies the extreme eastern end of the Altuda
quadrangle. Important landmarks on the mountain
front from Iron Mountain to Gaptank on the
Fort Stockton road (U. S. Highway 385), all in
the Hess Canyon quadrangle, are: Leonard Moun¬
tain (Plate 6: figure 3; Plate 8: figure 2) and the
Wolf Camp Hills (Plate 2: figure 2). Leonard
,S2°0£_ ,OZ _,SloO£
12
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Mountain has the form of an arrowhead with the
point directed to the southeast. This mountain
is significant in having a stratigraphic section inter¬
mediate between an essentially limy facies on the
east and a predominantly shaly sequence of Lower
Permian rocks. On their north side rises the high
and steep face of the main mountain mass, but
it has not yet been given a name. Northeast of
Leonard Mountain about 2.5 miles, lies the short
chain of hills called by P. B. King (1931:56) the
“Hess Ranch Horst’’ because it is an uplift of older
rocks among younger ones (Plate 21: figure 5).
Several canyons permit access deep into the
mountains, but not all of them have been named.
From the Decie Ranch in the Altuda quadrangle
the mountains may be penetrated on a road that
leaves the plain and enters a canyon ultimately
reaching the Sullivan Ranch (now Yates Ranch).
Gilliland Canyon extends northward from Iron
Mountain far into the mountains.
Hess Canyon is the most conspicuous valley on
the western side of the Hess Canyon quadrangle,
but it is unusual in containing a divide within it
and in having two branches. Another canyon is
also known to the ranchers as Hess Canyon. This
one extends northeast from the south-flowing
branch of Hess Canyon to the site of Old Word
Ranch and the mountain top just beyond it. It is
possible that this is the “Comanche Canyon” men¬
tioned by Girty (1909:512) in his descriptions of
fossils collected in the Glass Mountains by R. T.
Hill. Mr. Leonard Hess, owner of part of the prop¬
erty on which this canyon is located, corroborated
this supposition. This identity is also borne out
by some of the species identified by Girty, which
are known commonly only from this part of the
mountains.
According to P. B. King (1938), the Glass Moun¬
tains were formed when the Marathon Basin orig¬
inated. This resulted from a doming of the Ed¬
wards Plateau at its western side, where it reached
the Cordillera. The stripping of the Cretaceous
sediments of the Plateau exhumed the Paleozoic
sediments beneath, creating a window, as it were,
in the Plateau. Differential weathering in a semi-
arid climate left the resistant limestones and dolo¬
mites of the Permian in high relief on the northern
side of the Marathon Basin and thus produced the
Glass Mountains.
The Permian strata of the Glass Mountains are
inclined to the northwest about 10 degrees, form¬
ing long dip slopes in places (Plate 21: figures
3, 4), but in others, as on the northern side of
the mountains in general, the slope is the old ero¬
sion surface on which the Cretaceous was laid. The
Permian overlies the basin rocks unconformably,
in places resting on the Pennsylvanian, but in
others on klippen of the Devonian thrust over the
Pennsylvanian. A detailed account of the geology
and stratigraphy of the Marathon Basin was pre¬
pared by P. B. King (1931, 1938). The stratigraphy
of the Permian of the Glass Mountains is fairly
simple, but the facies relationships of the strata
are extremely complicated.
The Permian of the Glass Mountains includes
Lower Permian (Wolfcamp Series) at the base,
comprising the Uddenites -bearing Shale Member
of the Gaptank Formation, the Neal Ranch and
Lenox Hills formations mostly of shale, followed
by the Lenox Hills and Skinner Ranch formations
of calcarenite and conglomerate. These are suc¬
ceeded by the Leonardian Cathedral Mountain and
Road Canyon formations, a succession of lime¬
stone and silicious shale. Many of the limestones
of the Leonardian are sandy and conglomeratic.
The Guadalupian Series of rocks that follows is
generally without conglomerate and consists of
the Word Formation, a thick silicious shale se¬
quence with thick, sandy limestone wedges. This
is followed by heavy, bedded dolomites represent¬
ing the Capitan Formation. Inasmuch as silicified
fossils occur from the Wolfcampian through the
Word Formation, but not beyond, our discussion
of the stratigraphy will include only the Wolf-
campian, Leonardian, and Word formations, with
an incidental comment on the Capitan.
As noted above, the stratigraphic section in
which we collected is restricted; this is true also of
the geographic area. We have not covered the en¬
tire area of the King map of the Glass Mountains,
nor have we investigated the sections east of the
Fort Stockton road (U. S. Highway 385). These
do not contain silicified material and therefore
were not visited. To the west we extended our
studies to the eastern slope of the Del Norte Moun¬
tains in the area northwest and, for a few miles,
south of the site of the Old Payne Ranch in the
Monument Spring quadrangle. This area contains
NUMBER 14
13
a good development of the Road Canyon Forma¬
tion and a sandy manifestation of the Word For¬
mation, both overlying a poorly exposed section
of the Cathedral Mountain Formation. The latter
is also sandy and conglomeratic but contains in¬
teresting faunas, especially the Perrinites in con¬
glomerate. We made a brief survey of these forma¬
tions in the Del Norte Mountains and Altuda
Mountain, which lies to the north of the Old
Payne Ranch. We did not trace the Cathedral
Mountain Formation in its thinned manifestation
more than a mile or two east of the Split Tank
area.
Building the Collection
After the early trips to the Glass Mountains, dur¬
ing the period of collecting small pieces, we realized
that an enormous treasure of fossils lies buried in
these limestones. This led to the idea that the
successive faunas of the various strata could be de¬
veloped by dissolution of the limestones. It was
also realized that continued collecting of small
pieces would not yield significant results. By 1945
we decided to collect in quantity and to increase
the size of the blocks. It seemed possible to obtain
the faunal succession by this means and to amass
a great collection of the various types of animals
preserved in beeckite.
The program thus graduated from the dissolu¬
tion of small scraps of limestone “on the window
sill” to the purchase by the museum of a stone tub
that would hold the larger blocks. Accordingly, a
tub of some 90 gallons capacity was set up, and
etching of the large pieces started. A short time
later two porcelain tanks of the same capacity
were added. The stone tub proved to be a problem
because it was not fitted with proper fixtures for
stopping the outlets. Nevertheless, it gave good
service until one day, when unattended for several
days, it released its virulent contents over the floor
of its upstairs room. The active liquid leaked onto
the exhibition floors below, but no harm was done.
This accident warned that the locale for the work
had been poorly selected. The result was the erec¬
tion of a small building especially designed for dis¬
solving blocks in acid. Here, two porcelain tubs
were installed, and a third tub, much larger than
the others, was added. The latter, composed of
acid-resistant Haveg material, was designed to hold
a block up to 400 pounds in weight. In addition
to the three tubs owned by the National Museum
of Natural History, two others, belonging to the
United States Geological Survey, were installed in
the room. With this increase in equipment, all the
facilities for a large-scale program were at hand. In
the 10 years following the erection of the “acid
house,” as this structure in the museum’s east court
was dubbed, approximately 30,000 pounds of lime¬
stone were processed.
In 1959, when it was necessary to make way for
the erection of air-conditioning apparatus for the
museum building and the new wing to be built on
the east side, the program was interrupted only
momentarily to transfer the acid equipment to the
ancient and inadequate Escanaba Hall, where a
small basement room was assigned to the work.
Here, two tubs 2.5 by 4.5 feet by 20 inches deep
were installed along with a smaller porcelain tub,
2 by 4 feet by 1.5 feet deep. The dissolution of
blocks was thus carried on throughout the period
of construction on the east wing.
The New Laboratory.— When the east wing of
the National Museum of Natural History building
was planned, provision was made for two acid lab¬
oratories, one for the museum and one for the
Geological Survey. That of the museum originally
was very spacious, measuring 80 by 19 feet, and is
located on the ground floor on the north side of
the building. The laboratory contained five tubs
(now three) 4 by 2.5 feet by 18 inches deep.
Hoods are mounted over the tubs to bear off the
noxious fumes. In the middle of the room there is
a large, stainless steel washing trough. A drying
oven completes the equipment. The tubs are
drained as explained below and are emptied di¬
rectly into the main sewer by rubber siphons into
floor drains. There is no plumbing connected to
the tubs, but faucets are mounted over them to
facilitate filling the tubs with water and washing
them (Plate 1).
In order to accommodate sedimentological work
in 1967, the “acid room” was reduced to about half
size, with three active tubs, the washing tank, and
the drying oven. This is the equipment of the
laboratory at the present time, when the need for
extensive dissolution of blocks is much less than
before.
14
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Selecting the Blocks.— In collecting blocks the
selection of any piece for solution is made with
considerable deliberation. At no time has the
collecting consisted of random sampling, although
some people believe that the results would have
been the same. Each block selected was studied to
be sure that it contained a minimum of chert,
which is usually a dead loss and a danger to the
more delicate material if it plunges onto a screen
full of good specimens. Each block selected must
contain signs of silicified shells on all six sides. It
was necessary to trim some blocks to eliminate
material of probable low yield. At USNM 706e,
for example, many of the best blocks, when pried
out of the ground from the parent ledge, proved to
be about 2-2.5 feet deep but with only 1 foot of
material at the top having a good concentration of
fossils. Consequently, these blocks were trimmed by
use of sledge hammers to eliminate the part with¬
out numerous specimens. The location of pieces
meeting the specifications frequently took consid¬
erable searching. This care was worthwhile, in our
opinion, because only a few blocks out of the
hundreds dissolved (less than 1 precent) proved to
be duds because of buried chert masses or poor dis¬
tribution of, or lack of, specimens.
Once collected, the blocks were treated with con¬
siderable care, on the theory that they were irre¬
placeable. For shipment, they were jacketed in
burlap sacks, which were elaborately sewed on and
then reinforced with wire bands. Later it was
found to be easier to wrap the blocks in burlap
and encase them with steel straps applied by a
banding machine. The reason for the banding and
wrapping was to save the pieces in the event blocks
did get broken during shipment. One or two blocks
usually were broken in nearly every shipment, but
the pieces were held together by the wrappings,
and seldom was the broken block a complete loss
(Plate 9: figure 4).
Blocks totaling 1457 in number and comprising
sizes above 50 pounds were collected and processed.
No quantitative data have been collected for the
project as a whole. One large block, from USNM
706e and weighing 186 pounds, was studied quanti¬
tatively for an article published in Life magazine
(22 June 1953). It yielded 30 pounds of insolubles,
5 pounds of which were clean, sugary quartz sand.
The other 25 pounds were fossil shells, many of
them complete, but many broken and of all sizes.
Actual count of the larger shells was 3000; estimate
of the smaller specimens indicated about 7000 (of
brachiopods only; great quantities of bryozoa were
not included in the count). Thus, the block had
at least 10,000 useful specimens besides a great
quantity of unusable debris. Not all blocks were
that prolific, but some were more so. Blocks from
USNM 702c, with their countless tiny specimens
and lack of sand or other nonfossil insolubles, prob¬
ably would yield far more specimens than the pre¬
ceding. It is safe to say that no other form of
collecting would yield so many good megafossils
for so small a volume. The specimens were packed
by current action into the small volume with an
amazing economy of space.
Silicification. —No studies have been made on
the physico-chemical causes for the silicification in
the Glass Mountains. The subject probably is com¬
plex, and no single method of silicification will
explain all of the occurrences. Several possible
sources of silica that may have played a role in the
silicification occur within the rocks. Some of the
rocks are spiculite, and sponge spicules are a known
source of silica (Pittman, 1959:132) for altering
shells. Radiolaria also are present in some of the
sediments. In addition to these sedimentary sources
of silica, the region is one of volcanic activity. The
Iron Mountain plug and its dikes probably account
for some of the dolomitization and some of the
silicification.
Silicification of the fossils is not uniform geo¬
graphically, nor are all types of fossiles silicified.
Generally it may be said that the region west of
Iron Mountain contains less prolific occurrences of
silicified fossils than that to the east and north. In
the Lenox Hills the Decie Ranch Member shows
much silicification on the outside of the blocks, but
many specimens on the inside are marked only by
patches of beekite on otherwise unsilicified shells.
This is most unfortunate, because it has made diffi¬
cult the collecting of the remarkable gigantic
fauna of this member. Most of the large Derbyia ,
Scacchinella, and Geyerella taken from that mem¬
ber and the higher Sullivan Peak Member were
obtained by breaking the specimens out with sledge
hammers, a method not productive of high quality
material, especially of specimens with spines such
as Scacchinella. The spines, bound to the matrix,
NUMBER 14
15
cause peeling of the outer shell layers when the
matrix is broken.
In the immediate vicinity of Iron Mountain, con¬
siderable dolomitization has occurred. In many
places this has completely destroyed the fossils. In
such areas, as that in the upper Cathedral Moun¬
tain and the Road Canyon Formations west of the
divide and 3.5 miles northeast of Hess Ranch, fos¬
sils are almost impossible to extract. In the region
around the Old Word Ranch house, Word dolo¬
mites yield good silicified material. Generally, how¬
ever, dolomites are a loss for good fossils.
The Glass Mountains silicified fossils generally
can be divided into two types of preservation:
siliceous coatings and complete alterations to silica.
USNM localities 706c and 702c are examples of the
former method. At these places many of the speci¬
mens are coated by a thin film of silica, which,
when unbroken, protects their interior from the
acid. Crinoid stems and echinoid spines from the
former locality that have been in an acid bath for
more than three weeks may be broken after removal
and may prove to have unaltered calcite in the in¬
terior. The inside is protected by the thin coat of
silica. If these specimens have a small hole or
crack in them, they often emerge from the acid
bath as thin, hollow shells, only the delicate sili¬
ceous coating being preserved. At USNM 702c the
larger spirifers are preserved in the same way, un¬
broken ones having unaltered calcite between the
siliceous coatings. Some specimens that had cracks
in them, however, have been reamed out by the
acid and are recovered as the most delicate of
hollow shells, the interior shell surface being repre¬
sented by a thin layer that preserves all the details
and the exterior surface as an equally thin and
delicate sheet. Specimens preserved this way often
must be filled with plaster of Paris to preserve
them.
The other type of preservation is found at the
Split Tank area and several other places. Here,
many of the shells consist of a thick, single layer of
silica, in some cases showing distinct beekite rings
but, in others, just a bluish chalcedony-like silica.
It seems evident that the calcite of the brachiopod
shells has been removed and followed by deposition
of silica. Shells of this type often are so coarsely
silicified that the fine details of the anatomy and
shell sculpture are destroyed. Nevertheless, the
gross interior often is preserved in sufficient detail
to permit adequate generic determination.
Kinds of Silicified Fossils.— All kinds of in¬
vertebrate fossils are taken from the insoluble resi¬
dues from all parts of the column in which silicifi-
cation has taken place. Small protozoa are not
common, but fusulinids are frequent to abundant.
The smaller foraminifera seldom are found in a
silicified state, although they have been diligently
sought. They occur in countless numbers in some
parts of the column such as the Neal Ranch For¬
mation and in the Decie Ranch Member of the
Skinner Ranch Formation. Foraminifera, ones
with thin tubes that ramify over brachiopod shells,
are common in most of the formations.
Sponges abound in many parts of the section and
are often exquisitely preserved. They occur in
especial profusion in several bioherms in the lower
part of the Road Canyon Formation and in others
in the upper part of the same formation. They also
are conspicuous elements of the bioherms in the
Hess Formation (Taylor Ranch Member; Plate
19: figure 2) at the level of the Sullivan Peak
Member. Other bioherms yield sponges in con¬
siderable abundance such as those in the Neal
Ranch Formation and in the Skinner Ranch For¬
mation (USNM 705a) north of the Hess Ranch
house.
Generally corals are fairly common, but they do
not make much of a contribution to the strata.
They are usually small solitary cups, but some
colonial types appear in the Uddenites -bearing
Shale Member and in the Neal Ranch and Hess
Formations. Except for some fairly large heads of
Syringopora -like corals in the former, they are sel¬
dom very large. Small colonies of Cladochonns and
Thamnopora are conspicuous in some of the resi¬
dues (USNM 702c). The corals, however, are not
reef-building animals in the Permian of the Glass
Mountains.
Bryozoans play a far greater role in contributing
to the stratal construction of the mountains than
do the corals (Elias and Condra, 1957). Some beds
are composed almost completely of their colonies.
Massive bryozoans are fairly abundant in most of
the bioherms, but the fenestellids in some occur¬
rences are still more numerous. In fact some of the
bioherms (USNM 714w, 723v, 702un) are so rich
16
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
that they may be called bryozoan bioherms (see
“Bioherms”).
Brachiopods are the most abundant of the silici-
fied megascopic animals in the Glass Moutains,
occurring in nearly all of the levels. They are also
so common in some bioherms that their name is
given to the bioherm; thus, the bioherms in part of
the Decie Ranch Member may be designated Scac-
chinella bioherms and some of those in the lower
part of the Road Canyon Formation may be called
Hercosestria or Coscinophora bioherms (Grant,
1971).
Silicified Gastropoda, unlike brachiopods, seldom
occur in great numbers. They are scattered sparsely
through the faunas. Although sporadic in occur¬
ence, they display great generic and specific differ¬
entiation. Their variety is very great, although their
numbers are small. A few locations in which they
were found in abundance are known—for example,
the “sponge bioherm” of USNM 703c in the Road
Canyon Formation. They also were found in con¬
siderable variety and fair abundance in the sponge
bioherms in the upper part of the Hess Formation
(Taylor Ranch Member). The association of
sponges and a variety of snails also was noted in
the Guadalupe Mountains at the famous Cherry
Canyon (Getaway Member) “sponge bed” at
AMNH 512 (=USNM 728). A location abound¬
ing in snails but without the accompanying sponges
was seen in the Cathedral Mountain Formation
(Wedin Member, USNM 717e) on the north side
of the Lenox Hills, and USNM 721u produced an
abundance of well-preserved gastropods.
Similar remarks apply to the Bivalvia, which
occur in abundance in the sponge beds (USNM
703c and 728), but which are fairly scattered else¬
where. They do not occur in the variety of kinds
that characterizes the gastropods, but any block
from any level may yield a molluscan surprise.
Most of the environments represented by the Glass
Mountains strata were not favorable for Bivalvia.
Fine muds and sands, the usual bivalve environ¬
ment, are rare.
Cephalopods occur throughout the section.
Nautiloids rarely are gregarious, but two such con¬
centrations were seen (USNM 702a and 703a).
Generally these are rare fossils and many are large.
It is difficult to dissolve large nautiloids from the
rock. A large silicified specimen that would have
measured a foot or more in diameter was seen in
matrix, but it had been the victim of a vain at¬
tempt at collecting and was so damaged as to make
it unworthy of removal. Good silicified nautiloids
are prizes, and every effort to collect them was
made when they were encountered (Miller, 1945b;
Miller and Youngquist, 1947).
Ammonites are far more abundant than nauti¬
loids, but they are seldom well silicified and are
most successfully collected by breaking them from
the rock. One conspicuous example of silicified
ammonites of high quality is that at USNM 703,
described by A. K. Miller (1945a). They came
from the upper part of the Road Canyon Forma¬
tion. Most of the ammonites collected were picked
up loose as limonitized fillings in the upper part
of the Gaptank Formation (Uddenites -bearing
Shale Member) or were broken from conglomeratic
beds of the Gaptank, Neal Ranch, Lenox Hills,
and Cathedral Mountain Formations. It is an odd
fact that the best ammonites were taken from lime¬
stone conglomerates having a variety of ragged or
rounded pebbles and also an abundance of plant
seeds and fragments of wood. The ammonite bed
near the middle of the Lenox Hills shale on Dug-
out Mountain is a conspicuous example (USNM
715). Another prolific ammonite zone in the con¬
glomerate is at the base of the Lenox Hills Forma¬
tion (USNM 707j) just west of the Devonian
klippe at the Slick-Urschel Oil Company No. 1
Mary Decie-Sinclair Well. A still more striking
one with large Perrinites is at USNM 732u in hill
4861, Dugout Mountain area. The ammonites
found in conglomerates may represent dead forms
floated into shallows or onto beaches. In this way
they become mixed with land-derived pebbles and
plant debris (Hamada, 1964).
Chiton plates and scaphopods were etched from
the sponge bioherms (USNM 703c, 728) and a few
other localities.
Evidence of echinoderms is seen in all of the
insoluble residues. Their fragments often consti¬
tute a sand or gravel in places such as in the China
Tank Member of the Word Formation (USNM
706c), where both crinoids and echinoids supply
their parts to the debris. At this place echinoids
are conspicuous in the form of large, odd, club-
shaped spines (Kier, 1958). Huge crinoid stems
characterize parts of the Lenox Hills Formation
NUMBER 14
17
and are especially characteristic of the Decie Ranch
and Sullivan Peak Members. These huge stem
segments, 2 inches in diameter, occur in profusion
about the Scacchinella clusters, forming essentially
a crinoid stem conglomerate. Small crinoids rang¬
ing from the size of a pea to that of a pin head are
common in some localities (USNM 702c and 706c),
but generally large crinoid heads are rare. Crinoid
debris is also abundant in the interbiohermal areas
of the lower Skinner Ranch Member (USNM
720e). A few ophiuroids have been etched from two
localities (USNM 703c and 751i). The specimens
and isolated plates show the presence of these
fossils so difficult to preserve. Huge crinoid stems
are diagnostic of Wolfcampian rocks.
Arthropods are among the rarest of the fossils to
appear in the insoluble residues. Trilobites occur
in all of the strata, but they are most numerous
in the Road Canyon Formation and the Willis
Ranch Member of the Word Formation. In the
former, several complete specimens of enrolled
Anisopyge have been taken. Barnacle plates (Tur-
rilepas) are fairly common at USNM 702c but were
not seen elsewhere. Ostracodes are rare and scat¬
tered, but USNM 703c yielded a fair number of
specimens described by Sohn (1950, 1954).
Finally, it is necessary to mention the occurrence
of an occasional fragment of fish, but these are rare.
The fragments consist of isolated teeth and orna¬
ment spines. A specimen of Helicoprion was taken
by one of the parties of the American Museum of
Natural History.
Processing the Blocks.— The first step in the
processing of the blocks is to paint with ambroid
(cellulose acetate) or some other acid-resistant ma¬
terial the side on which the block will rest in the
tub. This, of course, is to prevent action of the
acid on the base of the block, which, if not done,
might cause the block to dissolve unevenly and to
topple over or to etch from the bottom in such a
way that the specimens on the lower side would
be progressively crushed. It is important to study
the block before it is placed in the acid to locate
any large siliceous masses such as chert, large
massive bryozoans, big corals, or other unusually
large specimens. The block should be oriented in
the acid in such a way that these possibly destruc¬
tive masses be as low as possible, in order that, on
being freed by the acid, they do not plummet down
onto a pile of delicate shells already released. In
some cases it is advantageous to place the block
in the acid with the bedding planes parallel to the
sides of the tub. This upright position, in the
case of some productids, helps to yield more spiny
specimens in nearly perfect condition. At any rate,
all sides of each block should be studied to deter¬
mine the position most advantageous for maxi¬
mum production. It is, of course, not possible to
see all buried lumps that may cause breakage with
their release.
Blocks of a hundred pounds or less can be placed
more readily by hand into the tubs by two men.
Heavier blocks are more difficult to handle in this
manner, and a tub can be destroyed if a large
block is dropped into it. For the heaviest blocks
a light hoist designed to lift about a ton is em¬
ployed. Operated by a series of pulleys, the hoist
makes the placement of a heavy block in the tub
safe and easy (Plate 1: figure 2).
The Tubs.— After experimentation with soap¬
stone and fired clay tubs, both of which proved
unsatisfactory, vats of Haveg 1 material were in¬
stalled in the acid laboratory. These tubs measure
4.5 feet by 2.5 feet in length and width and have
a depth of 18, 20, or 24 inches. The Haveg material
has a thickness of 0.5 inch and will support blocks
up to 400 pounds in weight when the tub
base is supported along its entire bottom. The
drain is located in one corner of the tub to
facilitate emptying the contents. All corners on the
base and sides of the tub are rounded to render
impossible sticking of small specimens and to make
it easier to clean them. Specimens from different
blocks, if caught in the tub, could lead to many
inaccuracies in the work. The greatest of care is
taken when cleaning the tubs to see that all vestiges
of a decalcified block have been removed. We de¬
cided on the use of the larger tubs because several
small blocks from one locality can be processed at
a time if no large block is available. It is inefficient
to process the large blocks in small tubs, a fact that
was discovered when tubs having dimensions
smaller than the ones mentioned above were used.
Our present tubs will take the largest blocks that
can be handled under the conditions of our opera¬
tion (Plate 1: figure 2).
1 Haveg Corporation, Newark, Delaware.
18
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
The coated blocks are placed on a monel metal
screen basket (about 20 mesh). This basket has
low sides and the screen, which is fairly stiff, can
hold considerable weight. We found that screens
deteriorate with constant use and should not be
employed for large blocks when the strands become
too limber. The purpose of the screen is to catch
the freed shells and to permit fine mud and sand to
run through the meshes. Blocks with large quanti¬
ties of shells usually trap a considerable amount
of the fine insoluble debris. This creates problems in
the recovery of delicate specimens, because the mud
must be washed from the shells on the screens by a
gentle jet of water.
The monel metal screen to hold the block is
placed on a plastic plate on a soapstone slab, which
in turn rests on two soapstone supports. The rea¬
son for this arrangement is to make it easier to get
the plate off the bottom when the block is de¬
calcified.
After a block is placed in the tub in the desired
position, water is poured in until the block is well
covered. The acid is then added by means of a
rubber siphon. In starting the process, three to
five gallons of commercial hydrochloric acid (16
percent) is used. This is continued each day until
accumulated calcium chloride from the etching
slows the process. This heavy brine, which sinks
to the bottom and retards action, is removed by
siphon, and fresh water is added.
Removal of the brine lowers the solution to the
level of the stone plate, thus revealing the screen
and any shells that have been freed. Unusual,
delicate specimens, fine perfect specimens, or those
that might be injured by remaining in the solution
should be removed at this time, leaving the hardier
ones. Also, any large lumps that promise trouble
should be taken off the block if possible. The
block again is immersed, and the process is con¬
tinued as above until the block has been completely
decalcified.
The insoluble residue in the screen on the plastic
plate is removed from the tub to a drain, and a
light jet of water is played over the screen to elimi¬
nate as much fine mud as possible. After this pro¬
cedure, the screen on its plastic plate is removed
from the stone plate. The screen is then placed
in a large tank of running water and allowed to
wash for several hours, usually overnight. It is very
important to remove all of the calcium chloride
because it will deliquesce on humid days and,
keeping the specimens constantly wet, will spoil
the trays and labels on which they lie.
It is also important to use acid as free of sul¬
phuric acid as possible. When the brine reaches a
high concentration, deposition of fine needles of
gypsum may take place. These may festoon the
specimens and make them worthless if not cleaned
off. This is not serious, but it should be avoided
if possible because it means an additional step in
the handling of such delicate material and may
result in the loss of excellent or rare specimens. If
specimens do become coated with fine needles of
gypsum, they can be cleaned by soaking them for
several hours in fresh, strong hydrochloric acid.
After the screens and contents have washed for
several hours, they are removed from the running
water and placed on racks to drain. Once they
have drained, they may be placed in a drying oven,
over a heater, or in whatever drying device is most
convenient. Following the drying procedure, the
screens are ready for picking and sorting. Generally
it is best to pick off the large specimens first and
then to take small samples of the finer debris and
sprinkle them into a large tray to search for small
specimens. Great care must be taken at this point,
because some of the Permian fossils are difficult to
recognize as complete specimens. It takes consider¬
able experience to identify the shapeless dorsal
valve of the cranias or the oddly digitate brachial
valves of Pseudoleptodus or other of the lyttoniids,
especially the small ones. It also takes a sharp eye
to locate useful juvenile specimens. In addition, it
is important to save all half valves or pieces that
might be fitted together when all the material of
one kind is assembled. Some of the best specimens
in the national collection were pieced together, one
part having been taken from one screen and the
remainder from another. The picking process re¬
quires vigilance and care—indeed the success of the
entire etching process requires the greatest care
and patience.
After the investigator has picked the best mate¬
rial, he may find it advantageous to screen or size
the remainder and examine the various size grades
for special small types. He may be rewarded in
his precaution by the discovery of fine juvenile
material of a variety of genera.
NUMBER 14
19
After a block has been completely decalcified and
the residue has been removed from the acid and
placed in the wash, one further step is necessary:
cleaning the tub to catch all fine debris that has
gone through the screen or floated away from the
block. If one watches the solution of a small block
in a glass receptacle, he will notice constant move¬
ment of small specimens. These fill with gas and
rise to the surface of the acid and float about until
they discharge their gas. Then they plummet to
the bottom only to appear again at the top almost
instantly. This will keep up until the specimen is
completely decalcified and completely filled with
liquid or gas. During these ascents and descents,
the specimen usually floats away from the screen
and is often drawn to the sides of the tub. Floating
specimens are skimmed off before the tank is
emptied. The sludge on the bottom of the tank is
thus composed of fine debris in which is mixed
some of the choicest of the small specimens. The
cleaning of the tub is, therefor, a procedure that
must be given the greatest of care. The tub must
be “sterile” before it receives another block, and
all the fine debris must have been carefully re¬
moved. This fine material is caught in a receptacle
and then screened under water to catch the good
small specimens with a minimum of breakage.
Some of the best of the juveniles are obtained
from the bottom sludge, and occasionally a wan¬
dering large specimen of excellent quality is found
on the bottom.
It may be desirable to take an unusual specimen
from a block before the entire mass is dissolved.
This can be accomplished by the use of a separa¬
tory funnel mounted over the specimen, which per¬
mits the acid to drip on or near the specimen at
some desired rate until it is freed.
Occasionally a specimen of unusual delicacy ap¬
pears on a surface while a block is etching. It may
be lost with ordinary methods, i.e., letting it take
its chance with other shells on the screen. In such
a case, the liquid can be drained off part of the
block and the specimen covered by, or filled with,
paraffin, which hardens quickly and clings to the
damp specimen. This wax protects the specimen
during the remainder of the solution process. The
paraffin also may buoy the specimen sufficiently to
float it, thus making an easy method of recovery of
a rare individual. The paraffin may be removed
easily by xylol or hot water. It may be desirable
to free a specimen but not to allow the acid to
enter its interior. The foramen and commissure
are plugged with paraffin or ambroid, and any holes
that develop during solution are also plugged in
the same way.
Some specimens must be oriented in order to
reveal delicate internal structures. This is espe¬
cially true of loop-bearing or spire-bearing brachio-
pods. If these are allowed to etch without control,
the acid works more rapidly on the inside surfaces
of the shell and soon leaves the loop or spire en¬
closed in a lump of lime. This usually breaks off
if the specimen is not vertical, i.e., with the beak
down. Consequently, terebratulids and spiriferids
should be treated separately by orienting them with
the beak down and the foramen plugged. Solution
can then be allowed through the anterior gape, or
a hole can be made at some strategic point. This
is slow, but good specimens may result. Spiriferids
with well-preserved spires are among the great rari¬
ties in this collection.
Preservation of Specimens.— The specimens freed
from limestone by the acid are often very fragile;
in some examples they are very brittle and tend
to fall to pieces along cracks, in others they are
spongy and tend to crush readily. Both of these
types can be preserved by soaking them in a harden¬
ing agent. We have used alvar dissolved in acetone,
which has proved very satisfactory because of the
deep, penetrating quality of the acetone: it enters
the cracks of fragile forms and also tends to fill the
interstices of the spongy shells. A thick solution
should be avoided, because this will produce a high
gloss on the specimens and make photographing
them difficult. In addition, the specimens should
not be soaked and dried in a very humid atmos¬
phere as the alvar will turn opaque white.
Some specimens such as Enteletes and Paren-
teletes, which are thin-shelled, may be recovered
with the interior details poorly preserved but with
the exterior in good condition. These specimens
are valuable for their outer details, but they cannot
be preserved unless they are filled with a hardening
agent. We fill such specimens with plaster of Paris
by squirting it into the interior with a medicine
dropper. This same treatment is given shells that
consist of two silicious films. By this treatment,
20
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
we have saved many specimens that otherwise
would have been impossible to keep.
Transporting Specimens.— Because of their fra¬
gility, transporting silicified fossils creates a prob¬
lem. In moving collections from the American
Museum of Natural History in New York City and
from the University of Kansas at Lawrence, we
embedded specimens in paraffin. For one trip, the
specimens were placed in trays, and paraffin was
poured over the trays and specimens, cementing
both to the container bottom. When the paraffin
hardened, the specimens were immovable and safe
from being jarred. For another shipment, speci¬
mens were placed in receptacles en masse, and wax
was then poured over them to form a large block.
In both methods blocks were transported without
loss. To remove them, the wax is placed in hot
water. The melted wax floats to the top of the
water and hardens. It can be picked off as a lump
and the specimens can be removed uninjured from
the water.
Another method for the transportation of small
silicified specimens is to place them in glycerine.
The syrupy liquid permits no sudden shocks, and
quick movement within it is impossible.
Storage of Specimens.— The delicacy of many
of the siliceous specimens and the long, fragile
spines of the productids make storage of them a
difficult problem. Many of the productid brachial
valves and the nonspiny brachiopods are arranged
for protection in covered boxes between layers of
cotton. This type of preservation appears to be
completely adequate for most of the specimens.
Generally it is necessary to cover the top of the
specimens with a sheet of fine tissue to prevent the
upper layer of cotton from picking up individuals
when that layer is lifted: the specimens commonly
have small projections that may catch in the fibers
of the cotton. Unless the precaution of using the
tissue is taken, the specimens may drop off and be
broken when the cotton is lifted. With fairly stout
shells, the bed of cotton can be deep and the inside
of the box cover may be used to hold them in place,
making an upper layer of cotton unnecessary.
For very unusual specimens, “riker mounts,” i.e.,
glass-topped boxes, have been employed. These can
be used with a bed of cotton, the inner glass surface
holding the specimens on the cotton, or, in more
unusual cases, the specimens may be cemented into
Figure 2.— Riker mount (glass-covered box) for delicate
specimens; most terebratulids with loops in the national
collection are so mounted (G = glass, S = specimen, C = cork).
the riker. Our favorite method of mounting for
interiors that show loops or spires is to cement a
small cork to the bottom of the riker and then to
cement a black card of appropriate size to the sur¬
face of the cork. The choice specimen is then
cemented to the black card, giving protection and
easy visibility. The specimen also can be photo¬
graphed without being removed from the riker.
Such a method is ideal for small terebratulids with
delicate loops. We have not used plastic as a
mounting medium because of the difficulty in
photographing specimens so mounted, although
this method would give the greatest protection.
The plastic blocks also create difficulties in the
close study of specimens.
Collections Supplementing the Glass Moun¬
tains Specimens.— It became apparent early that
specimens would be urgently needed to supplement
those from the Glass Mountains. This necessity
grew from our desire to know other described spe¬
cies and to compare them with specimens from the
Glass Mountains. It was also necessary to have
specimens from other facies to understand assem¬
blages in types of sediments not found or rarely
seen in the Glass Mountains.
The greatest need for supplementary collections
arose in connection with species described by G. H.
Girty (1909) and Robert E. King (1931) from the
Sierra Diablo and Guadalupe Mountains. Girty
established many species, nearly all of which were
taken from the “white limestone” (=Capitan
Limestone) or some of its dark limestone equiva¬
lents. Many of Girty’s species are based on poor,
or often incomplete, specimens that actually do not
show any generic characters by modern standards.
NUMBER 14
21
Girty’s species and, before him, Shumard’s from the
same area were the first and, in some cases, the only
described Permian fossils. Consequently, they have
been widely and uncritically identified. Robert E.
King identified many of the Girty species in the
Glass Mountains, all at levels far below the Capi-
tan, which, in the Glass Mountains, generally has
failed to yield any good faunas. Capitan species
thus seem unlikely to be found in the Glass Moun¬
tains at levels below the Capitan. Specimens of
Girty’s species also were needed to learn interior
details to establish their generic identities. Many
of his species from the Capitan Limestone are diffi¬
cult to prepare or the interior details have been
lost in fossilizadon.
A similar argument holds for some of R. E.
King’s and Girty’s species collected in the Sierra
Diablo. The generic identity of some of them is
uncertain from the specimens in their collections.
This is especially true of the productid species in
which interior details are required for correct
generic assignment.
Stehli’s (1954) work also inspired a need to have
specimens from the Sierra Diablo. The reason,
however, was far different from that in the above
cases. Stehli’s species are defined adequately so far
as interior details are concerned, but it proved to
be necessary to obtain additional material, espe¬
cially of the large productids, in order to try to
obtain growth series of such genera as Nudauris,
Spinifrons, and Antiquatonia.
Collections also were made in north-central
Texas from the silty-shale beds of the Finis and
Jacksboro Members of the Graham Formation
through the Wichita Group. This collecting pro¬
duced interesting and important productids and
indicated unsuspected Permian affinities of some
of the brachiopods of the Cisco Group. Waagen.o-
concha was discovered in the Jacksboro Shale, and
the same formation produced a specimen of Mar-
tinia. Collections also were made in the Permian
beds (mostly Wolfcampian) of Oklahoma, Kansas,
and Nebraska. The variety of genera and species is
not as great in these shaly areas as in the limestones
of the Glass Mountains, the Guadalupe Mountains,
and the Sierra Diablo, but important comparative
material was found that was useful in defining
genera and understanding ecological conditions.
In addition to the material outlined above, col¬
lections were obtained from other parts of the
country, all of them proving helpful in one way
or another. Dr. Kenneth Ciriacks presented the
National Museum of Natural History with 13
blocks of limestone from the Phosphoria Formation
(Franson Member), which yielded excellent com¬
parative material of Bathymyonia, Derbyia, Ctena-
losia, and others that help to show this fauna is
connected only remotely with that of the Glass
Mountains.
Problems in the Study of Silicified Fossils.—
It is generally believed that silicified fossils are so
well preserved that they solve all problems. Un¬
fortunately, silicification may cause serious difficul¬
ties in the study of fossils. While gross characters
of the interior and exterior are usually apparent,
fine details of the ornament and of the interior
frequently cannot be obtained, or they are com¬
pletely and irretrievably destroyed. One of the
drawbacks to the use of silicified specimens in the
study of brachiopods is the general impossibility of
obtaining details of the shell structure. These are
not always vitally needed but when they are, resort
must be had to unsilicified material if it can be
obtained.
In the Glass Mountains, specimens of every
quality of silicification can be obtained, some that
show fine details in exquisite perfection and others
with the interior details in greater fidelity than
hitherto known. Specimens from USNM 702c,
706e, and several other places generally have the
silica deposited on them as a thin film. In these
specimens, detail of the interior is usually good, but
some thickening of the exterior characters can be
detected, which indicates that minor features of
the ornament have been changed, as in Acosarina
mesoplatys, for example. These small changes
could result in the creation of species not needed,
but it is better to duplicate than to be mistaken.
Many specimens, especially some from Split Tank
and many from King’s fossil bed (=Taylor Ranch
Member) in the upper part of the Hess Formation,
are composed of solid silica or are mottled by
beekite rings. These are the least satisfactory for
study because the silicification is so gross that fine
details are completely lost. In spite of this, the
specimens are useful—one must work with all of
the material that can be had.
22
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Specimens newly taken from the residues appear
to be clean, but few of the silicified specimens
really are ready for study until they have been
cleaned under a microscope. This is frequently an
arduous, time-consuming, and unrewarding task.
But it must be done if the specimens are to be
photographed, measured, or used in comparative
work. Most of the limestones are dirty or sandy,
and mud or sand grains cling to the inside of speci¬
mens or festoon the loops, spires, or other delicate
structures. They cannot be cleaned away from
some specimens, but in others it is necessary to do
so in order to reveal the various structures in all
of their detail. It is important to wash specimens
thoroughly of all accumulated mud immediately
after the residues have been removed from the acid;
the mud is soft and can be eliminated with a gentle
stream of water from a hose or chemical wash-
bottle. Sand grains generally cannot be eliminated
so easily. Many of the specimens from USNM
706e, which appear so beautiful, often take hours
to clean because the sand grains are cemented to
the interior or exterior surfaces. These must be
scraped away with a flattened needle. Delicate in¬
teriors can be filled with paraffin and scraped clean
with a sharp needle without injuring the fragile
structures. It has been necessary in many speci¬
mens to leave them dirty, because the foreign
matter is so strongly adherent that any attempt at
removal would jeopardize the safety of the speci¬
men. Obtaining a perfect specimen depends on
many factors. Foremost is the kind and quality of
the silicification. A well-silicified specimen, if it is
not too large, will survive the treatment necessary
in its recovery. The larger a specimen, the more
difficult it is to extract from the matrix.
One of the most important factors in the re¬
covery of perfect specimens is their position in the
rock in relation to the orientation of the block in
the acid bath. A specimen that is so positioned by
accident or intent, that it is well supported
throughout the dissolving process is more likely to
survive in perfect form than a neighboring speci¬
men, which will be freed in such a way that it is
suspended by a delicate appendage or narrow edge.
This point may be illustrated by reference to
three hypothetical productids in a hypothetical
block. Two are located on the side and one in the
middle of a small block. Those on the side begin
to appear soon after dissolution is started and their
spines are first revealed. Then appears the body
of the shell and finally the spines on the opposite
side. At some point during this process the weight
of the shell will cause the main part to break away
from these delicate spines. Thus, the two lateral
specimens will be imperfect because the spines on
some part of the shell were not strong enough to
support the entire specimen until it could be freed.
The fortunate specimen near the center of the
block, on the other hand, will be well supported
the block has in determining the completeness and quality of a freed specimen (M = monel
metal screen basket; S = soapstone slab).
NUMBER 14
23
during the entire dissolution process, and the result
will be a “perfect” specimen when ultimately freed
(Figure 3).
A block should be studied with care before it is
placed in the acid to determine how the majority
of the specimens lie and what will be the most
advantageous position in which to carry out the
process. In some blocks the specimens lie along a
bedding plane and are best dissolved with the bed¬
ding planes perpendicular to the tub floor.
The revelation of a perfect loop or spire is an¬
other happy accident of position in the rock. In
the terebratulids, the acid enters the interior
through the foramen and the commissures, if these
are not tightly welded. The acid thus acts fastest
along the contact of the matrix and the inside of
the shell. The result is soon the isolation of a
rounded or oval lump of matrix around the loop.
If the specimen is lying in a disadvantageous posi¬
tion, this lump will be too heavy for the loop and
will break it off. If however the specimen is in an
upright position, the loop may be able to support
the lump of matrix until it is finally dissolved. The
same process acts for spires, but these are more
complex and more delicate than loops and seldom
survive the solution process. The best way to ob¬
tain a loop or spire is to prepare it specially on
specimens already taken out of the matrix, carrying
out the solution under controlled conditions and,
in some shells, leaving the delicate structures sup¬
ported underneath by matrix.
Photographing Silicified Specimens.— Mounting
a spiny productid for photographing creates a diffi¬
cult problem. Because of the spines, the ordinary
cementing media cannot be used. We have found
that lead shot (dust grade) is ideal for this purpose.
The specimen can be posed at any angle in the shot
without hurting or affecting the spines. Another
means of photographing small and delicate silicified
specimens is to cement them with ambroid or other
cement on the head of an insect pin. The pin can
be stuck in a cork or plasticine ball at any angle
desired. After the picture is made, the specimen
can be dismounted by immersion in a solvent.
Color of the specimens is a big factor in their
photography. The gray, yellowish, or dark speci¬
mens make no serious problems when they are
coated with ammonium chloride dust. When the
specimens are dead or lustrous white, as many are.
then problems in lighting and definition arise. The
white specimens tend to produce pictures of low
contrast and lifeless appearance even when the
lighting is correct. To obviate this unfortunate
condition, many of the specimens are painted gray
or black. India ink is perfectly satisfactory for the
spongy specimens but cannot be removed, except
with extreme danger to the specimens. We use an
“Opaque” 2 , which is removable in many cases,
difficultly so in others. In some instances, the ink
is diluted to produce a gray rather than black color.
When coated with ammonium chloride dust, these
blackened or gray specimens give superb pictures.
It is no tragedy to leave the specimens colored
black, because their study quality is actually en¬
hanced rather than injured. Since india ink has a
tendency to peel when thoroughly dry, it should
not be used for glossy or smooth specimens.
Stratigraphy of the Glass Mountains
Collecting Program.— In the Glass Mountains
this was confined to three major groups of rocks:
those of the Wolfcamp Series, the Leonard Series,
and the Word Formation of the Guadalupe Series.
Because most of the sequence above the Fourth
Limestone of the Word Formation (=Appel
Ranch Member) is composed of dolomite, that
part of the section was not studied. Fossils appear
chiefly as cavities or impressions in the dolomite,
and no silicified fossils, or any others besides fusul-
inids, have been found in this part of the sequence
except for a fault block northwest of Dugout Moun¬
tain (USNM 732q), that contains undolomitized
fossils with Hegler affinities. The following dis¬
cussion, therefore, includes only the parts of the
section from which silicified specimens have been
taken. It also includes a discussion of the upper
part of the Gaptank Formation of present usage,
because it contains, in its upper part, essentially
the same brachiopod fauna as that of the lower
part of the Wolfcamp Series (Neal Ranch Forma¬
tion). New or important species from the Gaptank
Formation are included in the systematic part of
this monograph because of their bearing on the
fauna of the Wolfcamp.
2 John T. Barlow Opaque, Phillips and Jacobs, Inc., Phila¬
delphia, Penn.
24
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Previous Work.—No serious or extensive geologi¬
cal work was done in the Glass Mountains prior
to 1916. R. T. Hill (1901) described the geography
of the mountains and made collections of fossils
in Comanche Canyon (possibly the canyon leading
to the Appel Ranch) that later were described by
G. H. Girty (1909). In a brief “Review of the
Geology of Texas/' J. A. Udden, C. L. Baker, and
E. Bose (1916) named five of the familiar Glass
Mountains formations. Udden named the Gaptank
Formation in this publication (page 47), while he
and the others (pages 51, 52) named the Leonard,
Word, Vidrio, and Gilliam Formations. The next
year Udden (1917:41, 43), in a more extended dis¬
cussion, published detailed sections in the Glass
Mountains and added two more formations: the
Wolfcamp and Hess. Thus, the basic pattern of
the Glass Mountains stratigraphy was blocked out
by these Texas geologists.
Interest in the Permian of the Glass Mountains
increased with the beginning of exploration for
oil in West Texas. P. B. King (1926) discussed the
geology and structure of part of the Glass Moun¬
tains. From then until the present, he has been
the leader of work in the Glass Mountains and has
contributed more to their understanding than has
any other geologist. The next year I. A. Keyte, W.
Blanchard, Jr., and H. L. Baldwin (1927) discussed
the Gaptank-Wolfcamp sequence in the eastern
part of the mountains. In the same year P. B. King
(1927) described the Bisset Formation in the Glass
Mountains, and Schuchert (1927) discussed the
Pennsylvanian and Permian Systems of West Texas.
P. B. King and R. E. King (1929) described the
Dugout Creek overthrust, and the same year these
two wrote a description of the stratigraphy of the
Pennsylvanian and Permian strata of Trans-Pecos,
Texas. P. B. King’s (1931) important monograph
on the geology and structure of the Glass Moun¬
tains included a good geological map of the region.
In that year R. E. King’s (1931) monograph on
the brachiopods of the Glass Mountains was pub¬
lished. These two studies, embodying all of the
important ideas on the Glass Mountains to appear
up to the present time, are the standard references.
In the next few years P. B. King (1932, 1934) pub¬
lished several other papers on the Glass Mountains,
culminating in his Geology of the Marathon
Region (1938), which summarized and brought
up to date his own work and that of others.
An important step in the understanding of the
Permian of Texas was made by John Emery Adams
and collaborators (1939), who revised the nomen¬
clature of the Permian in North America and ele¬
vated the Wolfcamp and Leonard Formations to
the rank of series. Further views on the Glass Moun¬
tains were published by P. B. King (1942) in an
extensive discussion of the Permian of West Texas.
The beginning of dissatisfaction with the scheme
of stratigraphy in the Glass Mountains was voiced
by Daniel Jarvis (1957), who stated the need for
revision of the Wolfcamp Series. Charles A. Ross
(1959) proposed revision of the Wolfcamp Series
and created two new formations where hitherto
there had been but one. Ross (1960, 1962a, 1962b,
1963a, 1963b) described the stratigraphy of the
Wolfcamp and Leonard Series and the Word For¬
mation, essentially the same units as those discussed
below. Carl O. Dunbar and his committee pub¬
lished a chart depicting the correlation of the
Permian Formations of North America (Dunbar
and others, 1960). The Glass Mountains section
is shown with the revisions by Ross in the Wolf¬
camp Series but without other changes. Garner
Wilde (1962) joined the ranks of the skeptics and
pointed to needed revisions of parts of the Glass
Mountains sequence. Cooper and Grant (1964) pro¬
posed new formation and member names to facili¬
tate their descriptive work on the brachiopods; the
Skinner Ranch and Cathedral Mountains Forma¬
tions were established. The former formation was
divided into three members in the western part
of the mountains: Decie Ranch, Poplar Tank, and
Sullivan Peak. At this time also the First Lime¬
stone Member of the Word Formation of P B.
King was named the Road Canyon Member, but
later it was elevated to formation rank and trans¬
ferred to the Leonardian (Cooper and Grant,
1966).
Revision of Part of the Glass Mountains Sequence
The stratigraphic pattern set out by Udden, Baker,
and Bose (1916) has been changed little since it
was proposed. P. B. King (1931) and R. E. King
(1931) modified the supposed relation of the Hess
and Leonard Formations as set out by Udden, but
NUMBER 14
25
they did not change the general scheme. The re¬
vision of Wolfcamp rocks by Ross (1959) and the
new names proposed by Cooper and Grant (1964,
1966) are the most important changes up to the
present time. A minor revision of the lower part
of the Leonard Series of P. B. and R. E. King was
suggested by Cooper and Grant (1964:1586; 1966:
E6), and they recommended that the Road Canyon
Formation be placed at the top of the Leonard
Series. Revision of the mapping in the Sierra del
Norte is needed. Correlation of the various parts
of the section are another matter, and these are
discussed in detail in a later part of this section,
where major changes in the understanding of the
Glass Mountains sequence are proposed.
Pre-Permian Sequence - Gaptank Formation.—
The Permian rocks of the Glass Mountains rest
unconformably on parts of the underlying Pennsyl¬
vanian formations, most notably and extensively
on the Gaptank Formation. The original definition
of the Gaptank Formation included the Wolfcamp
Formation. The two were separated by Udden
(1917:38), but the exact boundary between them
has not yet been clearly settled to the satisfaction
of all workers in the Glass Mountains. The type
section of the formation is located south of the
tank, called Gap Tank, in Stockton Gap on the
Fort Stockton-Marathon Highway (U. S. Highway
385) about 25 miles northeast of Marathon. The
formation extends westward from the type section
at the base of the mountains to Dugout Mountain,
a distance of nearly 30 miles. A significant gap ap¬
pears in its distribution in the five miles between
Iron Mountain and the east end of the Lenox Hills.
At the type section about one mile south of Stock-
ton Gap, P. B. King (1931:44) recognized 21 units
that aggregate in thickness about 1,800 feet in a
broad east-west anticline. The lower thousand feet
is siliceous and has little limestone, but the upper
800 feet contains considerable limestone. These two
members, according to P. B. King (1931:44), cor¬
respond respectively to part of the Strawn, Canyon,
and Cisco Series of the Pennsylvanian. The lower
part of the sequence (beds 1-12) consists mostly
of shale and sandstone in which occur five layers
of conglomerate. In the upper part (beds 13—21),
five beds of limestone form conspicuous members.
A few of the layers are fossiliferous and have faunas
that permit recognition of the parts of the Pennsyl¬
vanian mentioned above. Bed 10, a thick layer of
shale and sandstone just under the fifth conglom¬
erate (=rbed 11) is richly fossiliferous. It includes
some Permian brachiopods such as Parenteletes and
Diplanus. According to Moore (1944: chart 6, col¬
umn 39), the fifth conglomerate bed occurs at the
base of the Cisco (Virgilian) Series. In the type
section the beds above this conglomerate (beds
12—21) are poorly fossiliferous but contain thick
limestones. The uppermost (or fifth) limestone
crops out along the mountain front for a consid¬
erable distance west of Stockton Gap. The upper¬
most part of the Gaptank, the well-known Ud-
denites- bearing Shale Member, is not present in
the type section, but it is well displayed in the
Wolf Camp Hills. Inasmuch as the brachiopod
fauna of this member in the Wolf Camp Hills is
so similar to that of the overlying Wolfcamp rocks,
our discussion of the Gaptank will be confined
largely to this portion except for a few paleonto¬
logically interesting parts of the large outcrop area
of Gaptank Formation in the Marathon Basin west
of Marathon. These have a bearing on discussions
of correlation.
Application of the name “ Uddenites zone’' or
the more cumbersome “Uddenites-beaxing Shale
Member” to the hundred feet or more of the upper
Gaptank is inaccurate. The ammonite Uddenites
is confined only to a small part of this sequence,
and it is found also at another level in the Gaptank
(Miller, A. K., 1930:400, pi. 39: figs. 17-19). Nev¬
ertheless, we recognize the Uddenites- bearing Shale
Member and the strata above it to the base of the
Wolfcampian as an important stratigraphic unit
despite the cumbersome and inaccurate designation.
Uddenites- bearing Shale Member.— This mem¬
ber is best exposed in the Wolf Camp Hills.
Faunally and lithically it is strongly related to both
the underlying Gaptank and the overlying Neal
Ranch Formations. In the Wolf Camp Hills it is
sandwiched beween two thick layers of biohermal
limestone. The Gaptank under the Uddenites-bear-
ing Shale Member is heavy-bedded, massive, dark
gray, and contains scattered fossils, including the
fusulinid Triticites cullomensis Dunbar and Skin¬
ner and T. comptus Ross. Some of the brachiopods
from this limestone occur also in the overlying
Uddenites- bearing Shale Member. This thick lime¬
stone can be traced across the front of the Wolf
26
Camp Hills, and, thus, it forms a convenient base.
The member is terminated above by the Gray
Limestone of P. B. King (1931:55) in the Wolf
Camp Hills. This is a thick, massive, easily recog¬
nized limestone, but its age and faunal relation¬
ships now are not clearly understood. The
Uddenites- bearing Shale Member is definitely de¬
limited in the Wolf Camp Hills, but the same limits
do not define the member farther east (Plate 12:
figure 3).
The limestone of the upper Gaptank beneath
the U ddenites-bediring Shale Member is located on
both sides of the mouth of Geologists Canyon. To
the east it rises up the hill in an elongated recum¬
bent S, and then it levels off to cross the front
of hill 5060, the highest point in the Wolf Camp
Hills. From there it descends somewhat to underlie
the saddle on the east side of hill 5060. From this
saddle it slopes and thickens gradually to the east
side of the Wolf Camp Hills, where it plunges
below the surface of the plain at the base of the
east end of the hills. In places the sinuosity of this
layer affects the thickness of the overlying Ud-
denites- bearing Shale Member (Plate 4: figures
1 , 2 ).
On the west side of Geologists Canyon a prom¬
inent knob is underlain by this limestone, which
is overlain by the Uddenites- bearing Shale Mem¬
ber, here mostly shale. This is the westernmost
occurrence of the thick Gaptank limestone.
The U ddenites-bearing Shale Member is ex¬
tremely variable in lithology and thickness across
the front of the Wolf Camp Hills. At the knob
on the west side of Geologists Canyon, it is fairly
thick, 113 feet according to P. B. King (1931:55,
section 24, bed 1). It is best exposed in the saddle
on the north side of the knob, which is on the west
side of the canyon near its mouth. Here the north
slope of the knob exposes the upper, thin lime¬
stones of the member and the underlying soft, gray
shale. The shale is best exposed in the saddle—
here called the “goniatite” or “Uddenites saddle”
—which is floored by naked shale (Plate 4: figure 1).
The recent years of drought have altered this place
considerably and have revealed a better section of
the shale than hitherto known. The goniatites for
which this location is famous weather from the
upper part of the shale and are scattered on the
north, west, and east slopes of the knob, but they
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
have long since been removed nearly completely
from the saddle by collectors. The upper limestones
are brown to orange yellow and are exposed on
the north side of the saddle just under the over-
lying Gray Limestone. These limestones of the
Uddenites- bearing Shale Member are thick bedded,
and large blocks have slipped down to strew the
slope on the east side of the saddle. They afford
good fossils, including rare unlimonitized am¬
monites. Little shale is exposed on the west side
of the saddle because most of it has been eroded
away to create the valley between the Gaptank hard
limestone and the Gray Limestone of the Wolf-
camp.
The Uddenites- bearing Shale Member is well
exposed in a few places on the east side of Geolo¬
gists Canyon. A remnant appears in a swale in the
Gaptank Limestone just east of the canyon mouth.
Here a specimen of Omphalotrochus was taken
from the shale (Yochelson, 1954). Where the lime¬
stone of the Gaptank thickens and is elevated, the
Uddeni tes-bearing Shale Member thins. These com¬
plementary thickenings and thinnings are very
noticeable on the west side of hill 5060. At one
point, between the “o” and the ”1” in “Wolf” on
the Hess Canyon Quadrangle in the Wolf Camp
Hills, the Gray Limestone of the Wolfcamp rests
directly on the Gaptank Limestone, and thus it
pinches out the shale completely. East of this point
and near the west end of hill 5060, the member
thickens again, and here a section was measured
in it. The thickness of the Uddenites-bearing Shale
Member thus coincides with this sag in the Gap-
tank Limestone (Plate 12: figure 3). The measured
section is as follows:
feet
Neal Ranch Formation (Gray Limestone Member
of P. B. King)
Uddenites-bearing Shale Member
G. Slope containing gray shale that yields brown
chips of ferruginous material and occasional
goniatites . 15
F. Calcareous coarse sandstone . 10
E. Granular limestone with Parenteletes . 5
D. Cobbly limestone and shale with Rhynchopora
and Eridmatus . 5
C. Mostly covered, probably shale with an occasional
limonitic ammonite . 10
B. Granular, yellow-brown limestone . 1.5
A. Slope covered with shale chips . 15
Heavy bedded Gaptank limestone
61.5
NUMBER 14
27
The Uddenites-bearing Shale Member can be
traced across the front of hill 5060 between the
contour intervals of 4800 and 4900 feet, and this
is one of the best places to collect its fossils. Care
must be taken, however, in the collecting because
the slope is thickly covered with rubble and slide
material from the various layers of the member.
A section was not measured on this part of the hill,
but the thickness is approximately 80 feet.
On the east side of hill 5060 and the low hill
next to the northeast is a broad flat underlain by
the upper Gaptank limestone, which is just below
the edge of the saddle. The broad flat contains
bioherms, some of them algal, belonging to the
lower part of the Uddenites- bearing Shale Mem¬
ber and about the same as those in the lowest
limestone in the hill to the northeast of the saddle
(here called hill 4950 because its top is marked
by a closed contour at this level). The saddle is
R. E. King’s locality 199, which produced a num¬
ber of interesting Permian brachiopods, including
Parenteletes and Scacchinella.
The section on hill 4950 lying on the east side
of the large saddle and between hills 5060 and
4952 is unlike that to the west. On the west face
of this hill just above the massive Gaptank Lime¬
stone a bioherm yielded the brachiopod Scac¬
chinella. The measured section in hill 4950 is as
follows:
feet
Neal Ranch Formation (Gray Limestone Member
of P. B. King)
Uddenites-bearing Shale Member
D. Shale occupying a flat at the top of the hill. 15
C. Massive limestone with fusulinids forming a
ledge on the edge of the hill. 16
B. Cobble-covered shale slope. 20
A. Cobbly limestone at base with biohermal brown,
algal limestone weathering yellow and with
large Syringopora heads. 32
83~
Massive Gaptank Limestone
Traced eastward, the section alters somewhat, is
well exposed under the saddle on the west side of
hill 4952, and has essentially the same thickness
as the preceding section. On the west side of this
easternmost hill of the Wolf Camp Hills, the mas¬
sive Gaptank is followed by 16 feet of cobbly beds,
which are overlain by the lower brown layer with
Syringopora 32 feet thick. This is succeeded by a
shaly-cobbly slope representing an interval of 26
feet. The capping limestone of the Uddenites- bear¬
ing Shale Member is 15 feet thick, but the overlying
shale has disappeared. Scacchinella appears in the
cobbly beds and in the upper thick limestone (15
feet) overlying them.
The upper (15-foot) limestone forms the floor
of this easternmost saddle and of the dip slope to
the north on the west side of hill 4952, and it
Ficure 4.— South front of the Wolf Camp Hills showing the position of members and formations
(G = Gaptank Formation, GL —Gray Limestone Member of P. B. King, GM = upper massive
bed of Gaptank Formation, H = Hess Formation, SC = Scacchinella, U = Uddenites-bearing Shale
Member of Gaptank Formation, ULr=upper limestone bed of Uddenites- bearing Shale Membei
that contains Scacchinella; see Plate 2: figure 2) .
28
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
directly underlies the 135 feet thick knob that caps
the hill. This knob is the Gray Limestone of P. B.
King, here completely altered to dolomite. On the
slope forming the front of these two hills, 4950 and
4952, the upper Gaptank ledge undulates at dif¬
ferent levels, causing the Uddenites- bearing Shale
Member to change in thickness.
The northeast slope of hill 4952 also exhibits
Uddenites-bearing Shale Member, but it is impos¬
sible to make a section on this slope because of
the debris and float blocks covering the surface.
The upper limestone (bed C) of the section in
hill 4950 appears to thicken. The brown bed in
bed A also appears to thicken and blocks of it
are abundant on the slope.
Uddenites- bearing Shale Member Northeast of
Wolf Camp Hills.— The upper Gaptank is vari¬
able along the front slope of the foothills extend¬
ing northeast from the Wolf Camp Hills to the
Fort Stockton-Marathon road (U. S. Highway 385).
A small irregularly conical hill with about 4,850
feet elevation (top contour) lies 1.5 miles northeast
of the eastern end of the Wolf Camp Hills. Here
a section of about 450 feet is exposed, but the few
fossils collected do not warrant its correlation with
the Uddenites- bearing Shale Member. The base of
the section is dark biohermal limestone crumbling
to cobbles. It contains algae, the brachiopods
Teguliferina and Hystriculina, and may be the
same limestone as that underlying the Uddenites-
bearing Shale Member in the Wolf Camp Hills.
Above it comes a sequence of 155 feet of shale
with thin layers of brown limestone containing
eugonophylloid algae. The shale is capped by 38
feet of sandstone and limy sandstone, followed by
a partly covered sequence with shale and lime¬
stone in the float for 45 feet. The section is capped
by 95 feet of massive and granular limestone form¬
ing a high bluff. P. B. King (1931:145, section
26) places this limestone at the base of the over-
lying Hess, but it contains Gaptank fusulinids and
may represent a thickened extension of the upper
limestone of the Uddenites- bearing Shale Member
of the east end of the Wolf Camp Hills. The Hess
conglomerate is not exposed on this hill, and the
thick upper Gaptank limestone is succeeded by red
shale of the Hess Formation (=Lenox Hills
equivalent of Ross).
Goniatites of the Uddenites- bearing Shale Mem¬
ber were found in the slopes of a chain of foot¬
hills beginning two miles northeast of the east
end of the Wolf Camp Hills. Three numbered
crests identify these foothills from southwest to
northeast: 4815, 4752, and 4762. The sections mea¬
sured under these hills are dissimilar, but all con¬
tain a lower shale, usually a thick sandstone, and
a thick, capping, bluff-making limestone that is
overlain by the basal conglomerate of the Hess
Formation (=Lenox Hills of Ross) (Plate 19:
figure 3).
A small knob at the base of hill 4815 is capped
by a thick biohermal ledge of Gaptank limestone
that holds up the crest of the knob. On top of this
lies shale with large tetracorals near the base. This
is followed by shale with thin layers of brown lime¬
stone and sandstone that are succeeded by a thick
sandstone capped by the limestone forming the
prominent cliff at the top of the hill. This lime¬
stone can be traced for some distance along the
mountain front. It is not the Gray Limestone of
P. B. King (as King originally supposed), but prob¬
ably it is the upper limestone capping the Ud-
denites- bearing Shale Member just below the Gray
limestone at the east end of the Wolf Camp Hills.
This correlation is based on the fact that it con¬
tains Triticites primarius Merchant and Keroher,
which also is found beneath the Gray Limestone
in the Wolf Camp Hills. King (P. B., 1942:649)
also came to this conclusion when he stated: “Thus
the gray limestones mapped as Wolfcamp immedi¬
ately west of Gap Tank now appear to belong to
the Gaptank formation. . . .”
At the hill capped by summit 4752, the section is
thicker and the massive beds of sandstone are miss¬
ing. These thick sandstones are evidently lenticular,
because they appear at different levels and cannot
be traced for long distances. At hill 4752 a thick
bed of shale at the base of the section contains
two beds of brown limestone 60 feet apart that
yield goniatites including Uddenites. The upper
bed is USNM 701r (= bed 13 of P. B. King, 1942:
55, section 27) and the lower one is reported by
P. B. King (1931:55, bed 9, section 27). The top of
the hill is capped by a thick layer of limestone, a
thickened extension of that appearing in the hill
4815 to the west. The capping limestone is over-
NUMBER 14
29
lain by conglomerate and red shale of the over-
lying Hess Formation (= Lenox Hills of Ross).
In the easternmost hill (4762) a somewhat shorter
section is revealed. Here the lower slopes are cov¬
ered, but, where the hill steepens, shale containing
thin beds of brown limestone and sandstone mea¬
sure 105 feet. This is followed by 45 feet of sand¬
stone, and this in turn by more than 100 feet of
gray and white limestone, the upper, harder white
part standing out as a prominent bluff. This is
undoubtedly the same limestone that forms the
capping ledge of the foothills to the west and prob¬
ably to the east, except in the Wolf Camp Hills,
where the Gray Limestone is the capping ledge.
The Hess conglomerate appears on the northside
of a small ravine that divides this hill from the
main mountain front. The Uddenites fauna was
not identified with certainty to the east, and fossils
are so few and difficult to find in the vicinity of
Stockton Gap that the Uddenites-bearing Shale
Member was not identified at this place.
Other Gaptank Localities.— The large area of
Gaptank west of Marathon was not studied exten¬
sively, but two localities south of the Arnold Ranch
are of interest. An important place for brachiopods
is exactly 1.25 miles due south of the Arnold Ranch.
This place was discovered by accident in our effort
to find the ammonite bed from which Prouddenites
and Uddenites were taken. On the P. B. King map
(1938: pi. 16), the ammonite bed is located 1.25
miles south of the Arnold Ranch. It actually oc¬
curs 1.95 miles south of the Arnold Ranch (=
King locality C, not B = USNM 700g of Cooper)
and is located incorrectly on the Geological Survey
map. The ammonite locality appears correctly on
the map by P. B. and R. E. King accompanying
the Geology of the Glass Mountains (P. B. King,
1931).
The locality 1.25 miles south of the Arnold
Ranch (= locality B of P. B. King, 1938: pi. 16)
like the ammonite locality farther south, contains
a large, solid biohermal mass of limestone. This
appears in a shale enclosing cobbly limestone beds.
That the mass is a bioherm is evident because it
is not bedded, contains much finely laminated
limestone, suggesting algae, thin-cupped colonial
corals ( Amplexocarinia ) in abundance, and scat¬
tered brachiopods. The mass is about 20 feet long
and 3 to 4 feet high. The rock is massive and
extremely hard as it has not been appreciably
weathered. This locality is noteworthy because it
is a Pennsylvanian bioherm comparable to many
of those in the Uddenites-bearing Shale Member.
It is also noteworthy because of the prenuncial
Permian types of brachiopods it contains. These
are Limbella and Scacchinella , the latter a primi¬
tive form with little or no vesicular tissue in the
apex. The one specimen of fusulinid taken after
very diligent search is a Triticites dated as Virgilian
by Mr. Garner Wilde, Humble Oil and Refining
Company (letter to Cooper, 20 March 1962) (Plate
16: figure 1).
Wolfcamp Series
The rocks overlying the Gaptank Formation in
the Glass Mountains were named the Wolfcamp
Formation by Udden (1917:41). Since the forma¬
tion was named, it has suffered from disagreement
among workers as to its age and its boundaries.
Wolfcampian rocks have been called the Wolfcamp
Series, and they have been placed as the earliest
major division of the Permian System in the United
States. Rocks deposited in Wolfcampian time, thus,
have a great interest, and the Wolf Camp Hills are
the most significant reference section for these rocks
and their contained fossils (Plate 1: figure 3; Plate
2: figure 2).
The Wolf Camp Hills were not a happy choice
from which to select a name with such wide rami¬
fications. The Wolf Camp Hills contain only a
small part of the rocks laid down in the complete
series called Wolfcampian, and the faunas of the
type Wolfcampian rocks hithertQ have been poorly
known. The present work is the first extensive
paleontological study of the type Wolfcampian
fauna.
In the Glass Mountains, Wolfcampian rocks oc¬
cur across the entire mountain front, usually in
low foothills except for an interval between the
east end of the Wolf Camp Hills and the Fort
Stockton-Marathon road (U. S. Highway 385). The
sequence in the Wolf Camp Hills now has become
famous in spite of our ignorance of details of its
faunal succession.
Udden used the name ‘‘Wolfcamp Formation”
for the generally shaly sequence exposed in the
western part of the Wolf Camp Hills. Udden (1917:
30
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
29) applied the name to his beds 10—26 of section
7 and gave the thickness as 448 feet. The section
rested on his bed 7 (= bed 2 or the Gray Lime¬
stone of P. B. King) and was capped by a thick
bed of conglomerate (= Hess conglomerate =
Lenox Hills conglomerate of Ross). The Uddenites-
bearing shale and the Gray Limestone of King
were part of the Gaptank Formation. Bose (1917:
17 and Tables 1 and 2) placed the Uddenites- bear¬
ing shale in the Permian, thus including the Gray
Limestone with it. King (P. B., 1931:54) recognized
Udden’s and Bose’s interpretation of the forma¬
tion, but in the western part of the Glass Moun¬
tains he assigned to it rocks of different character,
mostly conglomerates. King also discovered a con¬
glomeratic sequence in the Hess Ranch Horst that
he correlated with the Wolfcamp Formation. Later
the Uddenites -bearing shale was excluded from the
formation by P. B. King (1938:79) when Plummer
and Scott (in P. B. King, 1938:79) demonstrated
that its ammonites are exactly like those of the
Cisco Series in north-central Texas.
The first revision of the Wolfcamp Formation
was made when John E. Adams and collaborators
(1939) raised the formation name to that of a
series. Jarvis (1957:4) studied the Wolfcamp For¬
mation along the Glass Mountains front and recog¬
nized that the Wolfcamp Formation of the type
region was unlike that in the western part of the
mountains. He likened the latter western part to
the Hess Formation of Udden. Ross (1959) re¬
studied the Wolfcamp Formation as defined by
P. B. King and made a drastic revision of it. The
sequence in the Wolf Camp Hills, the type Wolf¬
camp Formation, was renamed by Ross the “Neal-
ranch Formation” 3 with boundaries from the top
of the Gray Limestone of P. B. King (nr bed 2
of King’s section, 1931) to the Hess conglomerate.
Rejection of the Gray Limestone (= bed 2 of
P. B. King) from the Wolfcamp Formation was
based on work of Sellards (1932:148) and evidence
resulting from his own work on fusulinids. The
conglomeratic sequences in the western part of the
Glass Mountains, in accordance with Jarvis’ views,
were discovered to be faunally, as well as lithically,
distinct from the Neal Ranch Formation. Accord-
3 Originally written in this form by Ross but later revised
by him (Ross, 1960) to "Neal Ranch.”
ingly, these conglomeratic beds were named the
“Lenoxhills Formation” 4 and were stated to over-
lie the Neal Ranch Formation.
Overlying the Lenox Hills Formation, rocks
hitherto regarded as early Leonardian in age are
grouped into a formation now placed in the Wolf¬
camp Series. This formation, the Skinner Ranch
(Cooper and Grant, 1964), contains many fossils
related to the Wolfcamp below and some that link
it to the upper part of the Pennsylvanian Gaptank
Formation as well.
Neal Ranch Formation
The Neal Ranch Formation has its type section
on the Bill Neal Ranch, at the Wolf Camp Hills
13 to 14 miles northeast of Marathon. Ross’s type
section was made not far east of King’s section,
near that of Udden, but he does not include the
Gray Limestone as King (1938) did in his later
definition of the formation. We do not agree with
this action of Ross and hereby restore the Gray
Limestone (bed 2 of P. B. King) to its position
at the base of the Neal Ranch Formation. Our
reasons for restoration of this member to its old
position are explained below in a discussion of
the Wolfcampian faunas.
Considerable difficulty is experienced, in the
Wolf Camp Hills, in making a continuous section
of the Neal Ranch Formation that conforms to
prior published sections. King’s (P. B., 1931:54)
section made in the western part of the hills does
not conform with those prepared by Jarvis, Cooper,
or Ross. The place selected by King for his section
does not give as complete a sequence as can be
obtained along the south-flowing branch of Geolo¬
gists Canyon, where Ross (1963a:21) measured his
section. None of the geologists subsequent to King
has been able to confirm his system of numbers.
Although we measured sections in the same places
as King, Jarvis, and Ross, our sequence is not
precisely like theirs. Localities cited by Batten,
Finks, and Yochelson in their works on the gastro¬
pods and sponges frequently refer to bed 9 or beds
9—12 of Cooper. These are not the same as the
numbers in King’s section; bed 9 of Cooper is bed
12 of King.
4 As with the lower formation, Ross originally combined
the two elements of the name.
NUMBER 14
31
BEOS
9-12
Figure 5.—Diagram comparing the section of the Neal Ranch Formation prepared by P. B. King
with those prepared by Jarvis, Ross, and Cooper (ud —Uddenites zone; scale in feet).
Another difficulty arises from the fact that the
Neal Ranch Formation thins eastward. Conse¬
quently, the excellent section given by Jarvis (1957:
5) differs in thickness and sequence from that of
Ross (1963a:21), which was measured east of
Jarvis’s locality, where the strata are thinner. We
offer our own section and a diagram comparing it
with those of Jarvis, Ross, and King in an effort
to make them all conform. It is important that
the level of all Neal Ranch fossils be located as
accurately as possible.
The Neal Ranch Formation consists of 412-547
feet (composite section) of dark gray shale alter¬
nating with thin or massive beds of limestone,
some of them swelling to interesting and important
bioherms with unsuspectedly rich and varied
faunas. A revised section of the Neal Ranch For¬
mation is given below, and the important beds
32
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
are discussed in detail. The section is composite,
because the sequence is not the same across the
hills and a continuously exposed section of the
beds cannot be found. The thickness of the basal
limestone or Gray Limestone Member of P. B. King
diminishes to the west of its thickest point, and
the shale beds also thicken and thin. The sudden
appearance of bioherms in the section also makes
measurement difficult and uncertain. The section
between beds 2 and 12 of P. B. King was measured
in the west end of the hills, up Geologists Canyon,
and then at its first elbow, up the hill to the north,
ending with King’s bed 12 (=bed 9 of Cooper).
The remainder of the section, which has no coun¬
terpart in King’s measured section, was taken from
bed 12 of King on the west side of the north branch
of Geologists Canyon, from the second elbow to
the base of the conglomerate on the hill slope 0.7
mile N 76° W of hill 5060.
The composite section of the Neal Ranch For¬
mation is as follows:
/eef
Hess Conglomerate
D. Predominantly shale with thin and thick
layers of limestone ranging from a few
inches to 6 feet (details given under the
units) . 144
C. Biohermal limestone, shale, and cobbly lime¬
stone conglomerate. 40-75
B. Dark shale with occasional thin, scattered
limestone layers. 178
A. Gray Limestone Member. 50—100
412-547
Gaptank Formation (Uddenites -bearing Shale Member)
Gray' Limestone Member of P. B. King.— P. B.
King (1931:55) first used the name “Gray Lime¬
stone Member” for three beds that overlie the
Uddenites-bearing Shale, his beds 2 to 4. In 1931
he regarded the Uddenites -bearing shale as the
lowest part of the Wolfcamp Formation (=his
bed 1). In his section, bed 2 consists of 37 feet of
gray limestone, which forms cliffs and is a con¬
spicuous physiographic feature in the Wolf Camp
Hills, especially hill 5060, where it forms a high
bluff that was thought by King to be limestone (but
not exposed where the section was measured). Bed
4 also was assigned to the Gray Limestone, but this
bed contains a distinctive fauna of marked Per¬
mian affinities. 5 Furthermore, on the north slope
of hill 5060 a considerable thickness of shale in¬
tervenes between beds 2 and 4. Beds 3 and 4 are
hereby removed from the Gray Limestone Mem¬
ber because of the distinctive character of the
fauna of bed 4. Hereafter, in this discussion, only
bed 2 of King will be called the Gray Limestone
Member (Plate 12: figure 3).
Philip B. and R. E. King (in P. B. King, 1931)
mapped the Gray Limestone across the Wolf Camp
Hills and eastward to the Fort Stockton Road
(U. S. Highway 385). Later, P. B. King (1942:648)
recognized that the Gray Limestone did not have
this great lateral extent. Further studies of the
fusulinids and detailed sections in the foothills
northeast of the Wolf Camp Hills make it clear
that the thick gray limestones so like the Gray
Limestone Member at the base of the Neal Ranch
Formation are really layers in the Gaptank For¬
mation. The Gray Limestone is thus confined to
the Wolf Camp Hills.
Three separate areas in the Wolf Camp Hills
exhibit the Gray Limestone Member, the western¬
most area being the locality at which P. B. King
measured his section and named the member. In
the western end of the Wolf Camp Hills several
good exposures of this limestone occur. In the cen¬
tral part of the hills the limestone forms a promi¬
nent cliff capping hill 5060. A small butte in tlta
extreme eastern end of the hills is capped by a
thick mass of dolomite identified by us as the Gray
Limestone Member.
Westernmost Area: In the western part of the
Wolf Camp Hills the Gray Limestone is exposed
in Geologists Canyon, on an isolated butte on the
west side of the canyon mouth, and in the hill
slope west of the butte. The limestone can be fol¬
lowed up the canyon for 0.4 mile to the first tribu¬
tary that comes into the main stream from the
north (about where the 4650-foot contour crosses
the canyon). The top of the Gray Limestone ap¬
pears in the canyon bed at this junction (USNM
701). The Gray Limestone, however, can be traced
in the next gully from the south (the first indenta¬
tion of the 4700-foot contour upstream from the
“King (1942:647) states that “The overlying gray limestone
bed at the base of The Wolfcamp formation (beds 2 and 3)
contains a few specimens of Schwagerina.”
NUMBER 14
33
4650-foot contour) and can be proved to join the
main ledge that forms the crest of hill 5060.
The Gray Limestone forms the crest of the butte
on the south side of the saddle exposing the Ud-
denites- bearing Shale Member. It also forms the
north side of the saddle, but it is thinner and can
be walked westward as it descends the face of the
hill west of the saddle and finally passes under the
alluvium at the southwest nose of the hill. The
Gray Limestone thins from 40 to 10 feet in this
direction as it descends to the basin floor. The
Gray Limestone in this part of the Wolf Camp
Hills is massive, thick-bedded calcarenite with fos¬
sils difficult to extract. At the extreme west end of
the Wolf Camp Hills, near the point where it
passes under the alluvium, the Gray Limestone is
only a few feet thick. Fusulinids occur at two levels
in the Gray Limestone near the top of the small
butte at the canyon mouth (USNM 706p and 706q)
(Plate 4: figure 1).
Central Area: The Gray Limestone caps hill
5060 and forms the highest part of the Wolf Camp
Hills near their center. Here the limestone is 75
to 100 feet thick and in places is conglomeratic,
suggesting that the mass is reefy and that it was
eroded and broken in places. Here also the rock is
a calcarenite, but in places it is dense, reef-type rock
with flanking limestone conglomerates. Fossils are
not easy to obtain from this part of the member.
The Gray Limestone forms a long dip slope on
hill 5060 and forms the south wall of Geologists
Canyon before it plunges beneath the surface 0.56
mile due west of hill 5060 (Plate 2: figure 2; Plate
12: figure 3).
The bed of a gully just east of the junction of
the tributary from the north reveals the Gray Lime¬
stone. The margin of the east bank of this gully
is shale (bed 3), capped by the limestone band that
forms bed 4 of P. B. King. The shale thins to the
south and east, and bed 4 probably overlaps the
shale to lie on the Gray Limestone. This cannot
be seen because the tributary stream has cut along
the edge of the probable overlap and removed the
shale and overlying limestone down the dip of the
beds for a short distance.
The south wall of the gully is formed by the
steep face of the Gray Limestone as it plunges
abruptly beneath the surface. This appears to be
not a dip slope of the Gray limestone but probably
an eroded surface. West of the gully the surface
of the Gray Limestone is irregular, and its surface
is strewn with fossiliferous limestone pieces of un¬
certain derivation. Near the junction of the gully
and Geologists Canyon (USNM 722x) is a small
bioherm mostly of algae enclosing specimens of
Eolyttonia phialiforma, new species. We believe
that this bioherm belongs to the Gray Limestone.
Possibly it grew on the limestone and belongs
rather to the shaly bed 3.
Eastern Area: The Gray Limestone on hill 5060
is interrupted on the east by a broad saddle (R. E.
King 199) that reveals some beds and bioherms of
the Uddenites- bearing Shale Member. On the
north slope of the hill to the east, which has a
crest of 4952 feet, limestone lithically like the Gray
Limestone overlies the upper limestone and shale
of the Uddenites-bearing Shale Member, but it does
not form a bluff and it appears north of the edge
of the hill except for knob 4952. The hill between
5060 and 4952 reveals the Gray Limestone on its
north side, making the long dip slope. At hill 4952
the Uddenites- bearing Shale Member is capped by
135 feet of massive carbonate, mostly dolomite.
Fossils were not found in the dolomite mass at this
place, and all we can say regarding the dolomite is
that it occupies the position of the Gray Limestone
and probably represents another local, probably
reefy, thickening of the member (Plate 3: figure 4).
No evidence of the Gray Limestone was seen
northeast of the Wolf Camp Hills. P. B. King
(1942:648) recognized beds formerly called Gray
Limestone in this direction as members of the
Gaptank Formation. This is also the decision of
Ross (1963a: 12, 13). All of the thick limestones
capping the foothills to the northeast of the Wolf
Camp Hills clearly belong to the Gaptank Forma¬
tion. West of the Wolf Camp Hills no trace of the
Gray Limestone was found or has been reported.
Relationship to the Uddenites-5eanng Shale
Member: The Wolf Camp Hills is the only part
of the Glass Mountains where the contact of the
Gray Limestone and the Uddenites- bearing Shale
Member can be studied. P. B. King (1942:647)
states: “Here the Wolfcamp lies on the Gaptank
Formation without angular discordance and with
no clear sign of erosion, although some miles south
the Gaptank and older beds are steeply folded.”
The Uddenites- bearing Shale Member is variable
34
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
in thickness under the Gray Limestone, and in
places it is absent. Furthermore, the limestones of
the Uddenites- bearing Shale Member in places are
biohermal with the result that the Gray Limestone
rested on an uneven surface. No faunal break be¬
tween the two members seems evident, but the
contact certainly is disconformable. The uneven
surface on which the Gray Limestone was laid was
owing to irregularities of deposition and to the
formation of bioherms. The relationship is com¬
plicated further by the fact that the Gray Lime¬
stone itself is evidently lenticular or reefy, swelling
and thinning along its outcrop. The overlap of
bed 4 onto the Gray Limestone is further illustra¬
tion of the irregularity of thickness of the Gray
Limestone.
Dark Shale with Scattered Limestone Lay¬
ers.— This interval is variable in thickness; none of
the published measurements are in agreement, and
the numbering of the beds in the interval is not
uniform. The shale was laid down on an irregular
surface as explained above, the top of the Gray
Limestone being very irregular. Inasmuch as P. B.
King’s section has been consulted and referred to
so often, we use his numbers with the suggestion
that the comparative diagram (Figure 4) be con¬
sulted for equivalency between sections.
Beds 3—4 of P. B. King: Bed 3 consists of dark
gray shale of variable thickness, being about 10 feet
thick where it is well displayed in the gully that
drains into Geologists Canyon from the south, op¬
posite the point where bed 4 passes below the
canyon floor. No fossils were taken from this bed.
The interval between bed 2—the Gray Limestone
Member—and bed 4 is greater than 10 feet on the
west side of the Uddenites saddle. Here the slope
distance is about 50 feet vertically, denoting a
thickness of about 70 feet for bed 3, but no shale
is exposed on the steep slope.
Bed 4 consists of yellow-brown calcarenite of
variable thickness, usually 3 to 4 feet, but becoming
thicker where it is biohermal. In places at its base
it is composed of cobbly limestone with fair-sized
rounded limestone pebbles and cobbles that pass
upward to more solid calcarenite. There they
terminate in a layer of detrital calcarenite and shell
breccia with a flat upper surface. This bed can be
traced eastward from the first elbow above the
mouth of Geologists Canyon, along the base of the
north wall just above the stream bed. It passes
beneath the canyon floor about 50 yards upstream
from the small gully on the east side of the Gray
Limestone at USNM 701.
Bed 4 can be traced southward along the east
side of the small gully and then eastward along
the north bank of the gully at its right-angled
elbow. There it forms the brink of the gully and
holds up the small hill. The gully is formed by
migration of the stream along the soft shale of
bed 3 between the Gray Limestone and bed 4. This
gully is thus migrating down the dip of bed 3.
The north side of the gully is the last outcrop of
bed 4; it is overlain by higher members of the Neal
Ranch Formation to the east.
Bed 4 in places contains many fossils, but they
are difficult to extract unless silicified. Only a few
satisfactory places where this type of preservation
occurred were found in this bed. The edge of the
gully described above in the north slope of hill
5060 is such a place (USNM 727d). Here silici¬
fied brachiopods are common, among them
Geyerella, Parenteletes, and Tropidelasma. Fusu-
linids (Dunbar and Skinner, 1937:585, 670) of the
genera Triticites and Paraschwagerina have been
taken from this bed.
Bed 4 is well exposed on the west side of the
Uddenites saddle as it rises from the canyon to
loop over the hill on the north side of the Ud¬
denites saddle. The bed then desqends the south
face of the hill to the plain at the west end of the
Wolf Camp Hills. Two localities (USNM 701-1
and 727e) on this slope yielded silicified fossils
from bed 4 (Plate 5: figure 2).
Beds 5-8 of P B. King: Nowhere in the Wolf
Camp Hills are these beds exposed well enough
to obtain from them good faunas or a clear idea
of the beds’ nature. This sequence comprises
mostly dark gray shale, about 163 feet thick, on
the west side of the first tributary gully on the
north, extending into Geologists Canyon to a point
opposite USNM 701, where the Gray Limestone
passes under the stream bed. At this place the
shale is well, but not completely, exposed and is
blue black and crumbly. The interval represented
by it appears along the north side of the canyon
to the east and west and forms the slope facing the
Uddenites saddle. Fossils have been taken from
this interval, but it is impossible to be sure that
NUMBER 14
35
they were derived from the shale, because the'
slopes are covered liberally with float material from
higher in the section. An occasional large Reticu-
latia appears to have been derived from this interval.
The limestone layers, beds 6 and 8 of P. B. King,
were not identified. Probably these are lenticular
and may not have much lateral extent, or they may
have become covered since King measured his
section.
Biohermal Limestone, Shale, and Cobbly Con¬
glomerate.— Because of their unusual development
into bioherms, this group of limestones and shale
contains the most important and prolific faunas
in the Wolf Camp Hills. They are located where
it was possible to take large blocks from them.
Unfortunately, the exact equivalency of the beds
described herein with beds 9-14 of P. B. King is
not entirely clear, because bed 9 as recorded by
King (1931:55) was not defined lithically (it was
an interval in which certain fossils were collected
and was not a bed). Our identification of it is
based largely on the fossil list derived from loose
blocks in the 19-foot interval measured by P. B.
King (1931:55; 1938:96). Bed 12 is more readily
identified, and more than likely it furnished the
blocks identified as bed 9, because the faunas are
the same and the bed is clearly mapped (P. B.
King, 1931:54, fig. 19). King’s 12 forms a conspicu¬
ous capping ledge of the hill north of the Uddenites
saddle and on the north side of the east-west part
of Geologists Canyon. Bed 14 is definitely R. E.
King’s locality 92. We have, therefore, identified
all of the limestones between the dark shales of the
previous interval (beds 5 to 8) and the capping
ledge as beds 9 to 14. This is in accordance with
the faunas listed by R. E. King and the geographic
location of beds 12 and 14. In the western and
central parts of the Wolf Camp Hills, these beds
form a natural unit composed mostly of limestone
and aggregating in a thickness of about 75 feet.
The interval is variable in thickness and lithology,
and intercalation of additional layers takes place
eastward. Consequently, exact numbering is diffi¬
cult. Cooper’s estimate (Figure 4) indicates that
his bed 9 is probably part of King’s bed 12 (Plate
4: figure 4).
It seems best to discuss this sequence of beds
geographically, mentioning first those that occur
from the north tributary of Geologists Canyon near
USNM 701 to the west end of the hills, where the
layers are thickest and best developed, and then
the extension of the beds east of USNM 701 to
their disappearance near the north elbow of Geolo¬
gists Canyon. A third area occurs about a mile west
of the Wolf Camp Hills, but, because of the un¬
certainty of correlation of beds 9—14 in it, we dis¬
cuss this area in the discussion that deals with the
upper part of the Neal Ranch Formation.
The best section, and the one that yielded most
of the silicified fossils, is in the westernmost hill
(capped by two closed contours at 4900 feet) above
and on the north side of the Uddenites saddle and
west of the gully from the north. This hill is char¬
acterized by two small knobs, each containing an
interesting biocherm (USNM 701c, 701h). (Plate
16: Figure 2).
Area West of North Tributary: Overlying
about 163 feet of dark shale (beds 5—8), on the west
side of the small tributary from the north, are two
distinct beds of limestone with some interbedded
shale that are taken to represent beds 9 to 12 of
P. B. King {— Cooper’s bed 9; Figure 4). The
lower bed consists of 20 feet of brownish calcarenite
with a flat ledge of shell breccia on the top. The
ledge can be walked to the west side of the hill,
where it underlies another bioherm. This bed of
calcarenite and shell breccia is overlain by another
interval of about 20 feet, beginning with cobbly,
conglomeratic limestone about 3 feet thick. The
latter is followed by a thick biohermal mass, part
of bed 12 of P. B. King, which abounds in unusual
reef-type brachiopods (USNM 701c). The slope to
the northwest also contains bioherms of this strati¬
graphic level dotting the surface. Kings bed 14 (=
Cooper’s bed 12) is exposed at the head of the
small tributary from the north, where it is cobbly
at the base and has a great abundance of fusulinids
and an occasional goniatite, Properrinites. Bed 14
can be traced along the north side of the gully
between the small knob capped by the 4750-foot
contour and the hill to the south. The interval
between the top of the dark shale (bed 8) and the
top of bed 14 has been variously determined as
being from 40 to 75 feet thick.
Beds in the knob on the western side of the hill
are similar to those of the eastern one, but they
are not as thick. The lower limestone (bed 9 of
Cooper) forms the edge of the hill above the Ud-
36
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
denites saddle, is 16 feet thick, and overlies a thick
shale, here not exposed on the debris-covered slope.
The 16-foot limestone is capped by a flat calcarenite
bed a foot or more thick. The lower part of the
16-foot bed starts with limestone cobbles that grade
into more solid conglomeratic limestone, then into
calcarenite, and finally into the flat calcarenite and
breccia bed.
Lying on the upper flat bed just mentioned and
helping to form the small knob is another bioherm
about 5 feet thick, composed of algae, sponges, and
a variety of brachiopods. This bed (11 and 12 of
P. B. King?) is overlain by another flat calcarenite
and a breccia about a foot thick, with shale be¬
tween. On the north side of the bioherm, the
breccia bed is irregular, laps onto the side of the
bioherm, and is broken into quadrangular blocks
to form a mosaic surface. In places the mosaic is
domed where it has been compressed onto the top
of a bioherm. (Plate 4: figure 3). The large 5-foot
bioherm (USNM 701h) contains an abundance of
small Geyerella and enormous Parenteletes. These
two limestone beds can be followed on the west
slope of the hill a short distance to the north, where
they plunge under the surface of the plain. USNM
701k represents the same layer (bed 12 of King)
before it plunges under ground (Plate 4: figure 3).
The lower part of this interval (beds 9 to 12 of
Cooper = 12 to 14 of P. B. King) can be examined
on the east side of the north-flowing tributary. The
lower limestone caps the small hill represented by
the 4750-foot contour on the north side of Geolo¬
gists Canyon; bed 14 or the top of the sequence
appears on the north side of the gully dividing
this hill and the spur of the main mountain front
to the north. On the east side of the hill, capped
by contour 4750, Geologists Canyon makes its sec¬
ond elbow—here to the north—and isolates this
small hill. On the west bank of the north branch
of Geologists Canyon, a fine and almost complete
sequence of the upper Neal Ranch Formation can
be studied. The ledge capping the hill with con¬
tour 4750 passes under the floor of Geologists Can¬
yon exactly at the second elbow, where the canyon
turns to the north and the upper ledge of bed 14
appears on the west bank of the now south-flowing
stream about 250 feet north of the elbow. The
slope facing south below bed 14 (= bed 13 of
P. B. King) abounds in large fusulinids and
goniatites. This is the only locality in the Neal
Ranch Formation (= type Wolfcamp Formation)
known to us that has produced many goniatites
(USNM 706x = 715e). This bed thins conspicu¬
ously to the west. The interval between the beds
identified as “Bed 9’’ and that called “Bed 14” is
75 feet thick. It consists of 5 feet of limestone (=
bed 9), 42 feet of shale, 5 feet of limestone, 17 feet
of shale with goniatites, capped by 2 to 6 feet of
hard limestone (= bed 14). The beds just below
the uppermost limestone are cobbly conglomerate
and contain fossils in the cobbles and loose fossils
in the shale between them (Plate 4: figure 4).
The slope on the south side of Geologists Can¬
yon, just east of the hill capped by the 4750-foot
contour and forming the west side of a north¬
flowing tributary to Geologists Canyon, is held up
by the lower part of bed 9 (of Cooper). It ascends
the slope to the south and laps onto the Gray
Limestone Member (if projected). This slope con¬
tains many bioherms and is a prolific source of our
silicified fossils (USNM 701a and 701a 3 ).
Shale and Thin Limestone Sequence (Section
above Bed 14 of P. B. King).— This sequence is
well exposed in two places in the Wolf Camp Hills:
one in the center of the hills and the other at the
extreme west end beyond the main chain. The
Neal Ranch Formation above bed 14 in the section
parallel to the north branch of Geologists Canyon
is 144 feet thick. It consists of a shale sequence
with 9 bands of limestone ranging from 6 inches
to 6 feet in thickness. In general, the limestones
are brown in color when weathered and are hard
calcarenite. A prominent band about 57 feet below
the base of the Hess conglomerate is biohermal and
variable in thickness. The intervals between the
limestones are variable as can be determined by
following them along the outcrop. The shale be¬
tween the uppermost limestone and the Hess con¬
glomerate is also variable, but in places it is about
50 feet thick. The sequence of the Neal Ranch
Formation in this central part of the Wolf Camp
Hills appears to be thinner than the section meas¬
ured in the western part of the hills.
We found no silicified beds in these limestones
above bed 14, and fossils proved difficult to find.
Fusulinids are fairly common in some of the layers,
but other taxa are not well represented.
NUMBER 14
37
The best section of the upper Neal Ranch For¬
mation appears in a low hill 0.8 mile west-
northwest of the outlier on the south side of the
Uddenites saddle. This hill is slightly more than
100 feet high. The steep south face displays bio-
stromes and bioherms abounding in silicified
fossils. A section measured up the face of the hill
and down the back slope to the north reveals at
least 500 feet of shale and limestone like those in
the section along the north branch of Geologists
Canyon. P. B. King (1931:142, section 23) and
Ross (1963a: 65, section 19) measured, respectively,
527 and 532 feet in this hill. The section begins
about 50 yards south of the south slope of the hill,
where ledges of limestone first appear. From here
to the conglomerate contact, 23 limestone beds
were recorded, ranging in thickness from 6 inches
to 8 feet. Shale intervals varied from a few feet to
60 feet. Blocks taken from this hill for dissolution
came from the lower 30 to 50 feet of the slope
(USNM 701d, 721g), where the bioherms are best
developed. Silicification was not noted in the
higher beds.
P. B. King (1931:143) recognized “Bed 12” in
this hill as bed 6 of his section 23. We were not
able to corroborate this identification because the
faunas taken from our USNM 701d are not entirely
like those from his bed 12 (USNM 701c, 701h,
701k). Our specimens date this level as bed 4.
This correction brings to accordance the thickness
of the two sections.
Outside the Wolf Camp Hills.— West and east
of the Wolf Camp Hills the Neal Ranch Formation
has been eroded away. The largest area for the
formation east of the Wolf Camp Hills is in Stock-
ton Gap on both sides of the Marathon-Fort Stock-
ton road (U. S. Highway 385). In foothills along
the base of the Glass Mountains no Neal Ranch
Formation has been found except near the Fort
Stockton road. About a half mile west of this road,
a wedge of Neal Ranch thickens to the east, the
thick end of the wedge extending about 0.4 mile
east of the road. Ross (1963a:81) reports 95 feet
of Neal Ranch at this place, the section consisting
of shale with thin bands of yellow limestone.
Fusulinids are abundant, but other fossils are diffi¬
cult to find. Gastropods, sponges, and a few
brachiopods weather from the shale, but no silici¬
fied fossils were found.
In the Lenox Hills at the opposite end of the
Glass Mountains Ross (1963a:59, section C) reports
44 feet of Neal Ranch in small exposures 1.5 miles
west of Sullivan (Yates) Ranch road at the east
base of hill 5300. Here the formation consists of
dark brown limestone and yellow siltstone with
small chert pebbles in the limestone.
Another area is located at the southwest end of
the Lenox Hills (Ross 1963a:58, section 7) 1.25
miles northeast of Lenox, where 45 feet of gray
biohermal limestone occur with numerous fusu¬
linids, some ammonites, and brachiopods. The
fossils are similar to those from beds 9—14 in the
Wolf Camp Hills (USNM 715b). Some of the Neal
Ranch at this place is biohermal, which may ac¬
count for the odd dips at the base of the Lenox
Hills conglomerate, but the conglomerates of the
Lenox Hills appear to interfinger into these lime¬
stones. It seems likely that this so-called Neal
Ranch Formation is in reality part of the Lenox
Hills Formation. The ammonites at the base of
the Lenox Hills at USNM 707j appear to be the
same as those taken from bed 13 of P. B. King
(USNM 715e) of the Neal Ranch Formation.
There is thus possible an overlap of the Lower
Lenox Hills with upper Neal Ranch.
A third important locality for the Neal Ranch
Formation is at the base of the Hess Ranch Horst,
in the arroyos at the base of hill 5816. In the ar-
royo leading up to the hill topped by the 5700-foot
contour on the west side of hill 5816, an interval
of 280 feet from the igneous intrusion to the lowest
conglomerate includes dark indurated shale with a
limestone band containing fusulinids near the top
(Wilde, 1962:71 ). The shales have been baked
and hardened by contact with a large intrusion on
the south side of the horst. Fossils are not com¬
mon in the shale, but a few brachiopods, snails,
and sponges were taken (USNM 704v = 702—1).
Another locality for this shale occurs in the
notch 0.7 mile due east of hill 5816, where the
Wolfcampian rocks are faulted against the Skinner
Ranch Formation. Here about 100 feet of shale is
exposed, again with a baked and altered base
against the igneous intrusion. Few recognizable
fossils were taken from the Neal Ranch shale at
this place.
Myers (in Adams and Frenzel, 1952) and Bost-
wick (1962) described a section in a synclinal hill
38
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
four miles west of Marathon on U. S. Highway 90
in which early Wolfcampian fusulinids occur.
These may be older than Neal Ranch.
Lenox Hills Formation
The Lenox Hills Formation overlies the Neal
Ranch Formation unconformably and extends
across the mountain front from Dugout Mountain
to the east side of the Fort Stockton road (U. S.
Highway 385). The formation is variable and ex¬
hibits several facies. The type section given by
Ross (1960:120) a year after the formation was
first published, is in “the Lenox Hills, one-quarter
of one mile north of the Slick-Urschell no. 1 Mary
Decie well site 7 miles, north 70 degrees west, of
Marathon, Texas.’’ This locality is at the base of
hill 5300, the highest peak in the Lenox Hills.
Here it overlies a supposed remnant of the Neal
Ranch Formation. In a later publication, Ross
(1963a:58, section 8) revised the locality to “the
southeastern face of the Lenox Hills 2y 2 miles N.
10° W. of the Decie ranch house; this is about y%
mile N.—NE. of the Slick-Urschell no. 1 Mary Decie
well site.”
Like the Neal Ranch Formation below, the
Lenox Hills Formation has different characteristics
in different parts of the mountains. Consequently,
the formation will be discussed on a geographic
basis beginning with the type area in the Lenox
Hills. Next, the sequence west of the type section
in Dugout Mountain will be discussed, after which
the development of the formation east of Lenox
Hills will be considered. The discussion will end
with an account of the succession in the Hess Ranch
Horst, which is, perhaps, the best and longest sec¬
tion but contains many unusual features.
In the Lenox Hills.— The type section of the
Lenox Hills Formation consists of two parts: a
lower conglomerate and an upper shale. The con¬
glomerate is extensive, and generally it can be seen
in all parts of the mountain front and foothills. It
is best displayed in the western part of the Lenox
Hills, where it is well exposed above the Devonian
cherts on the west side of the Slick-Urschell well
site. The conglomerate also is exhibited in its
entirety at the type section, where it has a thickness
of 310 feet on the west side of hill 5300 (south of
knob 5250). The thickness of the conglomerate
varies in the Lenox Hills, from 200 to 400 feet in
the western part, but it thins to the east. It is com¬
posed of a mixture of well-rounded limestone
cobbles and chert pebbles, the latter often angular
and ragged. In the section above the Devonian
chert, where the conglomerate is well spread out,
and at the type section, it is mainly small angular
chert pebbles of various shades of green and red.
The lower 50 feet of the Lenox Hills Formation
on the west side of the Slick-Urschell well site con¬
tains 15 feet at the base with large pebbles of lime¬
stone and chert together. This is followed by 25
feet of thinner bedded conglomerate with small
pebbles and this by 10 feet of biohermal limestone
with flat algae. The following 300 or more feet
(P. B. King, 1931:134, section 10, gives 420 feet for
the conglomerate) are conglomerates of large and
small pebbles closely packed together. About 25
feet above the base in this section, a 1-foot bed of
dark limestone with small angular pebbles abounds
in goniatites, including Artinskia and Properrinites
(USNM 707j), an association suggestive of bed 13
of P. B. King in the Wolf Camp Hills. In addition
to the ammonites, this conglomerate contains a few
brachiopods, fragments of wood, and scattered
seeds. Near the type section the lower beds that are
biohermal also have yielded a few goniatites and
other fossils (Plate 5: figure 4).
According to P. B. King (1931:135) and Ross
(1963a:28), the formation thins to the east along
the base of the Lenox Hills. Its thickest develop¬
ment is in the southwest end of the Lenox Hills.
At the east end of the hills, according to Ross, it is
30 feet thick. It is also thinner than the maximum
in Dugout Mountain.
At the type section of the Lenox Hills Formation,
the conglomerate is succeeded by 158 feet (Ross,
1963a:59, section 8) of shale interbedded with
sandstone and thin layers of limestone, both with
lenses of conglomerate. The shale in places is
capped by a thin layer of conglomerate, but in
other localities the overlying Decie Ranch Member
of the Skinner Ranch Formation rests directly on
the shale. About a half mile west of the type section,
the conglomerate is 310 feet thick and is followed
by 172 feet of shale with interbedded thin sand¬
stone and limestone conglomerate bands with small
pebbles. Two limestone beds containing goniatites
were found in the lower part of the shale, the lower
NUMBER 14
39
(USNM 707m) is 20 feet stratigraphically above
the conglomerate and the upper (USNM 707n) is
40 feet above the base of the shale. The upper part
of the sequence is bluish shale with scattered thin
limestone and sandstone beds (Plate 5: figure 4).
Another excellent section of the shale 140 feet
thick overlies the conglomerate in the elongate,
northeast-southwest trending hill a half mile south
of hill 4902. Here the shale is capped by the Decie
Ranch Member, which forms a small butte. The
shale rests on the thickest part of the Lenox Hills
conglomerate (P. B. King, 1931:134, section 10),
and in this butte it contains about 25 feet of soft
conglomeratic shale at the base followed by 67 feet
with scattered limestone and thin conglomeratic
bands. The upper 48 feet is mostly bluish shale.
The middle beds produced some goniatites and
unusually well-preserved gastropods (USNM 707c)
(Plate 5: figure 4).
The shale can be traced along the base of the
Lenox Hills from the type section of the Lenox
Hills Formation to the fault that sets off the spur
at the east end of the Lenox Hills. Except for the
localities mentioned, we were unable to find any
prolific collecting places in the shale. This is un¬
fortunate, because the megafauna of the Lenox
Hills Formation is still very poorly known.
In Dugout Mountain.— The two-fold character
of the Lenox Hills Formation seen in the Lenox
Hills is displayed also in Dugout Mountain south¬
west of Lenox. In the eastern part of the mountain,
the shale has been eroded off the conglomerate,
and the overlying Decie Ranch Member rests
directly on the Lenox Hills conglomerate (P. B.
King, 1931:56, fig. 21 on p. 59). The thickness of
the conglomerate is recorded by P. B. King (1931:
133) as 330 feet in the slopes under hill 5195. At
this place the shale measures 60 to 100 feet and
contains a 2- to 3-foot band of conglomerate near
its middle, which has yielded fossil wood and seeds
as well as goniatites and brachiopods (USNM 715).
The assemblage is like that in the thin limestones
in the lower 40 feet of shale in hill 5300 in the
Lenox Hills (USNM 707m, 707n). Ross (1963a:28)
states that the Lenox Hills Formation in Dugout
Mountain is reduced to a few feet in thickness on
the west side of the mountain. He also indicates
intertonguing of conglomerate and shale and
change of facies from conglomerates to thin-bedded
limestone and shale. Except for the goniatite bed
under the main summit, the Lenox Hills Forma¬
tion in Dugout Mountain has yielded few fossils
(Plate 13: figure 4).
East of Lenox Hills to Iron Mountain.—As
already explained, conglomerate and shale of the
Lenox Hills Formation can be traced readily along
the base of the Lenox Hills to the fault at the spur
just west of the Sullivan (Yates) Ranch road. From
this place to Leonard Mountain, considerable confu¬
sion exists concerning the Lenox Hills Formation.
Unfortunately, we are unable completely to re¬
solve these difficulties.
King and King (in P. B. King, 1931: map)
mapped a patch of Wolfcamp shale and conglom¬
erate on the south side of hill 5021, measuring 63
feet but not a complete section. Another patch of
conglomerate and shale 83 feet thick was mapped
on the east side of the same hill. We examined
both of these sequences. On the south side of hill
5021, under the Skinner Ranch Formation, at the
westernmost saddle of the hill there are 50 feet of
sandstone and conglomerates; the lower part is
mostly sandy, but it becomes densely conglomeratic
toward the top. Somewhat lower down on the
slope, a concentration of loose blocks, yellow-
orange in color and abounding in Wolfcampian
fusulinids, was seen. The position of these is about
25 feet below the lowest exposed section beneath
the saddle. This indicates at least 25 feet more of
Lenox Hills at this place. On the east side of hill
5021 a continuous section of Wolfcampian rocks
cannot be obtained, but a 118-foot section of yellow
sandy conglomerate and shale was measured.
Just east of hill 5021 there is a small knob con¬
taining beds of the Lenox Hills Formation with
numerous fusulinids. Since these could not be re¬
solved into a reasonable section, it is thought that
the knob represents a detached block from higher
in the section, which embraces part of the Lenox
Hills and Skinner Ranch Formations.
In the hill (5280) just west of Iron Mountain,
a band of Wolfcamp is mapped near the east base
of the hill, from the southern end to the northern
tip, and a measurement of 166 feet is given for it
(P. B. King, 1931:138, section 15). It consists
mostly of shale and sandstone with a 5-foot con¬
glomerate at the base. Ross (1963a:60, section 10)
measured a section at the south end of this hill and
40
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
recorded 140 feet, which consisted chiefly of sand¬
stone and siltstone with Wolfcampian fossils.
Neither Ross nor we were able to identify the for¬
mation along the base of the hill to the north.
Thus, a gap appears in the Lenox Hills outcrop
belt from the south end of this hill to Leonard
Mountain on the east side of Iron Mountain. Fos¬
sils are difficult to obtain in the exposures between
Lenox Hills and Iron Mountain.
In Leonard Mountain.— The Lenox Hills For¬
mation in Leonard Mountain is thick and impor¬
tant because it helps to clarify the sequences on
the Hess Ranch Horst and those north of the Hess
Ranch house. The formation is sandy and shaly
on the west side of Leonard Mountain, but it con¬
sists largely of limestone on the east side (Plate 6:
figure 3).
According to Ross (1963a:61, section 11), the
Lenox Hills Formation on the northwest side of
Leonard Mountain measures 255 feet thick and
consists chiefly of siltstone and shale with some
thick beds of calcarenite. Farther southeast along
the base of the mountain at the southwest corner,
Ross’s (1963a:61, section 12) measurements indicate
a great thickening of the formation. Here 661 feet
of Lenox Hills Formation is recorded, the lower
half consisting of calcirudite with some chert peb¬
bles. The upper half consists of limestone and
dolomite, the latter 120 feet thick. The section on
the southeast nose of Leonard Mountain is thinner
than the preceding section, but it is very important,
because this is the site of King’s main section of
the Leonard formation, and the south face of
Leonard Mountain is the type area designated by
Udden for the Leonard Formation.
In P. B. King’s (1931:140) interpretation of the
southeast nose of Leonard Mountain, the con¬
glomerate overlying the folded and steeply dipping
Tesnus Formation was regarded as Wolfcampian,
and the shale that comprises the lower slopes of the
mountain was thought to be the Uddenites- bearing
Shale Member of the Wolfcamp Formation. Lime¬
stone succeeding the shale was identified also as
Wolfcamp, but above this limestone the section
beginning with a thick conglomerate was identified
as the Hess Formation. In King’s section 17, bed 5
of the Wolfcamp, 250 feet thick, was suspected of
being a detached block from higher on the moun¬
tain. This suspicion has proved true, and the other
identifications have been subjected to revision by
Wilde, Ross, and ourselves.
Investigations by these workers have led to a
completely different interpretation of the sequence
in this part of Leonard Mountain. The conglomer¬
ate and overlying shales resting on the Tesnus
Formation are not the Uddenites- bearing Shale, but
they are lower in the Gaptank Formation. The
calcarenite overlying the shale contains Gaptank
fusulinids and now is identified with that forma¬
tion. The conglomerate overlying the Gaptank
limestone now is recognized as the lower part of
the Lenox Hills Formation, 179 feet thick on this
part of the mountain. The conglomerate is over-
lain by 190 feet of light, gray calcarenite containing
abundant Lenox Hills fusulinids. In addition to
these, the calcarenite has at its base bioherms
abounding in ScacchinelJa and Tropidelasma. In
the past these were identified as belonging to the
Hess Formation, having been mistaken for a similar
zone higher in the sequence. However, these
familiar “Leonard” types occur with characteristic
Wolfcampian fusulinids on this southeast nose of
the mountain and elsewhere in Wolfcampian rocks.
Besides the fossils mentioned at this biohermal
level, large specimens of Parenteletes, a good Wolf¬
campian indicator, were collected (Plate 20: figure
2)>
The fossiliferous zone just above the conglomer¬
ate and its fusulinids are well developed on the
northeast slope of the mountain, in the saddle just
south of the two knobs at about the 5100-foot con¬
tour. According to Ross (1959:299), this calcarenite
intertongues with shale on the west side of the
mountain. It is interesting to note that, at the
northeast base of Leonard Mountain, the Scacchi-
nella beds of the basal Skinner Ranch Formation
are well developed and that Schwagerina O'assitec-
toria is present. The latter occurs on the west slope
of the high knob northeast of the summit of the
mountain (bench mark 5860), at about 5725 feet
elevation. This indicates the general position of
the underlying Lenox Hills Formation in the steep
southeast cliff face of the mountain. This point
corresponds to about the highest point (5816 feet)
on the Hess Ranch Horst. The same facies shift
from ScacchineJIa patch reefs, or bioherms, to fine¬
grained detritals occurs in Leonard Mountain, the
NUMBER 14
41
Hess Ranch Horst, and in the hill north of the
Hess Ranch house.
The upper part of the section on the southeast
nose of Leonard Mountain includes 200 to 250 feet
of dolomite, which forms the prominent cliff so
conspicuous on the southeast side of the mountain.
As will be explained under discussion of the Skin¬
ner Ranch Formation, the lower part of the dolo¬
mite belongs to the Lenox Hills Formation, but
the greater part of it on this side of the mountain
belongs to the Skinner Ranch.
Attention must be called to the detached blocks
that are prominent on the southeast side of the
Mountain. One of these has a vertical height of
150 feet; many fine specimens of Lenox Hills fos¬
sils were taken from it (USNM 705s). Ross (1963a:
16) presents a map showing the distribution of
these detached blocks at the base of the southeast
side of the mountain. Similar toreva blocks, con¬
taining some beds of the Lenox Hills conglomerate,
also occur on the south base of hill 5021 on the
east side of the Sullivan (Yates) Ranch road and at
the southwest end of the Lenox Hills (Plate 8:
figure 2).
The conglomerate of the Lenox Hills Formation
on the southeast side of Leonard Mountain is
coarse, with pebbles up to several inches in diam¬
eter cemented in limestone. Many of the pebbles
are limestone, but some are siliceous. The con¬
glomerate can be traced readily along the east side
of the mountain to the northeast corner, where it
forms the floor of the valley under the elliptical
knob formed by the 5000-foot contour. Above the
conglomerate, the east slope of the knob is formed
by 138 feet of gray limestone, weathering to brown
and containing numerous Wolfcampian fossils. No
Hess-type limestone or dolomite tongues were
identified in the upper Lenox Hills Formation at
this place (Plate 3: figure 3).
In Hess Ranch Horst.— The Hess Ranch Horst
forms a wedge-shaped chain of hills on the south
side of Hess Canyon and on the north side of the
canyon leading up to the Old Word Ranch. Two
summits are prominent and important in the chain:
the lowest on the west side of the horst hill is 5305;
the highest is 5816 on the east side of the horst,
which sends out a long spur to the northeast, end¬
ing in a knob identified by the closed 5650-foot
contour. The section in hill 5305 seems to be the
thinner of the two, but the entire section cannot
be seen. The most complete section occurs on the
slopes leading up to the summit at hill 5816 (Plate
3: figures 1,2).
Just west of the summit at hill 5816 and at the
base of the hill, a ravine has exposed a section of
the Neal Ranch Formation. Another but shorter
sequence of this shale occurs in the ravine leading
up to the summit at hill 5816. At the east end of
the horst, Ross (1963a:65, section 18) records 104
feet of this shale. In the two ravines mentioned
above, shale occupies the lower 50 feet of slope,
but the first conglomerate was seen above a covered
interval 120 feet vertical. This suggests a shale
interval of nearly 300 feet (Wilde, 1962:71). This
shale is overlain by the Lenox Hills Formation,
which exhibits two facies in the horst;
The Lenox Hills Formation is estimated to be
600 to 700 feet thick in the middle hill of the horst.
It consists of 350 feet of limestone conglomerate,
sandstone, and shale, which is overlain by 260 feet
Scale
Figure 6.—Section through the Hess Ranch Horst showing the relation of the Skinner Ranch
Formation to the main body of the Horst (S = ScaccshinelIa, SYr=Syenite intrusive).
42
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
of calcarenite and thin-bedded dolomite. The
lower part of this sequence was regarded by P. B.
King (1931:56, 141) as mostly Wolfcamp Forma¬
tion (310 feet), and the uppermost conglomerate
was assigned along with the calcarenite and dolo¬
mite to the Hess Formation. The presence of
Wolfcampian fusulinids throughout the section, to
within 27 feet of the summit at hill 5816, indicates
that the entire section on the south front of the
horst, except the very summit, belongs to the
Wolfcamp Series, in spite of the fact that the upper
part of the sequence has the facies of the Hess
Formation.
The lower coarse elastics consist of a thick con¬
glomerate approximating 135 feet, followed by
thinner beds of brown sandstone and shale 115 feet
thick, terminating in another conglomerate about
100 feet thick. The two conglomerate bands usually
produce ledges or bluffs on the hillside. The in¬
termediate layers are mostly sandstone, but one
4-foot bed of white-weathering dolomite was de¬
tected, the first appearance prophetic of the “east
Hess facies.’' The sequence above the upper coarse
conglomerate consists mainly of sandy limestone,
light-colored, thin conglomerate beds containing
small pebbles, and thin layers of dolomite—in all
about 260 feet thick. The top of the hill is capped
by 27 feet of dark dolomite. The whitish lime¬
stones and dolomites suggest relationship to the
Hess Formation, but the entire sequence to the 27
feet of dark dolomite contains Wolfcampian fusu¬
linids. Actually, this part of the section and the
conglomerates can be related directly to the lower
several hundred feet of the Hess Formation, as
explained below.
From the summit of hill 5816 northwestward to
the west base of the Hess Ranch Horst, the beds
overlying the Wolfcamp appear to be the Skinner
Ranch Formation. These contain Scacchinella and
other fossils, which identify them with the basal
Skinner Ranch (= Decie Ranch Member). The
Scacchinella beds cannot be traced to the summit
of the horst at hill 5816, because a facies change
takes place up the dip, the Scacchinella beds passing
into Hess lithology with Schwagerina crassitectoria.
This facies change is discussed more fully under
the Skinner Ranch Formation. Although the Decie
Ranch Member of the Skinner Ranch Formation
changes facies up the dip to the summit of hill
5816 this is not true at the next hill to the west,
hill 5305 in the horst.
In hill 5305 the conglomerate is thick. About
480 feet of it is exposed, but the sequence above
the conglomerate measures only 200 feet and con¬
sists of mealy and cobbly limestone with brachio-
pods that include Parenteletes. These beds are
overlain by thick-bedded dolomite containing
patches of limestone. Biohermal structures can be
detected in this part of the section, which forms
the top of hill 5305. Scacchinella was found 25 feet
vertically below the crest of the hill, indicating the
presence of the Skinner Ranch Formation. It is to
be emphasized that the Skinner Ranch Formation
on the crest of this hill has the biohermal facies,
but at the top of hill 5816 this facies has been dis¬
placed by a Hess facies with Schwagerina crassitec¬
toria. The long dip slope from the crest of hill
5305 is all in the basal Skinner Ranch Formation.
Several places on this slope are excellent localities
for collecting the Scacchinella titan fauna.
The crest of the summit at hill 5816 is mostly
dark dolomite. Northeast along the summit of this
narrow hill is another knob, formed by the 5800-
foot contour, with essentially the same elevation as
the main summit. Here in the dark dolomite a
huge Omphalotrochus was seen. These gastropods
are abundant in the lower Skinner Ranch associ¬
ated with Scacchinella. The narrow spur continues
still farther to the northeast, but the elevation
becomes lower, terminating in a knob capped by
the 5700-foot contour. At this place a layer of dark
limestone yielded an abundance of the fusulinid
Schwagerina crassitectoria. The level of this species
appears to be slightly higher in the section than at
SKINNER
RANCH
Ficure 7.— Section through the Wolf Camp Hills and the Hess Ranch Horst showing igneous
intrusion and fault (SkR=Skinner Ranch, Inst . — Institella, CM=Cathedral Mountain,
Ig = igneous body, SR-CM —fault slice of Skinner Ranch and Cathedral Mountain).
NUMBER 14
43
hill 5816, but the discrepancy is not great. All sum¬
mits along the crest of the Hess Ranch Horst are in
the basal Skinner Ranch Formation or its equiva¬
lent in the Hess, the S. crassitectoria zone. The top
of hill 5305 is in the biohermal facies, but the
summit of hill 5816 and the long spur to the north¬
east is in the Hess (S. crassitectoria zone) facies.
Immediately North of Hess Ranch House.—
Although the region is small in area, it is extremely
important for an understanding of the relationship
between the Lenox Hills and Skinner Ranch For¬
mations. The Hess Ranch area repeats the relation¬
ships seen on the northeast end of Leonard
Mountain and on the northwest slope of hill 5305
of the Hess Ranch Horst. The stratigraphy of this
small area north of the Hess house is complicated
by dolomitization of several of the beds, which in
places can be walked from limestone into dolomite.
The base of the hill is composed of 180 feet of
limestone conglomerate with rounded limestone
boulders. The conglomerate is overlain by massive
biohermal limestone and calcarenite with fossils.
Since the fossils are not silicified, they must be
broken from their matrix. Of significance are large
specimens of Parenteletes from just above the con¬
glomerate, which resemble those from bed 12 (of
P. B. King) of the Neal Ranch Formation. Fusu-
linids are abundant in the limestone that lies be¬
tween the conglomerate and the dolomite that
forms the top of the hill defined by the 5050-foot
contour. This dolomite is the approximate bound¬
ary between the Lenox Hills Formation and the
Skinner Ranch Formation. Characteristic fossils
of the latter formation were taken from undolo-
mitized patches within the dolomite on the top of
the hill (USNM 71 Id). Fusulinids are characteris¬
tic of the upper Lenox Hills, with Mono die xodina
linearis the most abundant species. This is abun¬
dant on the slopes west of the knob, and can be
collected up to the contact with the Skinner
Ranch Formation. The contact here is like that
on Leonard Mountain, where the Scacchinella beds
of the Skinner Ranch directly overlie the Lenox
Hills limestone.
North of the Hess Ranch house, Scacchinella
representing the level of the Decie Ranch Member
is abundant in biohermal masses and occurs as
scattered valves in the debris between the bioherms.
This is one of the best places in the Glass Moun¬
tains to examine characteristic occurrences of this
unusual brachiopod (King 208, USNM 705a). The
Scacchinella beds can be traced up the north slope
of the knob, but the tracing is complicated by
patchy dolomitization of the beds.
Traced eastward along the Glass Mountain front
from the Hess Ranch, the Lenox Hills Formation
displays a much different facies. Not far east of
the ranch house, Hess lithology wedges into the
calcarenites of the Lenox Hills and Skinner Ranch
Formations, and the entire sequence changes to
thin-bedded calcarenite and dolomite. The basal
conglomerate of well-rounded cobbles has been
traced eastward from the Hess house to the Wolf-
camp Hills, where it overlies the Neal Ranch For¬
mation and where it is the Hess conglomerate of
Udden and P. B. King. The upper boundary of
the Lenox Hills equivalent, there displaying the
lithology of the Hess Formation, is limited upward
by the occurrence of Schwagerina crassitectoria and
S. guembeli, which also mark the position of the
Scale
stone, DC—Skinner Ranch Formation [Decie Ranch Member equivalent]).
44
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS T& PALEOBIOLOGY
lower Scacchinella beds of the Skinner Ranch For¬
mation. Scacchinella has not yet been found in the
rocks immediately overlying Hess lithology that
contains Wolfcampian fusulinids.
The same relationship can be traced across the
mountain front east of the Hess Ranch house. The
limestone cobble conglomerate thickens, thins, and
disappears in places at the base of the sequence,
but the remainder of this part of the Hess Forma¬
tion thickens by the introduction of red shale and
sandstone near the base. The upper part is com¬
posed of thin-bedded limestone and dolomite. The
sequence is capped by the zone of Schwagerina
crassitectoria, about 200 feet thick. No fossils im¬
portant to the present study were collected from
the Hess facies of Lenox Hills age. Indeed, few
fossils other than fusulinids were seen in these beds.
Skinner Ranch Formation
Overlying the Lenox Hills Formation is a com¬
plicated mass of conglomerates, shales, and lime¬
stones containing distinctive faunas. The type sec¬
tion of the formation is the northwest end of
Leonard Mountain, in the hill terminated by the
5250-foot contour. Here it is composed mostly of
calcarenite with some bioherms at the base. Inter¬
esting facies developments take place east and west
of the type section. To the east, the formation
interfingers with the Hess Formation, but to the
west, in hill 5021, a wedge of shale cleaves it into
two limestone members. The shale wedge continues
to thicken farther to the west. Understanding of
the formation is best achieved, in our view, by
studying it from west to east, from its thickest part
to the place where it becomes a single entity. In
the western part of the mountains, from Dugout
Mountain through the Lenox Hills to hill 5021,
three members are clearly defined from the bottom:
Decie Ranch, Poplar Tank, and Sullivan Peak
Members. A fourth member, the Dugout Mountain
Member, is recognized in Dugout Mountain. The
following discussion will consider the members
geographically and will then describe the forma¬
tion in its type region and eastward.
Decie Ranch Member.— The type section of the
Decie Ranch Member is 1.25 miles southwest of
hill 5300 in the Lenox Hills, where it forms the
first prominent massive ledge lying on upper shale
of the Lenox Hills Formation. It is the western
facies of the Hess Formation of P. B. King (1931:
62), and it represents westward wedging of King’s
Hess Formation on eroded Wolfcamp rocks. At its
type section in the Lenox Hills the member is 98
feet thick, but usually it varies from 40 to 70 feet
(Plate 9: Figure 3).
In Dugout Mountain: The Decie Ranch Mem¬
ber is well exposed in Dugout Mountain, and it
is somewhat thicker there than the average is in
the Lenox Hills. It is well displayed over the Lenox
Hills shale just under the high point (5195 feet) of
the mountain, where it is about 95 feet thick. It
maintains a thickness of about 80 to 95 feet along
the mountain. The member is extremely variable;
no two sections show the same sequence. Generally,
however, the lower part contains coarse boulder
conglomerates, some of the boulders attaining a
long dimension of four feet. Most of them, how¬
ever, are coarse, well-rounded cobbles. Much of
the rock is coarse calcarenite or calcirudite, made
up of broken shells, foraminifera large and small,
and other organic debris mixed with scattered small
pebbles and sand. Some sandstone beds also are
present. Interspersed among the conglomerates are
interesting bioherms composed largely of the ce¬
menting brachiopods Scacchinella, Geyerella, and
Derbyia. All of these are of gigantic size, and an
occasional enormous bellerophontid snail is pres¬
ent. Because of its massive nature the member
forms bluffs and a bench on the mountain (Plate
10: figure 4).
In the Lenox Hills: At the south end of the
Lenox Hills, the Decie Ranch Member attains a
thickness of nearly 100 feet, overlying the Lenox
Hills shale at the type section in the hill 1.25 miles
southwest of hill 5300. At this place the basal bed
is massive limestone conglomerate 32 feet thick
without visible bedding, containing rounded cob¬
bles and boulders up to 1 foot in diameter. This
is followed by a well-differentiated section of sand¬
stone, limestone, pebble conglomerate, and some
yellow, silty shale beds, aggregating 44 feet in thick¬
ness. The section is capped by 22 feet of coarse
calcarenite. Bioherms occur scattered in the lower
and upper massive beds. Eastward the Decie Ranch
Member has been traced along the base of the
Lenox Hills as a prominent band that thickens
and thins. It is thinner east of the section men-
NUMBER 14
45
Figure 9.—South front of the Lenox Hills on Decie Ranch showing the formations and members
(CM — Cathedral Mountain Formation with Third Limestone Member of Leonard Formation
of P. B. King above W, DR = Decie Ranch Member of Skinner Ranch Formation, LH = Lenox
Hills Formation consisting of conglomerate below and shale above, lying under Decie Ranch
Member ledge, PT = Poplar Tank Member of Skinner Ranch Formation, SPi=: Sullivan Peak
Member of Skinner Ranch Formation, W = Wedin Member of Cathedral Mountain Formation
with abundant Institella; see Plate 7: figure 3).
tioned above, and it measures only 40 to 70 feet
in places. Nevertheless, it maintains its conglom¬
eratic characteristic throughout its extent in the
Lenox Hills (Plate 5: figure 4; Plate 7: figure 3;
Plate 12: figure 2).
The Decie Ranch Member abounds in fossils.
Several localities yielded extensive collections
(USNM 707a, 714t). Large sessile types of brachio-
pods are the commonest fossils: Scacchinella, Der-
byia, Geyerella, and Streptorhynchus. Fusulinids
are abundant in places: Monodiexodina linearis,
Schwagerina hessensis, and S. hawkinsi.
Small faults have displaced the Decie Ranch
member at both ends of the Lenox Hills. At the
southwest end the member is thrown down to the
base of the hill along the base of the escarpment
facing U. S. Highway 90. Here the waterworn sur¬
face of the member displays many Scacchinella in
cross-section (USNM 729g). At the northeast end
of the Lenox Hills, on the west side of the Sullivan
(Yates) Ranch road, a small fault has thrown the
Decie Ranch member down to the base of the hill.
It was here mistaken for the Wolfcamp (Lenox
Hills) because of misidentification of the beds above
it (P. B. King, 1931: map) (Plate 2: figure 3).
In Hill 5021: Because of structural complica¬
tions in this hill, the member is exposed along
the base of the hill where it occurs as large float
blocks. It also occurs in normal sequence above the
sandstone and conglomerate of the Lenox Hills
Formation. At the west end of the hill, the Decie
Ranch Member is about 60 feet thick and forms
the saddle between the two westernmost knobs.
Here Scacchinella is abundant in several small bio-
herms. This is the easternmost locality at which
the Decie Ranch is overlain by shale of the Poplar
Tank Member (Plate 10: figures 1—3).
Several large float blocks of considerable thick¬
ness occur along the base of hill 5021. One, at least
98 feet high, lies on the west side of the hill just
north of the windmill, and another lies just south
of the knob at hill 5021. Good collections of Scac¬
chinella and other fossils of this member were taken
from these blocks. The western block (USNM
707w) yielded the best silicified Scacchinella in the
Glass Mountains (Figure 11; Plate 10: figure 2).
East of hill 5021, the Decie Ranch Member can¬
not be readily distinguished; however, Scacchinella
bioherms are common in the base of the Skinner
Ranch Formation and for some distance above the
base. These undoubtedly are at the level of the
Decie Ranch Member even though some faunal
differences can be detected.
46
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Figure 10.—Spur at east end of Lenox Hills on the west side of the Sullivan (Yates) Ranch
road; the Sullivan Peak Member of the Skinner Ranch Formation in the spur has been dropped
into apparent continuity with the Decie Ranch Member of the Skinner Ranch Formation in
the main body of the hill (CM = Cathedral Mountain Formation [orange-yellow] shale,
DR —Decie Ranch Member, PT —Poplar Tank Member of Skinner Ranch Formation, SP=i
Sullivan Peak Member; see Plate 2: figure 3) .
Poplar Tank Member.— This formation takes
its name from Poplar Tank located on the map
by P. B. and R. E. King (in P. B. King, 1931) not
far west of the Sullivan Ranch (now Yates Ranch)
road about 1.5 miles south of the east end of the
Lenox Hills. The type section is in hill 5300, where
a nearly complete section is exposed. This member
is predominantly shale, siltstone, or sandstone, but
it is extremely variable with no two sections alike.
At the type section, about 250 feet consists of
thick beds of shale containing thin beds of con¬
glomeratic limestone, pebble bands, and shell brec¬
cias. In the calcarenitic limestones there are 1- to
2-foot-thick layers of pinkish brown chert. Many
beds in the upper part of the section contain thin
skins of silica one or two inches thick, the surface
of which is often covered with peculiar productoid
brachiopods, especially the genus Spyridiophora.
Occasional conglomerate bands contain cobbles of
large size. The shale contrasts strongly with that
of the Cathedral Mountain shale, which is usually
platy.
The Poplar Tank Member forms most of the
lower slopes of the Lenox Hills between the two
thick, bounding limestones, the Decie Ranch Mem¬
ber below and the Sullivan Peak Member above.
An excellent locality, apparently produced in large
part by the recent years of drought, appears on
the south slope of hill 4801 at the south end of
the Lenox Hills. This section, which measures 315
feet, has a thick shale forming the uppermost part,
whereas at the type section the top is limestone
(Plate 9: figure 2).
The Poplar Tank Member is well exposed and
180 feet thick in Dugout Mountain. It is well dis¬
played under the main high knob of the mountain,
and also it is well established in the deep ravines on
the north side of the crest.
East of the type section the Poplar Tank member
becomes thinner. In the fault block at the east end
of the Lenox Hills on the west side of the Sullivan
(Yates) Ranch road, the member is thinner than
it is to the west. On the opposite side of the road,
about a mile to the northeast in hill 5021, it is
still thinner, measuring only 40-50 feet. Farther
east in this hill, it wedges out and the Decie Ranch
and Sullivan Peak Members come together (Plate
10: figures 1, 2).
Sullivan Peak Member.— The uppermost mem¬
ber of the Skinner Ranch Formation is the Sullivan
Peak Member, the “First Limestone Member of
the Leonard Formation” of P. B. King (1931:64,
66). It is well developed in Dugout Mountain, the
Lenox Hills, and in hill 5021. The type section of
the member is above that of the Poplar Tank Mem¬
ber in hill 5300 of the Lenox Hills. Here, about
NUMBER 14
47
120 feet thick, it consists of detrital limestone,
limestone conglomerate, limestone with scattered
small pebbles, and ferruginous sandstone. The
member is variable, and no two sections have much
similarity (Plate 7: figure 3).
In Dugout Mountain P. B. King’s (1931:133)
section 7 gives its thickness as 153 feet, somewhat
thicker than it is at the south end of the Lenox
Hills. It forms the prominent mass at the top of
the mountain and forms bluffs and cliffs in several
places. Strongly conglomeratic in the lower part, it
is coarse calcarenite or calcirudite in the upper
portion (Plate 13: figure 4).
The Sullivan Peak Member has its best devel¬
opment in the Lenox Hills, where it varies from
about 65 feet at the southwest end to 200 feet at
the northeast end. The variation is due to inter-
tonguing of beds and the appearance of bioherms
in the section. This member contains the best bio¬
herms to be seen in the Glass Mountains; the bio¬
herms are discussed under a separate heading (Plate
18: figure 1).
In the Lenox Hills the lower conglomeratic part
of the member is conspicuous at the south end,
where boulders up to five feet long have been seen.
Furthermore, several bioherms here are surrounded
by the coarse conglomerate. At the east end of the
Lenox Hills, on the steep hill facing the Sullivan
(Yates) Ranch road, the upper part of the member
contains numerous bioherms. They are present
also at the westernmost knob of hill 5021, where
the easternmost exposure of the member is located.
East of this point the member merges with the
Decie Ranch Member by the wedging out of the
Poplar Tank Member.
Fossils of the Sullivan Peak Member are like
those of the Decie Ranch Member with a liberal
inheritance from the Poplar Tank. The bioherms
contain Scacchinella, Coscinophora, Tropidelasma,
Spyridiophora and Geyerella. Scacchinella becomes
rare east of hill 5021.
Dugout Mountain Member.— This name was
proposed for a sequence of limestones and inter¬
vening shales between the top of the Sullivan Peak
Member of the Skinner Ranch Formation and the
base of the Cathedral Mountain Formation. (Cooper
and Grant, 1966). The sequence includes the Sec¬
ond, Third, and Fourth Limestone Members of
the Leonard Formation on Dugout Mountain as
described by P. B. King (1931:133, section 7). The
Sullivan Peak Member represents the First Lime¬
stone of .the Leonard on Dugout Mountain, and
this can be identified also on the south slopes of
the Lenox Hills to the east, as explained above.
In contrast, however, the Second, Third, and
Fourth Limestones of the Leonard on Dugout
Mountain are different lithologically and faunally
from limestones similarly numbered by P. B. King
in the Lenox Hills. These differences are indicated
by the faunas of the Dugout Mountain limestones,
which have fossils like those of the Sullivan Peak
Member. King’s Fifth Limestone of the Leonard
Formation on Dugout Mountain has a fauna dif¬
ferent from those below, but identical to that of
the Second Limestone of the Leonard Formation
in the Lenox Hills (see “Leonard Limestones”
under “Cathedral Mountain Formation”). Leonard
limestones 2—4 on Dugout Mountain stratigraph-
ically underlie the Second Limestone of the Leon¬
ard of the Lenox Hills.
Scole
Figure 11.—Section through the west knob of hill 5021 (Decie Brothers Hill) showing thinned
Poplar Tank Member, which is pinched out on the east side of hill 5021 by the Decie Ranch
and Sullivan Peak Members of the Skinner Ranch Formation; note also detached block of Decie
Ranch Member (CM = Cathedral Mountain Formation [shale and part of Third and Fourth
Limestones of Leonard Formation of P. B. King here as one unit], D = Dimple Formation of
Pennsylvanian System, LH = Lenox Hills Formation much thinned, DR = Decie Ranch Member
of Skinner Ranch Formation, PT —Poplar Tank Member of Skinner Ranch Formation, SP —
Sullivan Peak Member of Skinner Ranch Formation, SR — Skinner Ranch Formation, SR db =
detached block of Decie Ranch Member; see Plate 10: figures 1 and 3).
48
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Figure 12.—Section in the central part of the Lenox Hills through the hill capped by the closed
5250-foot contour, one-fourth mile west of hill 5300 (CM —Cathedral Mountain Formation with
upper sandy and conglomerate limestone beds probably of Third Limestone of Leonard of
P. B. King, DR = Decie Ranch Member of Skinner Ranch Formation, LH cgl —conglomerate of
Lenox Hills Formation, LH sh —shale of Lenox Hills Formation, PTzrPoplar Tank Member
of Skinner Ranch Formation, SPzzSullivan Peak Member of Skinner Ranch Formation; sec
Plate 7: figure 3) .
The Dugout Mountain Member of the Skinner
Ranch Formation has its type section in Dugout
Mountain, on the north slope of the mountain,
along the line of King’s section 7 cited above. The
sequence that is mostly yellow shale aggregates 514
feet in thickness. The intercalated limestones are
mostly cherty calcarenite, dark brown in color,
and commonly with siliceous coatings on the bed¬
ding surfaces. Fossils are distributed uniformly, but
some small bioherms appear with their character¬
istic brachiopods and other fossils. The brown
and somewhat bituminous limestone contains num¬
erous ammonites, including small Perrinites, Pro-
pinacoceras, and others. Since some of the beds on
the mountain have suffered from dolomitization,
the fossils are not well preserved. The ammonites
are exceptionally good, however, and these lime¬
stones are a prolific source of them. Two conspic¬
uous knobs on the north slope of Dugout Moun¬
tain are excellent places to study these upper Skin¬
ner Ranch Beds (USNM 700r, 700s).
Hill 4811 is an excellent place to study the
Second and Third Limestones of P. B. King. The
Sullivan Peak Member of the Skinner Ranch For¬
mation occurs near the base of the hill. It is suc¬
ceeded by 47 feet of chert, sandstone, and shale,
on which rests 27 feet of the Second Limestone of
P. B. King (USNM 700t). This is followed by 20
feet of yellow shale and chert, and the hill is
capped by 15 feet of limestone, which is the Third
Limestone of P. B. King (USNM 700s). Spyridio-
phora appears in the limestone and indicates rela¬
tionship to the Skinner Ranch Formation. The
total thickness of Dugout Mountain Member on
hill 4811 is 109 feet (Plate 6: figure 2).
The small knob capped by the 5000-foot contour
just 0.5 mile northwest of the summit of Dugout
Mountain is also capped by the Third Limestone
Member of King. This contains about 30 feet of
biohermal limestone, some of it dolomitized and
considerably altered, but nevertheless containing
many fossils, some of them recoverable (USNM
700r) (Plate 10: figure 3).
The Fourth Limestone of King proved to be
poor in fossils, but we found Spyridiophora in it.
The fact that it underlies the Fifth Limestone of
P. B. King, which contains the basal fauna of the
Cathedral Mountain Formation, and the presence
of Spyridiophora lead us to place this limestone
with the two below—in the Skinner Ranch Forma¬
tion. At any rate, there is a considerable faunal
change with the appearance of the Institella fauna
in the Fifth Limestone (=Wedin Member), and
it is here that we draw the boundary between the
Skinner Ranch and Cathedral Mountain Forma¬
tions in Dugout Mountain and the Lenox Hills.
Between Dugout Mountain and the Lenox Hills
is a 2-3 mile gap in the mountains, making it
impossible to trace any beds from one mountain
to the other. It is our belief that the thin lime¬
stones of the Dugout Mountain Member either
pinch out east of Dugout Mountain or unite with
the Skinner Ranch Formation in the same manner
that the Decie Ranch and Sullivan Peak Members
NUMBER 14
49
LENOX HILLS
Figure 13.—Diagram shows probable correlation of Dugout Mountain Member of Skinner Ranch
Formation within the Skinner Ranch (numbers 1-5 = P. B. King’s Leonard Limestones in both
sections, DR = Decie Ranch Member of Skinner Ranch Formation, PTrzrPoplar Tank Member
of Skinner Ranch Formation, SP —Sullivan Peak Member of Skinner Ranch Formation [formerly
First Limestone Member of Leonard of P. B. King], W = Wedin Member of Cathedral Mountain
Formation [Fifth Limestone Member of Leonard of P. B. King on north side of Dugout
Mountain, but Second Limestone Member of Leonard of P. B. King in southwest end of Lenox
Hills]; measurements and thicknesses of Dugout Mountain section are mainly from King’s
[1931:132] section 6 on west side of Dugout Mountain).
50
merge to the east. It is suggested that the shales
intervening between the limestone beds become
thin and are overlapped eastward. The possibility
that the Dugout Mountain Member is eroded from
the top of the Skinner Ranch Formation cannot
be overlooked, but we have no evidence that this
is the case. We do, however, have evidence from
the sections to the east, that overlap of intervening
shales and coalescence of beds does take place. This
is true in the cited instance of the Skinner Ranch
Formation, and it is known to take place in the
Cathedral Mountain numbered limestones and the
Word numbered limestones, the latter coalescing
east of the Word Ranch near Split Tank.
Another alternative is suggested by an occurrence
of ammonites at the south end of the Lenox Hills
(USNM 730k, 736d) identical to those in the Dug-
out Mountain Member. This ammonite bed is part
of the Sullivan Peak Member just below the Cathe¬
dral Mountain Formation. The rock containing the
ammonites is lithically like that of the limestone
of the Dugout Member. Possibly this ammonite
bed represents P. B. King’s Fourth Limestone, or
it may represent the united limestones 2 to 4 or
either the Second or Third Limestones, with the
others missing. At any rate it is a remnant of the
Dugout Mountain Member.
Skinner Ranch Formation Undivided.— The
type section of the Skinner Ranch Formation in
the northwest knob of Leonard Mountain is 509
feet thick and consists mostly of calcarenite with
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
very little shale but some fairly thick, pinkish-
brown chert bands. The lower part of the Skinner
Ranch Formation in Leonard Mountain has num¬
erous bioherms containing Scacchinella just east
of the type section. These can be followed along
the dip up the mountain to the east for a consid¬
erable distance and furnish good specimens. Higher
in the section, the Skinner Ranch Formation con¬
tains few bioherms, but it is mostly calcarenite in
thin or thick beds, some of those near the top hav¬
ing a thin skin, an inch or two in thickness, of dark
brown siliceous material usually with abundant
fossils, especially Spyridiophora and Glyptosteges.
These peculiar and readily recognized productoids
are characteristic of the Skinner Ranch Formation.
Another fossil of importance is Torynechus (form¬
erly Uncinuloides of R. E. King), the stenoscis-
matid with costellate exterior and flatly truncated
anterior. This genus occurs in some abundance
at the top of Leonard Mountain in the saddle just
east of the top of the northwest knob. The crest
of the knob in the type section is composed of 41
feet of extremely massive and coarse calcarenite
with occasional small pebbles. This massive unit
was not recognized on the southeast side of the
mountain. It contains Institella and is now placed
in the overlying Cathedral Mountain Formation
(Plate 2: figure 1; Plate 6: figure 1).
West of Leonard Mountain the undivided Skin¬
ner Ranch appears as bluffs and cliffs along the
east face of hill 5280. The lower part of the sec-
Ficure 14.—South side of Leonard Mountain showing formations (G —Gaptank Formation,
CM — Cathedral Mountain Formation, LH = Lenox Hills Formation [mostly shale], SR =
Skinner Ranch Formation; see Plate 2: figure 1).
NUMBER 14
51
Figure 15.— East side of Leonard Mountain showing deep am¬
phitheater and formations and distribution of two impor¬
tant fossils (CM = Cathedral Mountain Formation, a thin
skin of shale and limestone on top of mountain, DOL =
large dolomite mass composed of Lenox Hills and Skinner
Ranch equivalents, G —Gaptank Formation [limestone and
shale], LH —Lenox Hills Formation consisting of lower con¬
glomerate and upper limestone on this side of mountain,
SC —Scacchinella beds of Skinner Ranch Formation that can
be traced into dolomite, SCH = Schwagerina crassitectoria
Dunbar and Skinner, SR = Skinner Ranch Formation; see
Plate 6: figure 3) .
tion is strongly conglomeratic, but the upper part
is calcarenite. Scacchinella is rare in this hill, but
it was found at the bottom and near the middle of
the section. At the north end of this hill, most of
the Skinner Ranch Formation has been dolo-
mitized, and fossils or other details are difficult to
see. At the top of the hill (USNM 723h) Spyrido-
phora, Glyptosteges, and Torynechus occur in the
uppermost layers as in the type section.
The Skinner Ranch Formation is undivided at
the east end of hill 5021. Good exposures of the
formation also occur in the low hills between hill
5021 and hill 5280. At the west end of the former
hill, the Skinner Ranch is differentiated into its
three members, but the shale of the Poplar Tank
Member wedges out in the middle part of the hill.
At the top of the Skinner Ranch Formation in hill
5021, Spyridiophora and Torynechus were found
in the upper beds as in Leonard Mountain and
hill 5280. These fossils are therefore good guides
to the upper part of the Skinner Ranch Formation
(Plate 10: figure 1).
The easternmost full section of the Skinner
Ranch Formation is on the east side of Leonard
Mountain, where a section of about 410 feet may
be pieced together. Understanding of this section
is marred by dolomitization of parts of the section.
For example, the Scacchinella beds of the lower
Skinner Ranch are well exposed in and on the
side of the ravine that forms a broad amphitheater
on the northeast side of the mountain. Here one
can walk on the Scacchinella bed almost continu¬
ously until it merges with the lower part of the
thick dolomite that forms the most conspicuous
cliff on the southeast side of the mountain. On
the southeast nose of Leonard Mountain, much of
the dolomite belongs to the Skinner Ranch For¬
mation. It is interesting to note discovery of the
large gastropod Omphalotrochus in the lower part
of the dolomite, a fossil abundant in the Scac¬
chinella beds on the northeast side of the moun¬
tain and elsewhere to the east and north, especially
in the Hess Ranch Horst. Part of the sequence that
P. B. King (1931:62) described as Hess on this
side of Leonard Mountain belongs to the Skinner
Ranch Formation (beds 6 and 7, in section 17).
This includes most of the thick dolomite and the
overlying limestones exposed for about 0.25 mile
from the edge of the mountain to the lowest of
the shale of the Cathedral Mountain Formation,
which in turn is exposed on the knob west of bench
mark 5860.
The Skinner Ranch Formation forms much of
the steep bluff on the south side of Leonard Moun¬
tain, and the upper beds are well displayed below
the knob just west of the bench mark on which the
base of the Cathedral Mountain Formation is ex¬
posed. Skinner Ranch beds are also exposed on
the north side of the mountain in the upper slopes.
An isolated knob circumscribed by the 4750-foot
contour 0.85 mile northwest of the Hess Ranch
house is composed of biohermal beds and calcare-
nites with goniatites. Spyridiophora and Glypto¬
steges are present, indicating the upper part of the
Skinner Ranch Formation.
Three other exposures of the upper part of the
Skinner Ranch appear in small fault blocks north¬
east of the Hess Ranch. The first of these is 1.55
miles northeast of the Hess house on the west spur
of hill 5726. Here a small block of Skinner Ranch
with Spyridiophora is overlain by Cathedral Moun-
52
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
tain Formation with Institella. A second, smiliar
block is located 2.6 miles northeast of the Hess
house. The third occurrence is in the elliptical hill
on the east flank of the Hess Ranch Horst, exactly
3 miles northeast of the Hess house. This hill is
composed of Skinner Ranch limestone, lying
against the Lenox Hills Formation of the horst,
and the igneous instrusive. Here, too, the Skinner
Ranch is overlain by Cathedral Mountain lime¬
stone with Institella, which forms the east slope
of the hill near the base. The lower part of the
Skinner Ranch is well displayed just north of the
Hess house and at the north base of hill 5816, and
it forms the long north slope of hill 5305.
In the exposure north of the Hess Ranch house,
the section is greatly complicated by dolomitiza-
tion and faulting. Overlying the Lenox Hills For¬
mation is a veneer of the Skinner Ranch Formation
perhaps 50—60 feet thick at the north end near
the Hess pasture gate. Here the Skinner Ranch
contains many bioherms abounding in Scacchinella,
inter-biohermal detritals containing Ornphalotro-
chus, and, in the higher part, the fusulinid Sch-
wagcrina crassitectoria. Dolomitization of the
section has destroyed some of the fossil evidence.
Fortunately, however, the dolomitization is not
complete and patches of limestone within the dolo¬
mites contain good fossils of the lower Skinner
Ranch. An undolomitized patch occurs at the very
highest part of the hill (knob capped by the 5050-
foot contour (= USNM 71 Id). The dolomite with
occasional limy patches occurs on the north side
of the hill for about 0.75 mile, and all can be
assigned to the lower Skinner Ranch Formation.
An almost exact duplicate of the hill north of
the Hess house occurs in hill 5305, the westernmost
hill of the Hess Ranch Horst. Dolomitization is
only a minor complication in this hill, which is
an excellent place to collect the fossils of the lower
part of the Skinner Ranch Formation. The south
slopes of hill 5305 reveal the conglomerate and
overlying limestone of the Lenox Hills Formation.
Near the top of the hill appears an interval of
dolomite with patches of limestone. This layer con¬
sists of dolomitized bioherms and undolomitized
patches, which yield fossils of the lower part of
the Skinner Ranch Formation. The north slope
of the hill is completely made up of this forma¬
tion; about 200 feet is exposed from the top of the
hill to the base. Besides the characteristic Scac¬
chinella, the lower and middle parts of the slope
contain abundant Omphalotrochus and Schwag-
erina crassitectoria. This lower part of the Skinner
Ranch Formation can be traced to the north base
of hill 5816, highest and largest hill of the horst
chain. Here the biohermal beds are not compli¬
cated by dolomitization and Scacchinella, and other
bioherms are exhibited to perfection. About the
same thickness appears here as on hill 5305. Unlike
hill 5305, however, the Scacchinella beds cannot be
traced to the south, up the long north slope of
hill 5816, because they either pass into the facies
of the Hess Formation or they are eroded off the
lower and middle slopes of hill 5816. The Hess-
type rocks at the top of the hill and knobs to the
east are clearly Skinner Ranch equivalent because
they contain Schwagerina crassitectoria. This rela¬
tionship is discussed below.
Hess Formation
The Hess Formation is a great body of rock in
the eastern part of the Glass Mountains, best ex¬
posed from the Hess Ranch house and eastward.
It consists of a variety of lithic types that are mostly
unfossiliferous and contain few fossils except fu-
silinids. The Hess Formation generally has been
classified with the Leonard Series, but lately it has
been discovered that it is wholly, or at least in
part, pre-Leonardian, depending on one’s point of
view.
Udden (1917:43) named the Hess Formation for
exposures on the Hess Ranch, where it is well ex¬
posed. Udden explained that this formation over-
lies the Wolfcamp Formation unconformably and
that it is separated from the underlying beds by a
cobble conglomerate. He also believed that the for¬
mation was overlain unconformably by the Leonard
Formation. Udden was uncertain as to the west¬
ward extent of the Hess Formation, and he sug¬
gested that it might be present in Leonard Moun¬
tain and perhaps in the ridge west of Iron
Mountain. If present, Udden suggested that the
formation would be considerably thinned in that
direction. In spite of these doubts, the Hess For¬
mation was indicated on his map across the entire
mountain front.
NUMBER 14
53
P. B. King and R. E. King (1929:126) pro¬
nounced the lower half of the beds on Leonard
Mountain (referred to as the Leonard Formation
by Udden) to be in reality Hess, and stated the
Hess Formation was represented in the hills to
the west of Leonard Mountain. They also recog¬
nized two facies of the Hess Formation: (1) the
East Facies, constituting the fine-grained limestones
and dolomites from Hess Ranch eastward, and (2)
the West Facies, massive, usually non-dolomitic
gray granular limestone. The two facies merged
about 2 miles northeast of the Hess Ranch house.
Much of the upper part of the section in the Hess
Ranch Horst was also considered by P. B. King
(1931:56, 141) to be Hess, and he described a min¬
gling of the two facies on the horst. In 1932 P. B.
King (page 347) indicated that the Leonard shale
in the west end of Leonard Mountain passed into
limestones of the Hess Formation (West Facies)
and the latter into the East Facies in the vicinity
of Hess Ranch (Plate 8: figure 1). P. B. King (1934:
730) next proposed that the Hess Formation be
restricted to beds in the eastern part of the moun¬
tains, and relegated them to the rank of a member.
In 1938 P. B. King (page 98) repeated his findings
that the Leonard shale is separated from the Hess
thin-bedded limestone by “limestone reefs” and
that the Hess is best regarded as a member of the
Leonard Formation.
Jarvis (1957:6), as a result of studies of the Wolf-
camp and Hess Formations, concluded that the
conglomerates in the western part of the mountains,
which were referred by P. B. King to the Wolf-
camp, were, in fact, more like Hess conglomerates
and should be referred to that formation. He also
recommended that the Hess be returned to its
original status as a formation. Ross (1959:299) re¬
defined the Wolfcamp, establishing the Neal Ranch
Formation for the shaly lower part and the Lenox
Hills Formation for the upper conglomerate. The
Lenox Hills conglomerates were traced by him
eastward across the mountain front and were found
to lie above the Neal Ranch Formation and to
include the Hess conglomerate of the type Hess
Formation. Later Ross (1960) described the fusu-
linids of the Hess Formation, but he continued to
call it the Hess Member of the Leonard Formation.
Cooper and Grant (1964) recommended that the
Hess be regarded as a separate formation, and they
indicated its lateral relationship to the Skinner
Ranch Formation.
The foregoing remarks on the history of this
formation show that it originally was regarded
as lying between the Wolfcamp and Leonard For¬
mations, but later it was thought to be the equiv¬
alent of the Leonard shale but separated from it
by limestone reefs. These views more recently have
been shown to be erroneous; the Hess conglomerate
is actually Wolfcampian, a part of the Wolfcamp
Series. Ross, by his work on the fusulinids, indi¬
cated that the Hess for about 400 feet above the con¬
glomerate actually contains fossils of the Wolfcamp
Series. Our findings, detailed below, corroborate
these views, which are further strengthened by
extensive faunal evidence. In view of these dis¬
coveries, our discussion of the Hess will be in two
parts: (1) Hess Formation (Lenox Hills equivalent),
and (2) Hess Formation (Skinner Ranch equiv¬
alent).
Lenox Hills Equivalent.— On the basis of the
history just reviewed and by way of orienting the
reader, it is necessary to offer some preliminary
remarks before examining details of the Hess For¬
mation. It is important to note that much of Udden
and Bose’s Hess in the western part of the moun¬
tains is actually the Lenox Hills Formation of Ross
and is the Hess alluded to by Jarvis (1957:6). The
band of Hess (western facies) appearing on P. B.
and R. E. King’s map (in P. B. King, 1931) along
the base of the Lenox Hills overlies the Hess of
Bose and Udden and is the Decie Ranch Member
of the Skinner Ranch Formation. The Hess con¬
glomerate on Leonard Mountain is part of the
Lenox Hills Formation of Ross and is the equiva¬
lent of the Hess conglomerate of the type region.
Therefore, most of the Leonard Mountain sequence
is not Leonard, although it was part of the Leonard
type section. This complication is explained under
the discussion of the Leonard Formation.
In discussing the part of the Hess Formation
that is equivalent to the Lenox Hills Formation,
it is best to describe the rocks in the type section.
The interval in the western part of the mountains
lies between the Gaptank Formation below and
the Decie Ranch Member of the Skinner Ranch
Formation above (the latter containing abundant
Scncchinella or its cohort Schwagerina crassitec-
toria). In the type section of the Hess, therefore,
54
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
WOLF CAMP
HILLS
Figure 16.—Correlation of the Lenox Hills Formation in the Hess Ranch Horst with that in
the Wolf Camp Hills area (GaptrzOaptank Formation, CM —Cathedral Mountain Formation) .
RANCH
NUMBER 14
55
the Lenox Hills Formation equivalent will be de¬
fined by the beds between the unconformity on
the Gaptank Formation or the Neal Ranch For¬
mation and the base of the Schwagerina crassitec-
toria zone.
The conglomerate at the base of the Hess For¬
mation can be traced east and west from the Wolf
Camp Hills. West of these hills it can be found
almost continuously at the base of the mountain
front to the Hess Ranch, where the outcrops end.
Just north of the Hess Ranch house it is well ex¬
posed at the base of the hill, where it consists of
187 feet of limestone cobble conglomerate. In
Leonard Mountain, the next outcrop area to the
west, this conglomerate appears above Gaptank
limestone. It is the Hess conglomerate of King,
identified by Ross as the Lenox Hills conglomerate.
East of the Wolf Camp Hills the Hess conglom¬
erate is traceable to the east side of the road (U. S.
Highway 385) at Stockton Gap. It is not continuous
to the east, and it thickens and thins, attaining a
thickness of 200 feet in places in the eastern part
of the belt. It is missing from the section in the
somewhat conical foothill 1.5 miles northeast of
hill 4852 at the east end of the Wolf Camp Hills.
In this eastern range the conglomerate is composed
of rounded limestone cobbles.
Overlying the conglomerate is a varying sequence
of red and green shale, thin limestone, and sand¬
stone, with very few fossils. West of the Wolf Camp
Hills the section contains progressively less shale,
but east of the hills shale beds become thick and
important. Shales and thin beds of dolomite attain
a thickness of 300 feet east of the Wolf Camp Hills.
The Lenox Hills equivalent part of the Hess For¬
mation is limited at the top by thin-bedded lime¬
stone abounding in the fusulinids Schwagerina
crassitectoria Dunbar and Skinner and S. guembeli
Dunbar and Skinner, which characterize the base
of the Skinner Ranch Formation on the Hess
Ranch Horst and Leonard Mountain.
The Lenox Hills equivalent of the Hess Forma¬
tion thus proves to consist of variable conglom¬
erates at the base followed by red and green shales,
some thick sandstone, and all with thin limestone
and dolomite beds intercalated. This part of the
section ranges from 300 feet to about 460 feet
thick. The boundary between Hess-Lenox Hills
equivalent and Hess-Skinner Ranch equivalent is
a paleontologic one, not a lithic break.
Skinner Ranch Equivalent.— The Hess Forma¬
tion above the Lenox Hills equivalent is a great
mass of thin-bedded limestone and dolomite with
some heavy, massive bands and occasional layers
of conglomerate, shale, and sandstone. The lime¬
stone is described by Ross (1960:120) as silty bio-
microsparite in the lower 200 feet and biosparite
in the next 600 feet, while the uppermost 400 feet
are mostly “limestone which is recrystallized bio¬
sparite or biomicrosparite.” Tongues of shale, silt-
stone, and silty limestone appear in the eastern
part of the mountains. Two important traceable
beds are the “double ledge” and the “fossil bed”
of P. B. King (1931:60). The formation is thickest
in the eastern part of the hills, where it attains
1600 feet. The section thins to the west and is about
1290 feet thick about 2 miles east of the Hess Ranch
house. Only two parts of this great mass of lime¬
stone concern this monograph. One is the lower
fusulinid zone, and the other is the “fossil bed”
of P. B. King (Plate 8: figure 1).
Schwagerina crassitectoria Zone: This zone is
generally about 200 feet thick and contains the
two fusulinids Schwagerina crassitectoria Dunbar
and Skinner and S. guembeli Dunbar and Skinner.
Ross (1960:121) noted that, in the lower part of
their range, the two species are morphologically
similar and occur together. Higher in their range
they become distinct, S. guembeli increasing in size
and rotundity and S. crassitectoria becoming more
elongated and having less complicated axial de¬
posits. Generally, at these levels, they are no longer
associated in the same beds. Ross states that, in
the upper part of its range, S. guembeli is com¬
monest in biosparite and biomicrosparite whereas
S. crassitectoria in the upper part of its range
occurs in biomicrosparite. This suggests to Ross
that the two gradually became adjusted to different
environments. In the eastern Glass Mountains S.
guembeli ranges a few feet into the succeeding zone
of Parafusulina allisonensis Ross.
The significance of this thick zone of S. crassi¬
tectoria and S. guembeli is the establishment in the
Hess Formation of the level of the Scacchinella beds,
approximately the level of the Decie Ranch Mem¬
ber of the western part of the Skinner Ranch For¬
mation. As shown above, S. crassitectoria occurs
56
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
with Scacchinella on the northeast side of Leonard
Mountain, on the north slope of the Hess Ranch
Horst, and north of the Hess Ranch. The transi¬
tion of bioliermal basal Skinner Ranch into Hess
facies occurs on the long north slope of the horst
and on the east side of Leonard Mountain.
Fossil Bed of P. B. King (— Taylor Ranch Mem¬
ber): This is an extremely important stratigraphic
unit because of its abundance and variety of fossils
and because of the clue the fossils give to the corre¬
lation and relationships of the Hess Formation. It
can be traced from east of the Hess Ranch to the
eastern part of the mountains. It is one of the key
beds used by Ross (1960:120) in describing the
stratigraphy of the Hess. In order better to under¬
stand this datum and to provide ease of designa¬
tion, we have introduced the name “Taylor Ranch
Member” of the Hess Formation (Cooper and
Grant, 1966) and designated the type section on the
Bill Neal Ranch on the southwest slope of the hill,
capped by the 5750-foot contour, which is located
between hills 5767 and 5821 (USNM 716o) (Plate
9: figure 1). Here, the following section was meas¬
ured:
feet
Hess Formation, Taylor Ranch Member
Fossiliferous light brown limestone with orange-
brown chert. 5
Cobbly limestone with some shale and abundance
of fossils. 33
Yellowish conglomerate with smooth matrix and
pebbles of limestone up to 3 inches. 2
Hess Limestone and Dolomite
This member is not developed uniformly in all
parts of the hill, because the thick fossil bed loses
its abundance of fossils to the east, but the con¬
glomerate is persistent and some fossils usually can
be found by diligent search (Plate 9: figure 1).
West of the type-locality, just under the nose of
hill 5725, there occur thick sponge bioherms that
mostly are composed of large Hehosporigia and
bead-like Girtycoelia. The sponges are accom¬
panied by a variety of brachiopods, gastropods, and
pelecypods to constitute one of the most prolific
collecting places in the mountains (USNM 702d).
Some important species for correlation occur in the
sponge bioherms. Spyridiophora, which is rare but
in excellent condition, constitutes one of the
paleontological links of the Taylor Ranch Member
to the upper part of the Skinner Ranch Formation
(Plate 19: figure 2).
The westernmost occurrence of the member is
USNM 702e about 0.5 mile north of hill 5751.
There the member contains a fairly prominent but
thin shale bed and an abundance of Rhipidomella
hessensis R. E. King that is not equalled elsewhere.
This locality contains several important species.
A cast of Scacchinella found in the vicinity of the
sponge bioherms and a brachial valve found north¬
west of the Conoly Brooks Ranch are very impor¬
tant discoveries.
P. B. King (1931:60), besides calling this the
“fossil bed,” also proposed the term “Perrinites
compressus horizon” after the ammonite described
by Bose (1917:166). The name is not apt, because
the ammonite is excessively rare. Bose had only
two specimens, and we have taken only two in all
the collecting done in the mountains. Moreover,
the species P. compressus Bose is now regarded as
a synonym of P hilli (Smith), the more widely dis¬
tributed species of the genus.
Above the Taylor Ranch Member.— A con¬
siderable thickness of limestone and dolomite in¬
tervenes between the Taylor Ranch Member and
the base of the Cathedral Mountain Formation,
which is a conglomerate composed of small pebbles,
many of them white quartz. P. B. King (1931) and
Ross (1960) describe this interval, but they record
considerable variation in the thickness. Both au¬
thors agree that the section thins to the west. The
maximum thickness reported by P. B. King (1931:
145, section 27) is 410 feet, but Ross (1960:119,
section 2) records over 700 feet in essentially the
same section at the Conoly Brooks Ranch. Regard¬
less of thickness, the interval lies between the Tay¬
lor Ranch Member and the base of the Cathedral
Mountain, which is essentially the base of the
Institella beds of the Cathedral Mountain Forma¬
tion. These upper beds of the Hess are, like those
below, thin limestone, dolomite, or massive dolo¬
mite with many unidentifiable fusulinids. In some
places the fusulinids are coated by algal material.
Ross (1960:119) records three species of fusulinids
from this part of the section: Parafusulina spissi-
septa Ross, P. brooksensis Ross, and P vidriensis
Ross. As explained in our chapter on correlation,
these post-Taylor Ranch Member beds are included
as a unit with the Hess Formation, as partial equiv-
NUMBER 14
57
alents of the Skinner Ranch Formation. They are
overlain by lnstitella throughout their extent, from
near the Hess Ranch to a mile east of Split Tank,
and therefore are regarded by us as belonging to
the Hess Formation. Moreover, they are lithically
like the Hess, and the few fossils found in them are
Hess types (USNM 726n).
In Leonard Mountain: King (P. B., 1931:62,
140, section 17) identified 746 feet (erroneously
recorded as 646 feet) of Hess limestone in Leonard
Mountain in 7 beds. This sequence now proves to
be referable to the Gaptank, Lenox Hills, and
Skinner Ranch Formations. Beds 3-5 in P. B.
King’s section (1931:62) belong to the Lenox Hills
Formation of Ross, bed 3 being the Hess con¬
glomerate (= Lenox Hills Formation) traceable
in the hills east of the Hess Ranch, and the lime¬
stone forming bed 5 contains characteristic Wolf-
camp Series fossils (= part of Lenox Hills For¬
mation). Beds 6 and 7 of this section belong to the
Skinner Ranch Formation, better exposed and
more characteristic on the southwest side of the
mountain. In King’s section 17, bed 6 is composed
largely of dolomite and is the great “reefy” mass
so conspicuous on the southeast nose of the moun¬
tain. As explained elsewhere in more detail,
dolomitization on Leonard Mountain has caused
confusion, leading King to identify it as “east facies
of Hess,” when it is actually dolomitized west facies
of Hess, which, in turn, is really partly Lenox Hills
Formation and partly Skinner Ranch Formation.
King’s Hess section on Leonard Mountain is Hess
equivalent, but it does not represent all of the
section. A similar situation exists on the Hess
Ranch Horst, but there only the lower part of the
Hess is involved.
In the Hess Ranch Horst: The great mass of
the Hess Ranch Horst in hill 5816 rests on the Neal
Ranch Formation (all shale at this place) and is
capped by beds with Schzvagerina crassitectoria.
The rocks are thus blocked in by the same bound¬
aries that define the Lenox Hills Formation. P. B.
King (1931:56, 141, section 20) recognized 305 feet
of Wolfcamp limestone and shale above the “Ud-
denites shale” (= Neal Ranch Formation of pres¬
ent usage) and recognized 429 feet of Hess Forma¬
tion composed of 7 units that included some con¬
glomerate (bed 1), 214 feet of limestone said to be
eastern Hess facies (beds 5 and 6), the latter topped
by 116 feet of light gray limestone in massive beds
(bed 7) resembling “the cliffs on Leonard Moun¬
tain, made up of the western facies of the Hess.”
All of these beds now are known to contain Wolf-
campian fusulinids and to belong to the Lenox
Hills Formation. The horst sequence, assigned to
the Wolfcamp and Hess by King, is thus proved
to belong to that part of the Hess (of its type
section), which includes the interval from the basal
conglomerate to the Schzvagerina crassitectoria
Zone, the part that in the eastern Glass Mountains
is mainly red and green shale and sandstone. The
passage of these facies of western and eastern ex¬
pression is difficult to demonstrate lithologically
because of unfortunate gaps in continuity, but it
can be demonstrated amply and adequately by
paleontology.
Facies Relationships.— The facies relationships
of the Hess Formation as outlined by King and
others are considered almost classic examples in
the geological and stratigraphical literature, but
they are only partly true. The relationships de¬
picted for Leonard Mountain and the western part
of the Hess Ranch area—in which it is indicated
that shaly Leonard on the northwestern side of
Leonard Mountain passes into reefs on the south¬
eastern side and then into the Hess thin-bedded
Scol e
Figure 17.—Section through the Wolf Camp Hills to Old Word Ranch showing great devel¬
opment of the Hess Formation (GK— Gaptank Formation, NR —Neal Ranch Formation, H =
LH — lower part of Hess equals Lenox Hills Formation of Ross, H —Hess Formation, fb =
TR = fossil bed of P.B. King equals Taylor Ranch Member, CM = Cathedral Mountain
Formation, RCrrRoad Canyon Formation).
58
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
CM- CATHEDRAL MOUNTAIN YELLOW SHALE
G = GAPTANK
LH= LENOX HILLS
SR= SKINNER RANCH
T = TESNUS
Q to Q‘■ 2-1/4 MILES
yTfT
oo\o o\o
o| o o|oo .
i Vg°Q
YELLOW
SHALE
CALCARENITE LIMESTONE CONGLOMERATE
CONGLOMERATE
Figure 18.—Section through Leonard Mountain showing dolomite block (B) and detached
block of Lenox Hills Formation (A) (see Plate 6: figure 3; Plate 8: figure 2)
limestone—is in part true, but the picture must be
carried farther west than Leonard Mountain to
get the full perspective. We have shown that the
Poplar Tank shaly member is pinched out rather
than interfingered into the Skinner Ranch Forma¬
tion, but, although a few yellow shale beds can be
seen in the Skinner Ranch Formation, we found no
such relationship as indicated for Leonard Mountain
(P. B. King, 1932:347). The Skinner Ranch For¬
mation underlies the main mass of the “Leonard
shales” (= Cathedral Mountain Formation) on
Leonard Mountain and to the west. The Skinner
Ranch Formation constitutes a great mass of cal-
carenite, and it is the massive formation of Leonard
Mountain that can be demonstrated by paleonto¬
logical correlation to be the lateral equivalent of
the main part of the Hess thin-bedded limestone.
The relations of the Lenox Hills Formation to
the lower part of the Hess Formation are shown on
Leonard Mountain, on the mountain mass east of
Hess Ranch, and in the Hess Ranch Horst. The
lower 300—500 feet of the Hess east of Hess Ranch
and all but the main knobs of the Hess Ranch
Horst are equivalent to the Lenox Hills Formation.
Demonstrating the equivalency of the Skinner
Ranch with the bulk of the Hess Formation is
more difficult because a great gap exists between
Leonard Mountain and the hills east of Hess Ranch
and the north slope of the Hess Ranch Horst. In
spite of this gap, concrete evidence of the presence
of beds equivalent to those higher in the Skinner
Ranch Formation than are found on the horst
appears in the small hill 0.85 mile northwest of
the Hess house (USNM 709a, 727f, 727m, 727n).
There, numerous fossils of the upper part of the
Skinner Ranch were taken, including not only
brachiopods of significance, but also ammonites.
The 100 or 200 feet of lower Skinner Ranch
Formation on the north slope of the west end of
the Hess Ranch Horst (hill 5305) contains abun¬
dant Schwagerina crassitectoria, and the same
fusulinid occurs on the summit of the horst
(USNM 714h) but in characteristic Hess thin-
bedded lithology. It is evident that a lithological
change takes place up the long north slope of the
horst, but also that the mingled lithologies largely
have been eroded away (see Figure 26).
Leonard Series
Like the Wolfcamp Series below it, the Leonard
was elevated in rank from the status of a formation
to that of a series (Adams et al., 1939). Further¬
more, the content of the series has suffered some
change from its original definition to its recent
reconstitution.
Type Section of the Leonard Formation
Udden, Baker, and Bose (1916:51) only indirectly
designated the type section of the Leonard, stating
that the “section characterised here has been meas-
NUMBER 14
59
ured in Leonard Mountain and north of it.” They
did not state what parts of Leonard Mountain
were measured nor how far north they carried the
measurements.
Udden (1917:46) was more specific in stating that
the ‘‘formation which makes the greater part of
the south face of Leonard Mountain lias been given
the name of this prominent feature in the land¬
scape north of Marathon.” Udden’s section started
at the west end of the mountain and extended
northward, parallel to Gilliland Caynon (Plate 8:
figure 2).
In 1929 P. B. and R. E. King (page 131) pointed
out that the lower half of Udden’s type section
was Hess and part Gaptank (= Lenox Hills and
Skinner Ranch Formations of this report). P. B.
King (1931:63) reiterated this view and com¬
mented upon “the massive limestones which out¬
crop on the south face of Leonard Mountain, and
which have been shown by the writer to correspond
to the upper part of the Hess at its type locality.”
King, therefore, placed the contact of the two for¬
mations (Hess and Leonard) at the natural line
of subdivision between the shales above and the
massive limestones below. So defined, the only
Leonard Formation on Leonard Mountain is that
forming the knob 0.25 mile northwest of bench
mark 5860 and that appearing on the northwest
slope of the mountain. The Leonard thus occupies
the north slope of the mountain and the valley and
lower slopes of the hills on the north side of the
valley. In 1932 P. B. King suggested that the
Leonard Formation consisted of three interlocking
facies: a shaly sequence in the west, a thin-bedded
limestone in the east, and the two separated by
reef limestone. King (1934:730) proposed the Hess
Formation as a member of the Leonard Formation,
a nomenclature that existed until Jarvis (1957)
recommended restoration of the Hess as an in¬
dependent formation (see Figure 18).
Ross (1960) did not follow Jarvis’ suggestion to
reinstate the Hess as a formation, but he continued
to regard it as a member of the Leonard. In 1962,
however, Ross (1962b) recommended splitting the
Leonard Formation into three members, which he
designated in ascending order A, B, and C. Mem¬
ber A includes the basal conglomerate limestone
(Decie Ranch Member of the Skinner Ranch For¬
mation) and the succeeding shale (Poplar Tank
Member) to the base of the first Leonard limestone.
Member B includes all of the numbered limestones
from the first to the fifth. Member C extends from
the base of an extensive sandstone to the base of
the Word Formation (Road Canyon Formation)
and includes the great mass of Leonard soft shale
in the western part of the mountains.
Cathedral Mountain Formation
Cooper and Grant (1964) revised the Leonard
Formation, recommended that the name be re¬
stricted to the series designation, and proposed
Cathedral Mountain for the siliceous sequence
from the top of the Skinner Ranch Formation (=
Member A of Ross plus the first Leonard lime¬
stone of P. B. King) to the base of the Road Can¬
yon Formation (= First Limestone of the Word
Formation). The Cathedral Mountain Formation
thus includes Ross Member B (minus the first
limestone) and all of Member C. The Ross mem¬
bers do not form natural bio- or lithostratigraphic
units in our opinion; therefore, we have not
adopted them. Furthermore, in our treatment of
the Leonard Series, we expand it to include the
Road Canyon Member of the Word Formation,
which now has become the Road Canyon Forma¬
tion of the Leonard Series. As explained in the
chapter “Faunas and Correlations of Glass Moun¬
tains Formations,” this assignment has a paleonto¬
logical as well as stratigraphical basis. We also
individualize the Fifth Limestone of the Leonard
on Dugout Mountain and the Second Limestone
of the Leonard in the Lenox Hills as the Wedin
Member of the Cathedral Mountain Formation.
In the Type Area.— The type section of the Ca¬
thedral Mountain Formation is on the line of
P. B. King’s (1931:66) section 12 and includes his
beds 19—38, aggregating 1245 feet in thickness.
Beds 1—18 of this section belong to the Poplar
Tank and Sullivan Peak Members of the Skinner
Ranch Formation. The type section, predomi¬
nantly shale, chert, and sandstone, contains some
conspicuous beds of sandstone and limestone. The
shale of the Cathedral Mountain, especially the
yellow, platy kind is well indurated, silty, or often
sandy, cherty, and blocky, very hard and usually
a beautiful orange and red, the staining often
paralleling the blocky joints and creating interest-
60
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
COOPER-GRANT
CLASSIFICATION
MEMBERS
of ROSS
WEST
EAST
WE ST
EAST
Q
cz
ROAD
CANYON
BASE of WORD
FORMATION
<
z
CATHEDRAL
MOUN TAIN
CATHEDRAL
MOUNTAIN
MEMBER
C
upper CM only
MEMBER C
includes all
of CM
o
o
UJ
FORMATION
much thinned,
founolly like
sequence in
MEMBER
HESS
B
£E
<
—1
WE DIN
west
B
z
CL
I
O
fr z
SULLIVAN
PEAK
TAYLOR RANCH
FOSSIL BED
O
5
<
UJ <
z ®
z
POPLAR
TANK
HESS
MEM BER
MEMBER
UJ
o
U-
*
to
DECIE
RANCH
A
A
-I
o
$
LENOX HILLS
FORMATION
FORMATION
LENOX HILLS
FORMATION
w c
Figure 19.— Comparison of members of the Leonard "For¬
mation” of Ross with the Skinner Ranch and Cathedral
Mountain Formations.
ing patterns. The limestones are commonly con¬
glomeratic, the pebbles usually small and composed
of quartz or chert, occasionally red or white. In
the conglomeratic, calcarenitic limestones, the am¬
monite Perrinites commonly occurs. The lower
orange and pink, hard, indurated, silty shales and
cherts form the knobs on the north slopes of the
Lenox Hills, and the upper part of the formation
lies on the lower slopes of Cathedral Mountain
beneath the Road Canyon and Word Formations,
which form most of the upper part of the moun¬
tain. The valley between the Lenox Hills and
Cathedral Mountain is underlain by the Cathedral
Mountain Formation. Good exposures appear in
low hills and knobs in the valley. One hill com¬
posed mostly of sandstone occurs 1.35 miles south
of Sullivan Peak. It is unusual because the nearly
solid mass of sandstone surrounds a characteristic
smooth-limestone bioherm that contains the brachi-
opod InstiteUa, among other fossils. This is a pos¬
sible erratic block of the Wedin Member.
The contact with the Sullivan Peak Member of
the Skinner Ranch Formation is sharp and clear
because it consists of yellow Cathedral Mountain
shale and chert on light-gray Sullivan Peak lime¬
stone in most places in the Lenox Hills. It also
occurs in the valley on the south side of hill 4920.
The upper contact is more difficult to find because
it is covered by slide from the Word Formation.
On the south side of Cathedral Mountain, where
rock is exposed, the shale of the Cathedral Moun¬
tain Formation is in contact with bioherms of the
lower Road Canyon Formation.
East of the type section at the Clay Slide an
excellent exposure of the upper shale can be
studied (Plate 7: figure 2). In this vicinity the
base of Cathedral Mountain is in contact with the
Sullivan Peak Member of the Skinner Ranch For¬
mation at the constriction of the 4750-foot contour
on hill 5021. Here the yellow siliceous shale lies on
the Skinner Ranch Formation, which forms the
saddle. The limestone or dolomite above the
Skinner Ranch in the lower Cathedral Mountain
King (P. B., 1931: map) has mapped as the First
Leonard Limestone. This is actually not the First
Limestone, but it is the same as the one marked
“Limestone 3-4,” which makes hill 4920. The
“First Limestone of the Leonard” forms the top
of hill 5021 and is the upper part of our Skinner
Ranch Formation. The other limestone is a dolo¬
mite rather than a limestone and contains abun¬
dant Perrinites.
The valley between hill 5021 and the Clay Slide
is underlain by the Cathedral Mountain Forma¬
tion. The low hill about 0.35 mile east of Clay
Slide, containing interesting exposures of lime¬
stone and sandstone, is a good place to collect the
fauna of the Cathedral Mountain Formation. Per¬
rinites is common and InstiteUa is present but
difficult to find. Fossils also are abundant in a
ravine just east of Clay Slide (USNM 707q). The
upper beds of the Cathedral Mountain Formation
appear in several ravines entering Gilliland Can¬
yon, such as the one just southeast of elevation
4869 on the Gilliland Canyon Road.
Leonard Limestones of P. B. King in the
Lenox Hills.— P. B. King’s (1931) sections 10-12
in the Lenox Hills all indicate the presence of
limestone beds in the Leonard shale, which he
designated by numbers 1-4. The First Limestone
was separated by Cooper and Grant (1964) as the
Sullivan Peak Member of the Skinner Ranch For¬
mation. Inasmuch as this First Limestone is cor-
relatable across the Lenox Hills to the west onto
Dugout Mountain, it has been inferred hitherto
that the other numbered limestones of the two hill
masses are the same. Certainly the consecutive
numbering in both places encouraged such a view.
NUMBER 14
61
Figure 20.—Section through the hill capped by the closed 5250-foot contour, just west of hill
5300, to Sullivan Peak in Cathedral Mountain (DR —Decie Ranch, SP=zSullivan Peak, both
members of the Skinner Ranch Formation, L-ls. 3 & 4 — Leonard limestones 3 and 4 of P.B.
King).
Identification of the fauna of King’s Second Lime¬
stone in the Lenox Hills with the Fifth Limestone
of Dugout Mountain dispels this idea.
Although we have assigned King’s First Lime¬
stone Member to the Skinner Ranch Formation,
the other limestones remain in the Cathedral
Mountain Formation. For the sake of discussion,
we do not alter the numbering of King. In the
Lenox Hills the Second Limestone is well exposed
at several places (USNM 714w, 727p), and it can
be followed to hill 5300 where it pinches out. Its
thickness is variable and amounts to 20 feet just
below the west knob of hill 5300. This limestone,
the Wedin Member of the Cathedral Mountain
Formation, contains an unusual fauna and is there¬
fore singled out for further discussion.
Separated from the Second Limestone by about
80-90 feet of yellow siliceous shale is King’s Third
Limestone in hill 5300, consisting of 15 feet of
small pebble conglomerate and 32 feet of gray
limestone that contains numerous specimens of
Perrinites. On the north dip slope of the west knob
of hill 5300, the limestones contain numerous
specimens of Institella in biohermal beds. The
conglomerate is variable and thins to the east
(Plate 7: figure 3).
The Fourth Limestone Member (P. B. King,
1931:135, section 11) is recorded as 12 feet thick
in section 11, but on the east side of the Lenox
Hills it merges with the Third Limestone to form
a combination of sandy limestones that become
conglomeratic near the top. This combined lime¬
stone is characterized by abundant Perrinites and
extends onto the north slope of hill 5021.
P. B. King and R. E. King (in P. B. King, 1931)
mapped the First Limestone of the Leonard For¬
mation on the northwest slope of hill 5021 and on
the next hill to the northeast. It forms a broad
belt in the first hill but only a narrow band in the
second one. Actually these bands belong to the
combined Third and Fourth Limestones of the
Leonard rather than to the First Limestone. Partly
dolomitized, they abound in large ammonites of
the genus Perrinites , a feature quite unlike that of
the First Limestone (= Sullivan Peak Member of
the Skinner Ranch Formation). It is now known
that the First Limestone unites with the Decie
Ranch Member of the Skinner Ranch Formation.
This combination appears in the Kings’ map as the
“Hess Limestone.” The Leonard Limestone ap¬
pearing in the hill between hills 5021 and 5280 is
the last appearance of any of the limestones of the
Cathedral Mountain.
Summarizing the above, we see that the four
limestones King individualized by number pinch
out to the east by union with lower beds. The
First Limestone is the Sullivan Peak Member of
Cooper and Grant; the Second Limestone, the
Wedin Member, pinches out in hill 5300 near the
middle of the Lenox Hills; the Third Limestone
unites with the Fourth at the east end of the Lenox
Hills and pinches out east of hill 5021. This was
misidentified as the First Limestone on the east
side of the Sullivan (Yates) Ranch Road.
Wedin Member.— The Second Limestone Mem¬
ber of the Leonard of P. B. King noted above is an
important datum for the base of the Cathedral
Mountain Formation. It was individualized, there¬
fore, by Cooper and Grant (1966) as the “Wedin
Member”—named after the Ava Scribner Wedin
No. 1 Well on the Decie Ranch about 2.25 miles
southeast of the type section. Since the Decie
Ranch was at one time owned by the Wedin family,
the name is doubly appropriate. The type section
of the member is under the west knob of hill 5300,
which is defined by the closed 5250-foot contour.
62
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Here the member is 20 feet of biohermal limestone
abounding in Institella and Agelesia. The member
pinches out about a mile to the east, but to the
west it forms conspicuous ledges on the north
slope of the west end of the Lenox Hills. It is also
well exposed but somewhat thinner on the north¬
west side of Dugout Mountain, where it forms a
belt almost a mile long. It is the highest rock
mapped by P. B. King and R. E. King (in P. B.
King, 1931) in the Dugout Mountain sequence,
where it was called the Fifth Limestone Member
of the Leonard. The member thus extends from
the center of the Lenox Hills westward to the
northwest side of Dugout Mountain, a distance of
6 miles. The Wedin Member contains the first
appearance of the Institella and Agelesia assem¬
blage, the first of the Cathedral Mountain faunas
traceable across the entire mountain front except
for the gap between hill 5300 and Leonard Moun¬
tain (Plate 7: figure 1).
In Leonard Mountain.— The bulk of Leonard
Mountain is composed of the Skinner Ranch For¬
mation. This is overlain by yellow shaly beds of
the Cathedral Mountain Formation, which appear
on the mountain in the knob 0.25 mile northwest
of bench mark 5860. Most of the north slope from
this point is composed of the upper beds of the
Skinner Ranch Formation, the type section of that
formation appearing at the west end of the moun¬
tain, where it forms a conspicuous knob and extends
into the valley floor. The Cathedral Mountain
Formation is exposed at places in the valley, espe¬
cially where small bioherms are resistant enough
to stand above the floor. The upper part of the
Cathedral Mountain Formation is exposed in the
lower slopes of the hill north of Leonard Moun¬
tain, where they are overlain by the Road Canyon
Formation. Excellent exposures with abundant
fossils appear in the saddle between Leonard
Mountain and the hill to the north. The ravines
near the base of the mountain to the north (5674)
contain good exposures of the yellow shale, and
the thin limestones and bioherms contain numer¬
ous fossils. Good specimens of large Perrinites are
fairly common. Perhaps the best collecting place
is R. E. King’s locality 123 (=USNM 71 lq). This
and the few exposures of the upper Cathedral
Mountain Formation that appear in the ravines
at the base of the slopes of hill 5801 and to the
mouth of Road Canyon are the last exposures of
the typical Cathedral Mountain Formation. The
Cathedral Mountain has been cut out by the Hess
Ranch Horst, but the interval appears again several
miles to the east in a different facies.
Institella is perhaps the most significant brachi-
opod of the Cathedral Mountain and seems to be
confined to it. It occurs at several levels in the
formation, but on Leonard Mountain it is at the
very base. On top of Leonard Mountain the knob
O. 25 mile northwest of bench mark 5860 is com¬
posed of about 80 feet of yellow, silty shale, fol¬
lowed by 5.5 feet of thick-bedded calcarenite
containing Institella and other fossils. This is
followed by 1-2 feet of chert with the same fossils,
which in turn is succeeded by thin-bedded lime¬
stone that forms the top of the knob. The thin
plates of limestone at the top are composed almost
completely of Institella, with many of the valves
crushed together and in great profusion.
The calcarenite capping the west knob of Leon¬
ard Mountain contains Institella and is assigned
to the Cathedral Mountain. This same bed appears
midway between Leonard Mountain and the hill to
the north (USNM 709), but it does not extend to
the highest part of the mountain to the south and
east.
In Dugout Mountain Region.— The Cathedral
Mountain Formation has a considerable develop¬
ment in the Dugout Mountain region, but much
of it, which is soft shale, is buried under the plain
on the north side of the mountain. In our discus¬
sion of the Skinner Ranch Formation, we showed
that the lower part of the Leonard of P. B. King
contained several limestones, numbered 2—4 by
him, separated by beds of yellow, silty shale and
chert. These limestones and shales, although lith-
ically like the Cathedral Mountain Formation,
contain fossils like those of the Skinner Ranch
below. We, therefore, have named this sequence
the “Dugout Mountain Member of the Skinner
Ranch Formation’’ (Cooper and Grant, 1966). The
Cathedral Mountain Formation thus begins with
P. B. King’s Fifth Limestone Member at its base.
This limestone is here called the “Wedin Member
of the Cathedral Mountain Formation’’ and intro¬
duces the Institella fauna (see above).
The Wedin Member at the base of the section
forms a narrow northeast trending belt at the
NUMBER 14
63
CAP- CAPITAN DM- DUGOUT MOUNTAIN
CM- CATHEDRAL MOUNTAIN G- GAPTANK
cp-conglom«rote with PERRINITES LH-LENOX HILLS
DC-OECIE RANCH PT- POPLAR TANK
RC- ROAD CANYON
SP-SULLIVAN PEAK
W-WORD
5- 5th limail one rnimbir of King with INSTITELLA-WEDIN MEMBER
Figure 21.— Section through Dugout Mountain, past the site of Old Payne Ranch, through
hill 4861, to hill capped by the 5600-foot closed contour in the northwest corner of the Monu¬
ment Spring quadrangle.
northwest base of the mountain. Here the member
is only 12 feet thick (P. B. King, 1931:133), but it
has numerous bioherms that contain abundant
Institella and Agelesia exactly like those on the
north slope of the Lenox Hills and near the old
Word Ranch. On Dugout Mountain the silicifica-
tion of fossils proved disappointing, but numerous
specimens were obtained in the Wedin Member
by conventional means.
Above the Wedin Member the section is covered,
concealing more than 500 feet of section (P.B.
King, 1931:133). Above this are nearly 300 feet of
shale and sandstone, the latter forming conspicuous
brown masses in the valley. Perrinites is reported
(P. B. King, 1931:133) in the upper beds, which
are like those at the Clay Slide and Cathedral
Mountain. The thick sandstone also resembles
that occurring south of Sullivan Peak. P. B. King’s
(1931:133) section aggregates 987 feet from the top
of the Dugout Mountain Member of the Skinner
Ranch Formation to the base of the Road Canyon
Member.
The upper few hundred feet of the Cathedral
Mountain Formation near the Old Payne Ranch
site occur in situations suggestive of the Clay Slide.
Indeed the conspicuous conical hill 0.25 mile north¬
west of the Old Payne Ranch site contains a long
gash in the shales under the massive limestone of
the Road Canyon Formation strongly reminiscent
of the Clay Slide. Here fossils are fairly common
and Perrinites occurs in a thin band of orange-
brown limestone. Exactly the same sequence, but
in a slightly different setting, can be seen in hill
4861 and in the one immediately to the northwest,
which includes the 4750-foot contour. In hill 4861
a conspicuous round-pebble conglomerate occurs
about one-third the height from the base. This
conglomerate abounds in well preserved Perrinites
and other Leonardian cephalopods. The hill and
the other immediately to the northwest are capped
by the Road Canyon Formation (Plate 13: figures
1,2).
The presence of the Road Canyon Formation
at several localities in the Sierra del Norte from
a point about 2 miles west-northwest of the Old
Payne Ranch site indicates that the lower slopes
of this range west of Dugout Mountain belong to
the Cathedral Mountain Formation. Due west of
the new house along the road (USNM 737s) there
occur dolomitic beds with large pebbles and an
abundance of Perrinites. Farther south on the
mountain front at USNM 741s, thin detrital beds
contained Institella and Agelesia, indicating Ca¬
thedral Mountain, but we were unable to identify
Road Canyon in this section.
In Old Word Ranch (= Split Tank Area).— Ca¬
thedral Mountain Formation rocks are exposed in
the canyon (Comanche Canyon? = east branch of
Hess Canyon of some inhabitants) from the igneous
body on the east side of the Hess Ranch Horst,
past Old Word Ranch, the Appel Ranch, Split
Tank, and beyond. It is rather thin in this region,
301 feet thick near Split Tank and 237 feet thick
in P. B. King’s (1931:145) section 27. The base
of the sequence is conglomerate with numerous
small quartz pebbles (Plate 12: figure 4), followed
by Hess-type limestones, then bioherms overlain
by yellow siliceous shale. Above the shale there is
a thick sequence of biohermal limestone, which is
succeeded finally by a considerable thickness of
yellow shale with abundant Rugatia and Penicu-
lauris mckeei (see Figure 22 for details). Institella
is common to rare in parts of the lower half, but
it was not found in the upper shaly part.
The Split Tank section has furnished many of
the finest silicified fossils from these mountains,
64
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
SPLIT TANK
726y
Feet
r 60
- 30
- 0
726 w
702a'
702a
co
O
h-
702 ent
un
702 low
inst
708 u
Figure 22.—Columnar section of the Cathedral Mountain
Formation 0.5 mile east of Split Tank showing stratigraphic
level of locality numbers (RC=Road Canyon Formation).
and the supply has not been depleted. The section
is noteworthy for its bioherms, some of which are
characterized by an abundance of particular brachi-
opods. Institella and Torynechus (formerly Un-
cinuloides) bioherms occur in the lower part of the
section. Above them are bioherms replete with
Enteletes and Hercosia. In the upper part, just
below the thick shales, there occur remarkable
bioherms composed almost entirely of Collemataria.
Southwest of the old Word Ranch site the Ca¬
thedral Mountain Formation is not well preserved;
just east of the Hess Ranch Horst it is greatly
dolomitized, and many of the fossils have been
destroyed. The map by P. B. and R. E. King (in
P. B. King, 1931) indicates a belt of Wolfcamp
limestone on the south side of the igneous body
at the base of the Hess Ranch Horst. These lime¬
stones are indicated by Ross (1963a: map [Plate 1})
as of Leonard age. We corroborated their post-
Wolfcamp age by collecting Institella from their
upper part at several places, thus clearly establish¬
ing their position at the base of the Cathedral
Mountain Formation. The beds with Institella
overlie heavy bedded limestone of the upper Skin¬
ner Ranch Limestone Formation. The Skinner
Ranch part of this limestone lies against the igne¬
ous body at a high angle. The basal conglomerate
of the Cathedral Mountain Formation occurs at
the base of these Institella limestones and can be
traced northeastward up the canyon for several
miles. It is especially well developed near the Old
Word Ranch on the steep dip slope forming the
south side of the canyon.
Road Canyon Formation
This formation forms the top of the Leonard
Series throughout the mountains from the Split
Tank area to Dugout Mountain. It is an excellent
datum in the stratigraphy of the Glass Mountains.
Its name originally was proposed by Cooper and
Grant (1964) as a member of the Word Formation.
Previously it had been designated as the First
Limestone Member of the Word Formation by
P. B. King (1931:71) but, because of the predomi¬
nantly Leonardian character (Miller, 1945a) of the
fauna, we have transferred it to the Leonard
Series. The changeable character of the formation
from place to place makes its discussion on a geo-
NUMBER 14
65
graphic basis necessary. Five areas are considered:
(1) the triangular hill north of Leonard Mountain,
which contains the type section, (2) the Old Word
Ranch area, (3) the Sullivan Peak region, (4) Gil¬
liland Canyon, and (5) the area northwest of Old
Payne Ranch, northwest of Dugout Mountain.
In Hills North of Leonard Mountain.— North
of Leonard Mountain lies a triangular group of
hills, which are bounded on the north by the east-
west Road Canyon and on the west and east, re¬
spectively, by the convergent canyons Gilliland and
Hess. The type section of the formation is located
at the south angle of the triangle, approximately
on the 103' 15" parallel. The formation crops out
on the south side of the mouth of Road Canyon
and forms a conspicuous ledge on the hillsides
facing Hess and Gilliland Canyons, but it passes
under the Gilliland Canyon floor about 1.25 miles
south of the western mouth of Road Canyon. The
formation in these hills displays a great variety of
lithologies; in fact, all types occur in the formation
except the thin-bedded black shales, which appear
to the east and west of the type area (Plate 16:
figure 4; Plate 14: figure 2).
At the type section, the formation is 228 feet
thick and consists of bioherms with Coscinophora
at the base, followed by bioherms abounding in
Hercosestria, more limestone with Coscinophora ,
and then a series of varied thin beds followed by a
thick biohermal mass. No two sections of the for¬
mation in these hills are alike, a fact that is to be
expected when dealing with bioherms. Coscino¬
phora bioherms of considerable size can be seen
on both sides of the triangular block of hills. Other
fossils also are abundant; the area is one of the
best in the mountains for collecting silicified fos¬
sils. The variety of animals is great. Not only are
brachiopods abundant, but also a variety of gastro¬
pods and pelecypods may be retrieved in nearly
perfect preservation. Perrinites, found in this area
south of the eastern mouth Road Canyon (USNM
726c), attests to the Leonardian age of the forma¬
tion. It is difficult to determine a faunal sequence
in the formation, but a crude succession of forms
seems to be manifest.
The bioherms near the base on both sides of the
hills are characterized by Hercosestria and a variety
of other forms such as Edriostegcs, Texarina, and
Cyclacantharia, which also are seen to the east in
the conical knob (USNM 702c) 1.25 miles south¬
west of Old Word Ranch.
One of the best of the bioherms (Plate 16: figure
4) occurs at the base of the type section on the east
nose of hill 5779 about 2.5 miles due north of the
Skinner Ranch house. Over 82 feet thick, it be¬
gins with a thick limestone conglomerate at the
base, followed by fine-grained calcarenite, which is
succeeded by the biohermal limestone. This large
rounded mass, visible for a considerable distance,
is one of the largest bioherms in the mountains.
The beds above the bioherms contain one conspicu¬
ous bed of yellow shale 14 feet thick. The top
boundary of the section is uncertain because of the
appearance of yellow shale in the upper part of
the section. The uppermost thick calcarenite and
bioherms (bed 10) are followed by yellow shale with
thin, inter-bedded limestone, but these contain fos¬
sils like those of the Road Canyon below. A similar
situation exists at the top of the formation on both
sides of the triangular hill.
Lenses and thin layers of limestone with Road
Canyon fossils appear just above Road Canyon
on the west side of Hess Canyon and on the east
side of Gilliland Canyon. On the former, the
lenses and layers are usually only a few feet above
the main mass of the Road Canyon Formation,
but on the east side of Gilliland Canyon, lenses
occur 25 feet above the main body of the forma¬
tion (USNM 720d). Nevertheless, the fossils in
them are Road Canyon types with affinities with
the Road Canyon below. We have, therefore, in¬
cluded these beds in the Road Canyon Formation.
In Old Word Ranch Area.— This area extends
from the east end of the Hess Ranch Horst north¬
eastward along the north side of the canyon that
runs from the Hess gate past the Old Word Ranch
to the Appel Ranch house. The vicinity of the Old
Word Ranch is the type area for the Word For¬
mation; the Road Canyon was originally the First
Limestone of the Word of P. B. King. The best
and most accessible sections are at the site of the
Old Word Ranch, where P. B. King (1931:143,
section 24) records 140 feet, including 60 feet of
thin-bedded bituminous limestone weathering light
gray and, above it, 80 feet of dark gray dolomite
(Plate 13: figure 3). The section overlies siliceous
shale of the Cathedral Mountain. P. B. King made
no mention of the bed of bioherms at the base of
66
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
the thinly laminated beds (USNM 703a). These
have the same fossils as the bioherms at the base
of the Road Canyon Formation just southwest of
the mouth of Road Canyon (USNM 719x). At the
Old Word Ranch site the thin-bedded dark lime¬
stones contain several lenses teeming with fossils
(USNM 703, 703c, 703d). The first of these con¬
tains a remarkable fauna of ammonites including
Perrinites (Miller, 1945a); the second yielded a
remarkable sponge and molluscan fauna, and the
third produced some unusual spirifers and other
fossils. Northeast of the Old Word Ranch, the
Road Canyon Formation becomes dolomitic and
merges with the higher limestones of the Word For¬
mation by pinching out of the shale between them
(Plate 13: figure 3).
Southwest of the Old Word Ranch, the Road
Canyon can be traced to the fault bounding the
Hess Ranch Horst. Near the horst the rocks are
greatly dolomitized and difficult to identify, but,
near the crossing of the south branch of Hess Can¬
yon with the road from the Old Word Ranch, two
important localities have yielded fine collections.
One of these, USNM 702c, forms the top of a small
knob on the inside of a wide loop of the road
1.35 miles southwest of the Old Word Ranch. Here
Hercosestria and many other species characteristic
of the bioherms at the base of the Road Canyon
Formation were taken.
In Sullivan Peak Area.— The thickest develop¬
ment of the Road Canyon appears in Cathedral
Mountain and on the hills just east of it to Clay
Slide. The best place to study the member is on
the spur terminating slightly less than a mile south
of Sullivan Peak (Plate 1: figure 5; Plate 5: figure
3). The section was measured to be 367 feet by
P. B. King (1931:70, section 12, Word, beds 1-6)
and is composed largely of thin- and thick-bedded
bituminous limestone. The rocks are very fos-
siliferous, with characteristic bioherms at the base.
The fauna from the dark limestone includes many
species not seen elsewhere or extremely rare in
other parts of the formation. Along with the rare
specimens, characteristic I.eonardian types have
been collected, such as Perrinites, Penicviauris, and
Rugatia. Clifton (1945:1770) records Wnagcn.o-
ceras dieneri Bose “from strata of the Word First
Limestone Member (— Road Canyon Formation)
in outcrops near Sullivan Peak.” Clifton’s Waage-
noceras is now called Stacheoceras normcini Miller
and Furnish (1957).
On the east side of the Sullivan (Yates) Ranch
road, two long hills extend to the east; the farthest
one contains the Clay Slide. These two hills are
capped by the Road Canyon Formation and are
lithically like the section below Sullivan Peak.
Perhaps the most interesting feature of these hills,
especially the one nearest Sullivan Peak, is the
occurrence in the bituminous limestones of large
bioherms composed mostly of the peculiar lyttoniid
Coscinophora. In places the rock is literally made
up of the pedicle valves of this ostreiform brachio-
pod. Similar bioherms also were seen on the east
side of Sullivan Peak toward the Yates place. Al¬
though Coscmophora occurs at other levels in the
Skinner Ranch-Cathedral Mountain interval, it is
most abundant in the Road Canyon Formation
(Plate 17: figures 3 and 4).
Traced westward along the lower slopes of Ca¬
thedral Mountain, the Road Canyon Formation
seems to be split by insertion of shaly wedges (P. B.
King, 1931:135, section 11). King reports 127 feet
of bituminous limestone at the base, followed by
50 feet of shale and another 50 feet of limestone.
Above this there are two thinner limestone beds
(15 and 16 feet thick) that may belong to the Road
Canyon Formation, the Word beginning at the
base of King’s bed 8, which is composed of 235
feet of siliceous shale and sandstone.
In Gilliland Canyon.— About 1.5 miles north
of Clay Slide, King’s map (in P. B. King, 1931)
indicates an isolated mass of Road Canyon For¬
mation faulted down and appearing inconspicuously
in the plain, where it has been exposed by an inter¬
mittent stream (USNM 724b). The map also shows
a band of the First Limestone of the Word ex¬
tending along the west side of Gilliland Canyon
and forming a conspicuous bench along the hill¬
side. The limestone is mapped as overlying
I.eonardian rocks. We sampled this limestone in
three places (USNM 723t, 723w, 731m) and found
it to belong to the Third Limestone of the Word
(= Willis Ranch Member) rather than to the First
Limestone (= Road Canyon Formation). It con¬
tains a great abundance of Waagenoceras dieneri,
Echinosteges tuberculatus (R. E. King), and other
characteristic Word fossils (USNM 723t). Further¬
more, the limestone generally is light gray, is very
NUMBER 14
67
sandy, and also contains much interbedded sand
in the form of brown layers and lenses. The lithic
character of the rock is exactly like that seen in
the Willis Ranch Member at the junction of Road
and Gilliland Canyons, a well-known location for
the Third Limestone of the Word and its fossils.
Examination of the map will thus indicate that
the Third Limestone of the Word crosses the can¬
yon near bench mark 4973 and rises along the west
side of Gilliland Canyon. The Road Canyon For¬
mation beneath it descends below the canyon floor
1.25 miles south of the mouth of Road Canyon, but
it does not rise above the floor on the west side
until the isolated mass northeast of Clay Slide is
reached (USNM 724b).
Northwest of Dugout Mountain.— In the low
hills west of the Old Payne Ranch (no longer in
existence) on the northwest side of Dugout Moun¬
tain, the Road Canyon Formation is reduced to
two layers of limestone separated by siliceous shale.
The lower limestone is recorded by P. B. King
(1931:131, section 5) as 40 feet thick and the upper
one as 20 feet thick; the two are separated by 60
feet of shale. Our measurements show the thick¬
nesses to be variable. We measured 70 feet of the
lower limestone of the Road Canyon Formation in
the conical hill 0.25 mile northwest of the Old
Payne Ranch. The lower part of the hill is com¬
posed of yellow-orange siliceous shale of the Cathe¬
dral Mountain. The cap of the hill is composed of
some biohermal limestone in the lower part, but
mostly of dark bituminous limestone abounding
in fusulinids.
In the low hills 0.75 mile southwest of the Old
Payne Ranch, we found the lower limestone to
be about 20 feet thick, but the upper limestone is
only 8 feet thick and is underlain by 15 feet of
sandstone. The upper limestone is crumbly and
a veritable mass of fusulinids and other less abun¬
dant fossils. The brachiopods proved to be char¬
acteristic Road Canyon species. Above this thin
limestone, there occurs a thick sequence of mas¬
sive sandstone and siliceous shale of the Word For¬
mation. The Road Canyon thus appears to thin
significantly west of Sullivan Peak.
Other and hitherto unidentified exposures of the
Road Canyon Formation occur 1.5 miles north¬
west of Old Payne Ranch. In hill 4861, which is
conical and with a section like that 0.25 mile north¬
west of Old Payne Ranch, the Road Canyon forms
the crest of the hill. It is biohermal and has much
detrital material in the form of fusulinids between
the bioherms. Coscinophora was found here and
in the next hill to the northwest. This is a low,
flat hill, the lower part of which is marked by the
4750-foot contour. Here the Road Canyon forma¬
tion consists of two limestones with intervening
shale that contains some thin beds of limestone.
The lowest bed, 20-30 feet thick, is variable but
with bioherms at the base. The hill is capped by
a 5-foot bed in two tiers, mostly of fusulinid lime¬
stone. The Road Canyon in this hill overlies
Leonardian beds with Perrinites and is like the
section in hill 4861, with the cephalopod-bearing
conglomerate of the Cathedral Mountain Forma¬
tion appearing at the base of the hill. The Leonar¬
dian sediments are in fault relation with the Word
limestone south of it.
After discovery of the Road Canyon Formation
in the foothills of the Sierra del Norte, we were
able to trace the formation southward for a few
miles along the mountain front. Throughout the
observed extent of the formation it is very variable,
consisting mainly of thin limestones separated by
yellowish shales. The tracing was facilitated greatly
by the discovery of a cobbly, dark bluish limestone
abounding in ammonites of the genera Paraceltites
and Texoceras. This ammonite bed was found
along the mountain front at USNM 737c, 737g,
737n, 737y, and 739d. Opposite the abandoned
house (NW, NW 3; USNM 737g) the ammonite
bed is well developed. The same bed was seen
about 2 miles farther south, 3.5 miles due west of
Dugout Mountain, where the following section
was measured:
feet
K. Yellow shale at top of section
J. Fine-grained limestone with fusulinids and small
Enteletes like those of USNM 732j 7
I. Bluish-black limestone with ammonites. 2
H. Fine-grained limestone . 1
G. Blocky, bluish-black limestone breaking into
lumps and with many ammonites (like bed at
USNM 732z = 737n). 20
F. Granular limestone with fusulinids. 12
E. Siliceous, platy, buff-colored shale. 20
D. Seven thick beds of dark limestone separated by
yellow shale, fusulinids. 75
G. Covered 50
B. Sandstone of the Cathedral Mountain Formation 20
A. Covered
68
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
A mile still farther south, just southeast of the
“s” in “mountains” (SE, NW 3: USNM 737y), an¬
other section of the Road Canyon is revealed as
follows:
feet
G. Fusulinid limestone. 4
F. Limestone with the rare brachiopod Collumatus
and showing relationship to USNM 732j 3
E. Dark, blue-black shale and limestone with am¬
monites similar to those at USNM 732z. 20
D. Yellow siliceous shale. 40
C. Yellow siliceous shale with scattered limestone
layers . 25
B. Biohermal limestone with Coscinophora . 35
A. Covered
No two sections on the mountain front are alike,
but the presence of the ammonite zone, though
variable in thickness, and the presence of the upper
fusulinid bed with Collumatus relates these Sierra
del Norte localities to those in the foothills, such
as USNM 732j, where the Collumatus and am¬
monite beds also can be seen. It is believed that
west of Cathedral Mountain the Road Canyon
thickens by introduction of shale and concentra¬
tion of detrital material in lenticular beds that
tend to fray the formation in a western direction.
The Road Canyon was not successfully identified
south of USNM 737y.
Guadalupe Series
In the Glass Mountains the Guadalupe Series
consists of the Word and Capitan formations. Only
the Word Formation will be discussed at length
here because most of the Capitan Formation and
its members, as well as some members of the Word
Formation, are dolomitic or otherwise poorly fos-
siliferous and, therefore, not collected or studied in
detail. So far as known, none of the dolomites yield
silicified fossils; however, three limestone members
of the Word Formation yield fine fossils in abun¬
dance.
Word Formation
The Word Formation was named by Udden,
Baker, and Bose (1916:52). Udden (1917) further
enlarged on the formation, indicating its type sec¬
tion on the Word Ranch, where its massive facies
is exhibited. P. B. King (1931) redescribed the for¬
mation, individualized its limestone members by
numbers, and explained the two facies in the west¬
ern part of the mountains and the carbonate facies
in the eastern part.
The two facies begin in Gilliland Canyon north
of Iron Mountain, approximately in the middle of
the mountains. A western facies, predominantly of
silty shale and sandstone, is recognized west of
Gilliland Canyon, while the rocks to the east are
characterized by carbonate (dolomite and lime¬
stone), which dominates the section in the area
east of Split Tank. The western or shaly-sandy
facies forms the thickest part of the formation,
about 1470 feet, and thins to about 450 feet in the
eastern part of the mountains.
East of Gilliland Canyon, and especially on the
Hess Ranch in the intermediate zone of the facies
P. B. King (1931:71) described four limestones,
which were given consecutive numbers. The first
or lowest limestone that is best exposed near Old
Word Ranch is lithically and faunally unlike the
others, but it can be traced across the mountains.
This limestone not only is unique lithically, but
also it contains an unusual and characteristic fauna,
with strongest ties to the Leonardian rocks below.
Cooper and Grant (1964:1586), therefore, recog¬
nized it as a member of the Word Formation
(the Road Canyon Member). Later, they^ (1966)
raised it to formation rank and placed it in the
Leonard Series, as explained above. Separation
of this First Limestone Member from the Word
Formation does not affect the conception of the
formation as outlined by King, because his overall
view of the facies remains unchanged. The removal
of this lowest limestone, however, does affect the
numbering of the other Word limestones. There¬
fore, in order to make our discussion clearer and
the location of the collections unambiguous,
Cooper and Grant (1966) named the other lime¬
stones as members of the Word Formation.
The sections west of Gilliland Canyon above the
Road Canyon Formation (=First Limestone of
the Word) consist mainly of yellow platy shale,
with some thin sandstone and thin limestone beds.
Northwest of Dugout Mountain, thick sandstones
appear in the sequence. Inasmuch as the shales are
poorly fossililerous and the thin limestones in this
part of the area yield few good silicified fossils,
little collecting was done in the Word west of
Gilliland Canyon.
NUMBER 14
69
The hills just north of Leonard Mountain aro
bounded on the west by Gilliland Canyon, on the
north by Road Canyon, and on the east by Hess
Canyon. The hilltops are capped by a thick lime¬
stone, but between the Road Canyon Formation
and the hillcrest the section is mainly yellow sili¬
ceous shale, like that of the western facies. Shale
and limestone in this area do not yield abundant
good silicified material. The fossils are not so
strongly concentrated as they are in sections farther
to the east.
The area with the greatest abundance of fossils
is on the east side of the Hess Ranch horst and
in fault contact with it. Here four limestones of
varying thickness are separated by siliceous shale
of the western facies. These limestones, with the
Road Canyon Formation, were designated by P.
B. King (1931:71) as First to Fourth Limestones.
The Second, Third, and Fourth Limestones are
hereby designated by names but retained as mem¬
bers of the Word: China Tank, Willis Ranch, and
Appel Ranch Members.
China Tank Member (=Second Limestone
Member of P. B. King).— This member consists of
113 feet (P. B. King, 1931:72) of siliceous brown¬
ish- to yellowish-gray limestone. The type section
is the west side of hill 5611 not far east of the China
Tank of the Hess Ranch (Cooper and Grant, 1966:
7). The tank is in Hess Canyon, 2.2 miles north,
75° east, of the Old Willis Ranch on the P.B. and
R. E. King map (1931). The tank takes its name
from the luxuriant chinaberry trees that form a
cattle shelter on its south side. The member at the
type section is composed of highly fossiliferous
limestone, nearly all of it containing silicified
material (USNM 706c). It contains much echino-
derm debris and some fine sand.
The China Tank Member is well displayed in
the bluffs on the east side of Hess Canyon about 1.5
miles south of the head of its south branch, due
west of Old Word Ranch. Here the member is
massive and in large part dolomitized, but fusu-
linids are abundant in limy parts. Patches of silici¬
fied brachiopods and other fossils are rare and
difficult to find. East of Old Word Ranch and in
the vicinity of the Appel Ranch, the member loses
its individuality and becomes mostly massive dolo¬
mite.
Willis Ranch Member (=tThird Limestone
Member of P. B. King).— The type section selected
for this member by Cooper and Grant (1966:7) is
near the eastern mouth of Road Canyon, 1 mile
southwest of the Willis Ranch site (R. E. King
243 = USNM 724u) (Plate 14: figure 1). Here P. B.
King (1931:71) measured 308 feet of limestone, as
follows:
jeet
Third Limestone Member
D. Oolitic gray limestone in thin ledges. 69
C. Gray limestone, containing fossils, and several
seams of small pebbles. 11
B. Brown calcareous sandstone. 10
A. Light gray oolitic limestone, containing
some chert masses and fossils including
Waagenoceras, Cyclacantharia . 218
Good silicified fossils appear in the lower part
of the member at the type section, but they are not
as abundant as they are to the east. The Willis
Ranch Member extends westward to the east side
of Gilliland Canyon, where it is well exposed near
the junction of this canyon with Road Canyon.
This place is well known for its abundance of
ammonites, especially Waagenoceras (Bose, 1917).
It is also exposed in a broad patch opposite the
mouth of Road Canyon on the west side of Gilli¬
land Canyon, although it is mapped on the west
side of this canyon as the Lower Member of the
Word limestone, with Leonardian shale below it.
From this place it can be seen as a conspicuous
ledge on the western slope of Gilliland Canyon. It
disappears underground 1.5 miles north of hill
4910 at the southwest end of Gilliland Canyon.
It is not known west of here (Plate 14: figure 4).
Everywhere that it has been examined, the Willis
Ranch Member is very sandy. When dissolved in
acid, the limestone leaves a residue of sugary quartz
sand. In Gilliland Canyon the formation is very
sandy and contains lenses and layers of fine brown
sand (Plate 14: figure 3). Fossils are not common
in Gilliland Canyon, but one locality (USNM 723t)
yielded an abundance of typical specimens. On the
west side of Gilliland Canyon thin lenses of richly
fossiliferous dark limestone occur just beneath the
main mass of the member. These are unusually
fossiliferous and contain a variety of species not
seen at any other level (USNM 723w). The same
types of fossils were found 30 feet below the mem¬
ber at its southernmost occurrence (USNM 731m)
70
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
1.5 miles north of hill 4910. Similar fossils were
also taken under Sullivan Peak (USNM 731u;
Plate 15: figure 4) and northwest of Old Payne
Ranch (USNM 732s). These isolated localities are
thought to mark the approximate position of the
Willis Ranch Member, which disappeared at the
southwest end of Gilliland Canyon.
The best place to collect the fossils of the Willis
Ranch Member is on the east side of the Hess
Ranch Horst, on the long slope marking the south
side of Hess Canyon opposite the divide in the
Canyon. There the member is 95 feet thick (P.
B. King, 1931:72) and consists of yellowish-gray
sandy limestone containing thick patches of fossils
as death assemblages. The fossils are beautifully
silicified, and USNM 706 and 706e have yielded
enormous quantities of specimens. Waagenoceras
is especially abundant near the top of the section.
USNM 706 is in the lower part of the member
while USNM 706e is at the top. East of the Old
Word Ranch, on the Appel Ranch, the Willis
Ranch Member merges with the other massive
members of the Word and becomes strongly dolo-
mitic and difficult to separate from the others.
Appel Ranch Member (=Fourth Limestone
Member of P. B. King).— This member is char¬
acterized by the great amount of chert it contains.
North of the Appel Ranch P. B. King (1931:143)
recognized three beds as follows:
feet
Fourth Limestone Member
C. Light gray crystalline limestone with abundant,
small, brown chert nodules as well as an
abundant fauna of brachiopods, fusulinids,
and other fossils. 260
B. Gray and brown limestone and dolomitic lime¬
stone, containing some chert nodules and
many silicified fossils, interbedded with sandy
brown limestone and some siliceous shale 255
A. Fossiliferous cherty dolomite, weathering to
dirty gray, deeply pitted surfaces. 40
We designated the area north of the Appel
Ranch as the type section for the member (Cooper
and Grant, 1966:8). Here it is well displayed and
nearly every layer exposed. The member is also well
displayed on the north side of Hess Canyon near
the point where the canyon bends to the north,
and the member can be followed westward to the
site of the Willis Ranch, where it frays out into
the shale (Plate 15: figure 1).
On the east side of the bend in Hess Canyon,
the Appel Ranch Member is exposed in a strongly
dissected area that affords excellent collecting and
opportunity to study the sequence. In places the
rock is composed almost wholly of masses of large
Parafusulina. In other places the brachiopods occur
in death assemblages of shells matted together so
closely that some of them are crushed and dis¬
torted. Nevertheless, the variety is great, and many
species not seen in the lower members of the Word
Formation appear in this member.
Before closing the discussion of the Word For¬
mation, we must note a lens that lies not far above
the Willis Ranch Member in the shale separating
that member from the Appel Ranch Member. This
is USNM 706b, which consists of about 2 feet of
sandy limestone with abundant fossils thickly mat¬
ted together. The fauna has some elements of the
Willis Ranch Member and some of the overlying
Appel Ranch Member, yet it is sufficiently distinc¬
tive to be recognized as a separate level. Our opera¬
tions unfortunately have removed most of this
thin local layer.
Northwest of Old Payne Ranch the section above
the Road Canyon is poorly preserved, but occa¬
sional lenses and layers of limestone replete with
fusulinids were seen. One of these (USNM 732s)
contained Waagenoceras, Popanoceras, and brachio¬
pods in addition to fusulinids. The faunal con¬
tent suggested the fossiliferous zone just under the
Willis Ranch Member on the west side of GilKland
Canyon (USNM 723w). Above this lens comes a
conspicuous, thick sandstone. Above the sandstone
there was found a fault block containing Cathedral
Mountain Formation, with Perrinites in a thick
conglomerate near the base exposed in a conical
hill at an elevation of 4861 feet. This conglomerate
contains rounded quartz pebbles ranging up to 3
inches in diameter. The hill is capped by Road
Canyon Formation. The section also is well dis¬
played in the next hills to the west and northwest.
Above the Road Canyon in the section of the
Word there are mainly sandy shale and sandstone
with occasional thin limestone and blue shale. The
section is similar to that seen under Sullivan Peak,
but no characteristic Word fossils were found other
than fusulinids (Plate 1: figure 4).
South of hill 4861, about a mile, hill 4806 is a
sandstone hogback (see Plate 15: figure 3) with
NUMBER 14
71
Word fossils on the west slope. On the northwest
side of this hill, Word ammonites (Waagenoceras)
are common, but a low hill a little farther to the
west is capped by Cretaceous limestone. It is the
last limestone band on the King (1931) map due
west of the road junction in NE, NW 3, Monument
Spring quadrangle. This is the top of a down-
faulted block (see Figure 21).
Capitan Formation
Although no detailed collecting was done in the
Capitan Formation of the Glass Mountains, it is
important to record one locality that was discovered
by chance and that yielded some good brachiopods.
This is a small downthrown block 1.1 miles north,
33° west, of Old Payne Ranch site, Altuda quad¬
rangle (USNM 732q). This is in cream-colored
dolomitic limestone containing an abundance of
the fusulinid Polydiexodina and of brachiopods,
indicating the level of the Hegler Member of the
Bell Canyon Formation in the Guadalupe Moun¬
tains. This place offers possibilities for further col¬
lecting. The Capitan should be searched for un-
dolomitized patches as possibilities for collecting
and dating.
Faunal Zones in the Glass Mountains
A zone fossil, to be useful, must be distinctive
and easy to recognize, fairly abundant, and wide¬
spread. Few genera in the Glass Mountains answer
to these requirements. The method of collecting
also has so increased the ranges of some hitherto
“good” guide fossils that their value as zone indi¬
cators has become limited. Ombonia, for example,
was regarded as restricted to the Capitan Forma¬
tion and the Lamar Member, but now it is known
from the Road Canyon and Cherry Canyon Forma¬
tions. The very rare Word precursors in the Road
Canyon, such as Echinosteges and Y akovlevia, limit
the value of these genera, which otherwise are
identified most with the Word Formation. Only a
few genera in the Glass Mountains have the quali¬
fications of good zone fossils, and these with their
present ranges are listed below.
Parenteletes: Although this is not so common
as might be desired, it is identified readily by virtue
of its strong plication and its sulcate anterior com¬
missure. The genus has its roots in the Pennsyl¬
vanian, as it occurs in part of the Gaptank identi¬
fied as of Canyon age. It extends into the Udden-
ites-bearing Shale and on through the Neal Ranch
to the top of the Lenox Hills Formation and into
the Poplar Tank Member. It is, thus, a guide in
its Wolfcampian range to that part of the section
that was described as the Wolfcamp Formation by
P. B. King (1931) minus the Uddenites-bearing
Shale Member.
Spyridiophora-Glyptosteges: These two highly
sculptured aulostegids have nearly the same range,
and one often occurs where the other is absent.
Spyridiophora has the longer range, as it occurs
first in the Neal Ranch Formation and extends
through the Lenox Hills Formation into the top
of the Skinner Ranch. It is also one of the fossils
that correlates the Taylor Ranch to the top of the
Skinner Ranch. Glyptosteges is a new genus to be
described in a subsequent volume. It does not occur
in the Neal Ranch or Lenox Hills, but it appears
first in the Decie Ranch Member and becomes
moderately common in the remainder of the Skin¬
ner Ranch Formation. It is the best fossil with
which to identify the Dugout Mountain Member
of the Skinner Ranch Formation. The two used
together thus cover the entire Wolfcamp as defined
in this monograph (excepting the Uddenites- bear¬
ing Shale Member). Both of these genera also occur
in the Skinner Ranch equivalent of the Bone
Spring Formation, but neither one has been seen
in the Hueco Group.
Scacchinella: Some paleontologists object to the
use of Scacchinella in stratigraphy because it is
thought to be facies restricted. It is a facies fossil
only in the sense that it really creates its own facies.
As a cluster builder it helps to determine bioherms,
but these may be in more than one type of environ¬
ment. Furthermore, even facies fossils have value
as horizon-markers in their own right. Scacchinella
is such a fossil. Several of the levels in which this
brachiopod appears are characterized by different
species of the genus: S. primitiva, new species, oc¬
curs in the Pennsylvanian (Cisco); S. triangulate,
new species, is found in the Uddenite s-bearing
Shale Member of the Gaptank Formation; S. exas¬
perate, new species, appears in the Lenox Hills
Formation; and S. titan, new species, characterizes
the Skinner Ranch Formation. Each of these occur¬
rences is in a biohermal environment, but in each
3°2i
S
Volconic
Post-Word 8 Pre-Gaptonk
Chino Tank
Word Shale
Appel Ranch
Word (WillisR.)
Road Canyon
3rd a 4th Leonard
limestones
Cathedral Mtn.
Hess
Dugout Member of Skinner
Ranch
Skinner Ranch
Lenox Hills
Neal Ranch
Gaptank
NUMBER 14
73
L03°20'
103°15'
103°10'
Figures 23-25 -Revised geological maps (after P.B. King): 23, Dugout Mountain area; 24,
Lenox Hills; 25, Leonard Mountain.
74
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
one of them Scacchinella is a conspicuous form, spe¬
cifically diagnostic of that level. In the aggregate the
genus thus becomes, in the Permian, an excellent
guide to the Wolfcampian as defined in this mon¬
ograph.
Orthotichia: This is not a conspicuous fossil,
but it is easily recognized by its two finely costellate
valves and uniplicate anterior commissure. Its
range is that of the Wolfcamp, as defined herein,
from the Uddenites- bearing Shale Member of the
Gaptank Formation through the Skinner Ranch
Formation.
Antronaria: A new genus to be described in
a subsequent volume, these large rhynchonellids
with their depressed costa or costae in the fold are
recognized easily and are characteristic of the Skin¬
ner Ranch, beginning in the Decie Ranch Member
and occurring through the Sullivan Peak Member
and in the Taylor Ranch Member of the Hess
Formation. A slight spillover into the Cathedral
Mountain Formation occurs, but the genus is too
rare there to lessen its value as a guide fossil to the
Skinner Ranch Formation.
Teguliferina: Although this is a very distinc¬
tive fossil, it does not have a clean-cut range. It
appears in the Pennsylvanian, but it flourished in
the Wolfcamp and extended into the lower part
(Decie Ranch equivalent) and Poplar Tank Mem¬
ber of the Skinner Ranch Formation. It is rare in
the upper part of the Skinner Ranch Formation
and the Taylor Ranch Member of the Hess Forma¬
tion. The Wolfcampian is thus well provided with
genera that are characteristic of all or parts of it.
Institella: This well-sculptured aulostegid, with
its leptaenoid form, is*one of the most easily recog¬
nized fossils in the Glass Mountains. It appears in
abundance from the Dugout Mountain area to the
Split Tank region. One interruption occurs in this
wide lateral range in the vicinity of hill 5021 west
to approximately hill 5300 in the Lenox Hills. It
is the best indicator of the base of the Cathedral
Mountain Formation, but these honors are shared
almost equally by the little aulostegid Agelesia,
whose size makes it a more difficult fossil to find.
Hercosia: This distinctive richthofeniid with its
knife-blade median septum is recognized easily and
is about the best guide fossil to the Cathedral
Mountain, as it appears first in the Wedin Member
in the western part of the mountains and in the
base of the Cathedral Mountain Formation at the
east end. Combined with Hercosestria, it becomes
a guide to the Leonardian.
Hercosestria: This richthofeniid has the same
interior as Hercosia, but the cone is covered by a
network, the coscinidium. Hercosestria occurs in
the lower part of the Cathedral Mountain Forma¬
tion (USNM 721u), but it is very rare there and
elsewhere at this level. It is abundant in the Road
Canyon Formation, where some bioherms are al¬
most completely made up of the genus. Taken with
Hercosia, which is common in the Cathedral Moun¬
tain Formation, the two genera combine to define
the Leonardian.
Rugatia: This is a very easily identified pro¬
duced of fairly large size, but it is restricted to the
Cathedral Mountain and Road Canyon Forma¬
tions. It is uncommon in the lower part of the
Cathedral Mountain, is fairly frequent in the up¬
per part, but rather rare in the Road Canyon. It
is, nevertheless, a good guide to the Leonard rocks.
Peniculauris: The large size and general resem¬
blance to Reticulatia or Dictyoclostus make Peni¬
culauris an easy brachiopod to identify. It appears
in the lower part of the Skinner Ranch (Decie
Ranch Member), but it is rare throughout the
Skinner Ranch. It is abundant in the Taylor Ranch
Member and is rare to fairly common throughout
the Cathedral Mountain. It is rare in the Road
Canyon, where it reaches a very large size. The
genus is thus a guide to the late Wolfcampian (as
defined herein) and the Leonardian.
Liosotella-Paucispinifera : These two, which are
similar internally but differ chiefly in degree of
ornamentation, are highly characteristic of the
Word Formation from the China Tank through
the Appel Ranch Members. Their value is some¬
what marred by the fact that both of them appear
first in the Road Canyon Formation.
Yakovlevia: This genus has the same range as
the previous two and is equally valuable. Its four
major spines, two on the ears and two at the place
of geniculation, are unmistakable.
Spiriferella: This easy-to-recognize spiriferid is
common in the Willis Ranch Member of the Word
Formation, less so in the China Tank and Appel
Ranch Members. The genus is not an ideal guide
fossil because it appears first in the top of the
Road Canyon Formation. It is, however, extremely
NUMBER 14
75
rare there and is not likely to be found except by
intensive collecting.
Facies in the Glass Mountains
The Glass Mountains section of the Permian has
long been a classic one in which to study facies.
Although the types of rocks in the section are many,
the column is predominantly one of coarse elastics
with the fine-grained rocks generally in the minor¬
ity. Facies may be indicators of environment, es¬
pecially when the lithic characters and fossil con¬
tents are taken together. The oscillating environ¬
ments indicate movements of land or sea, or
changes in climate that affected the kind and
amount of sediment delivered to the site of deposi¬
tion. The Glass Mountains section may be general¬
ized as a largely clastic sequence, with coarse
sediments (Wolfcamp and Leonard) in the lower
two-thirds and with the upper one-third consisting
of finer grained sediments.
Limitations of the Discussion.— This discussion
of facies is not bolstered by detailed petrological
analyses of the sediments, which are beyond the
scope of this study and the capabilities of the
writers. It is believed, however, that a general dis¬
cussion of the facies, with an effort to record the
fossil occurrences in relation to the sediments, will
be of value to our consideration of the paleoecology
of the region and will also be of value to sedimenta-
tionists who may try to read the story of the rocks
without considering the fossils.
Conglomerates.— These are very conspicuous in
the lower parts of the section, but they are rare
or absent from the Word Formation. They are thick
and common in the Wolfcampian but thinner in
the Leonardian, although occurring in all parts
of the section. The conglomerates may be divided
crudely into those composed of transported material
and those thought to be essentially residual.
The most conspicuous conglomerate made up
of transported cobbles is that of the Lenox Hills
Formation from Dugout Mountain eastward to hill
5280, where it thins to disappearance on the west
flank of the Hovey anticline. The same type of
conglomerate appears on the east side of this anti¬
cline, but it is never so thick as on the west and is
discontinuous in its occurrence. It attains a thick¬
ness of 300—400 feet in its western range, where
it forms most of the Lenox Hills Formation. At
its base it interfingers with limestone and bioherms
containing the fauna of beds 12—14 (of P. B. King)
of the Neal Ranch Formation. It thus represents
an uplift that started late in Neal Ranch time
and continued nearly to the end of Lenox Hills
time. The rock is composed mostly of rounded
limestone cobbles up to several inches in long
diameter and of some angular cherty fragments
believed to have been derived from the Marathon
Basin. Fossils are rare or absent in this conglom¬
erate except in the bioherms and thin clastic aprons
at the base.
A 40-foot thick conglomerate, without such large
cobbles but with chert and quartz pebbles and
some coarse sand, appears in the upper part of the
Cathedral Mountain Formation. This occurs near
the site of the Old Payne Ranch, where it appears
at the base of the C Member of Ross. A thinner
band of conglomerate, with cobbles up to 3 inches
in long dimension, and considerable coarse sand
appears near the top of the Cathedral Mountain
Formation in hill 4861 on the Monument Spring
quadrangle. It is especially mentioned for the occur¬
rence in it of pockets made up almost wholly of
large shells of the ammonite Perrinites. This con¬
glomerate can be traced for several miles along
the front of the Del Norte Mountains. It is note¬
worthy for the abundance of ammonites and other
Leonardian fossils (Plate 13: figures 1, 2).
Another type of conglomerate probably should
be called a limestone conglomerate or conglomeratic
limestone. This has a fine-grained limestone matrix
enclosing small pebbles, ragged chert debris, and
a variety of small fossils ranging from small foram-
inifers to sponges and ammonites. This type of
conglomeratic limestone is often the most favorable
lithology in which to find ammonites. Examples
in the Wolfcampian may be seen at USNM 707j
and 715, in the various limestones of the Dugout
Mountain Member of the Skinner Ranch Forma¬
tion, and in some limestones of the Third and
Fourth Limestone Members of the former Leonard.
Many beds of conglomeratic limestone occur in
the Poplar Tank Member of the Skinner Ranch
Formation. In some places the beds are fairly
thick. A thick conglomerate occurs at the base of
the Third Limestone of the Leonard of P. B. King
in knob 5250, just west of hill 5300. The conglom-
76 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Ficure 26.—Diagram for the Permian of the Glass Mountains, showing shift from predomi¬
nantly silicious facies in the west to carbonate facies in the east. Sections: (1) Dugout Moun¬
tain along the line of P. B. King’s (1931:32, 132) section 7: (2) starting in the middle of the
Lenox Hills and following the line of P. B. King’s (1931:32, 135) section 11; (3) just west of
Sullivan (Yates) Ranch road and essentially following P. B. King's (1931:32, 135, 136) section
12; (4) through hill 5021 (Decie Brothers Hill) on line of P. B. King’s (1931:32,136) section
14; (5) through hill 5280 approximately along the line of P. B. King’s (1931:32, 137) section
15; (6) through Leonard Mountain and hills to the north along the line of P. B. King’s (1931:
32, 139) section 17; (7) in vicinity of Hess Ranch house and hills to northwest; (8) through
Hess Ranch Horst (Word Formation projected from east); (9) through the Wolf Camp Hills
essentially along the line of P. B. King’s (1931:32, 143) section 24; (10) on Conoly Brooks
Ranch along the line of P. B. King’s (1931:32, 145) section 27; thicknesses are approximate,
some from King’s sections, some original (AR = Appel Ranch Member of Word Formation,
C = covered, CMrzCathedral Mountain Formation, CT —China Tank Member of Word
Formation, DM = Dugout Mountain Member of Skinner Ranch Formation, DR = Dccie Ranch
Member of Skinner Ranch Formation, H = Hess Formation, L 3—4 = Third and Fourth Lime¬
stone Members of the Leonard of P. B. King, LHc = conglomcrate of Lenox Hills Formation,
LHls = limestone of Lenox Hills Formation, LHls = H — Hess Formation equivalent of
Lenox Hills Formation, LHsh=shale of Lenox Hills Formation, NR = Ncal Ranch Forma¬
tion, PT = Poplar Tank Member of Skinner Ranch Formation, RC = Road Canyon Formation,
sc —Scacchinella, SP = Sullivan Peak Member of Skinner Ranch Formation, SR = Skinner Ranch
Formation, TR = Taylor Ranch Member of Hess Formation, U — Uddeniles-bcaxing Shale
Member of Gaptank Formation, W —Wedin Member of Cathedral Mountain Formation,
Wd = Word Formation, WR = WilIis Ranch Member of Word Formation; in section 1 num¬
bers 1-5 = limestone members of Leonard Formation of P. B. King, in section 9 numbers
12-14 — beds 12-14 of P. B. King in Neal Ranch Formation [ = beds 9-12 of Cooper]; see
text Figure 5).
LEONARDO UADALUPE
NUMBER 14
77
erate referred to above and most of those in the
western part of the Glass Mountains often are
composed of rounded limestone cobbles. An impor¬
tant conglomerate made up largely of small quartz
pebbles, however, occurs at the base of the Cathe¬
dral Mountain Formation in the vicinity of Split
Tank and extends as far west as the faulted blocks
of the Skinner Ranch-Cathedral Mountain Forma¬
tions on the south side of the Hess Ranch Horst.
The ammonite-bearing conglomerates and con¬
glomeratic limestones often contain numerous
other fossils, but they are generally in a poor state
of preservation. Those in the Dugout Mountain
Member are usually broken and fragmentary, mak¬
ing efforts to obtain a fauna either by breaking
rock or by dissolving it rather a frustrating experi¬
ence. Some fragments such as those of Torynechvs
can be recognized, but most of the debris is a loss.
In summary, it may be said that the fossils of
the conglomerates are transported material, often
fragmented, but, in the case of buoyant ammonites,
frequently in very good preservation. All of the
fossils probably represent transports from other
environments except the examples that are found
in bioherms in the conglomerates such as those at
USNM 715b.
By residual conglomerates we mean the beds of
boulders with little transported material that sur¬
round some of the bioherms, especially those at
the west end of the Lenox Hills. The boulders
around or between the bioherms in that location
often attain a length in one dimension of 4 or 5
feet. The boulders are ragged, helter skelter, but
appear to be derived from the bioherms. All of the
fossils seen in the boulders at the west end of the
Lenox Hills contained Permian fossils. We did not
see any boulders in which we recognized exotic
species. Indeed, one boulder only a short distance
from the side of a bioherm (hill 4801) abounded
in Scacchinella of the same type common in the
Sullivan Peak Member (Plate 11: figures 1, 4).
It has been suggested that this material and the
large bioherms represent reef slide. A similar occur¬
rence in the Chinati Mountains was so interpreted
by Rigby (1958:308) (Plate 23: figure 3). We be¬
lieve that this is not reef slide in the Glass Moun¬
tains or in the Chinatis because the large biohermal
masses are conglomerate based, and, in one in¬
stance, part of the bioherm has grown over the
conglomerate (see discussion under “Bioherms”;
Plate 18: figure 3).
Sandstones.— Lenses of quartz sand appear in
places in the Skinner Ranch Formation. These
form part of Member C of the Leonard of Ross.
In the upper part of the Word Formation, below
Sullivan Peak and near the site of the Old Payne
Ranch house, thick layers of sandstone occur. These
sands, like the conglomerates, represent near-shore
conditions in shallow, probably strongly moving,
waters. Fossils are almost unknown in these sand¬
stones, although a few Word species were taken
from the long dip slope of the sandstone hogback
west of the old Payne Ranch site (hill 4806). As
explained under the heading of “Bioherms,'' a
single anomalous example was found in a sand¬
stone mass south of Sullivan Peak (USNM 727x).
Sole-marked sandstones occur in the Lower Cathe¬
dral Mountain Formation at USNM 723y. The
sands are not an important factor in the preserva¬
tion of fossils in the Glass Mountains.
Sands are commonest in the western part of the
Glass Mountains and indicate an approach to the
source of the sediments. In the limestone members
of the Word Formation, sand forms an important
part of the rock. This is exhibited especially by
the Willis Ranch Member. This member contains
an increasing amount of sand to the west, as shown
in Gilliland Canyon, where the limestones contain
stringers of sand (Plate 14: figure 3), and, with the
increase in sand, there is a diminution of layers
of fossils. Farther west of Gilliland Canyon, the
sand becomes more and more abundant.
Although quartz sands are the most familiar type
of sandstone, they are much less developed in the
Glass Mountains, than are the lime sands, calcare-
nites, or calcirudites. The former range from fine¬
grained to coarse-grained and are common in all
parts of the section, but they are particularly con¬
spicuous in the Skinner Ranch Formation, where
they probably represent a former sand bar. As noted
in the stratigraphic section, the Decie Ranch and
Sullivan Peak Members pinch out the predomi¬
nantly shaly Poplar Tank Member to form the
Skinner Ranch Formation undivided. This con¬
sists largely of calcarenite that forms a barrier inter¬
fingering on the east with the fine calcarenites,
oolites, and other lagoonal types of limestone of
78
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
the Hess Formation but sending its Decie Ranch
and Sullivan Peak tongues to the west.
The aprons of clastic material, mostly broken
shells and crinoid debris surrounding the bioherms,
are other examples of lime sand. These occur in
the lower part of the Skinner Ranch Formation at
USNM 705a and 720e. Coarse lime sands or cal-
cirudites are common in the Road Canyon For¬
mation but less so in the Word Formation.
A bioclastic sand facies of considerable interest
is that of the fusulinid sands or fine gravels that
are common in the Road Canyon in the Monument
Spring quadrangle. Here, as at USNM 732j and
736x, beds of limestone 1-3 feet thick are composed
almost wholly of fusulinid shells. These represent
lag deposits in which the finer material has been
winnowed out and the heavier and coarser debris
left behind. These beds are common in the Road
Canyon Formation from Sullivan Peak westward,
the part of the region where the Road Canyon be¬
gins to fray out in the thickening Leonard yellow
shales. How many living brachiopods existed in
these bioclastics is a question. Most of the speci¬
mens dissolved from them are worn, broken, or
single valves. Good specimens are uncommon, but
some of them survived the obviously rough con¬
ditions that existed at the time.
Shale.— For convenience of discussion, the shales
are divided into the blue to blue-black shales and
the yellow shales, the latter characterizing parts
of the Leonard and Word columns.
The Neal Ranch Formation and the upper part
of the Lenox Hills Formation contain thick se¬
quences of bluish shale. In the Neal Ranch Forma¬
tion shale is predominant and separates thin layers
of limestone and some limestones near the middle
of the section that swell into bioherms. The lower
shale of the Neal Ranch below bed 12 of King
(= bed 9 of Cooper) is blue-black and con¬
tains few fossils; those that it does contain are
predominantly Pennsylvanian types. The same may
be said of the shale of the Ucldenites- bearing Shale
Member. It is the biohermal beds that contain the
Permian types in both sequences. The upper shale
of the Lenox Hills Formation in the Lenox Hills,
which disappears eastward, is bluish-gray in color,
and the megafossils it contains are generally Penn¬
sylvanian types or like those of the Uddenites- bear¬
ing Shale Member. The fusulinids, however, betray
their Permian affinities. This shale also appears on
Dugout Mountain.
Blue shale as exposed at Clay Slide forms a sub¬
stantial part of the upper Cathedral Mountain For¬
mation. The shale is rather sparsely fossiliferous,
but fine specimens of Perrin.ites and Peniculauris
are washed out of it (Plate 7: figure 2).
A shale unique in the area is that which com¬
prises the bulk of the Poplar Tank Member of the
Skinner Ranch Formation. It is dull brown, blocky,
and breaks into angular pieces. It contains few
fossils, but the thin conglomeratic limestones en¬
closed by it are usually fossiliferous, although the
preservation is not good. The somewhat chocolate
color of the Poplar Tank shale is in marked con¬
trast to the yellow- to orange-weathering shale of
the Cathedral Mountain Formation.
The Cathedral Mountain Formation is essentially
a wedge of yellow shale interfingering to the east
with carbonate biohermal tongues at the thinning
end of the wedge in the eastern part of the moun¬
tains. The shale is largely siliceous (radiolarian
and spicule-bearing), breaking into ragged plates,
some of which may be discolored pink or red in
rings, the weathering following the outline of the
plate. Blocky chert that contains radiolaria and
sponge spicules is often present. Higher in the sec¬
tion, above the Wedin Member, the shale is less
strongly colored and is mainly dull yellowish. These
shales thicken westward and also may be seen as
tongues in the Road Canyon Formation and as
separators of the bioclastic beds in the Del Norte
Mountains. Similar shale also separates the lime¬
stone members of the Word Formation. We have
not seen macrofossils in the Cathedral Mountain
and Road Canyon shales but the Word yellow
shales contain rare specimens of Crurithyris and
Leiorhynchoidea. These shales probably indicate
quieter water deposition away from the shore, in
bays, or the result of moderate depression of the
shelf.
Carbonate Facies.— The carbonates consist of
dolomites and limestones, the former eractic in
occurrence and of two kinds, the latter more con¬
centrated and with a variety of types
Dolomite: The dolomites may be divided into
two kinds: bedded dolomites and massive, un¬
bedded dolomites. The former type appears in the
Hess Formation, where thin layers are often bedded
NUMBER 14
79
with thin layers of limestone. The Hess also con¬
tains thick layers of dolomite that often have a
considerable lateral extent. Alteration of the orig¬
inal limestone in some of the beds has left a porous
rock, the holes of which represent fusulinids that
must have occurred in countless numbers.
The massive type of dolomite appears to have
been formed subsequent to lithification and may
have been induced by the intrusives that appear
in places in the mountains. Leonard Mountain and
the hill north of the Hess Ranch house are areas
of considerable dolomitization, although the dolo¬
mite is patchy (Plate 8: figure 2). One can walk
from dolomite into limestone, straddle the bound¬
ary, and see the alteration of the fossils from one
lithology to the other. Perhaps the best example
of this type of dolomite is the large mass on the
southeast side of Leonard Mountain, where the
thick dolomite has been mistaken for a reef. We
have walked two levels, one high in the Lenox
Hills, the other low in the Skinner Ranch, into
this large mass. The presence in it of a large
Omphalotrochus is evidence of Skinner Ranch af¬
finities.
Most of the hill on the north side of the Hess
Ranch house is composed of dolomite but upper
Lenox Hills Formation and lower Skinner Ranch
Formation can be identified in undolomitized
patches. The incompleteness of the dolomitization
makes possible identification of the various levels,
because good fossils may be obtained in them. Fos¬
sils can often be seen in the dolomite but, as a rule,
they are unidentifiable ghosts. Incomplete dolo¬
mitization can be encountered in parts of the
Skinner Ranch Formation as on the knob 0.8 mile
northwest of the Hess Ranch house. The limestone
of the Dugout Mountain Member of the Skinner
Ranch Formation is dolomitized incompletely on
the prominent knob (USNM 700r) about a half
mile northwest of Dugout Mountain.
Limestone: Perhaps the commonest type of
limestone facies in the Glass Mountains was re¬
ferred to under the heading of lime sands. These
coarsely clastic limestones are most common in the
lower two-thirds of the section, but two conspicu¬
ous areas of calcilutites occur in the Road Canyon
Formation. These are the dark, nearly black,
limestones that commonly are regarded as basinal
in deposition and probably indicate fairly deep
water. One area occurs on the north side of the
Old Word Ranch site, and the other forms the
long spur extending southward from Sullivan Peak.
The locality near the Old Word Ranch is about
60 feet of thin-bedded, platy, bituminous limestone,
black when fractured, but weathering to light
gray. Fossils are fairly common in patches and in
thin beds, but some of the layers are devoid of life
remains. These thin beds rest on biohermal lime¬
stones at the base of the Road Canyon Formation.
The occurrence at Sullivan Peak (USNM 707e)
rests on biohermal lower Road Canyon, and the
bituminous platy limestone fills depressions in the
biohermal beds. The black limestone is more than
300 feet thick. In parts of the section it is without
fossils, but in the upper part fossils are very com¬
mon and varied. The presence of abundant fossils
suggests that this is not a deep water deposit, but
probably it is a bay of quiet water on the old shelf.
The thin-bedded limestone of the Hess Forma¬
tion, often interbedded with thin layers of dolo¬
mite, has been interpreted as a lagoonal facies.
That it is unlike any other limestone in the Glass
Mountains is clear. The rock is often a fine-grained
calcarenite, oolite, or pellet limestone. It is light
colored, and some layers, especially near the top,
contain fusulinids coated with layered limestone,
suggesting algal deposition.
Two other facies of the limestones need mention:
the bioherms and the shell heaps. Both require
more extended discussion than the preceding facies
because a large share of the collections were taken
from them.
Organic Accumulations in the Glass Mountains
Bioherms
Mound-shaped structures containing numerous
fossils are abundant in many of the stratigraphic
units in the Glass Mountains below the level of the
Word Formation. They range in size from a few
inches high and a foot or two across to more than
80 feet high and 100-200 feet across. Some of these
in the small and middle size ranges are “current-
deposited” heaps of shells, which are characterized
by stratification and well-packed shells and other
organic debris that show some signs of abrasion.
Others of all sizes have some parts bound together
in interlocking frameworks of skeletal organisms
80
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
that almost certainly were self-supporting during
their lifetimes. We use the term “bioherm” for
the mound-shaped structures with coherent organic
framework, rather than employ the ambiguous and
perhaps inappropriate term “reef.” This distinc¬
tion follows the recommendation of Cloud (1952)
that the term “reef” be used for relatively large
organic buildups that headed near the surf zone
and were wave resistant and the term “bioherm”
for “reef-like organic masses of uncertain, potential,
or doubtfully wave-resistant nature.”
Cumings (1932) proposed the term “biostrome”
for bedded shell heaps, crinoid accumulations, or
coral growths that did not produce mounds; this
term is not properly applicable to certain bedded
structures common in the Glass Mountains. These
appear to be ordinary stratified beds, bounded top
and bottom by bedding surfaces, but close inspec¬
tion or leaching in acid shows them to be organi¬
cally interlocking frameworks with interstitial
micritic calcite, directly analogous to bioherms
except that they failed to produce the mound
shape. These are perhaps incipient bioherms that
were inhibited by early burial or an unfavorable
situation. They may coincide with the reefoid
facies of Bain (1967), but, because they are preva¬
lent in the Glass Mountains, we are using the
name “zotikepium” from the Greek “zotikos”
(= lively or vigorous) and “kepion” (= garden),
in allusion to the lush garden-like nature of the
bryozoan and sponge growths that form large parts
of the structures. Both biohermal and zotikepial
structures are common in the Glass Mountains in
all of the formations and members, from the Ud-
denites -bearing Shale Member of the Gaptank For¬
mation through the Road Canyon Formation. The
Word Formation has none of these structures. This
discussion does not take into account the Guada-
lupian formations above the Word, which are
mostly dolomitized and not sufficiently studied to
individualize important organic structures, except
for the gross form of the Capitan “reef.”
Difficulties in the Study.— The chief problem
in the study of these complex but interesting
structures is the fact that they are seldom seen
completely or in three dimensions. Cross-sections
are common; partly exhumed bioherms revealing
their tops also occur frequently, but the bases sel¬
dom show. Many bioherms occur as bevelled
mounds with some part cut away, either hori¬
zontally, vertically, or obliquely, to show the in¬
terior.
Fortunately, many of the bioherms of the Glass
Mountains contain fine silicified fossils that reveal
the framework of the structure in detail. Localities
such as USNM 702un, 714w, 719x, 726o, and others
yield large blocks, which, when decalcified, show
their structure to be mainly a mass of bryozoans,
sponges, or, more rarely, brachiopods.
Bioherms range in size from a few feet in height
to about 80 feet, which is the thickest we have seen,
with no obvious pattern. Generally, however, the
largest ones are in the Sullivan Peak Member of
the Skinner Ranch Formation and in the Road
Canyon Formation.
Little has been published about the bioherms
of the Glass Mountains. The King brothers did
not discuss them, although P. B. King (1932) in¬
terpreted the dolomite mass on Leonard Mountain
as a reef. The only serious studies, so far, of the
bioherms are by Grant (1971), who analyzed their
brachiopod faunas, and Bain (1967), who made a
detailed investigation of the Cathedral Mountain
bioherms in the vicinity of Split Tank (Hess Can¬
yon quadrangle). Bain recognized a reef core with
flanking beds of debris, the classic picture of the
bioherm of the Paleozoic. He also recognized four
other facies connected with the bioherm not hither¬
to described. In discussing bioherms here, we will
consider them according to their stratigraphic
sequence.
Pennsylvanian.— One area of bioherms appears
in the Pennsylvanian of the Marathon Basin south
of the Arnold Ranch. This bioherm is located just
1.25 miles south of the Arnold Ranch, Monument
Spring quadrangle (Plate 16: figure 1). It is a low,
rounded mass of hard, dark gray limestone about
15 feet long and 2—3 feet high, although its base
is not exposed. The limestone contains an abun¬
dance of the fasciculate coral A7?ip1exocarinia
deUcata Ross and Ross (1963b) and considerable
laminated limestone of possible algal origin. The
freshness of the rock prevents collecting good fos¬
sils; nevertheless, among others, a primitive species
of Scacchinella and a LimbeUn were obtained. The
bioherm is lodged in Gaptank Shale, dated by P. B.
King (1938) as equivalent to his bed 10 of the type
Gaptank sequence. One fusulinid, found after
NUMBER 14
81
exhaustive search in the bioherm, was declared by
Garner Wilde (letter of 20 March 1962) to be
Virgilian in age, which disagrees with King’s as¬
signment of bed 10 of the Gaptank to the Canyon
in the Texan nomenclature (i.e., Upper Mis¬
sourian).
This bioherm is anomalous because of the
Permian-type fossils it contains. It occurs in a
complexly folded and faulted orogenic belt and
might be an exotic block. If so, its place of origin
is unknown, because nowhere in the Gaptank
Formation or the Lower Permian is a fauna like it
known. In spite of these difficulties, it is composed
of reef-core rock and has the characteristic form of
a bioherm.
Wolfcamp Series.— Bioherms are abundant in
the lower Wolfcamp formations, but infrequent
higher up. They are a problem in stratigraphy,
because they abruptly swell the thin limestone beds
and make measurements difficult on poorly ex¬
posed slopes or in ravines. One of the astonishing
characteristics of these bioherms is their variety of
faunal composition; no two have the same fauna
even though they may be in fairly close proximity.
It is not possible to discuss all of the bioherms
studied and collected in the Uddenites-bearing
shale member and the Neal Ranch Formation; a
few in different parts of the formation will serve
as examples.
Neal Ranch Formation: This formation is
about 500 feet thick and consists of a matrix of
dark shale enclosing many lenses and layers of
limestone. The thickest layer of limestone is bed
2 of P. B. King, otherwise known as the Gray
Limestone, occurring at the base of the section.
This is a great lenticular mass of calcarenite having
a maximum thickness of nearly a hundred feet and
a lateral extent of slightly more than a mile. It is
thickest near its middle, capping the cuesta called
hill 5060, and is the most prominent ledge of the
Wolf Camp Hills. It tapers laterally to a few feet
at the west end, but it is fairly thick (135 feet)
where last seen on the east. This large lens might
be interpreted as a bioherm or as a lime sand bank,
but it has never been studied in detail; conse¬
quently, its composition is not known. Some brec-
ciation occurs on the west side of the main mass.
We found no silicification in the main mass of
this lens, where it is thickest, but we found bio¬
herms in its north flank. Two bioherms of local
importance occur on the long northward dipping
slope, just before the lens plunges below the sur¬
face. The first is small (USNM 722x), only a few
feet in lateral extent, and now mainly a remnant,
weathered and rotted. It is composed mainly of
a new species of Eolyttonia. Most of the brachio-
pods are surrounded by laminated limestone of
undoubted algal origin, which welds the mass to¬
gether. This bioherm certainly was larger origi¬
nally. It is most important because it establishes
the presence of Eolyttonia , a Permian genus, in the
Gray Limestone of P. B. King, which Ross (1963a:
45) places in the Pennsylvanian (Virgilian).
The second bioherm in the Gray Limestone of
P. B. King occurs in the bed of Geologists Canyon
at its junction with a gully from the north, at ap¬
proximately the point where the 4650-foot contour
(Hess Canyon quadrangle) crosses the main canyon
floor (USNM 701). This structure can be seen only
in plan, but it consists of a matted mass of bryo-
zoans, sponges, and algal material containing an
unusual assemblage of brachiopods (. Hypopsia,
Schuchertella, Eolyttonia, Tropidelasma). The
brachiopods do not make up much of the mass of
the bioherm, which is largely constructed of bryo-
zoans.
Perhaps the most nearly ideal bioherm in the
Neal Ranch Formation is that at USNM 701c
(Plate 16: figure 3), which forms the top of the
knob represented by the easternmost ring that is
formed by the 4900-foot contour in the hill just
northwest of the “W” in “Wolf Camp Hills” (Hess
Canyon quadrangle, edition of 1923, reprinted in
1946; prior editions of this quadrangle do not bear
the name “Wolf Camp Hills”). This bioherm is a
rounded mass about 20 feet thick which consists
of amorphous unbedded micritic limestone strongly
contrasting with the relatively thin-bedded cal-
carenites in which it is embedded. It rests on a
2-3 foot thick bed of limestone cobbles welded
together by shale. The rock appears to be fine¬
grained, but, when leached by acid, it shows a
framework of sponges, bryozoans, and fine siliceous
granular material and bioclastic debris. The re¬
markable feature of this bioherm is the amazing
large specimens of Eolyttonia, nearly as large as a
tea-cup saucer (Plate 157: figures 1, 2). Numerous
other types of brachiopods are fairly common also.
82
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
The fauna of this bioherm is in marked contrast
to that forming the twin knob of this hill about
O. 25 mile southwest of USNM 701c.
The bioherm on the second knob (USNM 701h)
is small and seen only in horizontal section. It
was an irregular patch with height of two or three
feet above the enclosing rock. Decalcified blocks
of this limestone proved to be a welded mass of
brachiopods, chiefly the genera Geyerella, Meekel-
la, and Limbella, with abundant sponges and
bryozoans. The rock appears to have no grain and,
therefore, stands in strong contrast to the surround¬
ing bioclastic calcarenite. In spite of the grainless
appearance, it has fragments of echinoderms,
small foraminifera, and some lumps of bedded lime¬
stone of possible algal origin. Decalcification re¬
vealed a variety of brachiopods other than the
frame builders, especially a huge new species of
Parenteletes with a full range of growth stages,
from the earliest shell to large adults three inches
in width. Although this bioherm is only 0.25 mile
away from the one at USNM 701c, the two faunas
are utterly unlike (Plate 11: figure 3).
At the same stratigraphic level, another bioherm
about 0.25 mile to the northwest (USNM 701k)
produced an entirely different fauna in which
Enteletes is abundant. This genus showed prefer¬
ence for bryozoan gardens. Some of the Wedin
Member structures contained an abundance of this
genus.
Although the thin limestones above bed 14 of
P. B. King swell from biohermal development, we
found none that contained silicified fossils. Bio-
herms are not common in the overlying Lenox
Hills Formation, but a fair development was dis¬
covered at the west end of the Lenox Hills.
Lenox Hills Formation: No bioherms were seen
in the Lenox Hills Formation between the Wolf
Camp Hills and the Lenox Hills. These structures
appear at the west end of the Lenox Hills westward
from about hill 4902. At USNM 715b (Plate 12:
figure 2) numerous bioherms occur at the base of
the section, enclosed in coarse calcarenite and con¬
glomerate. These are the beds that Ross (1963a:
24) identified as Neal Ranch Formation and
claimed were in unconformable contact with the
Lenox Hills conglomerate. The angularity is un¬
doubtedly due to the irregular bedding usually
associated with bioherms. But we found, near the
base of the biohermal beds, interfingering layers of
conglomerate that suggest the bioherms belong to
the Lenox Hills Formation. At USNM 707j a few
small bioherms occur 25 feet up in the conglomer¬
ate, and there is no question about their belonging
to the Lenox Hills Formation. The fossils of the
bioherms at USNM 707j and 715b are clearly of
Neal Ranch (beds 12-14) affinity, but the strati¬
graphic setting indicates that they were contem¬
porary with the initial phases of Lenox Hills
deposition. They have a rich brachiopod fauna
with some Bivalvia and ammonites. No bioherms
were seen in the Lenox Hills Formation of the
Dugout Mountain area.
A unique bioherm in the Lenox Hills Forma¬
tion is that on the southeastern nose of Leonard
Mountain, just above the Lenox Hills conglomer¬
ate (USNM 705k; Plate 20: figure 2). This is a
small mass, short in lateral extent but about 20
feet thick, containing Tropidelasma and a small
Scacchinella as its most abundant constituents.
Heliospongia and Parenteletes are also present.
The rock is brownish gray with orange-brown,
earthy patches. The bioherm is surrounded by
fusulinid-bearing limestone conglomerate with
shale matrix, the common base on which Wolf-
campian bioherms rest.
Around the base of Leonard Mountain are large
slipped (toreva) blocks of Lenox Hills limestone,
often containing bioherms. One of these, USNM
705m, contains Scacchinella and Parenteletes. Al¬
though only one Scacchinella bioherm was seen in
place, that in the detached block indicates that
they were scattered about in the Lenox Hills
limestone above the conglomerate in Leonard
Mountain.
To summarize, two kinds of bioherms character¬
ize the Wolfcampian: one is the classic, mound¬
like patch reef originating on a limestone gravel
but building a solid mass of cementing organisms
surrounded by debris from the bioherm; the sec¬
ond is rather formless, often in relatively thin beds
representing patches or gardens of bryozoans,
sponges, algae, and combinations that include ac¬
cessory niche dwellers. The apparently amorphous,
smooth-appearing limestone is fine calcareous
debris that is sifted by precipitation in the quiet
waters which occupy the spaces between the shells
and the animal colonies that are formed by the life
NUMBER 14
83
process of the animals. Lithically, this forms a
micritic matrix for the numerous skeletons. These
are the zotikepia defined earlier; USNM 721g is an
excellent example. These bioherms and zotikepia
evidently existed in well-aeriated and agitated
waters, but the bulk of the reefy bodies and the
niches within them furnished quiet places where
brachiopods could flourish.
Skinner Ranch Formation: Some of the largest
and most interesting of the bioherms are those of
the Skinner Ranch Formation. More of the classic,
mound-like masses are present, but so is the hori¬
zontal type.
1. Decie Ranch Member. This member in its ex¬
tent from hill 5021 to its last appearance on Dugout
Mountain has no well-formed mound-like masses.
The member is composed mainly of conglomerates,
often with large boulders, but within these con¬
glomerates are patches of Scacchinella with other
rugged,* cemented-reef types of brachiopods. Scac¬
chinella clusters often occur with accumulations of
huge crinoid stems, the latter often more than two
inches in diameter, and so large and numerous that
they make up local gravel patches. The Scacchinella
community flourished on this gravel and developed
into clusters or patch reefs. The rock in places is
a mass of Scacchinella and, when rotted, is spongy
and crumbly from the vesicular character of the
large conical pedicle valves. Collecting from
weathered masses seldom yields a good specimen,
but, contrariwise, it is almost impossible to get
good specimens from fresh rock. Scacchinella bio¬
herms are difficult to locate, but the basal crinoid
accumulations are often a clue to them. Because
very little silicification has taken place in the Decie
Ranch Member, the individual Scacchinella does
not stand out conspicuously in these bioherms as
it does in those of the basal Skinner Ranch Forma¬
tion east of Leonard Mountain, north of the Hess
Ranch, and on the north slope of the Hess Ranch
Horst. The Decie Ranch Member occurrences sug¬
gest a rocky near-shore area, with communities of
robust Scacchinella that are intimately grown with
bryozoans (especially Meekoporella), which are
scattered among boulders in shallow, perhaps
turbulent water.
2. Poplar Tank Member. One bioherm that was
studied and collected occurs in this member
(USNM 708e; Plate 21: figure 2). This bioherm is
15-20 feet thick and about 60 feet laterally, under¬
lain by and surrounded by limestone conglomerate.
The rock is dark bluish gray, but it weathers to a
light gray. Of fine-grained appearance, it contains
considerable coarse debris. This bioherm is not
silicified. It is characterized by abundant small
productids ( Oncosarina ) and large Antronaria
(new genus), along with rare Scacchinella. This
seems to be more of an accumulation of biological
debris in a conglomerate than a reefy mass. No
reef core was seen, but it may not have been ex¬
posed (Plate 21: figure 2).
3. Sullivan Peak Member. Bioherms varying in
size from small patches to large reef-like structures
are fairly common in this member. These can be
seen as light-colored, rounded masses weathered
into relief on the hillsides. Several appear on the
southeast slope of hill 5300, but the best examples
are located in hill 4801 facing U. S. Highway 90
at the very end of the Lenox Hills (Plate 18:
figures 1-4). In lateral extent, one of these is
among the largest bioherms in the mountains: 110
feet horizontally and 38 feet thick. The well-
rounded top has a thin silicious skin. The base is
conglomerate to a height of 5 feet, with boulders
up to a foot in one dimension, and contains huge
crinoid stems (Plate 18: figure 4). Above the
crinoid stems the rock becomes fine grained, with
numerous silicified bryozoans protruding from the
surface. Scacchinella was not seen, but it probably
existed in the mass, as it was seen in boulders
flanking the bioherm. Another, smaller bioherm
occurs west of the large one. The two are separated
by a conglomerate 30 feet thick, composed of large
boulders, occasional ones having a long diameter
of 5 feet. This mass contains Geyerella, a common
reef form. Several specimens are visible on the
upper surface of this bioherm.
On the west side of the bioherm an extension of
its fine-grained limestone overlies the conglomerate
(Plate 18: figure 3). This lateral extension of the
biohermal rock contains Acritosia and numerous
sponges. Fossils contained in the boulders flanking
or underlying the bioherm tongue proved to be
types common in the bioherms. One block near
the margin of the bioherm contains numerous
Scacchinella. These fossiliferous pieces indicate
that the boulders in the conglomerate were derived
from bioherms.
84
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
A short distance west of the large bioherms there
occurs a small one, which is located on the bench
around hill 4801 formed by the Sullivan Peak
Member (Plate 16: figure 2). This small mound,
10 or 12 feet on one diameter and 2 or 3 feet high,
protrudes from the conglomerate.
4. Skinner Ranch Formation Undivided. The
Decie Ranch and Sullivan Peak Members pinch
out the Poplar Tank Member and become a single
unit in hill 5021, where the Skinner Ranch For¬
mation becomes undivided. Nevertheless, the lower
part of the formation retains many elements that
identify it with the Decie Ranch Member. One
of these is ScacchineUa, which is very abundant
and makes small reefs or bioherms almost com¬
pletely composed of this genus. Three areas for
the examination of these bioherms are: (1) the
southwest side of Leonard Mountain about one
mile north of the Iron Mountain (Skinner)
Ranch; (2) one-half mile north of the Hess Rancli
house; and (3) the base of the north slope of the
Hess Ranch Horst.
(1) Southwest Side of Leonard Mountain.
ScacchineUa occurs in the lowest beds, where small
clusters may be found. On the east side of the
ravine near the center of the mountain (Plate 19:
figure 1) four characteristic biohermal mounds may
be seen. Originally they may have occupied the
same level and then been offset by slumping (Plate
19: figure 1).
(2) North of Hess Ranch. Bioherms exposed
here (USNM 705a) are all low, not more than two
or three feet high. ScacchineUa is very abundant,
almost to the exclusion of all other fossils. These
mounds are surrounded by layers of interbiohermal,
bioclastic debris of worn and broken shells and
crinoid stems. The ScacchineUa are silica-filled,
but, nevertheless, they cannot be freed from the
limestone in good condition; usually they are re¬
covered as inner fillings. Good free brachial valves
are obtained from the interbiohermal beds, where
they were washed after being freed from the pedi¬
cle valves that were anchored to the reefy mass.
This locality is the site of numerous sponges, chiefly
Defordia and Heliospongia, that grew about the
bioherms. They are found usually in the inter¬
biohermal beds along with a very large species of
Omphalotrochus. At this locality the bioherms at
the base of the hill are well preserved, but the
limestone extending up the hill is usually dolo-
mitized and the fossils destroyed. On the top of the
hill overlooking the Hess Ranch house, limey
patches in the dolomite contain good fossils and
evidence of biohermal structures. The same types
of bioherms with ScacchineUa and Geyerella may
be seen in the ‘‘amphitheater” in the north side of
Leonard Mountain (Plate 11: figure 2).
(3) North Side of Hess Ranch Horst. This
setting is exactly like that north of the Hess Ranch
House, but the area of exposure is much larger and
the beds are not dolomitized. Laterally the area
of bioherms extends from the fault on the east side
of the liorst to the west end of hill 5305, a distance
of about 2 miles and involving about 200 feet of
strata. Bioherms occur at several levels and contain
different faunas. Some are masses composed almost
wholly of ScacchineUa in the lower part of the
section and may represent reef-cores USNM 720e;
Plate 19: figure 4). The silicification like that north
of the Hess Ranch is not good, but some silica-
filled young individuals are excellent for studies
of variation.
Above the ScacchineUa bioherms there are others
with the mound-like form. Although most are
small and low, they have a rich fossil content. The
compartmented bryozoan MeekoporeUa is common
and offers niches wherein many of the smaller
brachiopods dwelt. In these, ScacchineUa is rare or
lacking, but enormous specimens of MeeheUa and
Derbyia are attached among the bryozoans; pro-
ductids are uncommon. Many of these bioherms
are surrounded by bioclastic debris of broken and
disarticulated shells and layers of fusulinids (in¬
cluding Schiuagerina crassitectoria Dunbar and
Skinner).
The upper part of the Skinner Ranch Formation
is exposed poorly from east of Leonard Mountain
to the east side of the Hess Ranch Horst. Further¬
more, east of Hess Ranch the formation changes
facies into that of the Hess Formation.
Hess Formation (Taylor Ranch Member): One
large bioherm occurs in the Taylor Ranch Member
of the Hess Formation. At USNM 702d several
masses of light, yellowish-gray limestone abound in
the sponges Heliospongia and Girtyocoelia, together
with a variety of other fossils, especially gastropods
(Plate 19: figure 1).
NUMBER 14
85
Leonard Series.— Although Bain (1967:212) re¬
ports that “Reef masses range from 20 feet to 125
feet long and up to 100 feet high,” most of these
structures are much smaller. Many of them do not
have the characteristic mound-like form, but they
are micritic masses in relatively thin-bedded strata,
probably representing local concentrations of or¬
ganisms, usually bryozoans, alive for a sufficient
time to cement the whole with finely sifted calcium
carbonate, but with little binding algae. Bioherms
occur throughout the Leonardian. They are com¬
mon, especially the reefoid type of Bain, in the
Wedin Member on the north slope of Dugout
Mountain and in the west end of the Lenox Hills.
They are scattered between Leonard Mountain and
hill 5674 to the north. They are also concentrated
in the area east and west of Split Tank on the
Appel Ranch. Here they have been minutely
studied by Bain (1967).
Cathedral Mountain Formation (Wedin Mem¬
ber): These are of the reefoid type described by
Bain and are usually composed of a framework of
ribbon-like and fenestellid bryozoans. Every nook
and cranny in these masses is occupied by cement¬
ing productids or other brachiopods: Hercosia,
Chonosteges, Institella, and Agelesia. Plump En¬
tentes and an ocasional lyttoniid are present.
Institella is uncommon in the bioherms at USNM
700x on the north side of Dugout Mountain, but
it is abundant at USNM 714w at the west end of
the Lenox Hills, where it and Agelesia make
up a substantial amount of the organic mass.
We look on these bioherms, which are not rounded
mounds, as bryozoan patches resident for sufficient
time to build matted masses of dead forms to which
surviving generations attached. Finely precipitated
calcite (forming micrite), formed by the life process
of the animals from lime-saturated waters, sifted
into the spaces between the bryozoans, dead and
alive, cementing the whole into a solid mass unlike
the surrounding sediments. These are the struc¬
tures to which we apply the name “zotikepium.”
Bain (1967) examined the bioherms from Split
Tank for about 2000 feet to the east (USNM 702,
702a, 702ent, 702inst, and 702un). He identified
six facies types associated with, or comprising, the
bioherms. His map and text do not show any
definite pattern to the facies. Reef cores usually
are surrounded by the reefoid facies, but they may
be surrounded by breccia, flank-bank facies (rare),
or inter-reef facies. The latter facies is character¬
ized mainly by normal deposition of biomicrite and
micrite containing fossils wafted by currents from
their moorings. The strata range from a few inches
to slightly more than a foot thick. This facies is
the widest spread of all.
The bioclastic facies comprises biomicrudite and
biomicrite surrounding the bioherms. The map
does not show clearly the extent of this facies. It
contains many fragmentary fossils such as pieces of
fenestellid bryozoans, crinoidal debris, echinoid
spines and plates, as well as brachiopods and some
molluscs. This facies was seen about the bioherms
in the Skinner Ranch Formation north of the Hess
Ranch and on the north side of the Hess Ranch
Horst.
The molluscan facies is dark gray micrite occur¬
ring as lenses. It contains numerous gastropods,
pelecypods, and cephalopods, representing a local,
quiet water environment in which fine mud col¬
lected.
The flank-bank facies refers to concentrations
of unbroken fossil material occurring on the mar¬
gins of the reef cores or as isolated accumulations
on bioclastic beds unrelated to reef growth. They
may be zotikepia as described above. Concentra¬
tions adjacent to reefs are referred to by Bain as
“flank deposits,” and those unrelated to bioherms
are termed “banks.” These consist of dark brown
to dark gray clastic limestone containing numerous
brachiopods, bryozoans, corals, and echinoderms.
The interstices between the fossils are filled with
micrite. The banks are usually small, but the flank
deposits may be large, up to 100 by 50 feet.
The reefoid facies refers to “massive accumula¬
tions of limestone which circumscribe reef cores”
(Bain, 1967:224). It usually is limited in size, a
few feet in diameter, and not well bound. The
rock is gray biomicrite and biomicrudite, grading
into the bioclastic facies. Skeletal material of
brachiopods, bryozoans, sponges, and algae are
cemented by fine micrite of physicochemical or
biochemical origin, resulting in a fine-grained rock.
According to Bain, Prorichthofenia (— Hercosia)
is one of the major frame-builders of the reefoid
structures and is common in the Split Tank area.
He postulates a depth of water not exceeding 60
feet for this facies.
86
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
The reef core facies is composed of light gray,
dense, micritic masses ranging up to 125 feet long
and 75 feet high. The framebuilding organisms
are mainly fenestrate bryozoans and the bryozoan-
algal consortium Acanthocladia. Of lesser impor¬
tance are sponges and fistuliporoid bryozoans.
Stromatolitic algae are the principal binding or¬
ganisms and comprise the dominant portion of
reef cores (Bain, 1967:226). Accessory organisms
such as brachiopods, rugose corals, and gastropods
often are found in the reef core.
We dissolved blocks from the east of Split Tank
about 0.25 to 0.5 mile from the bioherms at USNM
702un and 702inst. These suggest Bain’s reefoid
or flank-bank facies and are like those of the
Wedin Member in their abundance of Institella.
These are located between the fine pebble con¬
glomerate and the first silicious shale stratum.
They appear to be assigned to the Hess by Bain,
but, occurring above the conglomerate and con¬
taining Institella, they clearly belong to the Ca¬
thedral Mountain, as defined by Cooper and Grant
(1966), and above the Hess, by P. B. King’s (1931)
definition of the Leonard Formation. Probable
reefoid facies with abundant Hercosia occurs above
the shale at USNM 702ent and 702. Flank-bank
or reefoid deposits abounding in the new lyttoniid
genus Collemataria (USNM 702al) occur still
higher in the section (Plate 20: figure 3). Above
this level bioherms do not occur in the Cathedral
Mountain Formation in the Split Tank area.
Bioherms are common in the Old Word Ranch
area southwest of Appel Ranch house. One of
these, close to the site of the Old Word Ranch
(USNM 703bs), composed of light gray micrite,
abounded in Agelesia, thus relating the lower
Cathedral Mountain of this area to the Wedin
Member of the extreme western end of the moun¬
tains (Plate 20: figure 4).
Still farther southwest, 1 mile below the Old
Word Ranch site is USNM 726o (Plate 17: figure
1), one of the finest and most fossiliferous of the
bioherms. It is a mass of an undescribed species of
the brachiopod Hercosia, with abundant bryozoans,
sponges, and some large pelecypods. The matrix
is a smooth, medium gray micrite, undoubtedly of
biochemical origin. The pelecypods are mostly
Pectens, long scabbard-shaped Myalinas, and large
spiny Pseudomonotis.
One of the most interesting of the Cathedral
Mountain bioherms occurs in the isolated hill
about 1.5 miles south of Sullivan Peak (USNM
727x). This hill is slightly more than 100 feet high
and is capped by 65 feet of fine-grained, brownish,
sugary sandstone. In the midst of the sandstone
there is a typical small bioherm of greenish- to
bluish-gray limestone, about 15 feet wide and 6
feet high, containing Institella. Although we did
not see evidence of displacement, this occurrence
might be an exotic block, as it is surrounded by
sandstone. Nevertheless, its internal structure is
clearly that of a bioherm.
Road Canyon Formation: These bioherms
mainly comprise two kinds: one type abounds in a
variety of fossils but has a framework composed
mostly of bryozoans and sponges; the other type
contains great masses of the bizarre oldhaminid
Coscinophora. The first type generally is located at
the base of the formation, while the Coscinophora
patches are scattered at several levels.
The first type, with a variety of fossils, is wide¬
spread. The bioherms are variable in dimension,
but they attain heights of 15—20 feet. They occur
from the Old Word Ranch site to the Sullivan
Peak area. Our USNM 703a, 702c, and 719x are
examples. Other bioherms can be studied on the
east side of the low spur extending south of Sulli¬
van Peak (Plate 17: figure 2), where they are over-
lain by the thin-bedded bituminous limestone of
the main mass of the Road Canyon Formation.
These, like most other bioherms, have the appear¬
ance of unbedded, smooth, sublithographic lime¬
stone (micrite) having a greenish- to bluish-gray
color when fresh but weathering light gray and
standing out in conspicuous contrast to the sur¬
rounding rocks. The upper surfaces, when exposed,
are usually smooth and rounded. One of the com¬
monest fossils in these bioherms is Hercosestria, a
brachiopod that often nearly completely comprises
small parts of the bioherm, but with Meekella
and Derbyia attached within the mass. Edriosteges
multispinosus Muir-Wood and Cooper is another
common inhabitant of these bioherms. Most of the
framework, however, is composed of bryozoans and
sponges, which occur in countless numbers. At
the Old Word Ranch site, we observed geopetal
structures in a large Edriosteges (USNM 703a;
Plate 21: figure 1), which were inclined parallel to
NUMBER 14
87
the regional dip, suggesting the original hori¬
zon tality and the normal growth position of the
animal, good evidence that this bioherm is in place
and undisturbed. At USNM 702c, in addition to
the usual reefy structures of Hercosia and Edri-
osteges, fine-grained limestone, abounding in
brachiopods with both valves intact almost to the
exclusion of other fossils, occurs associated with the
bioherms. These seem to be accumulations of
shells piled up against the bioherms in very fine
micritic matrix (Plate 20: figure 1).
Another place where bioherms occur (Plate 14:
figure 2; Plate 15: figure 2) in abundance is in the
triangular hill north of Leonard Mountain. Bio¬
herms can be found at the base of the Road Canyon
Formation from the junction of Road and Hess
Canyons, southward around the hill to Gilliland
Canyon, and thence north to about bench mark
4869. An isolated area of bioherms occurs at the
southwest end of Gilliland Canyon (USNM 724d).
USNM 719x, 721x, and 72ly contain fine bioherms,
yielding Hercosia, Edriosteges, and a variety of
other brachiopods. In the Dugout Mountain area
the Road Canyon is frayed out into the shaly facies,
but small bioherms still can be found.
The largest of the Road Canyon bioherms is
about 2 miles north of the Iron Mountain - Skin¬
ner Ranch house near the crest of the hill (USNM
724j; Plate 16: figure 4). It is about 80 feet thick,
consisting of massive granular limestone of 44 feet,
with a conglomeratic base, fine-grained calcare-
nite for 18 feet, and the upper 20 feet formed
by massive, fine-grained limestone with bryozoans.
It is overlain by yellow platy shale with thin-bedded
limestone above that. The bioherm contains a great
variety of fossils.
Coscinophora bioherms are scattered about in
the Road Canyon Formation at almost any level
above the basal bioherms. One of the finest of
these is at USNM 72Iq (Plate 17: figures 2-4),
with 35 feet of massive limestone rounded on top,
forming a reefy mass. The lower 10 feet contains
long slender corals and masses of Coscinophora.
The middle 15 feet are mostly calcarenite, but the
upper 10 feet again contain Coscinophora.
Similar masses packed with Coscinophora almost
to the exclusion of all else occur in this hill on the
east side of Gilliland Canyon and on the hill just
east of Sullivan Peak (USNM 709c and 710u). A
Coscinophora bioherm was seen on the side of
Sullivan Peak not far south of the Sullivan (Yates)
Ranch. An occasional bioherm with Coscinophora
occurs in the Del Norte Mountains, and loose speci¬
mens suggest the presence of others.
A bioherm unlike all others in the Road Canyon
Formation was found at the Old Word Ranch
site (USNM 703c). This was a small patch com¬
posed almost completely of various types of sponges.
Since only the top of this bioherm could be sam¬
pled, its inner form is not known. The sponges oc¬
curred in untold numbers and in considerable
variety; Finks (1960:33) records 18 genera of sili¬
ceous sponges. In addition to the sponges, many and
various molluscs were taken; Batten (1958) and
Yochelson (1956 and 1960) described 25 species of
gastropods from this bioherm. A large number of
undescribed bivalves also were obtained. The oc¬
currence strongly suggests the Cherry Canyon (Get¬
away Member) sponge bioherm discovered by N. D.
Newell and party in the Delaware Basin on the
south slope of the Guadalupe Mountains (AMNH
512 = USNM 728). A great variety of sponges
occurs at this place, accompanied by a varied
assemblage of gastropods and bivalves. We found
no bioherms in the Word Formation of the Glass
Mountains; most of the fossils occur in shell heaps
or scattered in the sediment.
Summary.— We recognize two types of organic
accumulations: (1) mounds or bioherms; and (2)
the inconspicuous, unswollen beds of fossils that
contain much material in positions of growth,
termed here a “zotikepium” or lush garden.
The bioherms generally consist of a core of hard,
dense, micritic limestone (reef-core), surrounded
by bioclastic material that is derived from the bio¬
herm (bioclastic facies). The bioherm generally is
based on conglomerate (often composed of huge
crinoid stems in the Wolfcampian) onto which
cementing forms attached themselves to begin
building the framework, which usually consists of
bryozoans, sponges, and algae (Plate 12: figure 1).
Continued growth occurred in the same place, one
generation living on the shells and skeletons of the
preceding one. Into the interstices between the
living and dead skeletons, coarse and fine animal
debris sifted, along with the fine precipitated cal¬
cium carbonate from biochemical reactions, pro-
88
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
during the micritic matrix that binds the mass into
a mound.
In the zotikepium on the other hand, a mound
was not produced, although the same processes went
on over a broad area to form a laterally extended
accumulation. Growth, fairly uniform throughout,
did not concentrate to produce a mound. This type
is essentially a biostrome, but the definition of that
term covers any bedded accumulation of biological
origin, with or without a reefy frame.
Shell Heaps
Under this terminology are included masses of
shells or other organic debris not bound by micritic
matrix and not giving evidence of having been an
adjusted biologic community. These heaps are
very abundant throughout the section. Many are
undoubtedly bottom sweepings of currents piled
into quiet areas and shallow depressions or heaps
resulting from storms. Many of the fossils in the
heaps were dead shells before their burial, as they
show signs of wear and some are riddled by borings.
On many specimens, however, the epifauna are
well preserved with both valves intact. These un¬
doubtedly were living when buried. In most of
the shell heaps the brachiopod valves are disassoci¬
ated, especially the loosely hinged enteletaceans,
productids, orthotetaceans, and related forms.
Spiriferids usually have the valves separated, but
many of the rhynchonellaceans and terebratu-
laceans, which are tightly articulated in life, occur
with their valves in contact.
We found few conspicuous examples of this type
of occurrence in the lower part of the Wolfcampian
sequence. Here, fossiliferous beds are generally
bioherms or zotikepia or debris derived from the
bioherms (bioclastic facies).
Beds of transported and dead shells are especially
common in the Dugout Mountain Member of the
Skinner Ranch Formation. Thin beds made up of
small pebbles and shell debris are common in this
member, but the fossils dissolved from them are
mostly worthless because they are so fragmentary
and worn. Exceptions do occur, as at USNM 722-1,
where sparse shell heaps yield abundant, fine fos¬
sils.
Dead shell assemblages (thanatocoenoses) appear
higher in the Skinner Ranch Formation in the
Poplar Tank and Sullivan Peak Members. These
shells may cover bedding surfaces or be abundant
in the siliceous cherty skins that cover some of the
limestone beds. Some of the thicker cherts also
contain fossils on the surface.
Examples of shell heaps occur in the lower part
of the Cathedral Mountain Formation at USNM
702b and 72lu. Here, countless shells—mostly
single valves of brachiopods, pelecypods, and gastro¬
pods, broken sponges, small cup corals, and bat¬
tered bryozoans—are heaped together and cemented
in a sandy lime matrix. Sponge spicules are abun¬
dant in the sediment, but fusulinids are rare. The
faunas represent the Institella-Agelesia assemblage
that characterizes most of the bioherms of the
Wedin Member and the lower part of the Cathedral
Mountain Formation. The shell heap at USNM
721u suggests current and storm sweepings from
nearby or moderately distant bioherms, because
"reef-dwelling” types appear in the debris.
Another shell heap occurrence entirely unlike
that just mentioned occurs in the upper part of
the Cathedral Mountain Formation in hill 4861
about 1 mile northwest of the Old Payne Ranch
site (USNM 732u; Plate 13: figures 1 and 2). The
rock is a coarse conglomerate with pebbles attain¬
ing a long diameter of 2-3 inches. In the con¬
glomerate there are patches almost completely
made up of shells of the large ammonite Perrinites.
Scattered through the conglomerate, and with the
ammonite masses, are typical Cathedral Mountain
brachiopods such as Peniculauris and Rugatia.
Besides Perrinites, large nautiloids, Medlicottia,
and a few other ammonites have been found. We
suggest that these banks of ammonite shells repre¬
sent dead conchs floated onto shoals or beaches as
described by Hamada (1964) for Nautilus pom-
pilius in the Pacific today.
The Road Canyon Formation forming the spur
on the south side of Sullivan Peak contains shell
heaps and layers, mostly dead shells, in the thin-
bedded bituminous limestone making up most of
the formation at this place. At the top of the Road
Canyon south of Sullivan Peak there are thin beds
that constitute a fusulinid sand or travel. Simi-
o
larly constituted beds attaining a thickness of 1-3
feet are common in the Road Canyon Formation
in the Old Payne Ranch area and on the lower
slopes of the Del Norte Mountains. A rich locality
NUMBER 14
89
for brachiopods as well as fusulinids is at USNM
732j, where Collumatus occurs. The topmost bed
of the Road Canyon, it contains a variety of brachi¬
opods and other fossils, mostly badly battered but
containing sufficient good material to make profit¬
able collecting.
The limestones of the Word Formation contain
many layers that represent accumulations by cur¬
rents. The China Tank Member has a number of
levels containing such beds. The best and most
typical locality is in the Willis Ranch Member at
USNM 706e, where a foot-thick layer abounds in
fossils. One block of 186 pounds (when decalci¬
fied) was estimated to have yielded more than ten
thousand specimens. This did not include frag¬
ments and bits of bryozoans. The dimensions of
the block were approximately 16 X 12 X 12 inches.
The biological shell material constituted about 13
percent of the mass, and about 3 percent was sugary
quartz sand. The variety of brachiopods in the
layer totaled 84 species. Most of the specimens
consisted of disarticulated valves, but only a small
percentage, of complete shells. Abrasion had not
affected most of them seriously. Most of the pro-
ductids still retain all or part of their delicate
spines, and some immature productids preserved
the initial attachment rings and other early, very
delicate spines. Although most of the larger speci¬
mens were dead when accumulated, many of the
epifauna such as Heteralosia, immature Meekella,
and Cooperina may have been living. Many of the
concave and cavernous shells are occupied by spat
or other small encrusting forms.
Deposits similar to the above occur in the Appel
Ranch Member at USNM 715i and 719x. Great
numbers of fossils are packed into an incredibly
small volume of rock. This was probably accom¬
plished by constant movement of the shells by
currents until each had accommodated itself to the
least space it could occupy.
Two other localities (USNM 706b and 737w)
are lenses between the Willis Ranch and Appel
Ranch Members, the former locality lying nearer
the Willis Ranch and the latter, nearer the Appel
Ranch Member. The lenses are about 1-1.5 feet
thick and are closely packed with fossils. The rock
also contains some sand and brownish silicious
material. The faunas of these lenses are like that
of USNM 706e.
Organic Accumulations Outside the Glass
Mountains
Sierra Diablo.— Our studies in the Sierra Diablo
were directed primarily to the collection of fossils
for comparative purposes and did not include a
study of the reef-like masses of the Victorio Peak
Member of the Bone Spring Formation. The lower
part of the Bone Spring, from which our collections
are derived, are in part lag deposits, thanatocoeno-
ses, and lime sand banks—all bioclastic. We did not
recognize any bioherms in this part of the section.
Stehli (1954) postulated a shallow water environ¬
ment for his localities in the Sierra Diablo, with
depths ranging from uncertain to 25 feet at one
locality and to 100 feet at another. He comments
on the enormous number of broken and separated
brachiopod shells in proportion to other animal
debris, which consists of broken coral clumps of
Heritschia, worn fusulinids, occasional mollusc
valves, and the usual abundance of crinoid debris.
That the deposits are near-shore seems likely; if
reef-marginal, as also suggested, the reef source is
conjectural.
Delaware Basin.— Our collecting here was
limited to a few localities of the Cherry Canyon
and Bell Canyon Formations. The localities in the
lowest part of the Getaway Member are in lenses
of shell debris very much like those of the Word
Formation in the Glass Mountains. These are
clearly thanatocoenoses, in which most of the speci¬
mens consist of separated valves and the fauna is
predominantly brachiopod.
The most interesting and best known of the Get¬
away fossil accumulations is that at AMNH 512
(=USNM 728). This is a sponge-mollusc com¬
munity like that of USNM 703c in the Glass Moun¬
tains, but it is richer in brachiopods than the latter
occurrence. This appears not to be a bioherm but
a disrupted community, which suggests the zotike-
pia described above.
The Bell Canyon members collected in the Dela¬
ware Basin mostly contain brachiopod assemblages.
Those of the Hegler Member contain numerous
brachiopods, and in one locality (USNM 731), a
variety of sponges. These localities contain numer¬
ous brachiopods that must have been living at, or
near, where they were found. Many of the rhyn-
chonellids, spiriferinids, and terebratulids have
90
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
both valves joined and show no signs of wear. Some
of the less tightly hinged brachiopods, such as Spi-
riferella and the small productids Scapharina, Xe-
nosteges, and Heteralosia, are disjointed.
The Lamar Member in the Basin contains one
bed (USNM 728p) that is very rich in fossil ma¬
terial (Plate 22: figure 3). Most abundant are the
genera Astegosia, Anomaloria, and Martinia, the
valves of which commonly are disassociated and of¬
ten broken. Since these brachiopods were articu¬
lated only loosely in life, they attest to some agita¬
tion of the water or to transport of the shells, but
it would not have required great abuse to have
created the condition in which they are found.
They are in contrast to the same genera on the
“reef” front, where the majority or a large number
of specimens have both valves joined. In the La¬
mar at USNM 728p, the terebratulids and rhyncho-
nellids generally are conjunct, whereas the larger
spiriferinids are more commonly disjoined. The
evidence suggests moderately shallow water with
some current or possibly wave action during storms.
We can see no evidence that these shells were
transported by gravity slides from the reef, because
there is no lime sand or reef debris in the form of
broken sponges or fragments of algae associated
with them.
Guadalupe Mountains.— In this region as in the
others of West Texas, our main objective was the
collection of comparative material rather than stud¬
ies in stratigraphy or ecology. Nevertheless, we did
observe these conditions where we collected, and
we have views based on the faunas derived from
the acidizing program. We made no collections
from the Bone Spring of the Guadalupe Mountains
west front, but we have specimens from AMNH
658, which came from a “biohermal-like lens on
the north wall” of the seventh canyon north of In¬
dian Cave Canyon near Williams Ranch. This con¬
tained Institella, which usually preferred a “reefy”
habitat.
Most of the Bell Canyon collections were taken
from Rader Ridge (Plate 23: figure 4), where some
effect of reef slide is evident, but specimens taken
from the dark limestones generally can be de¬
scribed in the same terms as those farther out in
the basin. The rhynchonellids in the Pinery Mem¬
ber, for example, are generally complete specimens,
with only a few disassociated valves. This is true
especially of Bryorhynchus, which is a very delicate,
thin shell and might be broken easily. Some of
these are distorted but not broken, probably the
result of compaction of the sediments. Slide from
the reef into the Rader dark sediments consisted
of lime sand with typical Rader fossils, but these
were not silicified and were recovered by breaking
the rock. The silicified Rader fossils presented the
same features as the other members of the Bell
Canyon Formation. They all suggest specimens
that lived in moderately quiet water and later were
entombed where they lived or near their original
habitats.
Nearly all of our fossils from the Capitan For¬
mation were taken from the inclined beds along
the mountain front. In these beds, brachiopods are
concentrated in patches that may have been as¬
semblages in situ or may have been transported a
short distance. Many of the specimens have both
valves intact, and this includes such loosely articu¬
lated forms as Martinia, Anomaloria, and Astego¬
sia. Stenoscisma usually can be found with both
valves together, as can many of the spirifers, spi¬
riferinids such as Paraspiriferina, and the tere¬
bratulids. The small rhynchonellids such as
Anteridocus sxoallovian.us (Shumard) usually are
complete. The large productid Thamnosia capi-
tanensis (Girty) usually is complete and often re¬
tains its tubular anterior. Where slightly rotted,
the Capitan calcarenite of this portion of the
“reef” offers some of the best collecting in West
Texas. The occurrences suggest specimens essen¬
tially in place or with only a slight amount of
transportation (Plate 22: figure 1).
Chinati Mountains.— Important bioherms occur
in the Chinati Mountains especially in the Breccia
Zone of Udden’s Cibolo Formation. Although these
occurrences have been interpreted as reef slide by
Rigby (1958), we believe these structures to be
true bioherms. The biohermal beds abound in
Scacchinella and prove to be an exact duplicate of
the bioherms of the Decie Ranch and Sullivan
Peak members in structure. Furthermore, the fau¬
nal content is so similar that correlation with the
Skinner Ranch Formation is obvious (Plate 22:
figure 4; Plate 23: figures 1, 2).
NUMBER 14
91
Fossils in the Various Facies
It is generally believed that some fossils are
closely restricted to certain types of sediment. This
is partly true, but most fossils are distributed
widely and usually occur in several kinds of sedi¬
ment, e.g., Leiorhynchoidea, which is commonest
in black or dark muds. In spite of such common
occurrence, we have species from calcarenites, shell
breccias, and yellow shales. The fossils mentioned
below as the common inhabitants of certain kinds
of sediment may be characteristic of that time and
place, but they are not always restricted to that
type of rock elsewhere.
In the Conglomerates.— In the Glass Mountains
there does not seem to be any clear evidence of
residual faunas in the conglomerates that are
formed by transported materials. In the first place,
the environment is not good to preserve fragile
specimens, and the ones that are found in the
conglomerates show evidence of transport by their
fragmentary condition. The only fossils that were
probably resident in a gravelly or bouldery sedi¬
ment are those that occupied bioherms, and these
are considered under that facies.
The most significant transported fossils in the
conglomerates are the ammonites. Mentioned previ-
onsly, they are almost certainly specimens that
floated onto sand and gravel banks. In addition to
the ammonites and often associated with them,
there are fragments of wood and fairly well pre¬
served seeds. These are further testimony to the
near-shore and shallow-water environment of the
transported conglomerates (Plate 13: figure 2).
We have not seen any indisputable specimens in
the matrix of the boulder beds that surround the
bioherms of the Sullivan Peak Member at the
southwest end of the Lenox Hills.
In the Quartz Sands.— Quartz sands in the Glass
Mountains are not an inviting source of fossils.
Although all of the sands were examined for fos¬
sils, the search was not exhaustive and the few
that were found undoubtedly were transports from
other environments, e.g., the specimens seen on
the upper surface of the thick sandstone that forms
hill 4806.
Inasmuch as the calcarenites or lime sands are
composed largely of bioclastic material that in¬
cludes crinoid debris and broken shells, these do
not contain resident fossils, except for the bio¬
herms that they may surround. We know of no
fossils that are restricted to such an environment.
The faunas are usually like those in neighboring
bioherms.
In the Shales.— The bluish shales contain
brachiopod types that are common in similar sedi¬
ments in other parts of the column. The Udde-
nites-bearing Shale Member contains genera that
occur in many of the Pennsylvanian shales, espe¬
cially the Gaptank shale underlying the Wolfcamp:
Rhipidomella, Parenteletes, Isogramma, Neocho-
netes, Chonetinella, Hystriculina, Kozlowskia,
Kutorginella, Linoproductus, Reticulatia, Rhyn-
chopora, Crurithyris, and Neospirifer. All of these
except Parenteletes are common in the Gaptank
shale and in the shales of the Pennsylvanian in
the Midcontinent region. None of these is re¬
stricted to shale as its habitat, but they are
common shale dwellers. The bioherms of the Ud-
denites- bearing Shale Member contain a different
assemblage, mostly of Permian types such as Lim-
bella and Scacchinella.
We have seen very few megafossils in the radi-
olarian and spicule-bearing shales of the Cathedral
Mountain and Word Formations. In the latter,
Crurithyris and Leiorhynchoidea occur, as they do
elsewhere, in comparable inhospitable environ¬
ments.
Paranorella, which occurs in black limestone and
shale in Coahuila and the Delaware Basin, was
taken in the blocky shale of the Poplar Tank
Member. The occurrence is rare, however, and is
the only specimen of this genus found in shale in
the Glass Mountains.
In the Limestone.— The dark limestones are of¬
ten replete with fossils, a fact that makes identifi¬
cation of them as basinal deposits impossible. As
evidenced by the fauna from USNM 707e, 703c,
703d, a great variety of types occurs in the dark
limestone. These faunas include a few of the char¬
acteristic forms usually associated with bioherms.
They do not include the common black limestone
types such as Bryorhynchus, Leiorhynchoidea, and
Paranorella, although one species of Glossothyrop-
sis is present but very rare. Perhaps Liosotella
costata, new species, is the most characteristic spe¬
cies in the dark limestones at USNM 707e. Other
forms are the very wide-hinged Reticulariina subu-
92
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
lata, new species, and an abundance of various
chonetids. A similar association appears in the
thin-bedded limestones of the upper part of the
Cibolo Formation (thin-bedded zone of Udden),
in which Liosotella costata, wide-hinged Reticu-
lariina bufala, new species, and wide chonetids oc¬
cur. This portion of the Cibolo Formation has
been likened to the Bone Spring, but it should
rather be compared to the Road Canyon Forma¬
tion, of which it is probably an extension. The
variety and abundance of fossils in these limestones
is unlike the general sparsity of fossils character¬
istic of genuine basin deposits. We regard these
as shelf deposits in shallow water, near a low, pos¬
sibly swampy, land. The water was not necessarily
quiet, because there is some heaping of shells and
disjoining of the valves.
As noted previously, the lagoonal limestones of
the Hess Formation contain few fossils other than
fusulinids. We found a few macrofossils, however:
a large colony of Waagenophylhim, an occasional
ammonite, an occasional large Omphalotrochus. A
piece of float that could have been derived only
from the Hess Formation contained a few brachio-
pod species, including a new Martinia. It was
found loose, just under the Hess Conglomerate
(= Lenox Hills Formation of Ross), and could not
have been derived from the Neal Ranch Forma¬
tion. We are not able to say whether it came from
the Wolfcampian portion of the Hess (= Lenox
Hills Formation of Ross) or from the Skinner
Ranch part. The assemblage is more suggestive of
the Skinner Ranch than of the Lenox Hills.
In the Bioherms.— Most of the bioherms are a
framework of bryozoans and bryozoan fragments,
among which the brachiopods found asylum. Many
of the Permian brachiopods are cementing forms
that flourished naturally only where a firm bottom
for attachment was available. They, like the
brachiopods today, favor a fairly quiet water situa¬
tion. The abundance of niches provides living for
a variety of brachiopods and accounts for the great
diversity in faunas of bioherms. The bryozoan bio-
herm, therefore, offers the utmost for their require¬
ments.
Only in a few examples and only with a few
genera do the brachiopods contribute notably to
the formation of a bioherm. In the Silurian and
Devonian, brachiopods often make mounds of their
own (Pentamerus and Stringocephalas), but they
are not bioherms in the sense of being consolidated
masses. They make mounds simply because they
lived clustered together, the living shells attaching
to the dead, until shifting seas obliterated them.
A few brachiopod genera, often called reef types,
are identified with bioherms, but it is an interest¬
ing fact that the greatest, supposedly Permian reef,
the Capitan “reef,” has very few of these reef-type
brachiopods. The following genera may contribute
notably to the formation of bioherms or may pro¬
duce clusters of their own that possess biohermal
significance: Scacchinella, Hercosia, Hercosestria,
Teguliferina, Derbyia, and Coscinophora. To a
lesser extent, the following are moderately im¬
portant contributors to bioherms or zotikepia:
Edriosteges, Geyerella, Tropidelasma, Institella,
Collemataria, and Agelesia.
Scacchinella: This and the next genus are the
nearest to reef-type brachiopods in the Permian,
as they are large and sturdy; because of these quali¬
ties, they probably were current resistant. They
offered also a haven for other, smaller brachiopods.
Scacchinella is found usually in biohermal assem¬
blages, and it often makes up a large percentage
of the bioherm. In spite of this, it may be found
in small clusters away from the main biohermal
masses. Although Scacchinella properly may be
dubbed a “facies fossil,” it shows a significant evo¬
lution in the development of the amount of vesic¬
ular tissue in the pedicle valve, which possesses
great value as a time indicator. As described below,
several levels of Scacchinella species have been de¬
tected.
Hercosia: This genus consists of much smaller
species, but one actual bioherm (USNM 726o) was
found in which H. delicata, new species, makes up
most of the framework of the bioherm. Hercosia
uddeni at USNM 702 often makes small clusters,
but generally the richthofeniids only are dwellers
in the bioherms. Cyclacantharia and the other Glass
Mountains richthofeniids are rarer in bioherms.
The former appears in bioherms (USNM 702c,
703a) of the Road Canyon, but it is more com¬
monly found in nonbiohermal assemblages in the
Word Formation.
Hercosestria: This genus seldom makes bio¬
herms in which it is dominant; rather it is a par¬
ticipant in the making of the bioherm.
NUMBER 14
93
Teguliferina: This is an important contributor
to Wolfcamp bioherms (USNM 701d).
Derbyia: Derbyia is usually a participant in the
making of bioherms, but in some parts of the Neal
Ranch Formation (USNM 701d, 742c) it is a domi¬
nant element, at least in parts of the bioherm.
Coscinophora: This genus may be the dominant
element in the formation of some bioherms. It is a
more common biohermal form than Collemataria,
which usually is only a contributor. The flattish
surfaces of Coscinophora and the curved inner sur¬
faces of the interior of dead shells are favorite
sites for small cementing forms (see Plate 129 for
a reefy cluster of Coscinophora).
Bioherms at Different Levels
In the Permian column of the Glass Mountains,
bioherms are predominantly bryozoan, but each
has brachiopod elements characteristic of its level.
A brief discussion of the bioherms at different
levels follows and includes some of the accessory
genera commonly found in bioherms.
Uddenites- bearing Shale Member.— Inasmuch as
these bioherms have not been found in silieified
condition, we do not know a great deal about
them. They contain Scacchinella as a constituent,
but this genus is not abundant and it was nowhere
found to dominate a bioherm at this level. An ac¬
cessory element in these bioherms is Parenteletes
cooperi R. E. King, which often is fairly common.
Neal Ranch Formation.— Three levels of bio¬
herms have been seen in this formation. The first
is in the upper part of the Gray Limestone of P.
B. King (USNM 701). This biohermal or possibly
zotikepial structure was characterized especially by
orthotetaceans of rare and unusual character, in
addition to the usual bryozoa. Another small bio¬
herm at USNM 722x is characterized by common
Eolyttonia cemented by laminar calcite, which sug¬
gests an algal origin. The relationships of this
bioherm to its surroundings suggest that it was at
one time a much larger structure.
Bed 4 of P. B. King produced bioherms and
zotikepia that are interesting for the abundance of
Derbyia in the bioherms and the presence of Stri-
atifera in the zotikepia. USNM 701d is character¬
ized by great abundance of small derbyias cemented
into clusters with masses of Teguliferina. These
are the only bioherms seen in which Derbyia and
Teguliferina formed a substantial part of the mass.
Parenteletes formed a prominent accessory element
reminiscent of the bioherms of the Uddenites- bear¬
ing Shale Member. The zotikepium at USNM
72Ig is rich in several types of bryozoans; it has
numerous Striatifera attached to the colonies and
a species of Pseudoleptodus attached to the Striati¬
fera.
A variety of bioherms was seen in beds 12—14
of P. B. King (= beds 9-12 of Cooper) all faunally
different. The bioherm at USNM 701c contains, as
important elements, Eolyttonia, Limbella, Tegu¬
liferina, but none seem dominant. So abundant is
Geyerella, the bioherm at USNM 70lh may be
characterized as of this genus, which occurs
cemented together in clusters and makes up a large
percentage of the mass. Other reefy elements are
Tropidelasma, Meekella, and Limbella. Important
accessories are Parenteletes, Composita, Diplanus,
Spyridiophora, and a host of rarer forms. The bio¬
herm at USNM 701k has the same elements as the
preceding, but it is specially noteworthy for a
flood of Enteletes as an accessory. This genus is a
common accessory in most of the bioherms and
zotikepia.
Lenox Hills Formation.— The most important
and interesting bioherm in the Lenox Hills For¬
mation is the one on Leonard Mountain just above
the conglomerate (USNM 705k). Most of the
frame of this bioherm is made of a small new spe¬
cies of Scacchinella. This is assisted in frame build¬
ing by abundant specimens of Tropidelasma and
the accessory element Parenteletes.
Several Lenox Hills bioherms occur at USNM
715b in the southwest end of the Lenox Hills.
These have no silieified material, and our collec¬
tions are not extensive. No special element stands
out to characterize them, but Spyridiophora usu¬
ally can be obtained.
Decie Ranch Member.— The bioherms in the
western and eastern parts of the mountains at this
level are different in composition, but they are be¬
lieved, nevertheless, to be contemporaneous. In the
Lenox Hills the Decie Ranch bioherms are defi¬
nitely Scacchinella bioherms, that genus being the
dominant element in size and numbers. With it,
and intimately attached, there are a huge species
of Geyerella, a stout Tropidelasma, a huge Der-
94
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
byia, and an enormous Eolyttonia. Accessories in
this assemblage are Oncosarina, Limbclla, Ente¬
ntes, Antronaria, and Stenoscisma.
The bioherms at the same level in the more
eastern part of the Glass Mountains on Leonard
Mountain and the north side of the Hess Ranch
Horst are dominated by Scacchinella, but the indi¬
viduals, although large, seldom reach the enor¬
mous size of those seen in the Lenox Hills. Gey-
erella is missing or rare, and its place is taken by
Meekella, which attains its largest size here (USNM
720e). An elongate Cyclacantharia occurs along
with a large conical Eolyttonia. Accessory genera
are Enteletes, large Stenoscisma, and Antronaria.
Bioherms in the Cibolo Formation (Breccia bed
of Udden) are like those of the Decie Ranch Mem¬
ber.
Sullivan Peak Member.— Most of these bio¬
herms are not, or only partially, silicified. Their
composition is like that of the Decie Ranch Mem¬
ber bioherms, but Scacchinella is no longer the
dominant element. The one whose fauna is best
known, USNM 733j, is composed partly of Cosci-
nophora (Plate 5: figure 1), with Scacchinella rare,
but Limbella fairly common. Another "reef-type”
is Tropidelasma, but it is not abundant. Spyridio-
phora is present. Scacchinella, although widespread
in the Sullivan Peak Member, is never so abundant
as in the Decie Ranch Member and in the lower
part of the undivided Skinner Ranch Formation.
Taylor Ranch Member.— Only one small patch
of bioherms is known in this member, and it is
conspicuous for its sponges, Girtyocoelia and He
liospongia. Brachiopods constitute only a minor
element in the assemblage. Common bioherm-lov-
ing forms are present: a new notothyridid called
Chondronia, huge Enteletes, Spyridiophora, Antro¬
naria (common), and large Stenoscisma (Plate 19:
figure 2).
Cathedral Mountain Formation.— Bioherms
and zotikepia, common in the Wedin Member of
this formation, generally are dominated by Insti-
tella and Agelesia. These are the commonest bra¬
chiopods, but brachiopods are not important in
making these bioherms and zotikepia. Here the
honors fall to the bryozoans. Contributing brachi¬
opods in the Wedin Member are: Hercosia, Cho-
nosteges, Compressoproductus, and Enteletes ,
which is common. In the eastern part of the Glass
Mountains in the vicinity of Split Tank, bioherms
similar to those of the Wedin Member contain
Institella, although the associated forms are differ¬
ent from those of the Lenox Hills and Dugout
Mountain areas. Agelesia is somewhat rarer, but
one bioherm (USNM 703bs) is very rich in this
genus. Hercosia is abundant and forms clusters and
small bioherms containing the accessory Enteletes.
Another accessory is Niviconia globosa (R. E.
King). Rugatia is found suspended by long spines
among the branching bryozoa. Other accessories
are: Edriosteges, Chonosteges, and Collemataria. If
any genus is dominant, it is usually Hercosia.
Bioherms are not common in the Upper Cathe¬
dral Mountain, and the best was mentioned under
the note on Hercosia. The frame-builder of the
bioherm at USNM 726o is Hercosia; Edriosteges,
Chonosteges, and Echinauris are accessories. Com¬
mon in this assemblage is the large bivalve Pseu-
domonotis, spiny and ostreiform. A unique
bioherm largely composed of the lyttoniid Collema¬
taria occurs at USNM 702al.
Road Canyon Formation.— Bioherms of the
lower part of the Road Canyon usually have a dif¬
ferent assemblage from those of the upper part of
the formation. The lowest part of the Road Can¬
yon forms a biohermal zone that can be followed
from a point near the Old Word Ranch site over
to Sullivan Peak. Localities of these bioherms are
USNM 703a, 702c, 719x. Hercosestria, a common
member of these bioherms, does not make up the
main mass, but it usually is abundant. Another
abundant element is Edriosteges. With these are
large Meekella, Coscinophora, Thamnosia, large
Cyclacantharia, large Stenoscisma, and large Die-
la sma.
The bioherms of the upper part of the Road
Canyon Formation may be described as Coscino¬
phora bioherms; this abundant genus is usually
the dominant element. An interesting accessory is
the tiny notothyridid Chondronia, which has
been found only in bioherms or in association
with them.
In summarizing the fossils of the bioherms, it
may be said that only a few types are mound build¬
ers, although many species occur as accessories.
Some, such as Chondronia, appear always to be as¬
sociated in or near bioherms. It is probably fair
to say that most of the fossils in Wolfcampian and
NUMBER 14
95
Leonardian rocks, except those of the shales, more
than likely lived on or around bioherms. Some of
these, such as the assemblage in USNM 721u,
probably were swept together from biohermal sites.
In the shell heaps and bottom sweepings of the
Word Formation, richthofeniids and aulostega-
ceans, which normally occurred in bioherms in the
earlier sediments, probably had somewhat different
habitats. There more than likely were not big clus¬
ters, to initiate bioherms, and there were no bry-
ozoan zotikepia from which bioherms could be de¬
veloped. The absence of bioherms along with the
presence of genera that normally inhabited bio¬
herms suggests that the Guadalupian conditions
were different from those preceding. It is possible
that the water, although shallow, was deeper than
that of the biohermal locations and that the ani¬
mals lived farther from shore in a less oxygenated
and nutritious environment. The above discussion
also is valid for the Sierra Diablo region and the
Delaware Basin. In each of these regions, biohermal
and accessory forms dwelt, but they did not form
bioherms.
Sierra Diablo and Guadalupe Mountains.—
Our collections from this region come only from
the lower part of the Bone Spring Formation,
which faunally is related to the Skinner Ranch
Formation of the Glass Mountains, that part of
the section containing most of the bioherms. Al¬
though bioherms have been illustrated and studied
in the lower Bone Spring (Stehli, 1954), we did
not find any silicified ones comparable to those of
the Glass Mountains; rather, our collections and
those of Stehli are from the sweepings from the
bioherms and possible zotikepia. The Sierra Diablo
are clearly "shell heap” occurrences or thanato-
coenoses. The fauna includes Scacchinella, Lim-
bella, Acritosia, Teguliferina (Planispina of
Stehli), and Meekella, all genera that normally are
generous contributors to bioherms. Scacchinella
americana Stehli, however, is very rare and small,
and the species is unlikely to have been an impor¬
tant contributor to bioherms. Teguliferina and
Acritosia are abundant and may have been frame-
builders of small bioherms. They are the only
likely members of this fauna to have been colonial.
Meekella is abundant and may have contributed to
the Teguliferina clusters in much the same fashion
as Geyerella did in the Neal Ranch bioherms.
Eolyttonia and Collemataria are too rare to have
been important contributors. Enteletes is the com¬
monest accessory genus, although Stenoscisma is
present, but rare. Much of this fauna consists of
chonetids, small and large productids, rhynchonel-
lids and spiriferinids, all of them brachiopods that
probably occupied niches either in bioherms or
zotikepia or even in shell heaps. The evidence sug¬
gests to us that there may have been bioherms at
this time but that they probably were small and
easily broken up.
We have not studied the Victorio Peak Member,
but what we know of its faunal content indicates
that it contains bioherms that suggest those of the
Cathedral Mountain Formation (Plate 8: figure
3).
The great "reef” surrounding the Delaware Ba¬
sin has few of the "reefy” brachiopods. Cyclacan-
tharia and Sestropoma are present, but they are
extremely rare. As a matter of fact, the “reef” con¬
tains none of the possible frame-building brachio¬
pods. All of these except Geyerella became extinct
before Capitan time. Collemataria is also a very
rare animal in the reef rock. That brachiopods
grew on the reef, in its niches and on its slopes
toward the basin, is shown by the patches in the
steeply dipping beds on the front of the mass.
The brachiopods consist partly of niche dwellers
taking advantage of the crannies in sponge and
algal beds. A large number of the Capitan brachio¬
pods evidently formed their own patches in which
dead members of the assemblage furnished the an¬
chorage for the next generation. Many of the
loosely hinged genera such as Astegosia, Anoma-
loria, Reticulariina, Arionthia, new genus, Mar-
tinia, and Composite are found commonly with
both valves intact and only a small number of
single valves. This indicates fairly quiet water con¬
ditions on the “reef” slope. One can only conclude
that the brachiopods were an insignificant element
in the formation of the Capitan "reef” but that
they found its surface and niches a favorable dwell¬
ing place.
Bell Canyon sediments marginal to the “reef”
mass contain large numbers of brachiopods that
occupy patches representing small heaps. Most of
the specimens are small, and productids are ex¬
tremely rare. The most abundant species are those
of the Spiriferinacea, small Strophalosiacea, cho-
96
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
netids, small rhynchonellids, and small terebratu-
lids. In addition, stout, sticklike bryozoans and cup
corals are abundant. Many specimens are found
with both valves intact. Breakage is minimal, and
the assemblage gives the impression of having
dwelt where it was found. Although some of the
species also occur in the Capitan Formation, the
sediment contains considerable quartz sand, but no
debris demonstrably reef derived was seen. It
seems that these deposits of the Hegler, Pinery,
and Rader Members represent sediments in front
of the reef with resident faunas. Demonstrable reef
slide appears in the Rader, but this is calcarenitic
rock containing unsilicified brachiopods like those
of the dark Bell Canyon limestone (Newell et al.,
1953; Rigby, 1958).
The story of the fauna of the Lamar Member
of the Bell Canyon Formation is much the same.
The fauna has an entirely different composition
from that of the lower members of the Bell Can¬
yon, but essentially it is the same as that of the
faunas mentioned as occurring on the slope of the
"reef,” abounding in Composita, Anomaloria, Aste-
gosia, and Martinia. Rather than being derived
from the reef slope and being transported to the
base of the reef, as commonly believed, the Lamar
fauna, our studies lead us to believe, lived at the
base of the reef, but current agitation caused con¬
siderable disassociation of the valves. In the La¬
mar, complete specimens of any of the genera
mentioned above are very rare. This is not so of
the rhynchonellids, terebratulids, and spiriferinids,
which often are found with valves intact. The
fauna is composed almost exclusively of brachio¬
pods, corals, and bryozoa, but molluscs are ex¬
tremely rare.
Grant (1971) traced the decline of reef-dwelling
and reef-associated brachiopods through the West
Texas Permian section, pointing out that the sup¬
posedly greatest of all Permian reefs, the Capitan,
contains an overwhelming proportion of the kinds
of brachiopods that lived attached by a pedicle.
The spiny brachiopods that give Permian faunas
their distinctive aspect are scarce in the Capitan
Limestone and its equivalent members in the Bell
Canyon Formation. The decline in spiny brachio¬
pods and the proportionate increase in pediculate
forms began as low as the Skinner Ranch Forma¬
tion. By the time the Capitan was deposited, the
fauna had what might be considered a “Mesozoic
aspect,” in the sense that most Mesozoic brachio¬
pods are pediculate.
Paleoecology
To understand the conditions that existed in
the Permian of the Glass Mountains, it is neces¬
sary to examine the paleogeographic setting of the
area. In addition, the rocks that make up the Per¬
mian of the Glass Mountains have their own story
to tell of the times. Added to these two versions
is the story told by the fossils. Determination of
past conditions deduced from rocks may lead to
ideas contrary to those indicated by the fossils. In¬
terpretation of lithic data will not coincide neces¬
sarily with that determined by fossils. Deductions
as to depth of water may be at variance because
of conflicting evidence from sediments and fossils.
Paleogeographic Setting.— Philip B. King
(1942) brought together basic information on the
paleogeographic setting of the Glass Mountains,
the Sierra Diablo, and the Guadalupe Mountains.
He depicts, in his now well-known and much-fig¬
ured map (King, 1942: figure 18), a Marathon
Folded Belt lying south of a Southern Shelf area
on which the sediments of the Glass Mountains
were laid. This shelf faces the Marfa Basin area to
the southwest and west and the Delaware Basin
to the north. The Delaware Basin is'bounded on
the west by the Diablo Platform and on the east
by the Central Basin Platform, essentially sub¬
merged peninsulas extending south from the
Northwestern Shelf Area of southern New Mexico.
The Central Basin Platform forms the western
margin of the Midland Basin, which is bounded
on the east by the Eastern Shelf Area. The Marfa
Basin is connected to the Delaware Basin by the
Hovey Channel and the latter basin connects with
the Midland Basin by the Sheffield Channel. The
Glass Mountains occupy a very small amount of
this vast area, and its deposits mainly are shelf de¬
posits, mostly clastic limestones, conglomerates, and
sandstone, with some important layers of shale.
The source of the sediments was partly from the
Marathon Folded Belt and partly from the west,
as most of the section thickens in that direction.
It seems likely that the Southern Shelf extended
farther southwest than indicated by King, because
NUMBER 14
97
Figure 27.—Paleogeographic setting of the Permian of West Texas.
part, at least, of the Chinati Mountain (Cibolo
Formation-Breccia beds of Udden) sequence are
shelf deposits identical to parts of those of the
contemporary Skinner Ranch Formation (Rigby,
1958: diagram, page 299).
Sediments of the Wolfcamp Series.— In the
Wolfcampian we include the Uddenites-bearing
Shale Member of the Gaptank Formation of P. B.
King, which is identical to the Neal Ranch Forma¬
tion in gross lithic aspect. We also include the
Skinner Ranch Formation as explained elsewhere.
Like the Neal Ranch, the Uddenites -bearing Shale
Member contains bioherms based on limestone
gravel and surrounded by detrital limestone that
is enclosed in blackish to bluish shale containing
scattered fossils. The bioherms of the Neal Ranch
mainly are bryozoan-sponge assemblages, with al¬
gae suggesting existence in warm, sunlit, shallow
water. Temporary submergence of the shelf, uplift
of the Marathon Folded Belt, or a wet climatic
cycle may account for the ultimate burial of the
bioherms in the shale. Except for the local develop¬
ment of limestone cobbles associated with bio¬
herms, conglomerates are rare in the Neal Ranch
sedimentary suite. Quite the opposite is the condi¬
tion in the Lenox Hills Formation.
Lenox Hills: In the western part of the Glass
Mountains this formation contains a thick con¬
glomerate that thins eastward to disappear on the
flank of the Hovey anticline just west of Leonard
Mountain. East of this fold, Lenox Hills conglom¬
erate appears in Leonard Mountain and along the
base of the mountains except for one place east of
the Wolf Camp Hills. In the western part of the
Glass Mountains, a shale separates the conglom¬
erate from the overlying Skinner Ranch Forma-
98
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
tion. In Leonard Mountain, bioherms appear in
the limestone overlying the Lenox Hills conglom¬
erate. Bioherms also occur above the conglomerate
just north of the Hess Ranch. East of this point
the conglomerate is overlain by a variety of rocks
consisting of red beds and thin dolomitic limestone
like that of the Hess Formation.
The Lenox Hills conglomerates point to an up¬
lift of the Marathon Folded Belt that blotted out
the early development of bioherms at its base. The
shale succeeding the conglomerate in the Lenox
Hills is a facies like that of the Neal Ranch, with
a comparable fauna consisting of ammonites, gas¬
tropods, and pelecypods similar to those of the Ud-
denites- bearing Shale Member and the Neal Ranch
Formation. The limestone above the conglomerate
in Leonard Mountain is a coarse lime sand (cal-
carenite and calcirudite) fingering into the Hess
calcarenite to the east. The red beds represent a
local uplift that washed lateritic muds into the
Southern Shelf Area.
It is interesting to note that thin beds of con¬
glomerate in the Lenox Hills area contain numer¬
ous seeds and fragments of wood together with
concentrations of ammonites. These two occur¬
rences argue for shallow-water, near-shore deposi¬
tion. The ammonites probably are dead shells that
floated into shallow water and were deposited with
piles of pebbles and fragments of waterlogged
plant debris. On the southwest side of Leonard
Mountain, a fairly large tree trunk was seen in
the Lenox Hills shale.
Skinner Ranch: These sediments are very di¬
verse, consisting of limestone conglomerate, cal¬
cirudite, calcarenite, and some fairly thick, but
local, quartz sandstone beds. The conglomerates of
the Decie Ranch and Sullivan Peak Members are
notable for their coarseness. Ragged boulders up
to five feet in one dimension occur and many over
a foot long are present (Plate 11: figures 1, 4). In
the Decie Ranch Member, the bioherms are not
banks of reefy limestone, but rather they are tan¬
gled masses of bryozoans and large brachiopocls,
formed on a gravel bed or comprising an accu¬
mulation of large crinoid stems. This association
suggests a near-shore environment, with high en¬
ergy conditions. The uplifted Marathon Folded
Belt supplied some of the conglomerate, but frag¬
mentation of the bioherms is also evident.
The Poplar Tank Member is of varied lithic
character, which consists mainly of brown crumbly
shale enclosing thin beds of limestone and con¬
glomeratic limestone. In places, the calcareous lay¬
ers contain a thin skin of pinkish chert containing
numerous fossils and sponge debris. Sponges proba¬
bly furnished much of the silica. The cherts
contain members of the Spyridiophora fauna, de¬
monstrably a shallow-water assemblage. The cherts
here are not evidence of deep water, but rather of
a concentration of spicular material.
Large moundlike bioherms occur in the Sullivan
Peak Member. The most conspicuous example is
in hill 4801 (Plate 18: figures 1, 3). The boulders
occupying the space between the two adjacent bio¬
herms are exceptionally large and almost entirely
biohermal in their origin, as they contain the com¬
mon Permian fossils of the bioherms. On the west
side of the easternmost bioherm there is a boulder
containing numerous specimens of Scacchinella.
The setting is one of close shore, with violent
water conditions that pounded the bioherms to
fragment them and pile the debris at their bases.
The setting on hill 4801 of the Lenox Hills is
like that of Udden’s Breccia Bed in the lower part
of the Cibolo Formation, on the northwest slope
of the Sierra Alta Creek in the Chinati Mountains.
For about 3 miles along the creek, }arge Scacchi¬
nella bioherms are based on gravels containing
reworked Wolfcampian fusulinids. The bioherms
are surrounded by coarse breccia, like that of the
Glass Mountains. If these large masses were reef
slide, as claimed by Rigby (1958), one would ex¬
pect them to be at different levels in the conglom¬
erate, helter skelter. Such is not the case; they
occupy a general level and are not covered by the
boulder conglomerate. We believe that these bio¬
herms occupied an extension of the Southern Shelf
Area in Skinner Ranch time and that conditions
were like those postulated for the Sullivan Peak
Member in the Glass Mountains, i.e., shallow
water, near shore, with strongly agitated water.
The Skinner Ranch Formation east of Leonard
Mountain is replete with small Scacchinella bio¬
herms surrounded by bioclastic aprons, clearly a
shallow-water environment.
On the east side of the Hess Ranch and on the
north slope of the Hess Ranch Horst, the coarse
calcarenites and calcirudites of the Skinner Ranch
DUMBER 14
99
interfinger with the fine lime sands of the Hess
Formation. The latter often abounds in lenses with
fusulinids, the most abundant fossils. Occasional
large fossils such as coral colonies, Omphalotro-
chus, and ammonites occur. Generally, however,
the rocks are fine calcarenite, pellet limestone, and
oolite. In places fusulinids are encased in lami¬
nated lime (algae). The ensemble suggests depo¬
sition in a quiet bay behind the great limesand
bank or bar of the undivided Skinner Ranch For¬
mation. This great limesand bank, 400 feet thick,
formed a barrier between the western coarse elas¬
tics and the finer limesands of the Hess Formation.
The Taylor Ranch Member of the Hess Forma¬
tion consists of a limestone conglomerate, followed
by cobbly fossiliferous limestone that is capped by
thick-bedded cherty limestone. Occasional bio-
herms have a high percentage of the sponges He-
liospongia and Girtyocoelia (USNM 702d; Plate
19; figure 2). Large productids (Peniculauris) are
abundant as well as large snails (Omphalotro-
chus). Some crinoidal debris and numerous small
brachiopods also are present. The member extends
for a few miles near the top of the scarp, as far as
the Conoly Brooks Ranch. The presence of the
bioherm, the great abundance of rolled shells, and
crinoid debris suggest a shallow-water accumula¬
tion. The Taylor Ranch essentially is a tongue of
the Sullivan Peak Member extending beyond the
main barrier of limesand.
Sediments of the Leonard Series.— The sedi¬
mentation in the Leonardian is different from that
of the Skinner Ranch Formation. The Cathedral
Mountain Formation is a great mass of shaly-silty
rocks with interbedded limestone and occasional
conglomerate. The mass thins eastward and inter¬
fingers with a thinned, predominately limestone
sequence. The Cathedral Mountain is capped by
the lithically complex Road Canyon Formation.
Cathedral Mountain: In the western part of
the Glass Mountains the Cathedral Mountain For¬
mation is divisible into two parts representing dif¬
ferent conditions of sedimentation. The lower
portion consists of a basal limestone member, the
Wedin Member, largely biohermal and zotikepial
(see below) in its makeup, overlapped by yellow¬
weathering silicious shale, spiculite, and radiola-
rite. This material suggests more basinal deposi¬
tion, as it has few macrofossils. These quieter
water conditions are interrupted by deposition of
clastic, conglomeratic limestone beds, the Third
and Fourth Limestones of the Leonard of P. B.
King, containing many ammonites (Perrinites) and
many fragmentary and rolled fossils. These were
deposited under shoal water conditions, and an
occasional bioherm in them helps to bear this out.
These conglomeratic limestones were followed by
deposition of bluish shale and sandstone. The for¬
mer contains large Peniculauris and large Perri¬
nites in abundance. The sandstones extend from
a point near Sullivan Peak westward to the foot¬
hills of the Del Norte Mountains, near the site of
the Old Payne Ranch. Late in Cathedral Moun¬
tain time, local uplift shed conglomerates in the
Del Norte Mountains (hill 4816), which suggest a
shore zone with moderately coarse gravels that are
composed of well-rounded pebbles, abundant trans¬
ported ammonites, fragmentary brachiopods, and
numerous plant stem fragments, producing the
same type of environment as that in the Lenox
Hills Formation.
These sands and conglomerates are the end of
extensive conglomerate deposition in the Glass
Mountains. The Road Canyon Formation has few
conglomerates, and these generally are associated
with bioherms. The overlying Word Formation, in
our experience, has little or no conglomerate. Thus,
in late Cathedral Mountain time the Marathon
Folded Belt and other sediment sources were low-
lying and furnished only fine grained material.
Cathedral Mountain in the Split Tank Area:
One-half mile east of Split Tank the Cathedral
Mountain Formation is only 300 feet thick, its base
is a conglomerate of small quartz pebbles, and its
lowest beds are of Hess-type lithology, with scat¬
tered bioherms. The lower third at Split Tank
contains numerous bioherms surrounded by bio-
clastic debris. Bain (1967:233), as a result of his
study of this area, maintains: “Water was probably
no deeper than 55 to 60 feet over reef crests (the
reefs ‘rose fifteen feet above the sea floor’). Sa¬
linity was normal and turbulence moderate.”
The higher Cathedral Mountain Formation in
this area consists of thin limestone beds in irregu¬
larly bedded, limy, yellowish shale abounding in
Peniculauris. The occurrence is reminiscent of the
Taylor Ranch Member.
100
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Road Canyon: This formation presents consid¬
erable lateral variation in sediment type. From
the site of the Old Word Ranch to Sullivan Peak,
the lowest beds of the Road Canyon are composed
of biohermal masses (Plate 17: figure 2) that have
well-defined outlines, rounded tops, and a thickness
of 20 feet in places. The bioherms chiefly are bryo-
zoan-sponge assemblages, but with a great variety
of brachiopods occupying niches in tangled masses.
This is a shallow-water environment favorable to
bioherm development. A depression of the shelf
submerged these bioherms and brought a cover
of black limy mud (Plate 13: figure 3) over them
between Appel Ranch and Sullivan Peak, except
for the hills just north of Leonard Mountain. The
black muds are not true basinal deposits because
they contain numerous fossils and are lacking in
Leiorhynchoidea and ammonites, which are com¬
mon basinal fossils (as in Bone Spring Formation
and South Wells Member of the Cherry Canyon
Formation).
In the hills north of Leonard Mountain, the
Road Canyon Formation above the basal bioherms
consists largely of bioclastic limestone with very lit¬
tle shale or black limestone. In the bioclastic beds,
scattered bioherms of Coscinophora are present
(Plate 17: figures 3, 4). Some of the bioclastic beds
have high percentages of fossils. In the western
area of Road Canyon, fusulinids may be present in
such abundance as to constitute a sand or fine
gravel. This area suggests a shoal on the shelf
where agitated waters winnowed out fine debris to
leave fossils of all sorts as a sand or gravel (USNM
732j). Some of the fossils probably were washed
into the shoal from black mud areas to the east
and west, because many of the species are those
common in the black muds.
West of Leonard Mountain on the spur south
of Sullivan Peak, the Road Canyon Formation is
exceptionally thick and is composed largely of dark
to black limestone that, at several levels, is replete
with fossils. The dark limestones fill cavities be¬
tween the bioherms at the base (Plate 17: figure 2).
At the top of the Road Canyon at this place, beds
of fusulinids form a limesand. Similar beds can
be seen in the Del Norte Mountains.
Beds of the Road Canyon Formation in the Del
Norte Mountains are thinned greatly, compared
to the section at Sullivan Peak, and they fray out
into the yellow shale. The sediments are mainly
bioclastic limestone abounding in fusulinids. The
bioclastic beds are separated by thin layers of yel¬
lowish shale like that of the Cathedral Mountain
Formation. Occasional bioherms occur in the area.
USNM 700v and 732j represent the topmost bed
of the Road Canyon. The bed is a foot or two
thick and is composed largely of fusulinids, but it
contains a variety of fossils, mostly brachiopods,
showing evidence of transport. Chief among the
fossils is Collumatus fixatus Cooper and Grant, a
richthofeniid that lived tightly fixed to the sub¬
strate. All but two of the specimens of this genus
obtained by us have been broken free of their
moorings. Few of them retain the coscinidium or
the brachial valve. Freeing such a tightly cemented
form indicates an environment of turbulent water
that removed the fine debris and left only the
heavier fossils.
just beneath this terminal layer, there is a bed
of fine-grained calcareous shale abounding in am¬
monites. This is an excellent stratigraphic marker
in the Del Norte Mountains. Ammonites are so
abundant as to suggest that they are a concentration
of dead shells in a local, quiet shoal area.
Sediments of the Guadalupe Series.— Sedimen¬
tation in the Guadalupian of the Glass Mountains
is much less complicated than that of the preceding
stages. In the Word Formation, that part of the
Guadalupian that concerns us, there is a thick
mass of sandstone and yellowish sandy shale in the
western part of the Glass Mountains and the Del
Norte Mountains. These contain tongues of lime¬
stone protruding into the mass from an eastern
limestone unit. The limestone tongues, or mem¬
bers, are in ascending order: China Tank, Willis
Ranch, and Appel Ranch Members. Small but
important lenses appear between the last two mem¬
bers. The Willis Ranch Member is the most ex¬
tensively developed unit and extends from the Old
Word Ranch site to the west side of Gilliland
Canyon. West of Gilliland Canyon its level is
represented by lenses. The Appel Ranch Member
extends west to the Old Willis Ranch site, but the
China Tank Member ends against the Hess Ranch
Horst.
Each of these members is composed of calcare-
nite, containing sugary quartz sand and abundant
fossils. These occur concentrated in layers in which
incredible numbers of specimens are packed into
a small space. The fossils are not graded in size,
NUMBER 14
101
and many show evidence of transportation. TJtie
smaller, tightly articulated rhynchonellids and tere-
bratulids usually retain both valves together, but
the productids and other less strongly articulated
forms occur as separated valves. Some genera are
represented by several species in a single bed. The
epifauna usually is well preserved, and some may
have been living when buried. In a few places am¬
monites are common, although the Word sediments
are devoid of conglomerates. The one band of con¬
glomerate attributed to the Word on the flank of
the Del Norte Mountains proved to contain abun¬
dant Perrinites and other fossils of the upper
Cathedral Mountain Formation. Fusulinids of
large size are common and frequently are current
oriented. The Willis Ranch Member may be dis¬
tinguished from the others by the large amount of
sand contained in it. In Gilliland Canyon (Plate
14: figure 3), stringers and layers of quartz sand
are common. This is near the place where the
member loses its continuity. At USNM 706e, 4.1
miles northeast of the Hess Ranch, the limestone
also is very sandy. A block weighing 186 pounds
yielded 5 pounds of sugary sand. In places fusuli¬
nids are abundant enough to constitute a sand.
This is especially true at the level of the Willis
Ranch Member at USNM 732s, at the base of the
Del Norte Mountains.
The depth of water and other conditions of these
members are thought to be the same. After Road
Canyon time, water over the shelf deepened and
sandy limestone formed on a bottom abounding in
shelled animals. Either the water depth was too
great or the area was too far off shore to permit
biohermal development. Agitation of the water by
storms or currents was sufficient to pile the shells,
living and dead, into heaps and lenses. Although
reef types such as Collemataria and Cyclacantharia
are present, these never formed bioherms but ex¬
isted in small clusters easily knocked down, broken
up, and transported by storm waves and currents.
Briefly, the story of conditions in the Glass
Mountains may be depicted as follows: A narrow
shelf existed along the margin of the Marathon
folded belt, which produced in Wolfcamp through
Leonard times an epineritic environment (Krum-
bein, et al., 1949:1869-1872). Bioherms and zotike-
pia of colonial forms developed in clear, sunlit
water at a modest depth from tide zone to about
120 feet. Oscillations of water level, which altered
the environment to infraneritic, 120—600 feet, re¬
sulted in burial of the bioherms in limy muds or
shale (Wolfcampian and Leonardian) and black
muds (Road Canyon). After deposition of the Road
Canyon, conditions changed: no conglomerates
formed and bioherms could not develop, although
the bottom had a prolific fauna, often heaped into
piles or rows by waves and currents.
Epifauna
Epifauna, as used here and by others, refers to
the creatures that attach themselves to brachiopods
and other shells. The Strophomenida of the
Glass Mountains Permian are among the most nu¬
merous animals to attach themselves to the exo¬
skeletons of living or dead contemporaries. The
young of the Orthotetacea and Derbyiacea com¬
monly attached themselves until they were big
enough to break away, then lived loose on the sea
bottom. The strophalosiids, by cementing the beak
and strengthening their hold with struts in the
form of spines, may occupy a host for a short time
or throughout life. The Productacea may or may
not cement the beak, but they commonly attached
to crinoid stems or other cylindrical object by
means of a spiny ring (Muir-Wood and Cooper,
1960; Grant, 1963, 1968). The oldhaminids also
cemented to a host, dead or alive, and may have
engulfed the host completely. The richthofeniids
attached to any hard object and then, in reproduc¬
ing, often showered themselves with their own lar¬
vae to the extent that the older and larger shells
soon were engulfed.
The small aulostegacean Cooperina and the
strophalosiaceans Heteralosia and Ctenalosia were
attached throughout their lives. Some of these oc¬
cupied living shells, but a favored location for
Cooperina was inside the dead valves of Cyclacan¬
tharia and Echinosteges (Plates 210 and 212). Such
locations assured quiet water and seclusion from
larger enemies. Xenosteges, in the Cathedral Moun¬
tain Formation, also used the interior of the pedi¬
cle valve of Hercosia as a favorite dwelling spot.
Small specimens of Chonosteges also occupied this
niche, but often it did not have room to come to
full adulthood.
The shape of the host shell often determined the
ultimate form of the squatter. The pedicle valve of
the lyttoniid Collemataria usually has a posteriorly
102
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
directed callus or attachment, the “flap” of Wil¬
liams (1965). But if the spat settled on the con¬
cave outer surface of a productid brachial valve,
the flap would have been forced to grow anteriorly
rather than posteriorly, with the result that the
adult Collemataria would have the irregular coni¬
cal form of Eolyttonia. Similar growth aberrations
occur in Hercosestria. When the spat settles on a
flat or concave shell without being confined, the
individual will have a broadly conical form with
a large apical angle.
Although brachiopods constitute a large amount
of the epifauna that attached to brachiopod shells
—and by weight or rapid growth may be lethal to
a live host—other animals found the abundant
brachiopod shells of the Permian to be convenient
habitations. Foraminifera forming long slender
tubes occur frequently, especially on Composita
shells. Sponges are common epifauna, especially in
their early stages. Living and dead shells of Cos-
cinophora, in the Road Canyon Formation, and
of Collemataria, in the lower Cathedral Mountain
Formation, contain the small ball-like beginnings
of Girtyocoelia and small colonies of Fissispongia.
The spiral tubes of the worm Spirorbis occur
through the sequence, but they are not common.
Cup corals are common epifauna, especially in the
Coscinophora bioherms, such as that in the Skinner
Ranch Formation at USNM 733j and in the Road
Canyon Formation at USNM 709c and 710u. Cup
corals attached to B'ryorhynchus (Plate 547: figures
38—40) occur frequently in the Bell Canyon For¬
mation (Rader Member) at USNM 725f. The
corals generally attached to the commissural edge
of either valve on the side or front, suggesting that
the brachiopod had an oblique living position. In
one instance, the coral is more than twice the size
of the brachiopod and engulfs part of the commis¬
sure, permanently sealing it.
A variety of bryozoans attach to brachiopod
shells. These may be funnel-shaped fenestellids,
branching forms, or more massive types. In a num¬
ber of examples the bryozoans have grown over
the margin in such a way as to seal it. These may
have been dead shells to begin with, but it is also
possible that the weight of the bryozoan colony
may have suffocated the brachiopod or that an al¬
ready attached bryozoan just continued to grow
after the death of the brachiopod. In the Road
Canyon Formation (USNM 702c) plates of a bar¬
nacle like Turrilepas are fairly common; this ani¬
mal probably used some of the Brachiopoda as
host.
Accidents of Settling of Larvae
Although it has been demonstrated that the lar¬
vae of some marine animals have the ability to
select a settling spot favorable to them, evidence
from the Glass Mountains suggests that some of
the spots selected may have been lethal. The fa¬
vored habitat of the brachiopod is in still water,
in grottoes, or in niches that afford protection as
well as quiet. In two examples cited below, the
quest for a favorable spot led the brachiopod to
its doom. Specimen 150820 (USNM) is a large lyt-
toniid, Collemataria, with the richthofeniid Cycla-
cantharia attached to its ventral surface. The
Cyclacantharia is anchored by abundant rhizoid
spines that make a veritable thicket around the
cup. Nestled at the base of the cup and completely
surrounded by spines on three sides, there is a
small specimen of Meekella skenoides attached by
its ventral surface (Plate 116: figure 8). The speci¬
men grew large enough to butt against one of the
lower spines. This and the proximity of the an¬
terior margin of the dorsal valve to the base of
the richthofeniid make it impossible for the bra¬
chial valve of the Meekella to have opened. Starva¬
tion or suffocation must have been the result.
The other specimen concerns a trapped Com¬
posita. A larva of Composita went through the
mesh of the coscinidium of Hercosestria and at¬
tached to the brachial valve. Living was probably
high for awhile, because the Composita had the
advantage of the feeding streams of Hercosestria
and must have grown fairly rapidly. But, alas, it
became too big for its confined quarters and must
have prevented both brachiopods from feeding nor¬
mally. The death of the host as well as that of the
intruder resulted. It is doubtful that the Composita
could have attached itself or lived in the situation
where it was found if Hercosestria had the valve¬
flapping feeding habits postulated by Rudwick
(1961) (see Plate 292: figures 1, 2; see also Plate
229: figure 34 for a trapped Derbyia).
Color
Color markings are regarded by Richter (1919)
as evidence of shallow water. Several remarkable
NUMBER 14
103
specimens preserving their color patterns were
taken from the Cathedral Mountain, Road Can¬
yon, and Word formations. Color bands frequently
have been seen on Dielasma or Beecheria in the
Mississippian, but color-banded specimens have
not been described from the Pennsylvanian. At
USNM 702c and 707e in the Road Canyon Forma¬
tion and at USNM 706e in the Word Formation,
numerous specimens of Dielasma were found with
outwardly curved radial bands of color. These
originate near the beak and curve laterally to the
margins. The bands are now dark brown, but
probably they were red or crimson. The color pat¬
tern is reminiscent of that of modern Laqueus ru-
bellus (Sowerby), which has curving red bands
(see Plates 749, 750, 753).
In addition to the specimens of Dielasma, a
brachial valve of Composita imbricata from USNM
721u in the Cathedral Mountain Formation has
straight dark radii that extend from the beak to
the anterior margin. They are very narrow at the
beak, but they widen to the margin, where some
have a width of about 2 mm (Plate 658: figure 31).
Another genus not hitherto known to have color
bands is A eophricadothyris (USNM specimen
155121). These bands are like the preceding except
that they are confined to the anterior half. They
are direct, without any curvature (see Plate 636).
M alf ormations
Brachiopods are gregarious animals and fre¬
quently live clustered together. Some modern ge¬
nera, such as Laqueus and Liothyrella, may sug¬
gest bunches of grapes when different generations
festoon the adults of previous generations. Such
gregariousness causes extreme crowding, and the
crowding prevents many specimens from growing
normally. Specimens malformed by crowding are
common in our present seas. They were even more
abundant in the Permian, when large numbers of
the brachiopods cemented to the substrate or to
their parents. Malformations especially are com¬
mon in the bioherms formed by Hercosia, Her-
cosestria, and the clusters of Cyclacantharia. The
apical angles of specimens of the same species of
Hercosia often vary by as much as 70 degrees. Speci¬
mens that attempt to grow between robust adults
commonly are elongated greatly and may be as nar¬
row as a lead pencil.
Scacchinella, which is the foremost brachiopod
bioherm builder, forms dense clusters in which
many specimens are deformed. These commonly
are small and narrow, but they may be twisted
in any direction, and one cup (USNM specimen
15366Ig) is bent at an angle of 45 degrees. This
may have resulted from part of the biohermal mass
toppling over and the brachiopod being forced to
grow in another direction. Another specimen from
the same bioherm is twisted at a right angle. If
the lower part of the pedicle valve of this specimen
is held in a horizontal position, the upper half is
at right angles to the lower half. Many other speci¬
mens from this bioherm (USNM 720e) are also
distorted, but in less extreme ways (see Plate 278).
Impingement against an unyielding object, such
as a branch of a bryozoan or a stout productid
spine, can cause malformation. A specimen of
Edriosteges multispinosus Muri-Wood and Cooper
(USNM specimen 154183d) has a deep reentrant
in the anterior margin that divides the anterior
into two strong lobes. This may have resulted from
impinging against a branch of a bryozoan colony
(Plate 218: figures 12-20). The way such a defor¬
mation may be brought about is shown by a speci¬
men of Rhamnaria tenuispinosa, new species
(USNM specimen 154217c), which is attached to a
branching bryozoan in such a way that one branch
has become embedded in the shell, producing a
deep groove and anterior bilobation (Plate 261:
figures 36, 37).
Another source of such deformation is shown by
a specimen of Rhamnaria kingorum Muir-Wood
and Cooper, which found refuge on the concave
surface of the brachial valve of Echinauris lateralis
Muir-Wood and Cooper. The Rhamnaria spat has
grown against one of the strong brachial spines
that grow across the concave valve, presumably as
defense against settling of larvae. The anterior
margin of the Rhamnaria already has become an¬
teriorly bilobate (see Plate 264: figure 22).
Pathology
Occasional specimens indicate possible patho¬
logical conditions. A specimen of Yakovlevia
(USNM specimen 153979h; Plate 473: figure 17)
shows a malformation of the muscle scar on the
left (observer’s) side. Not only is the left side af¬
fected, but also the right side is abnormal. The
104
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
diductor scar on the right side occupies its normal
position, but also it extends over the median ridge
that normally is occupied by the adductor scars
and usually separates the adductors. The adductor
impressions lie in the left side of 'the median ridge,
and much of the left diductor scar is aborted and
misshapen. Similar deformities have been seen in
the Devonian in specimens of Stropheodonta
(USNM specimen 140852a), from the Romney
Formation of West Virginia, and of Cariniferella
tioga (Hall), from the Chemung Group of New
York (Kaiser, 1964). As with Yakovlevia, the ex¬
terior of the pathological specimens is without in¬
jury; the deformation is concerned entirely with
the interior.
Another pathological condition is illustrated by
the cardinal process of a large Tropidelasma cul-
mencitum Cooper and Grant, from the Neal Ranch
Formation at USNM 701h. The prong on the ob¬
server's right is aborted, and an excessive amount
of calcareous tissue, in the form of a shallow cup,
is laid around the anterior side of the prong. There
is no sign of breakage of the prong, and the stub
shows part of the characteristic slit that normally
bears the diductor muscles (Plate 52: figure 28).
Borings
Shells with borings of one kind or another are
fairly frequent in the Glass Mountains Permian.
The rarest type is the perfectly round hole attrib¬
uted to boring gastropods. A specimen of Toryne-
chus caelatus Cooper and Grant from USNM 702
(USNM specimen 152595a) has both valves bored.
The hole is slightly more than a millimeter in di¬
ameter and seems not to be bevelled. The boring
on each valve is near the middle and consequently
through the thinnest part of the shell.
Schlaudt and Young (1960) and Rodda and
Fisher (1962) described and illustrated burrows
from the Glass Mountains Permian that are at¬
tributed to acrothoracic barnacles. Schlaudt and
Young stated that, if the burrows penetrated the
shell, they were not produced by barnacles, but
these authors speculated that the thin protective
film of shell over the inside of the burrows was not
preserved during silicification or that it was lost
during the etching process. Numerous specimens
from the Glass Mountains show a thin protective
film, indicating that the brachiopod defended itself
against the borer. Some valves are riddled almost
completely by these borings, but the shells obvi¬
ously were dead. Completely riddled shells are
fairly common around bioherms such as that at
USNM 733j in the Sullivan Peak Member (Plate
56: figure 21; see also Tomlinson, 1969).
A specimen of Derbyia texta, new species
(USNM specimen 151176; Plate 87: figures 1, 2)
and one of Meekella skenoides Girty (USNM
specimen 153538) illustrate the reaction of the
brachiopod animal to the boring barnacles. The
larger borings in the Derbyia are about 0.75 mm
wide and about 2.0 mm long, elliptical in outline.
On the interior the brachiopod has formed a series
of moundlike blisters to protect itself from the
borers. None of the blisters is broken or open on
the inside. Several of the blisters inside the Mee¬
kella are open, but the openings are irregular, and
they suggest later breakage rather than openings
produced by the boring organism.
Another type of boring is less prevalent than the
preceding, and, in at least one instance, it pro¬
duced a response from the host. These borings are
minute, and they may be confused with the exo-
puncta of Rhipidomella, in the shells of which
they occur. The borings are most prevalent near
the margins of the valves, and they can be detected
by their nearly vertical penetration, unlike diat of
the exopuncta, which conform with the radial or¬
nament and which are strongly oblique and do not
affect the inner layer. The borings may penetrate
the inner layer and may even protrude into the
shell as points where the animal has laid shell
around them. Many of the borings are open on
the inside of the shell, but the thin protective cov¬
erings were probably not preserved (Plate 666;
figures 28, 29).
A boring suggestive of the preceding occurs in
Phrenophoria subcarinata Cooper and Grant
(USNM specimen 148385g; Plate 553: figures 35-
39). This is a minute opening on the margin that
leads into a slightly elevated blister and then a
needlelike tube about 0.75 mm in length. The tube
is not open at the end, but this may be due to
silicification of the fine point. This kind suggests
the endoparasitic phoronid described in Devonian
brachiopods by Biernat (1961).
A tubular boring quite unlike those described
above occurs in a specimen of Enteletes wordensis
R. E. King. The boring is in the ventral valve of
NUMBER 14
105
USNM specimen 153809r (Plate 686: figures 11-
13). The first hole appears on the right side of the
shell on the margin, not quite halfway to the an¬
terior. The hole on the exterior is 2.5 mm in di¬
ameter and produces a tube 7 mm long on the
inside. This is jaggedly broken, but, when pro¬
jected obliquely across the shell, it coincides per¬
fectly with another tube bored on the costa that
bounds the left side of the fold. The opening here
is 2 mm wide, but the tube is only 4 mm long into
the shell. This tube is open, but the edges are
rounded and smoothed, suggesting that healing
over the whole may have started. The borings are
perfectly smooth inside.
Faunas and Correlations
of Glass Mountains Formations
Faunal lists given in this section include some
nomina nuda. This unfortunate circumstance
comes about because of the economics of publish¬
ing such an extensive monograph. Originally it
was intended that the entire work would appear
at one time, but slender budgets for publication
require the appearance of the monograph in sev¬
eral parts at varying intervals. To delete the nom¬
ina nuda would destroy or make ineffective some
of our arguments on age, correlation, and faunal
relationships. The nomina nuda will be validated
in subsequent volumes.
Gaptank Faunas
Any discussion of the faunas of the Glass Moun¬
tains must begin with the Gaptank fauna from
which the Permian species were descended. Some
of the characteristic elements of the Permian fauna
appear first in the Gaptank (exclusive of the Ud-
denites- bearing Shale Member). Of these, Paren-
teletes and Diplanus were taken from the Gaptank
bed 10 of P. B. King, said to be Upper Canyon
— late Missourian, about 2 miles east of Gap
Tank. Neither of these brachiopods is abundant,
but the Parenteletes, usually crushed, is fairly com¬
mon. Cryptacanthia, more typically Pennsylvanian
but certainly the progenitor of Glossothyropsis, is
fairly common at this place (USNM 700a; USGS
6705, 7085, 7088; P. B. King, 1937:77). Another
common form in this bed is Teguliferina, which is
an abundant Wolfcampian fossil. Other precursors
of the Permian are huge Derbyia and Reticulatia.
The associates of these Permian heralds are chaFr
acteristic Pennsylvanian types.
In the western part of the Marathon Basin near
the Arnold Ranch, other Permian types have been
taken from a “block,” possibly a displaced piece,
but more probably a bioherm. This appears on
P. B. King’s map as “loc. b,” but in reality it is
locality C of his text (1938:81). The famous Proud-
denites ledge on the map, mistakenly labelled “loc.
C.,” is 0.5 mile south of the brachiopod bioherm
in question. The bioherm (USNM 700g) is about
1.25 miles due south of Arnold Ranch (Monument
Spring quadrangle; Plate 16: figure 1). It consists
of a large limestone block in Gaptank shale, com¬
posed of a mass of the coral Amplexicarinia de-
licata Ross and Ross and algae, with brachiopods
scattered throughout. These include Scacchinella,
Limbella, and a large Teguliferina, suggesting T.
boesei (R. E. King). The Scacchinella is the most
primitive species of that genus known, as it has no
vesicular shell tissue in the apex of the pedicle
valve. Its outer form is very similar to Derbyella
Grabau. The Limbella species is small, but other¬
wise it is characteristic of the genus. The Tegu¬
liferina attains as large a size as any seen in definite
Permian rocks.
The occurrence of these fossils is anomalous.
The limestone block in which they occur is the
only one of its kind in that part of the section. If
it is an exotic block, its advanced fauna makes it
difficult to postulate its place of origin or to ex¬
plain its present location. The composition of the
rock with its numerous corals and algae suggests
a bioherm, rather than an exotic piece.
The block is similar to the one that produced
the Prouddenites ammonite fauna, which lies 0.5
mile to the south and has been regarded as in
place. Further evidence as to the age of the block
containing Scacchinella is a single fusulinid speci¬
men, which has been pronounced Virgilian in age
by Garner Wilde (letter of 20 March 1962). P. B.
King suggested that the fauna identified by Girty
from the same locality as this block (locality b=C;
King, 1938:81) is similar to that of bed 10 of the
Gaptank type section. This bed at the east end of
the mountains produced Parenteletes, not present
south of the Arnold Ranch, but it is dated gener¬
ally on its fusulinids and molluscs as Missourian
106
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Figure 28.— Chart showing correlation of Permian formations in West Texas.
(Upper Canyon), a far older date than indicated
by the Virgilian fusulinid in the Gaptank block or
by its brachiopod fauna.
In the Pennsylvanian of north-central Texas, the
early Cisco (Graham Formation) contains Permian
elements such as Waagenoconcha and Martinia.
Some workers may object to the latter genus being
regarded as a Permian element, but, except for this
occurrence, it is not known from American Penn¬
sylvanian formations (although it is rather rare in
the American Mississippian). Consequently, its ap¬
pearance in the late Pennsylvanian heralds a Per¬
mian development. Poikilosakos from the Graham
of north-central Texas also is a prophetic element
foreshadowing the considerable development of
Pseudoleptodus in the Neal Ranch Formation and
younger parts of the Permian. Gypospirifer, new
genus, like Spirifer condor (d’Orbigny), of the
Copacabana Formation in the Permian of Bolivia,
occurs in the Cisco (Wayland Shale, USNM 728x).
A significant Permian element said to appear in
the Gaptank Formation is Spyridiophora , reported
as coming from bed 3 of the Gaptank (R. E. King,
1931:71), about 1 mile south of Gap Tank. The
specimen was identified as Prodiictus gratiosus oc-
cidentalis Schellwien by R. E. King and reported
as occurring in a part of the section with Mesolo-
bus of Missourian age. Inasmuch as Spyridiophora
is not yet known anywhere else from the higher
Pennsylvanian, it was suspected that the specimen
NUMBER 14
107
might not have been taken at the place from which
it was reported. The matrix of the specimen was
searched for fusulinids, and those found were sub¬
mitted to Mr. Garner Wilde, who reported them
to be Wolfcampian species. This clearly indicates
that the specimen is not from the Pennsylvanian
and that Spyridiophora has its roots in the Per¬
mian.
Fifty-six genera pass from the Gaptank Forma¬
tion into the overlying Permian. Some of these
have not yet been found in the Uddenites-bearing
Shale Member, but they do appear higher. In the
list below, starred genera ( # ) are those passing from
the Pennsylvanian to become the hard core of the
Permian (Wolfcampian) fauna; genera marked
with a degree sign (°) do not survive beyond the
end of the Wolfcampian as defined herein; un¬
marked genera extend into, or terminate by, the
end of the Leonardian. Meekella, for example, gen¬
erally is not common in the Pennsylvanian, but
it becomes one of the most frequent Permian
forms in many environments. These Pennsylvanian
elements of the Permian are: Antiquatonia 0 , Bee-
cheria 0 , Calliproton.ia 0 , Cancrinella*, Chonetinel¬
la, Cleiothyridina*, Composita*, Cooperina*,
Crurithyris*, Cryptacanthia 0 , Derbyia*, Derby-
oides°, Dielasma*, Diplanus, Echinaria 0 , Echinau-
ris*, Enteletes*, Eridmatus 0 , Fimbrin.ia u , Gonia-
rina, Heteralosia*, Hustedia*, Hystriculina 0 ,
Isogramma, Juresania°, Kozlowskia u , Kutorginella,
Limbella 0 , Linoproductus*, Lissochonetes 0 , Mar-
tinia *, Neochonetes 0 , Phricodothyris* [Con.drathy-
risf], Neospirifer*, Nudauris 0 , Orthotichia 0 , Paren-
teletes u , Petrocrania*, Poikilosakos 0 , Pontisia*,
Psilocamara 0 , Quadrochon.etes 0 , Reticulariina*,
Reticulatia u , Rhipidomella, Rhynchopora*, Roe-
merella, Scacchinella*, Schuchertella 0 , Gypospiri-
fer^, Stenoscisma*, Streptorhynchus [correct genus
uncertain], Sulcataria 0 , Teguliferina*, Waageno-
concha*, and Wellerella.
Wolfcamp Faunas
Uddenites- bearing Shale Member.— The brachi-
opod fauna of the Uddenites- bearing Shale Mem¬
ber was listed by R. E. King (1931:147—150), who
recognized the truly Permian elements in it as well
as those with a Pennsylvanian aspect. Our collec¬
tions from this zone unfortunately are not exten¬
sive, but we are able to offer some revision of this
fauna and to emphasize its Permian flavor. Little
attention has been paid to the typically Permian
kinds of brachiopods (and some other phyla) in
the Uddenites- bearing Shale Member in spite of
the fact that R. E. King made an excellent discus¬
sion of them and that P. B. King later (1937:78)
repeated his brother’s analysis.
Innovations in the Uddenites- bearing Shale
Member fauna are few. Orthotetella appears for
the first time, as does Tropidelasma. Martinia is
reported by R. E. King, but we did not find it.
Although Kochiproductus is reported in the Penn¬
sylvanian of Peru (as Buxtonia) by Chronic (1953:
83, 84), it appears so far as known, for the first
time, in the Glass Mountains in the Uddenites-
bearing Shale Member. King lists 36 species, and
we record 45 species, from the Uddenites- bearing
Shale Member. Combining the two lists, there are
54 species in all, many of which are strictly Per¬
mian types. For some of the forms assigned by R.
E. King to Pennsylvanian species, we have found it
necessary to erect new names. The brachiopod
fauna is distinctive, and we think its Permian af¬
finities are sufficiently striking to use it as the base
of the Wolfcampian in the Glass Mountains as did
R. E. King (1931).
The 54 species in the combined list are distrib¬
uted among 41 genera, of which 16 are definite
Permian types, that is, they have their acme in the
Permian: Parenteletes, Cenorhynchia, Diplanus,
Tropidelasma, Orthotetella, Teguliferina, Pontisia,
Scacchinella, Echinauris, Limbella, Kochiproduc¬
tus, Kutorginella, Waagenoconcha, Gypospirifer,
Martina, and huge forms of Meekella. In addition
to these, three others may be considered as Permian
forms: Fimbrinia, Nudauris (Productus semistriatus
King, not Meek, whose type-species is a Pennsyl¬
vanian form), and Chonetinella. These last three
and Kutorginella occur in the late Pennsylvanian.
The first is rare in either period, the second is rare
in the Pennsylvanian so far as known, the third
becomes most abundant in the Early Permian, while
the last is commonest in the Leonardian.
According to R. E. King, 31 of his 36 listed spe¬
cies pass into the overlying Neal Ranch Formation.
Of the 33 listed by us, 14 also are identified in the
Neal Ranch Formation: Chonetinella biplicata (R.
E. King), C. spinolirata (R. E. King), Diplanus
redactus, new species, Hystriculina ventroplana,
new species, Echinauris subquadrata, new species,
108
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Kutorginella uddeni, new species, Limbella wolf-
campensis (R. E. King), Gypospirifer anancites,
new species, Meekella texaria R. E. King, Pontisia
kingi?, new species, Rhipidomella miscella, new
species, Rhynchopora molina, new species, Tegn-
liferina boesei (R. E. King), and Waagenoconcha
prophetica, new species. There is no faunal break
of any consequence. Innovations and expansions of
stocks passing from the Uddenites- bearing Shale
Member occur in the overlying Neal Ranch Forma¬
tion.
Age: We take the presence in this shale mem¬
ber of Parenteletes, Limbella, Scacchinella, Waage¬
noconcha, Kochiproductus, and Gypospirifer as
indicating a Permian age for these beds. The first
three occur in the Trogkofel Limestone of the Car-
nic Alps; the last three occur in the Permian
(Copacabana Formation) of Peru; outside the
United States, Scacchinella is known only from
lower Permian rocks. This is also true of Paren¬
teletes, which occurs in Permian formations in
Sicily, Japan, and China. An aulostegid strongly
suggestive of Limbella occurs in the Trogkofel
Limestone of the Carnic Alps ( Productus cancrini-
formis of Schellwien, not Tschernyschew). Waage¬
noconcha is regarded widely as a Permian indicator
in the United States (Knight, 1940:1129). Along
with these brachiopods, two specimens of Ompha-
lotrochus, also regarded as an important Permian
guide, were taken from the Uddenites- bearing
Shale Member (Yochelson, 1954).
Correlation: The correlation of this shale mem¬
ber has been confused for years because proponents
using data from different phyla are in disagree¬
ment. The ammonites, fusulinids, and brachiopods
indicate different ages to their practitioners, al¬
though the differences gradually are coming to be
semantic rather than substantive. The ammonites
at first were regarded as Permian by Bose (1917)
and Smith (1929) but were transferred to Late
Pennsylvanian by Plummer and Scott (1937:388)
because of identity with species in the Cisco Group
of north-central Texas. The fusulinids generally
have been taken to indicate a late Pennsylvanian
age, but Bostwick (1962), claiming to have discov¬
ered Schwagerina in the Uddenites- bearing Shale
Member, advocates a Permian age for it.
Presence of Omphalotrochus in the member sug¬
gests a Permian age as argued by Knight (1940)
and Yochelson (1954).
On the basis of brachiopods, R. E. King (1931:6)
correlated the Uddenites-bea.ring Shale Member
with parts of the Permian, citing the faunal simi¬
larity to the Copacabana beds of Bolivia and the
Trogkofelschichten of Yugoslavia. Our findings in¬
dicate a closer similarity to the Permian of Bolivia
than to that of Yugoslavia, which in our opinion
correlates with Neal Ranch and Lenox Hills For¬
mations rather than with the Copacabana.
Despite the absence of Scacchinella and other
reefal types from the Copacabana of Bolivia, the
correlation of the fauna of this formation with
that of the Uddenites- bearing Shale Member is
tenable. Actually, few typically Permian genera of
brachiopods occur in the Copacabana fauna: Pro¬
ductus boliviensis, Kozlowskia capaci (d’Orbigny),
Kochiproductus peruvianus (d’Orbigny), Waage¬
noconcha humboldti (d’Orbigny), and Gypospiri¬
fer condor (d’Orbigny). Forms similar to these oc¬
cur in the Uddenites- bearing Shale Member. In
addition, the following unusual Copacabana types
also are found in the Uddeni tes-bearing Shale
Member: Hystriculina, Reticulatia, Cancrinella,
Fimbrinia, Echinauris boulei- type, Orthotichia,
and Rhynchopora. Some of these also occur in the
Cisco Group of the Upper Pennsylvanian. Some of
the species of these genera are very similar in the
two levels under consideration. The majority of
common genera usually found in the upper Paleo¬
zoic are also specifically close in the formations
being considered.
Neal Ranch Formation.— This formation brings
more Permian elements into Texas to mingle with
those inherited from the Uddenites- bearing: Shale
Member and with these persistent, transient forms
extending from the Pennsylvanian. First appear¬
ances are: Altiplecus, Atelestegastus, Camarelasma,
Hemileurus, Hypopsia, Lepidocrania, Nothopin-
dax, Acosarina, Pseudoleptodus, Eolyttonia, Ctena-
losia, Geyerella, Striatifera, Spyridiophora, and
Spuriosa. The following genera, all of them rare,
are confined to the Neal Ranch Formation accord¬
ing to our present knowledge: Atelestegastus, Ca¬
marelasma, Hemileurus, Hypopsia, and Nothopin-
dax, The genus Spuriosa also occurs in the Hueco
Canyon Formation. Its Neal Ranch occurrence
probably is earlier. A few genera coming in from
the underlying Uddenites- bearing Shale Member
or the Pennsylvanian have their last appearance in
the Neal Ranch Formation: Beecheria, Eridmatus,
NUMBER 14
109
Juresania, Lissochonetes, Psilocamara, and Neo-
chon.etes. The remainder of the fauna is composed
of a variety of orthotetids, derbyids, productids,
lyttoniids, spiriferids, and athyridids. The ortho¬
tetids and derbyids are exceptionally well devel¬
oped in the Neal Ranch. Some bioherms or small
patch reefs almost completely comprise one or more
of their genera. The bioherm at USNM 701h con¬
tained great quantities of Geyerella, while those at
USNM 701d were replete with Derbyia of several
species. Great abundance of Meekella characterizes
USNM 701g. Of the productids, special mention
should be made of the abundance of Striatifera at
USNM 721 g, where specimens are scattered among
bryozoan colonies that form a zotikepium.
Of particular interest and importance in the
Neal Ranch Formation is the budding of the Old-
haminidina, which flower later in the Leonardian.
Pseudoleptodus appears in fair abundance at
USNM 72lg and 727e, where it occurs attached to
bryozoans and Striatifera. Eolyttonia usually is rare,
but some local patches rich in this genus were dis¬
covered. The earliest oldhaminid patch occurs at
USNM 722x either on, or in, the flank of King’s
bed 2 or Gray Limestone. Here, the specimens
often are engulfed by concentrically banded lime¬
stone of probable algal origin. The large bioherm
at USNM 701c has Eolyttonia of exceptionally
large size.
Age: In correlating the Neal Ranch Formation
is is necessary first to establish the age of the Gray
Limestone Member, which P. B. King placed in
the Wolfcamp Formation but which Ross (1963a: 13,
45) returned to the Gaptank. The Uddenites-
bearing Shale Member immediately underlies the
Gray Limestone Member, which forms a conspicuous
lenticular mass in the center of the Wolf Camp
Hills. Although this member traditionally was a
part of the Wolfcamp Formation, Ross placed it at
the top of the Gaptank Formation on the basis of
certain fusulinids. We are unable to agree with
this assignment because the brachiopods and am¬
monites we have collected from bed 2 indicate a
Permian age. The collection from USNM 701,
from the upper 15 feet of the member as exposed
in Geologists Canyon opposite the first arroyo from
the north in about the center of the hills, includes
many Permian genera, such as: Diplanus, Geyerella,
Hypopsia, Orthotetella, Eolyttonia, Cooperina,
Limbella, Spyridiophora, Waagenoconcha, Paren-
teletes, Altiplecns, and Camarelasma. In addition,
species of Enteletes, Derbyia, Meekella, Cancrinella,
Neochonetes, Crurithyris, Orthotichia, and Tropi-
delasma occur in the Gray Limestone and also ex¬
tend into the overlying beds of the Neal Ranch
Formation.
The brachiopods cited clearly indicate a Permian
age, and the ammonites tell the same story. From
the uppermost part of the member (USNM 701),
Artinsliia artiensis Griinewaldt was taken along
with species of Eoasianites, Neopronorites, and
Marathonites.
The fusulinid evidence for the age of this mem¬
ber is equivocal. P. B. King (1942:647) states, in
referring to the Uddenites- bearing Shale Member,
that the “overlying gray limestone bed at the base
of the Wolfcamp formation (beds 2 and 3) contains
a few specimens of Schwagerina.” In footnote 182
on the page following the above reference, King
states: “The occurrence of Schwagerina in the gray
limestone has not been mentioned in any publica¬
tion, and was reported to the writer by J. W. Skin¬
ner, September, 1938.” The evidence of the
brachiopods and ammonoids indicates a Permian
age for this member. This evidence of the fusu¬
linids needs further testing.
Most of the brachiopods from the Neal Ranch
Formation come from the middle part, i.e., beds
12-14 of P. B. King (= beds 9-12 of Cooper).
Most of the fossils from these beds are from bio¬
herms and thus are restricted in distribution. Ex¬
cept for the lower part of the Cibolo Formation in
the Chinati Mountains, we know of no Wolf-
campian like the Neal Ranch. Some Neal Ranch
elements such as Orthotetella, Acosarina, and Eolyt¬
tonia occur in the lower Bone Spring Formation,
but they are regarded, on the basis of their associ¬
ates, to be younger than the Neal Ranch.
The most significant genera of the Neal Ranch
Formation for use in correlation are: Acritosia,
Derbyoides, Diplanus, Eolyttonia, Geyerella, Lim¬
bella, Nudauris, Orthotichia, Parenteletes, Reticu-
latia, Spyridiophora, and Teguliferina. It will be
noted that some of this list (numbers 3, 6, 8—11)
already have been cited as leading members of the
fauna of the Uddenites- bearing Shale Member.
Most genera of the above list occur in the bioherms.
Orthotichia, Nudauris, and Reticulatia also occur
in the shales; the last genus mentioned seldom is
seen in bioherms. Derbyoides and Reticulatia are
110
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
more common in the midwest in the more shaly
facies of the Early Permian.
Correlation: In the Permian correlation chart
of the National Research Council (Dunbar, et al.,
1960), the Neal Ranch Formation is correlated
either by position, ammonites, or fusulinids, with
formations elsewhere in the United States. The
Neal Ranch brachiopods predominantly consist of
forms confined to bioherms and a few others that
occur in shale. No bioherms comparable to those
of the Neal Ranch are known in Wolfcampian
sediments in the Midcontinent or elsewhere. Con¬
sequently, correlation must be based on those forms
of a facies comparable to that containing the genera
that occur in the shales or nonbiohermal limestone.
Another difficulty in correlation between the
Glass Mountains and other areas is the fact that
the brachiopods of the Pennsylvanian and Permian
are known so poorly. No recent monographic work
has been done on the brachiopods of the Pennsyl¬
vanian and Permian of Oklahoma, Kansas, and
Texas. The faunas of the Council Grove and Chase
Groups scarcely are known and the same is true
of those of the Pueblo, Moran, Putnam, and Ad¬
miral Formations of north-central Texas. A few
species from the Permian of Nebraska are described
by Dunbar and Condra (1932), but nothing com¬
prehensive yet has been prepared.
The few species listed here as common to the
Midcontinent region and the Glass Mountains do
not help with definitive correlation. Although
species of Hystriculina, Echinaria, Antiquatonia,
Kozlowskia, Kutorginella, Neochonetes, Reticulatia,
Neospirifer, and Juresania occur in the shales of the
Neal Ranch Formation, all but two of the species
are different from those of the Admire and Council
Grove Groups in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska,
or from those of the Permian formations of north-
central Texas. The brachiopods of the latter are
more like those of the Midwest than they are like
Neal Ranch brachiopods. On the basis of their
fusulinids and ammonites, these Midcontinent for¬
mations are placed here in the Wolfcampian, but
they are not correlated except in a general way.
Lenox Hills Formation.— This formation has
not yet yielded a good supply of brachiopods or
other fossils. Most of the formation is composed
of conglomerate in the western part of the moun¬
tains and of dolomites, red shales, and conglomerate
in the eastern part. In the Lenox Hills and Dugout
Mountain a conspicuous shale occurs high in the
Lenox Hills Formation, but intensive search has
yielded only a few ammonites, gastropods, brachio¬
pods, and some fusulinids.
A problem exists as to whether or not the beds
identified as Neal Ranch by Ross (1963a:24, pi. 1),
which are rich in bioherms just east of hill 5300,
are in reality a part of the Lenox Hills Formation
(our USNM 715b). As noted above, the conglomer¬
ate of the Lenox Hills interfingers with these
supposed Neal Ranch limestones. The brachiopod
fauna in them is that of the Neal Ranch Forma¬
tion (beds 12-14 of P. B. King = beds 9-12 of
Cooper), but we believe that the field relations
prove these limestones to be part of the Lenox Hills
Formation. The Lenox Hills Formation in Leon¬
ard Mountain and some beds of the Hess Ranch
Horst yielded a few specimens. Thin shales at the top
of the Lenox Hills Formation just east of the Hess
Ranch Horst (R. E. King 196 = USNM 716r) yielded
species not seen elsewhere. We did not find any
silicified limestone in the Lenox Hills Formation.
The only innovation in the Lenox Hills Forma¬
tion is the genus Dasysaria. In the Glass Mountains
this genus is confined to that formation. It is very
rare in the Glass Mountains, but it is abundant in
the Hueco Canyon Formation and in other parts
of the Hueco Group in the Sierra Diablo, Hueco,
and Franklin Mountains. It also is common in the
Chase Group of Kansas and the Putnam and Ad¬
miral Formations of north-central Texas.
Two genera terminate in the Lenox Hills For¬
mation: Sulcataria and Reticulatia. The first is a
poorly known and rare chonetid, first seen in the
lower Cisco and in the Neal Ranch Formation.
The second is uncommon in the Glass Mountains,
but it is frequent in the Midcontinent region and
north-central Texas. Parenteletes, another diag¬
nostic genus of the Lenox Hills, is not common in
the Glass Mountains, but it attains a large size in
the Neal Ranch Formation. It is very rare in the
Lenox Hills Formation, but it was discovered in
the base of the Poplar Tank Member of the Skin¬
ner Ranch Formation.
The large detached slide block of the Lenox
Hills Formation, about one-third the height of
Leonard Mountain on the southeast nose, is a
source of Lenox Hills fossils (USNM 705m). These
rocks are biohermal in part, but mainly a coarse
calcarenite or rudite. From them, we have taken
NUMBER 14
111
Geyerella equal in size to those of the Decie Ranch
Member as well as large conical Eolyttonia. Other
associated species are robust, and all strongly re¬
semble those of the Decie Ranch Member of the
Skinner Ranch Formation.
Of special interest in the Lenox Hills Formation
on Leonard Mountain, just above the conglomer¬
ate, is the bioherm containing Scacchinella, Paren-
teletes, and Tropidelasma (USNM 705k). This is
on the southeast nose of the mountain, and the
horizon represented was mistaken early for the
base of the Hess Formation. This is the only oc¬
currence of abundant Scacchinella yet found in the
Lenox Hills Formation. A few valves have been
taken elsewhere, but the genus is rare in this
formation.
Correlation of the Lenox Hills Formation with
strata elsewhere in the United States is easier and
more reliable than that of the Neal Ranch fauna.
Fusulinids, ammonites, and brachiopods of the
Lenox Hills seem to combine to tell essentially the
same story. Dasysaria, restricted to the Lenox Hills
in the Glass Mountains, is abundant in the Putnam
and Admiral Formations, the Wichita Group, and
the Hueco Canyon Formation. Reticulatia hueco-
ensis (R. E. King) occurs in the uppermost Lenox
Hills (King 196 = USNM 716r). A Stenoscisma
related to S. hueconianum (Girty) is present in the
Glass Mountains and relates part of the Lenox
Hills to the Alacran Mountain Formation of the
upper part of the Hueco Group. Species of Neo-
spirifer, Echinauris, Nudauris, and Kutorginella
are present in the Glass and Hueco Mountains.
Kochiproductus is common in the Hueco Canyon
Formation, but it has not yet been found in the
Lenox Hills Formation, although it should be ex¬
pected. Williams (1963:31), on the basis of fusu¬
linids, correlates most of the Hueco Group with
the Lenox Hills Formation, but he assigns the part
of the Alacran Mountain Formation that contains
Schwagerina crassitectoria Dunbar and Skinner to
the Leonardian. The brachiopods of the Hueco
Group are a fairly uniform lot, and probably they
are correlated best with the entire Lenox Hills.
Skinner Ranch Formation.— This formation in
the western part of the Glass Mountains has three
members, but it is undivided eastward from hill
5021. Each of the members has its own fauna and
history. This is true of the undivided formation
as well; the important events in each are mentioned
below. In the Skinner Ranch Formation, certain
persistent, transient elements from the Pennsyl¬
vanian finally are eliminated, but strong Wolf-
campian flavor is maintained throughout the for¬
mation.
Decie Ranch Member: A few newcomers appear
in this otherwise largely Wolfcampian assemblage:
Acolosia, Chonosteges, Coscinophora, Cyclacan-
tharia, Antronaria, Cartorhium, Oncosarina;
Rhamnaria, Rugaria, Thamnosia. The remainder
of the 29 genera of the Decie Ranch fauna were
inherited from the Lenox Hills fauna.
A remarkable feature of this assemblage is the
large size attained by many of its members. Scac¬
chinella attains a length of 7 inches; Derbyia is 3-4
inches in width; Eolyttonia reaches the proportions
of a teacup; Geyerella, Kochiproductus, Coscino¬
phora, and Tropidelasma are all large forms.
Perhaps the most striking feature of the assemblage
is the presence of bioherms of Scacchinella. Inter-
grown with the Scacchinella are Geyerella, Tropi¬
delasma, Eolyttonia, and Derbyia, which make a
fairly strong mass. These bioherms commonly are
based on a gravel of huge, crinoid-stem debris and
are surrounded by coarse limestone pieces in the
form of thick conglomerates. The whole member
thus suggests a near-shore gravel bed in a zone of
strongly moving waters. The patch reefs are strong,
and they provided, in crannies and niches, abun¬
dant quiet shelter for the numerous small brachio¬
pods that make up a large part of the Decie Ranch
fauna.
Poplar Tank Member: The fauna of the Poplar
Tank Member is not well known because much of
the member is composed of brown, crumbly shale
that yields few good fossils. The thin bands of
limestone in the shale are conglomeratic, and their
fossil content usually consists of fragmentary speci¬
mens often identifiable only to genus. The sand¬
stones and conglomerates do not yield good fossils.
An occasional bioherm, such as that at USNM
708e, produces numerous fine but unsilicified fos¬
sils. Silicified material was not discovered in useful
quantity. Many of the thin limestone beds are
capped by an inch or two of brown chert, which
usually is very fossiliferous, but the preservation
is poor.
The Poplar Tank fauna contains most of the
same species as that of the underlying Decie Ranch
Member and the overlying Sullivan Peak Member.
112
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Large Scacchinella is present, and Spyridiophora
is fairly common in contrast to its extreme rarity
in the Decie Ranch Member. Parentelctes, at the
bases of the member, is a Wolfcampian hangover
like Spyridiophora. Nudauris, a Gaptank and Neal
Ranch genus, was found in the Poplar Tank Mem¬
ber. The only novelty appearing in the Poplar
Tank fauna is Paranorella, very rare and poorly
preserved. This probably is predated by occurrence
of the same genus in the lower Bone Spring Forma¬
tion in the Sierra Diablo.
Dugout Mountain Member: The fauna of this
member, which consists of the Second, Third, and
Fourth Limestones of the Leonard of P. B. King
(only in the vicinity of Dugout Mountain) and
their intervening shales, is known very poorly. The
limestones mainly are detrital, consisting of small
pebbles, chert fragments, broken shells, and other
debris. The result of collecting or dissolving blocks
from these beds usually is a large quantity of frag¬
mentary specimens difficult to identify. The known
fauna is Wolfcampian in aspect, but new elements
appear in it: Sceletonia, Torynechus, Glyptosteges,
and Lepidospirifer. Another element of the Dug-
out Mountain fauna is that of the ammonites,
which are abundant in the limestone beds. These
include a new genus (formerly Propinacoceras) and
small species of Perrinites. Other ammonites are:
Eothinites hessensis Miller and Furnish, Metale-
goceras, Peritrochia dunbari Miller and Furnish,
and a species of JSIeocrimites.
The Dugout Mountain fauna is closest to that
of the Sullivan Peak Member of the Skinner Ranch
Formation. The two members share the rare genera
Sceletonia, Torynechus, and Glyptosteges. We have
not found Institella and its associates in this mem¬
ber. The fauna seems to have close ties below, and
we have found its characteristic ammonites in the
upper part of the Sullivan Peak Member at hill
4801 at the south end of the Lenox Hills.
Outside of the Glass Mountains, Sceletonia was
found 130 feet above the base of the Bone Spring
Formation at the north end of the Baylor Moun¬
tains (USNM 725c).
Sullivan Peak Member: This is the uppermost
member of the Skinner Ranch Formation, and
some major faunal changes take place in it. Most
of the Wolfcampian elements and the last of the
persistent holdovers from the Pennsylvanian dis¬
appear. Above the Skinner Ranch a number of
new genera arrive to inaugurate the Leonardian.
Genera appearing for the first time in the Sullivan
Peak are Phrenophoria and Plectelasma. Genera
seen for the last time in the Sullivan Peak are dis¬
cussed under “Skinner Ranch Formation Un¬
divided.”
The most striking feature of the Sullivan Peak
fauna is its similarity to the underlying Decie
Ranch, Dugout Mountain, and Poplar Tank Mem¬
bers. Bioherms, often of large size, are fairly fre¬
quent in the Sullivan Peak Member, especially at
the south end of the Lenox Hills in hill 4801.
These contain large Scacchinella and Geyerella that
almost attain the size of the large specimens from
the Decie Ranch Member. Tropidelasma and other
reef-dwelling types occur in the formation. Cos-
cinophora of large size occurs in several bioherms,
especially on the northeast side of Dugout Moun¬
tain (USNM 733j).
Perhaps the most characteristic elements of the
fauna are Spyridiophora and Glyptosteges. The
former is abundant in places, but the latter, al¬
though distinctive, is much less common. Tory¬
nechus also is a marker of the upper Sullivan Peak,
but it is transient into the overlying Cathedral
Mountain Formation. This is true also of Spyri¬
diophora and Glyptosteges, but neither they nor
Torynechus established themselves in the Cathedral
Mountain fauna; they are extremely rare in the
lower part of that formation.
Spyridiophora reticulata (R. E. King), the
abundant species of the Sullivan Peak Member,
occurs in the Sierra Diablo a short distance above
the base of the Bone Spring Formation on the
south side of the mouth of Victorio Canyon
(AMNH 625 = USNM 725e). It also occurs with
Glyptosteges in Apache Canyon at the north end
of the range. The rocks in Apache Canyon con¬
taining these species, although near the base of the
formation, represent a higher horizon than that
at Victorio Canyon.
Spyridiophora reticulata also helps to tie the
Sullivan Peak fauna to that of the Taylor Ranch
Member of the Hess Formation. Presence of Para-
fusulina spissiseptata Ross in both of these mem¬
bers is another help in establishing this link across
the mountains between two very unlike facies (see
“Taylor Ranch Member” under “Hess Forma¬
tion”).
NUMBER 14
113
Skinner Ranch Formation Undivided: From
hill 5021 (west of Iron Mountain) eastward to its
merger with the Hess Formation, the Skinner
Ranch Formation cannot be separated satisfactorily
into its component members. It is possible, how¬
ever, to recognize faunas of the Sullivan Peak in
the upper part and faunas of the Decie Ranch at
the base. Some genera appear for the first time in
the lower 200 feet of the Skinner Ranch Formation,
which is the part believed to be correlative to the
Decie Ranch Member. These newcomers are:
Anomalesia, Crenispirifer, Elliottella, Metriolepis,
Peniculauris, Spinifrons, and Tricoria. All of these
except Peniculauris and Tricoria appear also in the
lowest part of the Bone Spring Formation in the
Sierra Diablo on the south side of Victorio Canyon
(USNM 728e).
Several genera, mostly Pennsylvanian-Wolf-
campian types, make their last appearance in the
Skinner Ranch Formation: Anomalesia, Antiqua-
tonia, Chonetinella, Elliottella, Fimbrinia, Glypto-
steges, Hystriculina, Kozlowskia, Limbella,
Oncosarina, Orthotichia, Parenteletes, Rugaria,
Scacchinella *, Spyridiophora *, Teguliferina, and
Tricoria. The disappearance of these genera, in
our opinion, marks the end of the Wolfcamp
Stage. Occasional specimens of the starred genera (*)
have been found low in the Cathedral Mountain
Formation. Exceedingly rare, they have never
established themselves as members of the Cathedral
Mountain fauna. A single fragment of Scacchinella
probably is a reworked fragment.
Interesting developments involving the upper
and lower parts of the Skinner Ranch fauna have
been detected. It is our belief that the lower 100
to 200 feet of the Skinner Ranch near the Hess
Ranch house and the Hess Ranch Horst represent
the equivalent of the Decie Ranch Member. It is
in this area that the Decie Ranch fauna is enriched
by new elements. Variation in the Decie Ranch
fauna may be detected along the Glass Mountains
front from Dugout Mountain to the Hess Ranch
and Hess Ranch Horst.
In the western part of the mountains, in the
Lenox Hills, the Scacchinella and associated Der-
byia, Geyerella, and Eolyttonia are exceptionally
large. Eastward these appear to become smaller and
more slender, while Geyerella and Tropidelasma
nearly disappear from the numerous bioherms on
the Hess Ranch Horst, although they are present
just north of the Hess Ranch house. Beginning on
the west side of Leonard Mountain, a number of
small productids, such as Elliottella, Hystriculina,
and Kozlowskia, reappear in the Decie Ranch
Member. In the bioherms that dot the base of the
north slope of the Hess Ranch Horst, Orthotichia
is common and Cyclacantharia appears in some
abundance. Although present, neither of these is
conspicuous in the western part of the mountains.
North of the Hess Ranch house, Tricoria is fairly
common, but it is rare on the horst. Tropidelasma
is rare or absent from Leonard Mountain, Hess
Ranch, and Hess Ranch Horst exposures. Spyridi¬
ophora is rare in the western part of the mountains,
but it was not seen in the equivalent of the Decie
Ranch Member in the eastern part.
Another faunal aberration in the base of the
Skinner Ranch Formation is the distribution of the
fusulinid Schwagerina crassitectoria Dunbar and
Skinner. This is common in the basal part of the
Skinner Ranch Formation, referable to the Decie
Ranch Member, but it has not been taken from
the Decie Ranch Member proper in the Lenox
Hills. It is reported by Ross (1962b:3, 9), however,
at his locality 6A in the center of the Lenox Hills,
245 feet above the base of the Leonard (= the base
of the Decie Ranch Member). This level is near
the top of the Poplar Tank Member of the present
classification. It has not been seen by Ross or any¬
one else in the Decie Ranch Member. This species
has a vertical range of more than 200 feet in the
Hess Formation, and the occurrence recorded by
Ross may indicate only the upper part of its range
in the western part of the mountains.
The above data might be taken to indicate a
difference in age of the Decie Ranch Member and
the basal part of the Skinner Ranch Formation
(undivided) between the western and eastern parts
of the mountains. We have not been able to
satisfy ourselves that this is the case. Too many
other species and genera are common to the mem¬
bers in the two areas, and their Scacchinella bio¬
herms always can be found just above the Lenox
Hills Formation. It seems to be a fact, as abun¬
dantly seen in the Neal Ranch and higher in the
Cathedral Mountain Formations, that the faunas
of individual bioherms, even of ones in close
proximity, may be startlingly different. The bio-
herm is an area of microenvironments that enhance
the faunal diversity of any member or formation.
114
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Hess Formation.— This formation is notorious
for the scarcity of megafossils and the poor preser¬
vation of those found in it. This is true of the
whole formation except for two levels, one near
the top and the other at the very top. The Hess
Formation spans a considerable interval of the
geological column in the Glass Mountains. The
lower 400—500 feet of the formation contains fusu-
linids that date this part as Wolfcampian. Ross
has applied the name “Lenox Hills Formation”
to this part of the Hess section, in spite of the fact
that the conglomerate at its base is thin or absent
and the remainder of the formation consists of red
shales, dolomites, and thin-bedded limestone totally
unlike Lenox Hills lithology elsewhere. The Wolf¬
campian or “Lenox Hills” part of the Hess Forma¬
tion continues up to the Schwagerina crassitectoria
zone, which marks the level of the lower Skinner
Ranch (Decie Ranch Member). This zone spans
at least 200 feet of rock that we place in the Hess
Formation above the Lenox Hills Formation
(Cooper and Grant, 1966:3). The zone is the only
marker for the lower part of the Skinner Ranch
equivalent in the Hess Formation. The fauna of
the Taylor Ranch Member marks the upper part
of the Skinner Ranch level (Sullivan Peak Mem¬
ber) in the Hess Formation.
Taylor Ranch Member: The Taylor Ranch
Member is a thin band of shaly limestone under¬
lain by a limestone conglomerate (Cooper and
Grant, 1966:3). The member can be traced near
the crest of the mountains for several miles, from
a mile or two east of the Hess Ranch nearly to the
Conoly Brooks Ranch house. Although the mem¬
ber is barely 40 feet thick, its upper half is very
fossiliferous and contains a variety of brachiopods.
It also contains interesting bioherms (USNM 702e
above the Bill Neal Ranch house), which contain
large numbers of Heliospongia and Girtycoelia
with Spyridiophora and other brachiopods. Al¬
though these sponges make up a large part of the
main bioherm, brachiopods are abundant and
some are known only from this reefy mass.
Two genera appear for the first time in the
Taylor Ranch Member: Elassonia and Tschernys-
chewia. The former is a small rhynchonellid that
appears in some abundance in higher formations.
The latter is an exceptional brachiopod, and its
discovery was completely unexpected because the
genus is known elsewhere only in rocks that are
dated as uppermost Permian. It is reported from
the Dzhulfian of Armenia, from the Upper Produc-
tus Limestone of Pakistan, and from the Upper
Permian of Yugloslavia. The genus first appears
in the Taylor Ranch Member, but it also occurs in
the Road Canyon Formation and in the lower
Bone Spring Formation of the Sierra Diablo, each
occurrence being in the Lower Permian as that
period is now classified.
The Taylor Ranch Member contains (besides
the newcomers mentioned above) Chonosteges,
Diplanus, huge Enteletes, Thamnosia, Linoproduc-
tus, Oncosarina, abundant Peniculauris, Pontisia,
abundant large Rhipidomella, Rugaria, Steno-
scisma, and Spyridiophora. Elements of the Taylor
Ranch fauna occur on Leonard Mountain in the
notch near the top of the southeast nose, where
large Rhipidomella hessensis and Spyridiophora
were found.
Several specimens of Scacchinella were found
loose on the slopes of the Taylor Ranch Member.
These were traced by their lithology to a dolomite
bed about 25 feet above the Taylor Ranch Member,
but none was found in place.
The Taylor Ranch fauna is difficult to correlate
in the Glass Mountains because of its isolation and
because so many of its members are unknown else¬
where. The presence of Spyridiophora reticulata
(R. E. King), Scacchinella, and Rhipidotnella hes¬
sensis R. E. King indicate relationship to the Sulli¬
van Peak Member of the Skinner Ranch Formation.
Other ties to the Sullivan Peak are Oncosarina,
Peniculauris, and Meekella hessensis R. E. King.
Antronaria speciosa, new species, strongly suggests
A. mesicostalis (Girty) of the Bone Spring Forma¬
tion, which correlates with the Skinner Ranch. A
further tie to the Sullivan Peak is the presence of
Parafusulina spissiseptata in the two members.
The uppermost fauna of the Hess Formation
was found near Old Word Ranch (USNM 726n),
where a few species occur in excellently silicified
condition. This locality is noteworthy for Plecte-
lasma kingi, new species, which also was found in
the upper part of the Sullivan Peak Member in
Dugout Mountain (USNM 727a).
In summarizing, we believe that the Taylor
Ranch Member and upper Hess Formations are
correlated most satisfactorily with the Sullivan
Peak Member of the Skinner Ranch Formation.
The Schwagerina crassitectoria zone establishes the
NUMBER 14
115
position of the lower Skinner Ranch or Decie
Ranch Member equivalent in the Hess Formation.
Thus, the Hess above the Lenox Hills of Ross is
the equivalent of the Skinner Ranch Formation.
Leonard Faunas
As now conceived, the Leonard Series in the
Glass Mountains consists of two formations: the
Cathedral Mountain and the Road Canyon. The
latter is the First Limestone Member of the Word
Formation of P. B. King (1931), raised to forma¬
tion rank by Cooper and Grant (1964) and placed
in the Leonardian by them (1966). The Cathedral
Mountain Formation, lower of the two, contains
one member, the Wedin Member. The most diag¬
nostic fossil to appear in the Cathedral Mountain
Formation is Institellci, which can be found at, or
near, the base of the formation in all parts of the
Glass Mountains except from the east end of Lenox
Hills to hill 5021 (west of Iron Mountain).
There are 47 new genera that appear in the
Leonardian and successfully blot out all of the
Wolfcampian elements; 35 genera terminate dur¬
ing, or at the end of, the Leonardian (Road Can¬
yon), to be replaced by the Word fauna.
Cathedral Mountain Formation.— This forma¬
tion in the Lenox Hills and Dugout Mountain
areas makes a striking color contrast to the under¬
lying Skinner Ranch Formation. It usually begins
with orange-colored, somewhat fissile, siliceous
beds. The color contrast is striking, but in the
eastern part of the mountains, from Hess Ranch
east, the siliceous sediments are reduced to minor
tongues and are no longer basal. The formation
is introduced, however, at most places in the eastern
part of the mountains by a small-pebble conglomer¬
ate. Where this is lacking, Institellci usually can be
found to establish the identity of the formation.
The Cathedral Mountain contains several lime¬
stone bands that originally were numbered from
1 to 5 (P. B. King, 1931). The First Limestone of
the Leonard was separated by Cooper and Grant
(1964) and made the Sullivan Peak Member of the
Skinner Ranch Formation. The Second Limestone
later was named “Wedin Member” by Cooper and
Grant (1966), but the higher limestones were not
named. These limestone beds contain few brachio-
pods, but, in places, they are fairly rich in am¬
monites, especially Perrinites. The Wedin
Member proved to be the key to the stratigraphy
of the Cathedral Mountain Formation in the west
end of the mountains. The Second Limestone of
the Leonard Formation in the Lenox Hills proved
to be faunally identical to the Fifth Limestone of
the Dugout Mountain region. These two lime¬
stones are richly biohermal and contain Institella
and other characteristic fossils in abundance.
Wedin Member: The correlation of this mem¬
ber is based on the tracing of a distinctive assem¬
blage of fossils that occurs near the base of the
Cathedral Mountain Formation in its western part
but that occurs at the base in the eastern part.
This fauna contains two brachipods in particular,
Institella and Agelesia, that are most distinctive,
but, along with these, there are many other genera
that make up an easily recognized assemblage. The
Institella beds contain numerous small bioherms,
each of which usually has its own assemblage of
the characteristic fossils.
The Wedin Member is known only on the north
slope of Dugout Mountain and the west half of
the Lenox Hills to about hill 5300. The same
fauna, however, occurs from the top of Leonard
Mountain to east of Split Tank. New genera that
make their appearance in the Wedin Member and
its correlate in the eastern part of the mountains
are: Agelesia, Amphipella, Anemonaria, Chaenior-
hynchus, Choanodus, Dyoros (Lissosia), Dyoros
(Tetragonetes), Edriosteges, Grandaurispina, Echi-
nauris, Hercosestria, Hercosia, Heteraria, Holotri-
charina, Institella, Loxophragmus, Nucleospira,
Petasmaia, Ptygmactrum, Rallacosta, Rngatia,
Scenesia, Siphonosia, Texarina, Thedusia, Trophi-
sina, Xenosteges, and Xestosia. Some transient
elements from the underlying Skinner Ranch
Formation, such as Lepidospirifer, and Torynechus,
appear in the lowest part of the Cathedral Moun¬
tain and Wedin Member. Spyridiophora, Glypto-
steges, and Scacchinella have been found as great
rarities in the lower Cathedral Mountain Forma¬
tion (USNM 721u), the latter possibly a pebble
reworked from below. No trace of the former two
was seen anywhere else in the Cathedral Mountain.
Peniculanris is inherited from below, but it is not
a conspicuous part of the lower Cathedral Moun¬
tain fauna in the western part of the mountains,
although it is common in the eastern part. The
Echinauris that appears in the Cathedral Mountain
Formation differs from that in the Wolfcamp in
116
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
having long halteroid spines on the lateral slopes
over the ears.
Most of the Cathedral Mountain Formation con¬
sists of shale or fissile, siliceous rocks or cherts in
the western part of the mountains, where it attains
a thickness estimated at 1500 feet. In the eastern
part of the mountains, this great thickness of shale
is fingered into a section about 300 feet thick,
mostly limestone. Naturally the fossils in the
western part of the formation differ, by virtue of
facies conditions, from those in the eastern part.
Nevertheless, the generic assemblage is similar in
the two regions. Peniculauris is common in the
upper part of the Cathedral Mountain Formation
all across the mountains. Rugatia also is frequent
in the upper beds, but Institella is extremely rare,
usually appearing only in occasional bioherms in
the western part of the mountains.
The following genera are confined to the Cathe¬
dral Mountain Formation and therefore are diag¬
nostic of it: Agelesia, Anemonia, Choanodus,
Hercosia, Heteraria, Institella, Loxophragmus,
Scenesia, Siphonosia, Trophisina, and Xestosia.
Genera terminating in, or at the top of, the Cathe¬
dral Mountain are: Agelesia, Anemonaria, Choa¬
nodus, Glyptosteges, Hercosia, Heteraria, Institella,
Lepidospirifer, Loxophragmus, Nucleospira, Nuda-
uris, Rhipidomella, Scenesia, Siphonosia, Spyridio-
phora, Torynechus, Trophisina, and Xestosia.
Correlation: Outside of the Glass Mountains,
the Bone Spring Formation in the Sierra Diablo—
exclusive of the thick beds equivalent to the Skin¬
ner Ranch Formation at the base but including
the Victorio Peak Member at the top—can be
correlated with the Cathedral Mountain Forma¬
tion. Institella is present in collections from the
Victorio Peak Member. Also included in this cor¬
relation is the Bone Spring along the west side of
the Guadalupe Mountains, where Institella also
occurs (USGS 7677, 7700, 7722).
The Kaibab fauna, as published by McKee
(1938), correlates with the upper part of the Cathe¬
dral Mountain Formation. Abundant large Peni¬
culauris, Rugatia paraindica, and R. occidentals
are important elements in indicating this correla¬
tion. Because of their poor preservation, we have
been unable to identify other species illustrated by
McKee. Some of these bear names of species that
are more characteristic of the Capitan Formation
and that need revision when better specimens are
found.
Identification of Cathedral Mountain correlatives
in the shaly formations east of the Glass Mountains
in the midcontinent is fraught with the same diffi¬
culties as those connected with identification and
correlation of Wolfcampian rocks. The Leonardian
of the midcontinent and of north-central Texas
is based on fusulinids or ammonites, but it con¬
tains numerous brachipods of a few kinds: dictyo-
clostids, linoproductids, chonetids, Derbyia, Mee-
kella, Composita, and a few others, all of which
have a Pennsylvanian rather than a Permian aspect.
Road Canyon Formation.— From northeast to
southwest, parallel to the Glass Mountains front,
this formation exhibits a variety of facies that
indicate many special environments. The fauna
is highly varied as a result of this great lithic vari¬
ation. The brachiopod assemblage also is rich and
varied, including many unusual species and occur¬
rences of generic types quite unexpected at this
level. The fauna is derived clearly from the Cathe¬
dral Mountain fauna, but it contains many inno¬
vations: Allorhynchus, Ametoria, Bothrostegium,
Chonetinetes, Cactosteges, Collumatus, Costi-
spin.ifera, Echinosteges, Horridonia, Liosotella,
Mesolobus, Notothyris, Ombonia, Paucispinifera,
Petasmatherus, Holosia, Rhytisia, Simplicarina,
Spinarella, Spiriferinaella, Taphrosestria, Un-
dulella, and Yakovlevia.
Genera confined to the Road Canyon Formation
are: Ametoria, Bothrostegium, Collumatus, Hor¬
ridonia, Mesolobus, Rhytisia, Simplicarina, Spi¬
narella, and Taphrosestria.
Several of the newcomers in the fauna are
transient into the overlying Word Formation, and
they become important members of that fauna:
Allorhynchus, Cactosteges, Costispinifera, Echi¬
nosteges, Leurosina, Liosotella, Notothyris, Om¬
bonia, Paucispinifera, Spiriferinaella, Undulella,
and Yakovlevia.
Genera terminating at the end of the Road Canyon
Formation are: Acosarina, Ametoria, Amphipella,
Anteridocus, Bothrostegium, Chaeniorhynchus,
Chondronia, Chonosteges, Collumatus, Coscino-
phora, Edriosteges, Elassonia, Goniarina, Hercoses-
tria, Kochiproductus, Kutorginella, Mesolobus,
Peniculauris, Petasmaia, Rhytisia, Rugatia, Simpli¬
carina, Spinarella, Taphrosestria, and Tschernys-
chewia.
NUMBER 14
117
One of the astonishing appearances in the Road
Canyon Formation is Mesolobus. The specimen
has all the features of this unusual chonetid. It is
likely, however, that the specimen represents a
parallel chonetid stock rather than a stock in the
same line as the well-known Pennsylvanian genus.
Other unusual occurrences are Geyerella and
Ombonia, which is remarkable because they were
taken from the same piece of rock. These two
genera are similar but not too difficult to separate,
because their spondylia are different and their
cardinalia quite unlike. The Ombonia is pro¬
phetic of the occurrence of this genus higher in
the column. It is very rare in the Cherry Canyon
Formation, but common in the Capitan and the
higher Bell Canyon Formation (Lamar Member).
Geyerella is a holdover from the Wolfcampian,
but it also is known as a great rarity in the Capitan
and Bell Canyon Formations (Lamar).
Although nine Word genera appear in the Road
Canyon Formation, the fauna is predominantly
Leonardian. This is seen not only in the large
number of Leonardian species that it contains, but
also in the lingering of Perrinites in the formation.
Leonard elements of importance are: Peniculauris,
Rugatia, Chonosteges, Acosarina, Hercosestria, and
Goniarina. Another feature of considerable interest
in the Road Canyon is the last appearance of the
small bioherms or patch reefs, largely made up of
bryozoans, sponges, and brachiopods. We have not
found any bioherms in the Word succession. The
Word fossil assemblages seem to be death assem¬
blages, whereas, from the Uddenites- bearing Shale
Member through the Road Canyon Formation,
bioherms and conglomerates are common. The
Word can be distinguished from the Leonard not
only by widespread conglomerates in the latter, but
also by their almost complete absence from the
Word Formation.
Correlation: The intermediate character of the
Road Canyon Formation makes it difficult to cor¬
relate. As mentioned above, it is predominantly a
Leonard fauna and includes some of the best guides
to the Leonard, such as Peniculauris and Rugatia,
among the brachiopods, and Perrinites, the am¬
monite said to be most characteristic of the Leon¬
ard. All of the Word or Guadalupe elements in
the Road Canyon are rare fossils, some having been
found as single specimens after much collecting.
Strong elements of the Road Canyon fauna occur
high in the Cibolo Formation in the Chinati
Mountains in the thin-bedded zone of Udden. The
coarse-ribbed Liosotella is very common in the two
formations.
Wilde (1968), in his discussion of the Cutoff
(Shale) Formation in the Apache Mountains and
Guadalupe region, concludes that this formation
is to be correlated with the Road Canyon Forma¬
tion. The Cutoff in the Sierra Diablo has been
difficult to place, but the occurrence of Perrinites
in it has led to is placement in the Leonard Series
(P. B. King, 1965:78). This has been contradicted
by the presence of fusulinids usually assigned to
the Guadalupe Series. The same situation also
exists in the Glass Mountains region, in which the
fusulinids of the Road Canyon usually are dated
as early Word (Wilde, 1968:12).
Correlation of the Road Canyon Formation with
the Cutoff indicates other correlations as outlined
by Wilde (1968). The Cutoff has been correlated
and traced by Boyd (1958) into the lower part of
the San Andres Formation. The lower part of the
San Andres was correlated by R. E. King (1931:26)
with the Leonard because of the presence of
“Productus ivesi” (— Peniculauris) and "Productus
occidentalis” (= Rugatia). Both of these are com¬
mon in the Cathedral Mountain and occur still
higher, in the Road Canyon Formation. They are
good indicators of the Leonard Series. So little is
known about the faunas of the San Andres Forma¬
tion, other than its fusulinids, that only the most
tentative conclusions can be drawn.
Some elements of the Permian fauna of the
Coyote Butte Formation in central Oregon suggest
correlation with the Road Canyon Formation. In
spite of the European and Asiatic types in the
fauna, the small “Muirwoodia” (= Yakovlevia) are
very similar to those of the Road Canyon. Anti-
quatonia, Kochiproductus, Martinia, small Waag-
enoconcha, small “Leptodus? ” costellate chonetids,
and small alate Stenoscisma all suggest the Leonard.
Small Spiriferella is rather suggestive of later affini¬
ties, but it also occurs in the Road Canyon. Cooper
(1957a: 18) correlated the Oregon (Coyotte Butte)
fauna with that of the lower Word of the Glass
Mountains, now the Road Canyon; relationship to
the Cache Creek fauna of British Columbia also
was suggested by Cooper.
118
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Guadalupe Faunas
Word Formation.— The Word Formation in the
western part of the mountains consists of a thick
silicious shale sequence with several limestone
members. The shale contains some fossils, usually
Leiorhynchoidea and Crurithyris, but they are
infrequent. The bulk of the fauna is confined to
the limestones. Cooper and Grant (1964) named
the First Limestone of the Word of P. B. King the
“Road Canyon Formation” and thereby upset the
number system established by King. Later, Cooper
and Grant (1966) substituted names for King’s
numbered limestones. The Second Limestone be¬
came the “China Tank Member,” the Third Lime¬
stone became the “Willis Ranch Member” and the
Fourth Limestone was named “Appel Ranch Mem¬
ber.” In each of these members the fossils occur as
death assemblages, heaps of shells, concentrated in
small or large patches, but not in bioherms.
China Tank Member: This is the least exten¬
sive of the three members, but it is very rich in
fossils that have fine preservation. Only two genera
appear in this member for the first time: Ectoposia
and Pseudodielasma. The member contains a total
of 65 genera, most of which also occur in the higher
Word members. No genera terminate in the mem¬
ber. Many species, as well as genera, are also tran¬
sient into the higher Word. The fauna of the
lowest part of the Getaway Member (AMNH 600,
USNM 732) of the Cherry Canyon Formation
strongly resembles it.
Willis Ranch Member: The Third Limestone
Member of the Word Formation (P. B. King, 1931)
has a much wider distribution than the preceding
member. It can be traced from the Appel Ranch
westward to the west side of Gilliland Canyon,
where it disappears except for lenses that can be
found high on the slope of Sullivan Peak and on
the northeast side of Dugout Mountain. This for¬
mation, especially at USNM 706e, contains some
of the finest fossils found in the Glass Mountains.
Despite the great abundance of fossils, only three
newcomers are recorded: Bothronia, Leiorhyn¬
choidea, and Polymorpharia. The first two con¬
tinue higher; the last occurs also in the Getaway
Member of the Cherry Canyon Formation. Four
genera terminate in the Willis Ranch Member:
Acolosia, Cactosteges, Enteletes, and Undulella.
Outside the Glass Mountains the fauna most like
that of the Willis Ranch appears in the lower part
of the lower Getaway Member of the Cherry
Canyon Formation (USNM 732, AMNH 600).
Diagnostic genera are: Echinosteges, Liosotella,
Grandaurispina, Cyclacantharia, Leurosina, Pau-
cispinifera, Pseudodielasma, Rhamnaria, Undulella,
and Xenosteges.
In regard to the termination of Enteletes in the
Willis Ranch Member it should be emphasized
that this concerns West Texas only. Enteletes has
not been identified in the Capitan or its equiva¬
lents, but it is reported from highest Permian in
Dzhulfa, Armenia, and in the Salt Range of Pakis¬
tan. This variation in range and that reported
below for Tschernyschewia make intercontinental
correlation difficult indeed.
Lenses Between Willis Ranch and Appel Ranch
Members: USNM 706b is a lens about 200 feet
above the Willis Ranch Member that produced an
enormous supply of fine fossils of genera also oc¬
curring in those two members. The specific com¬
position is quite different, however, and the fauna
very distinctive. It is noteworthy for the last
appearance, in the Glass Mountains of Cenor-
hynchia, Costispin.ifera, Paranorella, and Petas-
matherus. Although the generic composition of
this lens and the superjacent and subjacent mem¬
bers are almost identical, the abundance of the
genera is very different. The fauna of the lens, for
example, abounds in Stenoscisma, which is very
rare in the members above and below. We do not
know any fauna outside of the Glass Mountains
like that of the lens.
Another lens or series of lenses (USNM 737w,
742b) occur about 325 feet above the Willis Ranch
Member. These contain species similar to those of
the Willis Ranch and prophetic of some in the
Appel Ranch Member, but notable for their robust
character. The most noteworthy species is a large
Pseudoleptodus.
Appel Ranch Member: This is the uppermost
member of the Word Formation to produce good
silicified fossils. Consequently, it is the place of
disappearance of a number of genera, but with only
two innovations, namely, Bryorhynchus and Divari-
costa.
The following last appearances are recorded:
Bothronia, Cancrinella, Cooperina, Cyclacantharia,
Dyoros (Tetragonetes), Eolyttonia, Grandaurispina,
NUMBER 14
119
Leurosina, Linoproductus, Neophricadothyris,
Rhynchopora, Spiriferinaella, Texarina, Waageno-
concha, and Yakovlevia. It is possible that a species
of Cyclacantharia occurs in the Carlsbad Formation
in the Guadalupe Mountains and that the genus
is not terminal in the Appel Ranch Member.
The fauna outside of the Glass Mountains most
like that of the Appel Ranch Member is that of
the upper part of the lower Getaway Member of
the Cherry Canyon Formation. These two mem¬
bers share the following genera: Bothronia,
Ctenalosia, Cooperina, Divaricosta, Dyoros (Tetra-
gonetes), Grandaurispina, Leurosina, Reticulariina,
Spiriferella , Spiriferinaella, Texarina, Xenosteges,
and Yakovlevia.
Capitan Limestone Formation.— The beds
above the Appel Ranch Member (the Vidrio Mem¬
ber and the Capitan Formation) generally are do-
lomitized and do not yield good fossils. Neverthe¬
less, on the northwest side of Dugout Mountain a
small fault block near the foot of the Sierra del
Norte (USNM 732q) furnished good exposures of
fossiliferous Capitan. The rock is not dolomitized
at this place. The fossils are not well preserved,
but the fusulinid Polydiexodina is fairly common,
with a few brachiopods such as Stenoscisma, Pseu-
doleptodus, Liosotella, large Collemataria, Cartor-
hium, Elivina, and Echinauris. The assemblage
suggests correlation with the Hegler Member of
the Bell Canyon Formation.
Rocks lying above the Appel Ranch Member
cover a great area in the northern part of the
Glass Mountains. These have never been searched
for fossils except for a locality northeast of Altuda
(USNM 718a), where King reports some Capitan
species. Search of this vast region for undolomi-
tized parts of the sequence might yield interesting
collections.
Stratigraphy and Fossils of Other West Texas Areas
In order to understand the correlation and fos¬
sils of the Glass Mountains with other areas in
West Texas, a brief review of the stratigraphy of
the Hueco Mountains, the Sierra Diablo, the Gua¬
dalupe Mountains, and the Chinati Mountains is
given. We have made collections in all of these
areas with the twofold purpose of understanding
the Permian fossils described by G. H. Girty
(1909), R. E. King (1931), and others and of re¬
fining correlations among these mountain ranges.
Hueco Mountains
The Hueco Mountains, about 25 miles east of
El Paso, are composed mostly of Pennsylvanian
and Lower Permian rocks, respectively, the Mag¬
dalena Limestone and the Hueco Group (T. E.
Williams, 1963). According to Williams (1963), the
upper part of the Magdalena contains a Bursum
fauna of very Early Permian age, but above it
there are 200 feet of light gray limestone contain¬
ing Pseudoschwagerina, an indisputably Permian
fusulinid. The Hueco Group lies unconformably
on the Magdalena. Williams raised the Hueco For¬
mation to a group, which previously had been di¬
vided by P. B. King into three unnamed units.
Following the lead of King, Williams proposed
three formations in ascending order: Hueco Can¬
yon, Cerro Alto, and Alacran Mountain Forma¬
tions.
Hueco Canyon Formation.— The lowest unit of
the Hueco Group consists of a conglomerate and
calcareous mudrock called the Powwow Member.
Above it are 470-600 feet of olive-gray, thick to
moderately thickly bedded limestone. The Pow¬
wow rocks generally weather to a red color. The
conglomeratic part consists of pebble and cobble-
size elements. This part of the member is confined
to Powwow Canyon on the west side of the Hueco
Mountains. Fossils have not been taken from the
Powwow Member, but they are abundant in the
limestone immediately overlying it.
The base of the Hueco Canyon Formation con¬
tains the most varied of the Hueco brachiopod
faunas, as exhibited by exposures in Powwow Can¬
yon (USNM 499b 725z). About a mile north¬
east of Powwow Tank at the west end of Powwow
Canyon, fossils are varied and abundant. The com¬
monest species are: Kochiproductus peruviana
(d’Orbigny) (= K. quadrata, new species), Dasysa-
ria wolfcarnpensis (R. E. King), Echinauris cf. E.
boulei (Kozlowski), Nudauris tribulosa, new spe¬
cies, Gypospirifer anancites, new species (usually
misidentified as Spirifer condor d’Orbigny), and
Kutorginella dartoni (R. E. King). Pontisia frank-
linensis, new species, is common and Composita is
frequent. Important, rarer brachiopods are Ente-
letes, Reticulariina, and Waagen.oconcha. A variety
120
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
of fusulinids has been identified from this part of
the section.
In the Glass Mountains the brachiopod fauna
most like that of the basal Hueco Canyon Member
is that of the Uddenites- bearing Shale Member,
which contains large Kochiproductus and all of the
other genera cited except Dasysaria, which is not
known in that part of the section in the Glass
Mountains. This Powwow fauna is also like that
of the Copacabana Formation of Bolivia, described
by Kozlowski (1914). The correlation is not in
accordance with that indicated by the fusulinids,
which suggested to T. E. Williams a correlation
with the Lenox Hills Formation. The ammonite
evidence also suggests a higher position. In spite
of these contradictions, the resemblance of the
three brachiopod faunas is striking.
Cerro Alto Formation.— This formation con¬
sists of 445—465 feet of “medium gray, medium-
and thin-bedded limestone typically possessing
undulatory bedding’’ (T. E. Williams, 1963:21).
It contrasts in bedding and darker color to the
Hueco Canyon Formation below. This middle for¬
mation is fairly rich in molluscs, but the brachio-
pods are poorly represented, usually by Composita,
Derbyia, Meekella, and small rhynchonellids.
Alacran Mountain Formation.— This forma¬
tion, similar Ethically and faunally to the Hueco
Canyon Formation, has a thickness of 622 feet.
Within it there is a red interval about 120 feet
thick called the “Deer Mountain Red Shale Mem¬
ber.” Brachiopods are abundant in this formation,
limestone surfaces often being covered with small
Pontisia, Stenoscisma, and Composita. Although
the number of specimens is legion, the generic
representation is indeed meager. Perhaps the most
conspicuous species is Stenoscisma hueconianum
(Girty), but the most abundant species is Pontisia
franklinensis, new species. A small Kozlowskia usu¬
ally referred to K. capaci (d’Orbigny), and Com¬
posita mexicana (Hall) also are common.
Stenoscisma similar to S. hueconianum occurs in
the upper part of the Lenox Hills Formation
(USNM 716r), but that is the only similarity be¬
tween this part of the two formations.
Sierra Diablo
Wolfcamp Series.— This region exposes fine sec¬
tions of Permian rocks from north of Van Horn,
Texas, to the south end of the Guadalupe Moun¬
tains, a distance of about 60 miles. The lowest for¬
mation is the Hueco Limestone, which is overlain
by the Bone Spring Formation.
Hueco Formation: This limestone, described
by P. B. King (1965), is of variable thickness and
fossil content, ranging from less than 400 feet to
1100 feet in the Sierra Diablo and the adjacent
Baylor Mountains just to the east. The formation
is unconformable on several pre-Permian forma¬
tions. Extensive exposures may be examined in the
southern part of the area. These generally are very
fossiliferous and have yielded good collections;
some of the species are referred to in the present
monograph.
In the southern part of the Sierra Diablo, a
lower member, consisting of coarse elastics in the
lower part but of thin-bedded limestone in the
upper part (with numerous fossils), is called the
Powwow Member, but it is not entirely conglom¬
eratic, as it is in Powwow Canyon. The upper mem¬
ber of the Hueco Formation is thick-bedded
limestone, becoming dolomitic in the north. This
part has a restricted fauna. In the Baylor Moun¬
tains the Powwow Member is thin or missing. The
main member of the Hueco in the Baylor Moun¬
tains is thin-bedded dolomitic limestone with scat¬
tered fossils.
The collections from the Hueco made in our
study are mainly from the lower thin-bedded or
shaly parts on Three Mile Mountain—just north
of Van Horn (USNM 719), at the mouth of Vic-
torio Canyon (USNM 728d) in the Sierra Diablo,
and in Red Tank Canyon (USNM 725a, b) in the
Baylor Mountains.
The brachiopod fauna consists of a small num¬
ber of genera, but the abundance of specimens is
remarkable. The most significant generic elements
in the Hueco fauna of the Sierra Diablo is the
abundance of Dasysaria, Linoproductus, Nudauris,
and Kozlowskia , with occasional Reticulatia.
Kochiproductus is rare in the Sierra Diablo. Com¬
posita usually is common, along with a small Hus-
tedia. Enteletes and Waagenoconcha have been
reported. This representation of the Hueco may
be correlated with the Lenox Hills Formation be¬
cause of the presence of Dasysaria.
That the Hueco Formation is known very poorly
is shown by collections made in Red Tank Can¬
yon by members of the American Museum of Nat-
NUMBER 14
121
ural History and the National Museum of Natural
History (AMNH 700, USNM 725a, b). Here, in
about the middle of the section, patches of Acrito¬
sia yielded good silicifiecl specimens. In addition, a
few examples of Scacchin.ella were taken. With the
Acritosia there occurred specimens of a huge
Meekella, Composita mexicana (Hall), and Ente¬
ntes. Most of these elements appear again in the
lower part of the Bone Spring Formation, some of
them highly modified, but others essentially un¬
changed.
The Hueco Formation in the Sierra Diablo is
succeeded by the Bone Spring Limestone (P. B.
King, 1965:50-61). The lower part is occupied by
massive limestones containing a fauna different
from the dark, thin-bedded limestones that make
up most of the formation. We place these massive
beds of the Bone Spring in the Wolfcamp Series.
Lower Massive Bone Spring Formation: A fea¬
ture of the Lower Bone Spring is the wedging in
from the* south of elastics consisting of some con¬
glomerate, but mostly of broken shells, fusulinids,
broken and rolled corals, bryozoans, and other or¬
ganic debris. Fossils are abundant and silicified.
The beds constitute a marginal facies, which inter¬
fingers with the black limestone. The wedges
thicken southward and often attain formidable
thickness. Stehli (1954:278) interprets these gray
limestone beds as a near-shore facies. Most of our
collections from the Sierra Diablo are from these
lower elastics and amplify Stehli’s collections with
a number of important additions.
The fauna of the lower clastic beds is very rich
and contains many Wolfcampian elements (speci¬
mens marked with an asterisk appear in this part
of the West Texas Permian for the first time; those
with a degree sign are Wolfcampian-Pennsylvanian
types): Acritosia, Altiplecus, Antiquatonia 0 , Ano-
malesia*, Attenuatella*. Cancrinella, Chonetinel-
la°, Composita, Crenispirifer*, Crurithyris ° Cryp-
tacanthia 0 , Derbyia, Dielasma, Diplanus 0 , Dyoros
(Dyoros )*, Elliottella*, Enallosia *, Enteletes, Eolyt-
tonia, Fimbrinia 0 , Glossothyropsis *, Goniarina,
Heterelasma*, Hustedia, Kozlowskia 0 , Limbella°,
Linoproductus, Lirellaria *, Meekella, Metriolepis *,
NudaurisOrthotetella°, Pontisia°, Qiiadrocho-
netes 0 , Ramavectus*, Rhamnaria*, Rhipidomel-
Ja°, Sarganostega*, Sceletonia*, Spinifrons*, Scac-
chinella 0 , Stenoscisma, Teguliferina 0 , Undellaria*
The following genera terminate at this level:
Cryptacanthia, Fimbrinia, Orthotichia, Orthote-
tella, and Teguliferina. This list of genera is al¬
most identical to one that might be produced for
the lower part of the Skinner Ranch Formation,
especially as that part of the formation is devel¬
oped at Hess Ranch and the north side of Hess
Ranch Horst (USNM 705a, 720e).
The upper part of the lower, clastic beds of the
Bone Spring Limestone contains the following ad¬
ditional genera (asterisk denotes first appearance
in the Sierra Diablo): Chonosteges*, Glyptoste-
ges*, Iotina'*, Micraphelia*, Spyridiophora*, and
Tschernyscheivia*. All of these, except the third
and fourth, are important genera in the upper
part of the Skinner Ranch and Hess Forma¬
tions. The correlation of the lower Bone Spring
clastic beds with the Skinner Ranch Formation is
very satisfactory and convincing. Most of the gen¬
era in the two formations are alike, and many of
the species are identical, although more than 200
miles separate them. This fauna is now placed at
the top of the Wolfcamp Series.
Leonard Series.— This region contains thin-
bedded Bone Spring Formation, Victorio Peak
Limestone Formation, from which we made no
collections, and, above it, Cutoff Shale Member.
Thin-bedded Bone Spring Formation: This
formation consists mainly of thin-bedded black
limestone in beds from less than an inch to a few
inches in thickness. The formation is variable in
thickness, depending on the irregular Hueco sur¬
face or passage of the upper beds into the Victorio
Peak Limestone. At Apache Canyon it is 800 feet
thick and thins to the southwest. In Victorio Peak
and the region of the Victorio Flexure at its mid¬
point, the formation is 1050 feet thick. The Bone
Spring black limestone is considered a basinal de¬
posit, as it has few fossils and is strongly bitumi¬
nous. The Bone Spring sea-bottom probably was
not populated by many shelly organisms in the
basin region (Plate 8: figure 3).
Victorio Peak Limestone Formation: We made
no collections from the Victorio Peak Limestone,
but we examined material collected by J. B. Knight
that belongs to Princeton University and the
United States Geological Survey. The following re¬
marks are made for the sake of completeness in
this study.
122
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
The Victorio Peak Limestone is a great mass of
calcirudite, possibly with some bioherms overlying
the black limestone of the Bone Spring. It is best
developed at the north end of the Sierra Diablo,
where it is 975 feet thick. On the south slope of
Victorio Peak, P. B. King (1965:73) gives its thick¬
ness as 1500 feet, but he states that the lower half
intergrades with black limestone. King further re¬
ports interesting facies changes of the Victorio
Peak Limestone west of the Sierra Diablo front to
a dolomitic, thin-bedded, poorly fossiliferous lime¬
stone. “One facies gives place to the other in about
a mile along a well-defined boundary that extends
north-northwestward across the mountains from
Victorio Canyon to a little east of Sierra Prieta”
(King, 1965:73). This facies shift reminds King
of the passage of the “Leonard” Hess (West Facies)
in the Glass Mountains into the “East facies” of
thin-bedded dolomites and limestones.
Because the Victorio Peak Limestone mainly
caps the highest peaks of the northern end of the
Sierra Diablo, the formation has a difficult access
from the east. Its fauna therefore is poorly known.
Available collections consist mostly of poor speci¬
mens, but enough important elements have been
identified in them to get a fair idea of the correla¬
tion of this formation. The Princeton collections
have abundant medium-sized Enteletes and large,
strongly costate Stenoscisma. Of productids, per¬
haps the most prominent form is Peniculauris, but
Xestosia also is common; Chonosteges and a small
Liosotella are present. Neophricadothyris, Compo-
sita, and Hustedia are fairly common, along with
a variety of small rhynchonellids.
Lepidospirifer and Institella clearly indicate a
relationship to the Cathedral Mountain Formation
of the Glass Mountains. R. E. King (1931:15) re¬
ports “Productus” ivesi and occidentalis and
Kochiproductus [as Buxtonia] victorioensis. The
latter is said by Cloud (in P. B. King, 1965:76)
to be common, but the species is confused with
Peniculauris, which R. E. King identified as P-
ivesi. Cloud is correct in stating that P. ivesi was
incorrectly identified by King, but incorrect in
assigning it to Kochiproductus. The Princeton col¬
lection from the Victorio Peak Limestone does not
contain Kochiproductus, which usually is rare
above the Hueco. It is quite evident from the
small list presented by R. E. King and the equivo¬
cal one of Cloud—which contains Wolfcampian
names unlikely in the fauna and not known in the
Sierra Diablo—that much collecting and careful
work needs to be done on the fauna of the Victorio
Peak Limestone.
Cutoff Shale Member: Above the Victorio Peak
Limestone a unit of 250—275 feet of dark limestone,
shale, and sandstone has been identified. This bed
at its type section contains very few fossils, and
those found are equivocal. The fusulinids are said
to indicate a Guadalupe age, but the presence of
Perrinites suggests rather a Leonardian age (P. B.
King, 1965:78). Brachiopods are said to be rare.
We have not collected this formation and, there¬
fore, have no opinion as to its age. Wilde (1968:
12) discusses it as being exposed in the Apache
Mountains. Fusulinids from there indicate to him
an early Guadalupian age and, more specifically,
correlation with the Road Canyon Formation of
the Glass Mountains. The Cutoff Shale in the Si¬
erra Diablo and Apache Mountains occupies a po¬
sition between Leonardian and Guadalupian
formations. Its equivocal dating is in accordance
with that of the Road Canyon Formation, which
also contains guide elements of the Guadalupian
and Leonardian. In the Delaware Basin the fossils
of the Cutoff Shale suggest an earlier age (see
“Guadalupe Mountains” below).
Guadalupe Mountains and Delaware Basin
This classical area for Permian studies in the
United States was made known through the works
of G. H. Girty (1909), P. B. King (1948), and N.
D. Newell et al. (1953). For years, Girty’s Guada¬
lupian Fauna was the chief source of knowledge of
American Permian fossils. Many species were estab¬
lished and their names were applied in Permian
sections elsewhere in the United States throughout
the entire span of the Permian. Our work in the
Guadalupes and in the Delaware Basin consisted
only in collecting from the Capitan Limestone,
the Bell Canyon and Cherry Canyon formations,
with the intention of obtaining calcareous and
silicified material to help clarify the many equivo¬
cal Girty and Shumard species. We also have avail¬
able the more extensive collections made by the
American Museum of Natural History and those
of the United States Geological Survey, both of
which help to fill gaps where fossils are not silici¬
fied.
NUMBER 14
123
Wolfcamp Series.— Rocks of Wolfcampian age
are not exposed in the Guadalupe Mountains.
Leonard Series.— Rocks of the Bone Spring and
Victorio Peak Limestones appear on the west slope
of the Guadalupe Mountains, but the lower part
of the Bone Spring is not exposed. As in the Sierra
Diablo, the Bone Spring is a thick sequence of
dark, often cherty limestone with thin, dark shale
partings, beds of dark shaly limestone, and occa¬
sional lenticular granular masses. Two miles north
of Bone Spring, 1700 feet of this limestone was
recorded by P. B. King (1948:13). Fossils are rare
in the black limestone. A bioherm-like lens 0.75
mile southwest of Williams Ranch, near the mid¬
dle of the formation, (AMNH 658) yielded In-
stitella.
The Victorio Peak Limestone is well developed
in the Guadalupe Mountains. A lower member,
350 feet thick, of brownish-gray dolomitic and
cherty limestone represents a phase intermediate
lithically to the Bone Spring Limestone. The up¬
per part of the Victorio Peak, 160 feet thick, is
light gray and nondolomitic. It contains numerous
fossils. North of Shirttail Canyon, a 100-foot mid¬
dle division is inserted between the two members,
which consists of light gray limestone with inter-
bedded, fine-grained calcareous sandstone.
According to P. B. King, fossils are common in
the Victorio Peak Limestone, but they are difficult
to extract. Girty (in P. B. King, 1948:23) gives a
list of species from the lower gray member, which
includes Institella, Peniculauris, and Rugcitia, all
typical Cathedral Mountain species. The upper
member also includes Peniculauris.
The Cutoff Shale overlies the Victorio Peak
Limestone and has yielded fossils. Examination of
the United States Geological Survey collection 7666
(blue) from the Cutoff Shale in the Delaware Ba¬
sin, on the north side of Brushy Canyon, revealed
a typical Cathedral Mountain assemblage: Ruga-
tia, Niviconia globosa, Chonosteges, Hercosia, Xes-
tosia, Megousia, Edriosteges, Institella, and Lepi-
dospirifer. The fauna and age assignment at this
place are not in accordance with the age assign¬
ment cited for the Cutoff Shale in the Apache
Mountains or the Siena Diablo. It is likely that
two different units have received the same name.
Guadalupe Series.— The Guadalupe Series is
more extensively developed in this region than in
the Glass Mountains. The lowest formation, the
Brushy Canyon, consists of 1150 feet of massive
and thin-bedded quartz sandstone, ranging from
tan to black in color. It is thickest in the basin,
extends northward along the west slope of the
mountains, and wedges out on the Bone Spring
flexure. The fauna is neither abundant nor well
preserved. The collection, recorded by Girty (in
P. B. King, 1948:30), contains Megousia, Echino-
steges, and Dyoros, with a number of dubious
productids. Newell et al. (1953:232) record the
ammonite Waagenoceras. Paleontologically the
formation seems to occupy the position of the Road
Canyon Formation of the Glass Mountains, but the
fauna is too little known for this to be a cer¬
tainty.
The Cherry Canyon Formation, a much more
varied sequence, overlies the Brushy Canyon For¬
mation, and exhibits strong facies differences from
northwest to southeast. In the northwestern part
of the formation, a basal sandstone, the Cherry
Canyon sandstone tongue 200-250 feet thick, is
overlain by the reefy Goat Seep Limestone, attain¬
ing a maximum thickness of 1000 feet. Laterally
to the southeast the Goat Seep interfingers with
sandstones of the Cherry Canyon. In the sandstones
there are three limestone members in ascending
order: Getaway, South Wells, and Manzanita
Limestones. All of the members are fossiliferous,
some richly, but others with sparse faunas.
The Cherry Canyon Sandstone Tongue contains
few fossils, but those present suggest the lower
Word. A large Enteletes, suggesting E. wordensis
R. E. King, is present, as well as a few productids
such as Paucispinifera, Liosotella, and Megousia.
Spiriferella appears for the first time in the Guada¬
lupe section in this formation. According to P. B.
King, the Cherry Canyon Sandstone Tongue is the
equivalent of limestone beds occurring below the
Getway Member.
The Goat Seep fauna is very poorly known be¬
cause poor preservation of the fossils by dolomitiza-
tion of the limestone has destroyed many of their
diagnostic features. The discussion of the fauna by
Girty cites a number of obvious Word species, but
he records others that are known elsewhere only
in the Leonard Series (Cathedral Mountain) e.g.,
Niviconia globosa (R. E. King). The Enteletes cited
is a Cathedral Mountain species; however, the oc¬
currence of productids assignable to Paucispini¬
fera, Grandaurispina, and Liosotella are much
124
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
more indicative of the Word. It is evident from
Girty’s discussion and from his lists that much
work needs to be done on the fauna of the Goat
Seep. The faunas of the limestone members of the
Cherry Canyon Formation in the Basin region are
far more extensive, more easily collected, and
much better known.
The Getaway fauna, as the result of collecting
by parties from the American Museum of Natural
History and from the National Museum of Natural
History, is now one of the best known from the
Guadalupe Mountains. King reports fossils in
limy lenses occurring in the 100-200 feet of sand¬
stone between the top of the Brushy Canyon and
the base of the Getaway Limestone. Girty (in P.
B. King, 1948:41) reports a rich fauna from these
sub-Getaway limestones. Our USNM 732 (=
AMNH 600) is in one of these thin limestones.
Species characteristic of this lens are: Meekella
skenoicles Girty, Derbyia pannucia, new species,
Echinosteges tuberculatus (R. E. King), Bothronia
pulchra, new species, Paucispinifera tumida, new
species, Grandaurispina undulata, new species, Un-
dulella guadalupensis, new species, Crurithyns
tholiaphor, new species, Reticulariina girtyi, new
species, Rhamnaria sulcata, new species, Metri-
olepis exserta, new species, Cyclacantharia kingi
Cooper and Grant, and many other less common
species. This fauna has considerable similarity to
that of the Willis Ranch Member in the Glass
Mountains. Both Geyerella and Ombonia appear at
this level as great rarities.
Girty (in P. B. King, 1948:42—44) gives a long
discussion of the fauna of the upper part of the
lower Getaway Member and records many species.
He remarks on the absence of Enteletes, which last
appeared in the Cherry Canyon Sandstone tongue.
Many of the species listed above for the sub-Geta¬
way lens appear in the Getaway Member, but, in
addition, other important species are significant,
such as Ctenalosia fixata, Cooper and Stehli, Poly-
morpharia polymorpha, new species, Liosotella
wordensis (R. E. King), Grandaurispina rudis, new
species, Dyoros (Tetragonetes) subquadratus, new
species, Spiriferella gloverae, new species, and Yakov-
levia costellata, new species. A few unusual species
that are very rare appear at this level: Divaricosta
squarrosa, Cooper and Grant, Strophalosia inex-
pectan,s, new species, and Rallacosta species. This
fauna has some species in common with the Appel
Ranch Member of the Word Formation of the
Glass Mountains, and the general aspect of the
fauna is the same.
The South Wells Limestone Member, which lies
above the Getaway, is not so richly fossiliferous.
It is 200 or more feet thick and is composed of gray
limestone, black limestone, and some sandstone
beds. The black limestones often contain abundant
Leiorhynchoidea, which is accompanied by Glos-
sothyropsis and Paranorella. The two rhynchonel-
lids are reminiscent of black limestones in the Las
Delicias section in Coahuila, Mexico (Newell et al.,
1953). Of productids, Girty (in P. B. King, 1948:
46) records the following common Word genera:
W aagenoconcha, Cancrinella, Grandaurispina, and
Liosotella.
The Manzanita Limestone Member consists of
75-100 feet of earthy, greenish limestone, weather¬
ing to a yellow. King and Fountain observed fos¬
sils in these limestones, but these fossils proved to
be indifferently preserved and difficult to obtain.
The Bell Canyon Formation, 670-1038 feet thick,
overlies the Cherry Canyon Formation. Like the
latter, it is a mass of fine-grained sandstone contain¬
ing limestone members. Five of these have been
named (from the bottom up): Hegler, 30—40 feet
(Plate 22: figure 2); Pinery, 25-100 feet; Rader, 15
feet; McCombs, 10 feet; and Lamar, 15—30 feet—
all dark limestones (Plate 22: figure 3). The faunas
of the lower three are very similar, but that of the
Lamar is quite distinct from the others. No exten¬
sive fauna is known for the McCombs. The Bell
Canyon Formation interfingers toward the moun¬
tains (northwest from the Delaware Basin) into
the Capitan Limestone, the great mass of reef
rock and reef slide (Plate 22: figure 1). Completing
the picture, the Carlsbad Formation, back reef
facies, interfingers with the Capitan reef rock on
the west. The Capitan and Carlsbad have distinc¬
tive faunas.
The faunas of the Hegler, Pinery, and Rader
Members consist of numerous small brachiopods
in which productids are rare, rhynchonellids com¬
mon, and several genera of the Spiriferinidae
abundant. Large productids are very scarce, but
Thamnosia capitanensis (Girty) occurs usually as
broken and worn specimens. Liosotella is present.
Each of the members has first appearances of sig¬
nificance. First appearances in the Hegler Member
are: Aphaurosia, Craspedona, Deltarina, Elivina,
NUMBER 14
125
Fascicosta, Scapharina, Sestropoma, Timorina, and
Xenosaria. The only newcomer recorded in the
Pinery is Rigbyella. Terminal at the end of the
Rader Member are: Glossothyropsis, Chonetinetes,
Craspedona, Micraphelia, Rallacosta, and Xeno¬
saria.
The Lamar fauna is characterized by a great
flood of Martin.ia and by two genera that appear
for the first time: Anomaloria and Astegosia. In
addition to these, Aneuthelasma, Eliva, Lirellaria,
and Strigirhynchus appear for the first time.
Missing from the Bell Canyon limestone mem¬
bers are some of the most abundant genera of the
Permian, such as: Meekella, Enteletes, Rhyn-
chopora, and Neospirifer. Meekella has not been
found by us in any of the Bell Canyon limestones,
but Geyerella appears as a very rare fossil in the
Lamar. Enteletes in the Guadalupe Mountain and
Delaware Basin region appears to have died out in
the basal part of the Cherry Canyon Formation.
No large spiriferids have been found by us in the
Bell Canyon limestones.
Inasmuch as the Bell Canyon is the lateral
equivalent of the Capitan Limestone, that forma¬
tion contains many of the species of the Bell Can¬
yon, and the various levels may be identified in
the Capitan.
Our collecting in the Capitan Limestone mainly
has been from the reef slide portion on the east and
south fronts of the mountains. These areas have
produced the Lamar fauna in abundance. The two
facies complement each other nicely, that of the
dark Bell Canyon limestone members yielding
silicified interiors, but not furnishing much evi¬
dence as to the nature of the shell. The Capitan
fossils are unsilicified and furnish information on
the nature of the shell. The Capitan fauna thus is
essentially the fauna of the Bell Canyon in un¬
silicified state.
Our collecting in the Capitan Limestone has
made it clear that the fauna of this thick and
extensive formation has been badly neglected. Col¬
lections of the American Museum of Natural His¬
tory and the National Museum of Natural History
combined indicate that many species still are to be
found and that the total generic composition is
not known. Large spiriferids that are undescribed
have been found in places, but our specimens are
insufficient for the task of description.
The fauna of the Carlsbad Limestone, back reef
facies of the Capitan, also is very poorly known.
The fauna is peculiar in lacking productids and
rhynchonellids, but in containing numerous tere-
bratulids. A Meekella is present, but spiriferids are
lacking; Cyclacantharia is abundant.
Chinati Mountains
The reported occurrence (Stehli, 1954:334) of
Scacchinella in the Permian of these mountains was
the lure that attracted us to them. The exposures
promised to help us in our understanding of the
Scacchinella- bearing beds of the Glass Mountains.
Several areas of Permian rocks occur in the Chinati
Mountain region south of Marfa, Texas. All of
them yield a different sequence, but our main quest
was just east of the Cibolo Ranch House, near the
junction of Sierra Alta and Cibolo Creeks, about
3 miles north of Shatter. Here, a section about a
thousand feet thick faces west along Sierra Alta
Creek. The outcrop area extends for about 3 miles in
a northeasterly direction from the junction of the
creeks almost to U.S. Highway 67. We also ex¬
amined the area near Ojo Bonito, on the Love
Ranch, about 10 miles northwest of the exposures
on Sierra Alta Creek.
Not much has been written about the Chinati
Mountains Permian, and the fossils are virtually
unknown. The first to describe the area was J. A.
Udden, who outlined the stratigraphy. In 1904 he
named three formations: Cieneguita, Alta, and
Cibolo, in ascending order. Since the first is dated
as Pennsylvanian and the second has yielded no
fossils as yet, these two have no concern here.
The Cibolo Formation.— This formation was
suggested by Udden to be Permian and was divided
into five rock units. Skinner (1940) made a study
of this formation and determined, on the basis of
fusulinids, that the entire sequence, except for the
very topmost part, is Wolfcampian in age. R. E.
King (1931) and A. K. Miller, who found the
ammonoid Perrin.ites in the sequence, regarded
much of the section as Leonard in age. Rix (1935a)
prepared a doctoral dissertation on the Chinati
Mountains and published information in a West
Texas Geological Society Guide Book (1953b) to
the area. He concludes that the age of the Cibolo
Formation is Leonardian.
126
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
All writers on the Cibolo Formation have recog¬
nized Udden’s divisions of this formation, which
are (from the bottom up): Transition Zone, Lower
Brecciated Zone, Zone of Sponge Spicules, Thin-
bedded Zone, and Yellow Dolomitic Limestone.
Transition Zone: These beds are calcareous
shale (Plate 23: figures 3, 4) and sandstone, about
100 feet thick, containing many fossils, particularly
fusulinids. In the upper part we collected the
following brachiopods: Meekella magnified, new
species, Rliipidomella species, Orthotichia aff. O.
kozlowskii R. E. King, Reticulatia robusta, new
species, Eoiyttonia gigantea, new species, Neospiri-
fer infraplicata R. E. King, Scacchinella titan, new
species, Stenoscisma multicostatum Stehli, and large
Hustedia hessenis R. E. King. This assemblage, as
do the fusulinids, identifies the level as late Wolf-
campian in age.
Lower Brecciated Zone: This zone consists of
130 feet of massive limestone blocks, with coarse,
boulder-like rubble between them (Plate 23: fig¬
ures 3, 4). The zone is interpreted by Rigby (1958:
308) as a reef talus mass, but Rix (1953a:45) re¬
gards the breccia as having been derived from
massive limestone ledges in the breccia. Regard¬
less of this difference of opinion, the block origi¬
nated as reefy limestone, abounding in large
Scacchinella (Plate 23: figure 2) and strongly re¬
sembling the Decie Ranch and Sullivan Peak
Members of the Skinner Ranch Formation. We
collected the following important species: Derbyia
nasuta Girty, Geyerella cf. G. hessi, new species,
Diplanus lamellatus (R. E. King), Acosarina dorsi-
sulcata Cooper and Grant, Orthotichia newelli,
new species, Enteletes species, Rhipidomella hessi
R. E. King, Limbella species, Scacchinella titan,
new species, Echinauris species, Antronaria mesi-
costalis (Girty), Stenoscisma problematicum, new
species, Neospirifer infraplicata R. E. King, Eoiyt¬
tonia magna, new species, Cleiothyridina recti-
marginat.a, new species, and Crenispirifer angu-
latus (R. E. King).
This brachiopod assemblage at once suggests the
Skinner Ranch Formation. Relationship to this
formation in the Glass Mountains is shown by the
Scacchinella, Geyerella, Rhipidotnella, and Eoiyt¬
tonia. Relationship to the lower Bone Spring, also
of Skinner Ranch age, is shown in the presence of
Pontisia mesicostalis and Orthotichia newelli.
Zone of Sponge Spicules: Overlying the Brecci¬
ated zone there occur 216 feet of thin-bedded lime¬
stone, chert, and sandstone containing many sponge
spicules. Fossils are not common in this zone, but
a few specimens of the ammonite Perrinites were
found near the top and of Institella leonardensis
(R. E. King) in the lower part. On the basis of
Institella, we correlate it with the Cathedral Moun¬
tain Formation.
Thin-bedded Zone: Above the Zone of Sponge
Spicules comes this zone of thin-bedded dark
limestone. The individual beds swell and thin
and between them is sandy shale. Fossils are
fairly common in a few of the thin layers. Fusu¬
linids in a few layers make up most of the rock.
About 150 feet above the Spicule Zone occurs a
thin bed with numerous silicified brachiopods. The
bed yielded mucronate Reticulariina bufala, new
species, Liosotella costata, new species, Megousia
auriculata Muir-Wood and Cooper, Dyoros trans-
versus, new species, Echinauris bella, new species,
and Petasmatherus pumilus, new species. This list
indicates correlation with the Road Canyon For¬
mation in the Glass Mountains^
Yellow Dolomitic Limestone: This zone failed
to yield us any brachiopods, but Rigby (in Rix,
1953a:51, 54) records numerous sponges that he
regards as late Leonard or early Word in age.
Ojo Bonito Area.— Here, dark shales are over-
lain by 120 feet of massive limestone containing
numerous specimens of the ammonite Perrinites,
probably Leonardian in age. Above this there is a
thick sequence of shale and thin limestone con¬
taining a few fossils. The fusulinids and brachio¬
pods indicate a Guadalupian (Word) age for these
beds, which belong in the Ross Mine Formation
of Rix (1953b).
Register of Localities
The localities herein include all of those repre¬
sented in the collection of the National Museum
of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution ( under
the locality numbers of the United States National
Museum). Inasmuch as some of the material was
derived from other museums and the United States
Geological Survey, locality numbers of these or¬
ganizations are also added, but the specimens be-
NUMBER 14
127
long to the National Museum of Natural History.
The locations generally are made as map measures
from nearby bench marks, instrumentally deter¬
mined elevations, hill tops, ranch houses, or other
convenient reference points. These are often diffi¬
cult to locate quickly by readers unfamiliar with
the quadrangles covering the Glass Mountains.
We have, therefore, listed alphabetically and nu¬
merically all of these important points to facilitate
location of the collecting places.
The United States Geological Survey topographic
maps are divided into nine rectangles by intersect¬
ing latitude and longitude lines. These are called
subquads and are numbered in sequence, beginning
in the upper right, in the manner of numbering
used in the township-range system. Consequently,
the subquad in the upper right corner is 1, to the
left are 2 and 3. Below 3, in order left to right,
are 4 through 6; 7 lies in the lower right corner
with 8 and 9 to the left.
Each subquad is further divided into four equal
rectangles: northeast, southeast, northwest, and
southwest. Each of these rectangles is similarly
subdivided. Location is made by reference to the
quarter in which the site lies. Thus, a collecting
spot may lie in the northwest quarter of the south¬
west quarter of subquad seven: NW, SW7.
Faunal lists for all localities will appear in the
final volume of this study, rather than here, in
order to avoid the introduction of a great number
of undefined names and to make whatever changes
become necessary in the meanwhile.
See “R. E. King Localities” (page 128) for the
system of punctuation used throughout in the
locality lists of this register.
Altuda (15') Quadrangle
Bench mark 4627.NE, NE 7
Bench mark 4827.SW, SE, NE 6
Bench mark 4869.SE, NE, SE 6
Bench mark 4973.NW, SE 6
Bench mark 6125 [—Sullivan Peak] .SE, NE 8
Canyon, Gilliland. Ei/ 2 6
Canyon, Road.NE, SE 6
Clay Slide.SE, NW 8
Hill 4902.SW, SE 8
Hill 4910.SE, NW 7
Hill 4920.NW, SW 7
Hill 5021 [—Decie Brothers Hill].NE, SW 7
Hill 5250.center SE, SE 8
Hill 5280.SW, NE 7
Hill 5300.SE, SE 8
Hill 5615.SE, SE, NE 6
Hill 5779.SE, SE 6
Hill 5874 .SW, NE 6
Hill 5935.SE, NW 8
Hill 5939.SE, SW 6
Hill, “Windmill”. Ni/ 2 , SW 7
Hills, Lenox.SE 8 and SW 7
Mountain, Cathedral.E center 8
Mountain, Iron.SE, NE 7
Ranch, Iron Mountain [ = Skinner].E center, NE 7
Ranch, Skinner.E center, NE 7
Ranch, Sullivan [= Yates].NE, NE 8
Sullivan Peak.SE, NE 8
Tank, Poplar.SW, SW 8
Hess Canyon (15') Quadrangle
Amphitheater in Wolf Camp Hills.W center 5
Benchmark 5652.W center 5
Benchmark 5860 [^Leonard Mountain].Ni^, NW 9
Canyon, Comanche [ = east branch Hess Canyon?] Ni/ 2 , SE 4
Canyon, Geologists.SE, SW 5
Canyon, Hess.center 4
Canyon, Road .Ni/fc, SW 4
Hill 4627.SW, NE 1
Hill 4732 .SW, NE 1
Hill 4752.N center Si/ 2 , NW 6
Hill 4762 .NE, NW 6
Hill 4800 .SE, NW 1
Hill 4815.SW, NW 6
Hill 4921.NE, NW 6
Hill 4952.NW, SE 5
Hill 5035 .SW, SW 1
Hill 5060.center Si/ 2 5
Hill 5135.SE, SE 1
Hill 5157.center Ei/ Z , SE 2
Hill 5202 NW, NE 6
Hill 5233 .W side SE, NW 1
Hill 5305.NW, SE 4
Hill 5360. SW, SE 2
Hill 5453 .S center, Ni/ 2 , SW 4
Hill 5461.NE, NW 5
Hill 5490.NE, NE 4
Hill 5507.NW, NW 5
Hill 5543 .NE, NE 4
Hill 5552 NW, NE 5
Hill 5575.NW, NW 5
Hill 5578 .SW, NE 4
Hill 5611 .SE, NE 4
Hill 5632 .NW, SE, NE 5
Hill 5674 .SW, SW 4
Hill 5725.NW, SW 5
Hill 5726.NE, SE 4
Hill 5751.SW, NW, SW 5
Hill 5767 center Ni/ 2 , SW 5
Hill 5801.NW, SW 4
Hill 5803 S center Si/ 2 , NW 4
Hill 5816.SW, SE, NE 4
Hill 5821.NE, SW 5
128
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Hills, Wolf Camp.center S y 2 5
Horst, Hess Ranch.center E y 2 , 4
Mountain, Leonard.Ni/£, NW 9
Ranch, Appel [=01d Word].SE, NW 5
Ranch, Bill Neal [- Taylor].NW, SW, SE 5
Ranch, Brooks.NW, NE 6
Ranch, Hess.SE, SW 4
Ranch, Old Word [ = Appel].SE, NW 5
Ranch, Taylor [—Bill Neal].NW, SW, SE 5
Ranch, Willis.SE, NW 4
Tank, Split.SE, NW 5
Tank, China.center NE 4
Peak, Signal [ = Guadalupe Peak].
Point, Instrumental 5206.
Point, Instrumental 6910.
Pratt Lodge.
Ranch, Hegler [ —Ligon].
Ranch, Williams.
Ridge, Rader.
Spring, Goat.
Spring, Pine [ = lorver Pine Spring]
Spring, Pine, lower (see Pine Spring)
Spring, Pine, upper.
Tank, Pinyon.
.Si/ 2 , NE 5
NE, SW, NE 6
..NE, NE, NE 3
.NE, SE 1
.SE, SE 1
.SE, NW 5
.SW, SE 1
NE, NW 5
SE, NW, NW 6
SE, NW, NW 6
.SE, NW, NE 7
Monument Spring (15') Quadrangle
Van Horn (30') Quadrangle
Bench mark 4190.NW, NE 2
Bench mark 5324.N center 4
Hill 4801.NW, NE 2
Hill 4806 .NW, SW, NE 3
Hill 4811.NE, NE, SW 3
Hill 4861.SE, NW, NE 3
Hill 5195 [=Dugout Mountain].NW, SW 2
Hills, Lenox.NW, NE 2
Hills, Lenox. NE, NW, 2
Mountain, Dugout .W center 2
Point, Instrumental 4386.SW, NE, SE 3
Point, Instrumental 4269 .SW, SE, SE 3
Ranch, Arnold .NE, SE 2
Ranch, Decie.W center, NW 1
Ranch, Payne, Old.SE, NE 3
Guadalupe Peak (15') Quadrangle
Beacon, Airway
Bench mark 4425.
Bench mark 5315.
Bench mark 5426
Bench mark 5446
Camp, Nickel Creek
Camp, Pine Spring
Canyon, Indian Cave
Canyon, Brushy.
Canyon, McKittrick
Canyon, Pine
Canyon, Shirttail.
El Capitan
Frijole P. O.
Hill 5130
Hill 5206
Hill 5406
Hill 5414
Hill 5506.
Hill 6560
Hill Nipple
Mountain, Cutoff
Mountain, Pine Top
Pass, Guadalupe
Peak, Shumard
E of center N line, NW 7
.NW, NW, NE 8
.SE, NW, SW 6
.Si/ 2 , NW, SW 6
E of center N line, NW 7
W center, Ei/ 2 , NE 6
.SW, NW 6
.SW, SE 5
.SW, SE 5
.NW 1
.NW, NW 6
.NW 5
. center Ei/ 2 5
.NE, NW 6
.SE, NW, NE 7
.SE, NW, NE 6
center Ei/ 2 , SW, NE 7
near center SE, SE 1
.SW, SE, NE 7
NW corner, NE 1
NW corner, NE 6
.NE, NE, NE 3
NW, NW 6
Si/ 2 , NW, SW 6
.NW, NW, NE 5
Bench mark 3625.
Bench mark 3648
Bench mark 3806.
Bench mark 4290.
Bench mark 4970.
Canyon, Apache.
Canyon, Black John.
Canyon, Mine 2 miles SW of ranch
Canyon, Red Tank .
Canyon, Victorio.
Gap, Seven Heart .
Hazel Mine
Hill 4402 .
Hill 6073
Mountain, Three Mile.
Mountains, Baylor.
Peak, Apache.
Peak, Victorio .
Ranch, Corn . .
Ranch, Figure Two
Ranch, Nutt .
.NW corner 5
.SW, SW 2
.SE, NE 4
.SE, SE 4
NW, SW, SW 5
.NW, NW 3
..NW, NE 3
(Figure 2), SW, NE 1
.Si/ 2 , SW 5
.Si/ 2 , SE 3
.SE, NE 6
.SW, SW, SE 4
.SE, NE 4
.NW, NW 3
.SE 9
.SW 5
.NW, NW, NE 3
.Ni/ 2 , NE 4
.NE, NE, NE 4
. NE 3
SE, SE, SE 4
Location of Canyons
in Carlsbad Caverns West (15') Quadrangle
Big
Black
Double
Nuevo
Rattlesnake
Slaughter
Walnut
Yucca
....SW, SW 9
.center 9
Ei/ 2 5, Wi/ 2 6
center 6
.NE, NE 6
Ei/ 2 5, Wi/ 2 6
.SE, SE 1
.Si/ 2 5
R. E. King Localities
Through the kindness of Dr. C. O. Dunbar, Yale
University, the locality maps of R. E. King were
lent for use in our studies. We have augmented
this list of King’s localities with additional map
measures, which will help the reader to locate
NUMBER 14
129
many of his collecting spots. Also, the stratigraphic
assignments are those of King, but we have ex¬
panded them by giving the modern formation
names in brackets. Finally, we have given the
equivalent United States National Museum
(USNM) numbers in brackets where they coincide
with King’s numbers. Special notes or comments,
if needed, are in brackets at the end of the entry.
This system of punctuation is used throughout all
of the locality lists in this register.
1. Hess [ = Skinner Ranch Formation]: Small hill 1 mile
(0.9) NW (N 33° W) of summit of Iron Mountain, 1.4
miles N 80° W of Skinner Ranch, Altuda quadrangle.
2. Wolfcamp (upper) [ — Lenox Hills Formation]: Section
14, hill W of Iron Mountain, 2.28 miles S 57° W of
Skinner Ranch, Altuda quadrangle.
3. Leonard (about 50 feet above base) [ = Skinner Ranch
Formation]: 1 mile (0.9) W (N 78° W) of summit of
Iron Mountain, Altuda quadrangle [r=USNM 723h],
4. Hess? [ — Skinner Ranch Formation]: 0.6 mile (0.58) N
(N 11° E) of hill 5021, second hill W of Iron Mountain,
Altuda quadrangle. [ — USNM 717f].
5. Leonard (below soft shale of the Clay Slide about 250
feet below top) [ — Cathedral Mountain Formation]:
Section 14, W of Iron Mountain, below soft shale of
Clay Slide, 0.47 mile S 4° W of hill 4910, Altuda quad¬
rangle [=R. E. King 301? —approximately USNM 717g].
6. Word [=lower Road Canyon Formation]: Section 14,
near Clay slide, 0.4 mile S 15° W of hill 4910, Altuda
quadrangle [ = R. E. King 301].
7. Leonard (bed 16) [ = Cathedral Mountain Formation]:
Section 14, W of Iron Mountain, Altuda quadrangle
[number not on King’s map],
8. Hess [r=Skinner Ranch Formation]: Section 14 (contains
some lower Leonard fossils [ = Cathedral Mountain]),
1.3 miles S 22° E of hill 4910, W of Iron Mountain,
Altuda quadrangle.
9. Leonard (below middle limestone layer of bed 9)
[ = Cathedral Mountain Formation]: 1.05 miles S 14° E
of hill 4910, section 14, W of Iron Mountain, Altuda
quadrangle.
10. Leonard (middle limestone layer of bed 9 and top of
bed 12) [ = Cathedral Mountain Formation]: Section 14,
second hill W of Iron Mountain, same as above, Altuda
quadrangle [number not on King’s map],
11. Leonard (between middle limestone layer of bed 9 and
top of bed 12) [=Cathedral Mountain Formation]: Sec¬
tion 14, same as above, second hill W of Iron Mountain,
Altuda quadrangle [number not on King’s map],
12. Leonard [ = Cathedral Mountain Formation]: Section 14,
top of bed 12, same as above, second hill W of Iron
Mountain, Altuda quadrangle [number not on King’s
map].
13. Leonard (base of bed 14) [ — Cathedral Mountain Forma¬
tion]: Section 14, same as above, second hill W of Iron
Mountain, Altuda quadrangle [number not on King’s
map].
14. Leonard (lower part bed 15) [^Cathedral Mountain For¬
mation]: Section 14, same as above, second hill W of
Iron Mountain, Altuda quadrangle [number not on
King’s map].
15. Leonard [ — Skinner Ranch and Cathedral Mountain For¬
mation]: Section 15, hill 5280 W of Iron Mountain,
Altuda quadrangle.
16. Leonard [ = Skinner Ranch Formation]: Section 15,
slightly above or near the base, hill 5280 W of Iron
Mountain, Altuda quadrangle.
17. Hess [rrSullivan Peak Member]: Projecting spur of
range just W of Marathon-Sullivan [Yates] Ranch road,
1.37 miles N 72° E of hill 5300, Altuda quadrangle
[=USNM 707],
17a. Lower part projecting spur of range just W of Sullivan
Ranch road, Altuda quadrangle [:=USNM 707].
17b. Middle of spur of range just W of Sullivan Ranch road,
Altuda quadrangle.
17c. Top of projecting spur of range W of Sullivan Ranch
road, Altuda quadrangle.
18. Hess: Section 12.
19. Leonard (basal) [:= Poplar Tank Member]: Section 12,
bed I, E end of Lenox Hills, 0.8 mile N 82° E of hill
5300, Altuda quadrangle.
20. Leonard (bed 1) [ — Poplar Tank Member, by map loca¬
tion]: Section 12, 0.8 mile N 73° E of hill 5300, E end
of Lenox Hills, Altuda quadrangle.
21. Leonard (near middle of bed 24) [ — Third and Fourth
Limestone Members =Cathedral Mountain Formation]:
Section 12, same as above, E end of Lenox Hills, Altuda
quadrangle. [The locality descriptions and map locations
of localities 21—25 are not in complete accordance with
P. B. King’s (1931:66) section 21. All localities are given
as bed 24 ( — Third and Fourth Limestone Members).
Localities 20-22 are on the edge of the hill 1 mile east-
northeast of hill 5300 at about an elevation of 5000 feet
and are at the level of the Sullivan Peak Member. Locali¬
ties 23-25 are in hill 4920, and 24 and 25 are certainly in
the Third and Fourth Limestone Members. Locality 23,
on the other hand, located at the base of the hill, may
be in the top of the Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan
Peak Member)].
22. Leonard (middle of bed 24) [ = Cathedral Mountain For¬
mation]: Section 12, same as above, E end of Lenox
Hills, Altuda quadrangle [see, R. E. King 21].
23. Leonard (near middle of bed 24) [ — Cathedral Mountain
Formation?]: Section 12, below hill 4920 and N of lo¬
cality 21, 0.18 mile S of hill 4920, Lenox Hills, Altuda
quadrangle [see, R. E. King 21].
24. Leonard (some distance above middle of bed 24 but
below top of hill 4920) [ — Skinner Ranch Formation?]:
Section 12, 0.1 mile S of top of hill 4920, Altuda quad¬
rangle [see R. E. King 21; the list of fossils indicates
Skinner Ranch, but the map location is in the Cathedral
Mountain],
25. Leonard (upper part bed 24, SW side of hill 4920)
[ = Cathedral Mountain Formation?]: Section 12, 0.25
mile S 58° W of top of hill 4920, Altuda quadrangle
[ = see R. E. King 21].
130
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
26. Leonard (bed 26) [ — Cathedral Mountain Formation]:
Section 12, SW side of hill 4929, 0.25 mile S 85° W of
top of hill 4920, Altuda quadrangle. [Localities 26—29
are marked on R. E. King’s map on the north slope of
hill 4920 near the top, but the various bed numbers in
section 12 are not in accordance with the map location.
See also R. E. King 21].
26s. Middle Leonard [ — Cathedral Mountain Formation]:
Same as above, S of Sullivan Peak, Altuda quadrangle
[C. Schuchert collector].
27. Leonard (beds 19-24) [ — Cathedral Mountain Forma¬
tion]: Section 12, same as locality 26, W side of hill
4920, Altuda quadrangle [see R. E. King 21].
28. Leonard (middle of bed 24) [ — Cathedral Mountain
Formation]: Same locality as 26, SW side of hill 4920
[see R. E. King 21].
29. Leonard [=Cathedral Mountain Formation]: Section 12,
same locality as 26, Altuda quadrangle [see R. E. King
21 ].
30. Leonard (bed 28) [ = Cathedral Mountain Formation]:
Section 12, 1.4 miles S 1° W of Sullivan Peak, Altuda
quadrangle.
31. Leonard (bed 34) [= Cathedral Mountain Formation]:
Section 12, same as above, Altuda quadrangle [=USNM
710f],
32. Word (lower) [ = Road Canyon Formation]: S of Cathe¬
dral Mountain, 1.65 miles S 54° W of Sullivan Peak,
Altuda quadrangle.
33. [Not described in R. E. King’s locality list (1931:134) and
not recorded on his map; several species recorded in
text.]
34. Leonard: 0.5 mile S of tank at locality 4555 [unidenti¬
fiable and not on King’s map, but several species re¬
corded in text].
35. Hess [=Decie Ranch Member]: 0.48 mile S 8° W of hill
5300 at base of escarpment, S edge of Altuda quadrangle
[ = part of USNM 707a],
36. Leonard: Section 11, bed 4, on hill 5300, Altuda quad¬
rangle [no fossils recorded].
37. Leonard (bed 10) [ = Cathedral Mountain Formation]:
Section 15, tank W of N end of Iron Mountain, 1.15
miles N 50° E of hill 4910, Altuda quadrangle.
38. Leonard (basal) [ = Skinner Ranch with some Cathedral
Mountain]: 0.25 mile S 79° E of hill 5300, center of
Lenox Hills, Altuda quadrangle [ — approximately
USNM 708e; map location indicates Poplar Tank or
Sullivan Peak Members, but list includes Cathedral
Mountain Formation species].
39. Hess (top of bed 1) [ = Decie Ranch Member]: Section
10, 1.2 miles S 20° W of hill 5300, Lenox Hills,
Altuda quadrangle [^approximately USNM 727u],
40-43. All Altuda Member [no fossils recorded],
44. Word (lower limestone) [z=Road Canyon Formation]:
Section 12, 0.70 mile S 37° E of Sullivan Peak, Altuda
quadrangle [^approximately USNM 731v],
45. Word (lower limestone) [ — Road Canyon Formation]:
Section 12, 0.40 mile SW of 44, 0.95 mile S 13° E of
Sullivan Peak, Altuda quadrangle.
46. Word (lower limestone) [:=iRoad Canyon Formation]:
Section 12, 0.25 mile S of locality 44 and 0.2 mile E of
locality 45, 0.92 mile S 26° E of Sullivan Peak, Altuda
quadrangle [=USNM 707e].
47. Word (middle) [ — Willis Ranch Member]: W side of
Gilliland Canyon below hill 4939, 2.15 miles N 5° E of
hill 4910, NW of Iron Mountain, Altuda quadrangle.
48. Word (middle limestone) [ = Willis Ranch Member]:
0.72 mile S 29° E of bench mark 4973, NNW of Iron
Mountain, Altuda quadrangle.
49. 50. Capitan [no fossils recorded in text].
51. Word (lower limestone) [ — Road Canyon Formation]:
NE of Clay Slide, 0.2 mile due W of hill 4910, Altuda
quadrangle [ — near USNM 724a].
52. Leonard: Section 12, bed 37, lower part, calcareous
sandstone, bearing ammonoids, 1.2 miles S 84° E, S of
Sullivan Peak, Altuda quadrangle.
53. Word (lower, beds 1 and 2) [ = Road Canyon Formation]:
1.7 miles S 48° W of Sullivan Peak, Altuda quadrangle.
[ = USNM 710m],
54. Word (lower, bed 3) [=Road Canyon Formation]:
Section 11, 1.65 miles S 50° W of Sullivan Peak, Altuda
quadrangle.
55. Word (lower) [—Upper Word Formation?]: 1.1 miles
SSW of hill 5935, 3.19 miles S 62° W of Sullivan Peak,
same horizon as R. E. King 54, Altuda quadrangle.
56. Capitan: 0.4 mile NNW of hill 5935, W end of Cathe¬
dral Mountain, Altuda quadrangle [z=no fossils listed],
57. Capitan (Altuda Member): 1.5 miles NE of Altuda, Al¬
tuda quadrangle [ = USNM 718a].
58. Word (lower) [=Road Canyon Formation]: S side of
Cathedral Mountain, Altuda quadrangle [not recorded
on map],
59—68. [No fossils recorded.]
69. Wolfcamp (lower shale): Just N of igneous plug, Hess
Ranch horst [no fossils recorded).
70. Wolfcamp (middle-upper) [—Lenox Hills Formation]:
Base of range about 1 mile (0.75) S 83° E of hill 5300,
W of Sullivan (Yates) Ranch Road, E end of Lenox
Hills, Altuda quadrangle [ = USNM 708n],
71. Wolfcamp [ —Decie Ranch Member]: At base of es¬
carpment between Sullivan (Yates) Ranch Road and a
point 0.5 mile to W, 1.38 miles N 70° E of hill 5300,
Altuda quadrangle [=USNM 707g, 707v],
72-74. Wolfcamp: [no fossils recorded],
75. Wolfcamp [ —Gaplank Formation]: 0.85 mile N 38° W
of summit of Iron Mountain (Skinner) Ranch, Altuda
quadrangle.
76. Wolfcamp (upper) [=zLenox Hills Formation]: West¬
ernmost outcrop of Wolfcamp on Leonard Mountain,
bed containing large Schwagerina, 1.65 miles N 33° E of
top of Iron Mountain (Skinner) Ranch, Altuda quar-
rangle.
77. Wolfcamp (upper, lowest beds above basal conglom¬
erate) [— Lenox Hills Formation]: 0.2 mile E of locality
76, 1 mile N 84° W of bench mark 5860 on Leonard
Mountain W edge of Hess Canyon quadrangle.
78-81. [No fossils recorded.]
NUMBER 14
131
82. Wolfcamp (or Leonard): Float on middle of S side of
Leonard Mountain, 0.32 mile S 70° W of bench mark
5860 on Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
83. Leonard [ = Cathedral Mountain Formation]: Float at
E base of Leonard Mountain, 0.85 mile N 75° E of bench
mark 5860 on Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle.
84. Wolfcamp ( Uddenites zone = Uddenites— bearing Shale
Member): On NE side of Leonard Mountain, near small
igneous intrusion [no fossils listed].
85. Wolfcamp [ = Lenox Hills Formation]: S middle part of
Hess Ranch hoist, W end; 2.4 miles N 41° E of Hess
Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
86. Wolfcamp [ — Lenox Hills Formation]: S side of Hess
Ranch horst, W end, Hess Canyon quadrangle [location
not on map].
87. Wolfcamp (bed 12 and above) [=Neal Ranch Forma¬
tion]: Differentiated into 2 parts, low and high: High =
bed 12 and above; section 23, 1.48 miles S 75° W of hill
5060, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle. Low =
bed, 13, high —upper beds, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
[=USNM 701d (part l=bed 4)].
88. Wolfcamp (Uddenties Member, bed lb) [ = Gaptank For¬
mation (Uddenites- bearing Shale Member)]: Section 24,
at Wolf Camp, Hess Canyon quadrangle [not on map].
89. Wolfcamp (section 24, bed 4) [ = Neal Ranch Forma¬
tion]: Wolf Camp, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
90. Wolfcamp (bed 8) [ = Neal Ranch Formation]: Section
24, 0.60 mile S 78° E of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
91. Wolfcamp (bed 12) [ = Neal Ranch Formation]: Section
24, 0.65 mile S 86° W of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
91x. Wolfcamp (Hess or Leonard) [ = Skinner Ranch Forma¬
tion?]: Loose pieces picked up on bed 12, section 24, the
fossils, not recorded, of which indicate a Hess or Leon¬
ard age.
92. Wolfcamp (bed 14) [ = Neal Ranch Formation]: Section
24, 0.73 mile S 82° W of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills,
Hess Canyon quadrangle [zzUSNM 701c].
92a. [No fossils recorded.]
93. Wolfcamp (bed 9) [ = Neal Ranch Formation]: Section
24, bed 9, and float from next few higher beds on side
of arroyo NE of Wolf Camp, 0.55 mile N 79° W of hill
5060, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
93s. Wolfcamp (middle) [=zNeal Ranch Formation]: Stream
bank NE of Wolf Camp, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon
quadrangle [collector, C. Schuchert],
94. Wolfcamp: Uddenites bed (Uddenites- bearing Shale
Member), 0.5 mile W of locality 95, 300 feet S of hill
4815, and 3.5 miles NE of Wolf Camp.
95. Wolfcamp (bed 13, Uddenites-bearing Shale Member)
[ = Gaptank Formation]: Section 27, about 300 feet S
30° E of hill 4752, Brooks Ranch, 4.4 miles NE of hill
5060, Hess Canyon quadrangle [nUSNM 721—1].
96. Wolfcamp [ — Neal Ranch Formation]: Lowest beds near
Gap Tank 0.25 mile E of the E edge of Hess Canyon
quadrangle in Stockton Gap.
97. Wolfcamp [—Neal Ranch Formation]: Basal beds, 0.25
mile SE of Gap Tank, Stockton Gap.
98. Hess (20 feet above Wolfcamp) [ = Decie Ranch Mem¬
ber]: W end of Glass Mountains, Monument Spring
quadrangle [not on map].
99. Hess: E end of Dugout Mountain, along downfaulted
spur [no fossils recorded],
100. Hess [ = Decie Ranch Member]: W end of Dugout
Mountain, Monument Springs quadrangle.
101. [No fossils recorded.]
102. Hess (near top) [r=Cathedral Mountain Formation]:
Section 17, 0.15 mile N 50° W of bench mark 5860 on
Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
103. Hess (or Leonard): Float on Wolfcamp at foot of
escarpment about 1 mile W of Marathon-Sullivan (Yates)
Ranch road, 0.75 mile N 89° E of hill 5300, Lenox Hills,
Altuda quadrangle.
104. Leonard [ — Cathedral Mountain Formation]: 2.73
miles N 55° E of Hess ranch on N side of the escarp¬
ment, 1.22 miles W of hill 5725, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle [ = USNM 713t],
105. Hess [—Skinner Ranch Formation]: 0.65 mile N 21° E
of hill 5305, 2.4 miles N 22° E of Hess Ranch, on W end
of Hess Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle [ = ap-
pioximately USNM 716s].
106. Hess [ = Skinner Ranch Formation]: On hill 5305, 1.7
miles N 25° E of Hess Ranch, Hess Ranch Horst, Hess
Canyon quadrangle [from beds below those at R. E.
King 105].
107. Hess (upper) Perrinites compressus horizon [ — Taylor
Ranch Member]: Escarpment W of Hess Canyon fault,
from upper fossiliferous horizon, immediately below a
conspicuous layer of massive limestone, 3.81 miles N
66.5° E of Hess Ranch, just SE of hill 5725, Hess Canyon
quadrangle [=USNM 702d].
108. Hess (upper) [^Taylor Ranch Member]: Between, and
S of, hills 5767 and 5821, 4.75 miles N 68° E of Hess
Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle [=USNM 702m],
109—111. [No fossils recorded.]
112. Hess (upper): About 0.5 mile S of forks of Hess Can¬
yon, 1.35 miles S 52° W of Old Word Ranch, Hess Can¬
yon quadrangle.
113. Hess (middle, bed 6) [ = Lenox Hills Formation]: Sec¬
tion 27, near top of layer of nodular limestone on hill
4752, 600 feet N 69° W of top, Conoly Brooks Ranch,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
114-116. [No fossils recorded.]
117. Hess (upper): Between hills 5233 and 5035 on E side
of long valley, 1 mile W of hill 5035, 3.2 miles N 25° E
of hill 4752, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
118. [No fossils recorded.]
119. Leonard (upper) [ = Cathedral Mountain Formation]:
Below, and to the W of, Clay Slide, 0.6 mile S 10° W of
hill 4910, Altuda quadrangle.
120. Leonard (middle-lower Perrinites horizon) [—Cathedral
Mountain Formation]: 0.6 mile due E of hill 4910, NE
of Clay Slide, Altuda quadrangle [—approximately
USNM 721u]. [R. E. King gives this location in his text
(1931:135) as 0.6 mile due east of hill 4910, but his map
132
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
shows the location as 0.6 mile farther north. Our USNM
locality 72 lu is approximately 0.6 mile east of hill 4910,
and its fauna agrees with King’s list. The map location
is probably wrong; we could not find the fossils listed
by King at his map point marked “120.”]
121. Leonard (middle, bed 13 near top) [—Cathedral Moun¬
tain Formation]: Section 17, N of Leonard Mountain,
1.96 miles N 1° E of Iron Mountain (Skinner) Ranch,
E edge of Altuda quadrangle.
122. Hess or Leonard (limestone below lower Leonard Shale)
[zzSkinner Ranch Formation]: On Leonard Mountain,
0.3 mile N 72° W of bench mark 5860 on Leonard
Mountain, Hess Canyon quadrangle [=zR. E. King 231].
123. Leonard (lower bed 14) [ = Cathedral Mountain Forma¬
tion]: Section 17, 1.2 miles NE of bench mark 4627,
2.05 miles due N of Iron Mountain (Skinner) Ranch, E
edge of Altuda quadrangle [ = USNM 711 q].
124. Leonard (lower) [ — Cathedral Mountain Formation]:
Hill S of forks of Hess Canyon, 1.25 miles S 68° YV of
Old Word Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
125. Leonard (upper) [ = Cathedral Mountain Formation]:
0.5 mile S of hill 5611, 2.24 miles S 73.5° W of Old Word
Ranch, S of Hess Canyon, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
126. Leonard [^Cathedral Mountain Formation]: Above
conglomerate bed near Old Word ranch house site, 450
feet S 40° W of Old Word Ranch, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle.
127. Leonard [ — Cathedral Mountain Formation]: Directly
above conglomerate, 500 feet SW of Split Tank, 1.4 miles
N 55° E of Old Word Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
128. Leonard [=Cathedral Mountain Formation]: 0.2-0.3
mile N 50° E of Split Tank, 1.7 miles N 55° E of Old
Word Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle [=USNM 702
(part); also from same horizon 1 mile ENE of Split
Tank].
129. Leonard (upper) [ — Cathedral Mountain Formation]:
N of hill 4627, NE corner of Hess Canyon quadrangle.
130. 131. [No fossils recorded.]
132. Word (First Limestone, bed 1) [ = Road Canyon For¬
mation]: Section 17, Leonard Mountain section, 2.23
miles N 3° W of Iron Mountain (Skinner) Ranch, Al¬
tuda quadrangle.
133, 134. [No fossils recorded.]
135. Word (Third limestone, bed 7c) [=Willis Ranch Mem¬
ber]: Section 17, SE end of hill 5779, mountain N of
Leonard Mountain, W edge, 2.60 miles N 6° W of Iron
Mountain (Skinner) Ranch, Altuda quadrangle.
136. Word (Third Limestone, bed 7f) [ = Willis Ranch Mem¬
ber]: Section 17, same as above, mountain N of Leonard
Mountain, Altuda quadrangle.
137. Word (Third Limestone) [ — Willis Ranch Member]:
Section 17, mountain N of Leonard Mountain, 2.5 miles
N 4.5° W of Iron Mountain (Skinner) Ranch, E edge
of Altuda quadrangle.
138. Word (Third Limestone) [=Willis Ranch Member]:
Section 17, 0.53 mile due E of bench mark 4973, top of
hill, S of junction of Road and Gilliland canyons, Al¬
tuda quadrangle.
139. Word: Float at junction of Road and Gilliland can¬
yons, Altuda quadrangle.
140. [No fossils recorded.]
141. Word (Lower Limestone) [ = Road Canyon Formation]:
Above Clay Slide, section 14 [z=R. E. King 6].
142. Word (Fourth Limestone) [ = Appel Ranch Member]:
0.6 mile N 47° E of Willis Ranch, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle.
143. Word (Fourth Limestone) [^Appel Ranch Member]:
E and W of Hill 5578, 2 miles NE of Willis Ranch, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
144. Word (Second Limestone) [ = Willis Ranch Member]:
0.5 mile N 42° W of hill 5611, 4.03 miles N 33° E of
Hess Ranch, Hess Canyon, Hess Canyon quadrangle
[^approximately USNM 706e]. [Identified as Second
Limestone Member of Word Formation by R. E. King,
but mapped as Third Limestone Member of the Word.]
145. Word (Second Limestone) [ = China Tank Member]:
1.5 miles N 60° W of Old Word Ranch house, 0.33 mile
WSW of hill 5507, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
146. Word (Third Limestone) [=Willis Ranch Member]:
S and W of S part of Comanche outlier, 0.75 mile N 64°
W of Old Word Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
147. Word (First Limestone) [ = Road Canyon Formation]:
In channel of Hess Canyon near Leonard-Word contact
[not shown on R. E. King’s map].
148. Word (Fourth Limestone) [ = Appel Ranch Member]:
1.08 miles N 5° E of Old Word Ranch house, Hess Can¬
yon quadrangle.
150. Word (Fourth Limestone) [ = Appel Ranch Member]:
0.5 mile SW of hill 5360, 2.2 miles N 24° E of Old Word
Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
151. Leonard [ — Cathedral Mountain Formation]: 0.22 mile
NE of Split Tank, 1.68 miles N 56° E of Old Word
Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle. I
152. Word (upper) [ = Appel Ranch Member]: 3.08 miles N
36° E of Word Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
153. Word (First Limestone) [ = Roacl Canyon Formation]:
S side of hill 5611, W side of Hess Canyon, 1.8 miles S
72° W of Old Word Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
154. Word (upper): E from hill 5360 to big fault 5 miles
NE of Old Word Ranch, 2.6 miles N 31° E of Old Word
Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
155. Word (upper): E of big fault, 5.03 miles N 47° E of
Old Word Ranch, as far as hill 4902, from W side of
latter hill, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
157. [No brachiopods recorded.]
159. Word (upper): Chert 0.65 mile S 84° E of hill 4800,
NE part of Hess Canyon quadrangle.
161. [No brachiopods recorded.]
162. Word (upper) [ = Appel Ranch Member]: Cherty lime¬
stone E of Comanchean outcrop N of Old Word Ranch,
near King locality 150, 1.9 miles N 20° E of Old Word
Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
163-167. [No fossils recorded.]
168. Wolfcamp [ — Neal Ranch Formation]: Section 24, Gray
Limestone Member [ = bed 2 at Wolf Camp], 0.25 mile
S 87° W of hill 5060, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
NUMBER 14
133
169a. Wolfcamp [=Neal Ranch Formation]: Just above
Gray Limestone Member (bed 2), 0.75 miles S 78° W of
hill 5060, Wolf Camp, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
170. Word (upper): Thick prominent limestone 700 feet
below top, N of Dugout Mountain, Monument Spring
quadrangle.
171. Word (lower) [—Road Canyon Formation]: 0.4 mile
N 78° W of Old Payne Ranch, NW of Dugout Mountain,
Monument Spring quadrangle.
173. [No brachiopods recorded.]
174. Leonard [=Cathedral Mountain Formation]: Section
27, 0.5 mile E of hill 5157, 4.58 miles N 48° of Old Word
Ranch, just W of longitude 103° 05', Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle.
175. Wolfcamp (below Gray Limestone Member) [—Gaptank
Formation, Uddenites- bearing Shale Member]: About
0.25 mile S 71° W of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
175a. Wolfcamp (yellow-brown limestone in shale underlying
Gray Limestone Member) [ = Gaptank Formation, Ud-
denites- bearing Shale Member]: NE of locality 88,
Wolfcamp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
176—191. [No fossils recorded.]
192. Word (Fourth Limestone) [ — Appel Ranch Member?]:
N of junction of Road and Gilliland Canyons, Altuda
quadrangle, [number not on R. E. King’s map; the
Fourth Limestone Member is not mapped north of the
junction of these two canyons, nor is it recorded in
Section 17.]
193. Wolfcamp (upper) [=:Lenox Hills Formation]: S of
high point on Dugout Mountain, 2.64 miles S 40.5° W
of Lenox, Monument Spring quadrangle [ = USNM 715].
194. Wolfcamp (upper): Float on S side of high point of
Dugout Mountain (same as above), Monument Spring
quadrangle.
195. Wolfcamp (lower shale) [=Neal Ranch Formation?]:
0.5 mile SW of hill 5816, Hess Ranch Horst, Hess Can¬
yon quadrangle [number not shown on map],
196. Wolfcamp (upper) [z^Lenox Hills Formation]: 0.5
mile N 43° E of hill 5305, 2.23 miles N 29° E of Hess
Ranch, Hess Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle
[ — USNM 716r].
197. Wolfcamp [—Lenox Hills Formation]: 0.25 mile N
33° E of hill 5305, 2.03 miles N 26.5° E of Hess Ranch,
Hess Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle [not listed
by King, but present on his map].
198. Wolfcamp (upper) [=Lenox Hills Formation]: Graben
near middle of Hess Ranch Horst, and same bed to W of
graben, 0.25 mile S 62° E of hill 5816, 2.85 miles N 47°
E of Hess Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
199. Wolfcamp (Uddenites member, basal brown limestone
about 15 feet above Gaptank limestone)[=rGaptank For¬
mation, (Uddenites-bearing Shale Member)]: 0.3 mile N
23° E of hill 5060 Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle [=USNM 701f].
200. [No fossils recorded.]
201. Wolfcamp [—Gaptank Formation]: Brown limestone
near base of hill, 0.38 mile S 36° W of hill 4815, about
4 miles NE of Wolf Camp, Hess Canyon quadrangle
[zzUSNM 701 u],
202. Wolfcamp (directly below base of Hess) ^Uddenites-
bearing Shale Member]: 0.8 mile W of E end of quad¬
rangle, 1.2 miles N 78° E of hill 5202, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
203. Wolfcamp (beds below Gray Limestone Member)
[=Gaptank Formation]: On range of foothills at E
edge of quadrangle, 1.97 miles N 81° E of hill 5202, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
204. Wolfcamp [=Neal Ranch Formation]: 0.5 mile S of
Allison and Gilbert Ranch [see geological map. King,
1931].
205. Hess [=;Decie Ranch Member]: Foot of cliff of Dugout
Mountain, 0.75 mile S 49° W of summit, 3.25 miles S
44° W of Lenox, Monument Spring quadrangle.
206. Hess (uppermost) [ = Decie Ranch Member]: 1 mile NE
of Lenox, Monument Spring quadrangle.
207. Hess (upper) [z=Skinner Ranch Formation]: W side of
fault on spur N of high point, 0.28 mile N 9° W of
bench mark 5860 on Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon
quadrangle [zz approximately USNM 714a],
208. Hess [ = Skinner Ranch Formation]: 0.6 mile N 17° W
of Hess Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle [—USNM
705a],
209. Hess (150-200 feet below top) [z=Skinner Ranch Forma¬
tion]: 0.49 mile due N of bench mark 5860 on Leonard
Mountain, directly below Leonard outlier on E side
of fault, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
210. Hess [ = base of Skinner Ranch Formation on top of
Lenox Hills Formation]: White limestone at top of
section on Hess Ranch horst, N of NE end of igneous
intrusion, 0.22 mile N 54° E of hill 5816, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
211. Hess [—Skinner Ranch Formation]: 0.8 mile N 32° E
of hill 5305, on Hess Ranch horst, 1.57 miles N 26° E of
Hess Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle [=approximately
USNM 720e],
212. Hess (upper fossiliferous horizon) [—Taylor Ranch
Member]: 0.6 mile S 62° W of hill 5725, 3.28 miles N
66° E of Hess Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
213-214. [No fossils recorded.]
215. Hess (upper fossiliferous horizon) [—Taylor Ranch
Member]: Top of section, 0.6 mile S 71° E of hill
5632, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
216—221. [No brachiopods recorded.]
222. Hess (upper fossiliferous horizon) [Taylor Ranch
Member]: Scarp E of head of E fork of Hess Canyon
about 0.17 mile S 37.5° W of hill 5767, 4.35 miles N
67.5° E of Hess Ranch, N of Wolf Camp, Hess Canyon
quadrangle [zzUSNM 716n].
223. Hess (uppermost): 1.0 mile S 58° W of Old Word
Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle [z=USNM 726n],
224. Leonard (First Limestone Member or slightly below)
[=Sullivan Peak Member]: W end of Dugout Moun¬
tain, 0.75 mile S 85° W of high point (hill 5195), 3.15
miles S 50° W of Lenox, Monument Spring quadrangle.
134
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
225. [No brachiopods recorded.]
226. Leonard (First Limestone Member) [=;Sullivan Peak
Member]: Central part of Dugout Mountain, 1.63 miles
S 44° W of Lenox, Monument Spring quadrangle.
227. Leonard (Second Limestone Member) [ — Dugout Moun¬
tain Member]: 0.5 mile N 69° W of high point, 2.8
miles S 51° W of Lenox, Dugout Mountain, Monument
Spring quadrangle.
228. Leonard (horizon of First Limestone) [= Sullivan
Peak Member]: E of fault at E end of Dugout Moun¬
tain, 1.8 miles S 41° W of Lenox, Monument Spring
quadrangle.
229. 230. [No brachiopods recorded.]
231. Leonard (or uppermost Hess) [ = Skinner Ranch Forma¬
tion, probably mixed with Cathedral Mountain Forma¬
tion]: Limestone containing chert pebbles directly
below Leonard shale on S face of mountain, 0.25 mile
N 65° W of bench mark 5860 on Leonard Mountain,
Hess Canyon quadrangle [=R. E. King 122].
232. Leonard (lower limestone on top of Leonard Mountain,
above first bed of siliceous shale) [—Skinner Ranch and
Cathedral Mountain Formation]: Location same as
above, Hess Canyon quadrangle [ —USNM 709o],
233. Leonard (basal) [ — Cathedral Mountain Formations]:
On spur N of high point on E side of fault at E end of
mountain, 0.45 mile N 8° W of bench mark on Leonard
Mountain, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
234. Leonard [ = top of Skinner Ranch Formation or base of
Cathedral Mountain Formation]: 0.65 mile N 68° W of
hill 5726, S of Hess Ranch horst, 1.6 miles N 50° E of
Hess Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle [=R. E. King
245?].
235. Leonard (upper) [ — Cathedral Mountain Formation?]:
Section 24, 1 mile W of Old Word Ranch house, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
236. Leonard (uppermost) [ = Cathedral Mountain Forma¬
tion]: 0.37 mile S 26° E of hill 5674, N of Leonard
Mountain, 1.8 miles N 86.5° W of Hess Ranch, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
237. Word (lower limestone near latitude 30° 10') [=Cathe-
dral Mountain Formation]: 0.43 mile N 55° E of bench
mark 5324, 4.28 miles N 7° E of Black Peak, Del Norte
Mountains, Monument Spring quadrangle.
238. Word (middle limestone) [ = probably Cathedral Moun¬
tain Formation]: 2.4 miles S 36° W of Old Payne
Ranch, Del Norte Mountains, Monument Spring quad¬
rangle.
239. Word (Third Limestone Member) [=;Willis Ranch
Member]: Mountain N of Leonard Mountain, S side
of Road Canyon, W of divide separating drainage of
Gilliland and Hess Canyons, 3.7 miles N 4.5° W of
Skinner Ranch, W edge, Altuda quadrangle.
240. Word (Third Limestone Member) [ = Willis Ranch
Member]: Capping mountain N of Leonard Mountain,
along line of section 18, NE side of hill 5801, 1.63 miles
N 53° W of Hess Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
241. Word (First Limestone Member) [ = Road Canyon
Formation]: Mountain N of Leonard Mountain, S base
of hill 5801, 1.4 miles N 60° W of Hess Ranch, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
242. Word (Third Limestone Member from bed below
uppermost white limestone) [=Willis Ranch Member]:
At E end of range N of Leonard Mountain, on N slope
of hill 5453, 1.8 miles N 34° W of Hess Ranch, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
243. Word (Third Limestone Member) [=Willis Ranch
Member]: 0.48 mile S 34° E of hill 5803, N side of
Road Canyon, 1.03 miles S 39° W of Willis Ranch, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
244. Word (Fourth Limestone Member) [=Appel Ranch
Member]: 0.23 mile N 5° N of Willis Ranch, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
245. Leonard (from bituminous limestone) [ = top of Skinner
Ranch or base of Cathedral Mountain Formation]:
Downfaulted block S of Hess Ranch horst, 0.65 mile N
68° W of hill 5726, 1.6 miles N 48° E of Hess Ranch,
Hess Canyon quadrangle. [ = R. E. King 234?].
246. Word (Fourth Limestone Member) [—Appel Ranch
Member]: E of hill 5543 on N side of Hess Canyon,
Hess Canyon quadrangle [ = USNM 715i?].
247. Word (Fourth Limestone Member) [= Appel Ranch
Member]: E side of Hess Canyon near its angle, 1.72
miles N 47° W of Old Word Ranch, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
248. Word (Fourth Limestone Member) [z= Appel Ranch
Member]: E side of Hess Canyon, near northernmost
outcrop of formation, Hess Canyon quadrangle [number
not on King’s map].
249. Word (basal dolomite) [=Road Canyon Formation]:
1.03 miles S 76° W of Old Word Ranch, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
250. Word (Second Limestone Member) [—China Tank
Member]: Section 23, 1.68 miles S 72° W of Old Word
Ranch, NE of Hess Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle [ = R. E. King 264].
251. Word (First Limestone Member) [ = Road Canyon
Formation]: 0.75 mile S 69° W of Old Word Ranch on
section 24, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
252. Word (Fourth Limestone Member) [=zAppel Ranch
Member]: On line of section 24, west of Comancbe
outlier N of Old Word Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
253. Word (Fourth Limestone Member) [ = Appel Ranch
Ranch Member]: 1.15 miles N of Old M r ord Ranch, E
and W of Comanche outlier for a short distance, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
255. Word: [Not listed, number not on King’s map; possi¬
bly Road Canyon Formation or a mixture],
256. Word (or Leonard): 0.58 mile N 65° E of hill 4627,
lower part of hill in a broad valley in NE corner of
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
257. Word (middle and upper beds): 0.6 mile N 56° E of
hill 4627, hill in middle of broad valley in NE corner
of Hess Canyon quadrangle.
264. Word (Second Limestone Member) [ — China Tank
Member]: [Same as Locality 250.]
301. Leonard (midpart of Clay Slide): [—Cathedral Moun¬
tain Formation at R. E. King 60.]
NUMBER 14
135
Kansas University Localities (Moore)
23. Upper Leonard (lower part) (—Cathedral Mountain
Formation): About 0.5 mile E of Clay Slide and 0.5
mile SW of tank of West [ — Iron Mountain] Ranch,
about 50 feet above dense limestone containing abundant
Perrinites, Altuda quadrangle [—USNM 720x],
30. Bell Canyon Formation (Pinery Member): Pine Spring,
near El Capitan, Guadalupe Mountains, Guadalupe
Peak quadrangle.
31. Cherry Canyon Formation (Getaway Member): S of
U. S. Highway 62—180 near El Capitan, Guadalupe Peak
quadrangle.
9804. Putnam Formation (Lost Creek Member): 7.7 miles S
of center of Coleman on W side of road, 0.6 mile N
of road crossing of Home Creek (United States Geological
Survey, Oil and Gas Investigation Preliminary Map 80,
Sheet 1, Coleman County, Texas).
9818. Putnam Formation (Lost Creek Member): U. S.
Highway 67-84-183 [ — 283], 5.5 miles SE of center of
Coleman, at bend in road (United States Geological
Survey Oil and Gas Investigation Preliminary Map 80,
Sheet 1, Coleman County, Texas) . [U. S. Highway 67 is
no longer routed through Coleman.]
9880. Pubelo Formation (50 feet below top of Camp Creek
Member): W side of Saddle Creek, 1.4 miles S and 0.6
miles W of mouth, 0.7 mile S of E-W road crossing
Saddle Creek, 10.25 miles nearly due S of Gouldbusk in
McCulloch County.
United States Geological Survey Localities
(USGS)
664 (green). Kaibab Formation: Ochre Spring, Kaibab
Plateau, Arizona.
2906 (green). Capitan Limestone Formation (lower): In
foothill ridge about 3 miles SW of Guadalupe Peak,
about 0.25 mile NW of locality 2924 and 150 feet higher
up, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle (see Girty, map, 1909:
pi. 1).
2919 (green). Brushy Canyon Formation (King 1948:30):
Near locality 2920 and 300 feet above it, in notch in long
ridge, about 250 feet above basal black limestone, in
Delaware Mountain Sandstone, Guadalupe Peak quad¬
rangle.
2920 (green). Bone Spring Formation (near top of basal black
limestone): Small canyon among foothills about 2 miles
S of Guadalupe Peak, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
2926. Capitan Limestone Formation: Just below knob on
crest of spur running N from El Capitan, about 1000 feet
below summit of El Capitan and top of Capitan Lime¬
stone, part of material from horizon above or below,
Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
2930. Bell Canyon Formation (Pinery Member): Chiefly
float, almost entirely from N side of Pine Spring Canyon,
from 2 spurs embracing spring, supposed to be from
“dark limestone” immediately above sandstones of Dela¬
ware Mountain Formation, some of it in place, Guadalupe
Peak quadrangle.
2962. Delaware Mountain Formation: 2.5 miles E of tank in
draw that cuts southern Delawares, Van Horn quad¬
rangle.
2967 (green). Bone Spring Formation: Black Limestone be¬
low Delaware Mountain sandstone, low hills, about 2
miles S of El Capitan, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
2969. Delaware Mountain Formation: About 30 miles NE
of Van Horn, in Delaware Mountains, Van Horn quad¬
rangle [ = USGS 3500] (see Girty, map, 1909: pi. 1).
3763. Supposed to represent Delaware Mountain Formation
[ = Cathedral Mountain and Word Formations]: Co¬
manche Canyon, Glass Mountains, 17 miles N'E of Mara¬
thon, Big Bend, Texas [ — USGS 3840?].
3840 (green). Delaware Mountain Formation: Mountains
NW of Marathon, Texas, supposed to be same horizon
as USGS 3763.
7404. Capitan Limestone Formation: 0.5 mile NNE of sum¬
mit of El Capitan on NNE spur at elevation of 8100—8400
feet, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
7416. Carlsbad Formation: 1.4 miles S 30° E of Grisham-
Hunter Camp and 3 miles N 20° E of El Capitan, 0.25
mile W of tank in “The Bowl,” on S side of trail,
Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
7417 (blue). Capitan Limestone Formation: N and S sides
of McKittrick Canyon, 0.5 mile below Grisham-Hunter
Camp and 100 feet or less above level of canyon,
Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
7612. Capitan Limestone Formation (near base, Dog Canyon
beds not far beneath): 1.75 miles S 80° E of Williams
Lower Ranch, in NW part of Patterson Hills, Guadalupe
Peak quadrangle.
7649. Cherry Canyon Formation (South Wells Member):
2 miles SE of D Ranch South Wells (map of southern
Guadalupe Mountains, P. B. King, 1948: pi. 3).
7666. Bone Spring Formation (Cutoff Member): 0.25 mile
N of Brushy Canyon, near its entrance, Guadalupe Peak
quadrangle.
9999. Hueco Formation: 3.75 miles S 1° E of Montoya,
Canutillo quadrangle, Texas.
American Museum of Natural History
Localities (AMNH)
I—2. [=AMNH 347.]
L-3. [ — AMNH 348.]
L-6. [ = AMNH 351.]
21. Cherry Canyon Formation (Getaway Member): Vicinity
of bench mark 5426, just S of gully in road, Guadalupe
Pass, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
25. Bell Canyon Formation (Lamar Member): 200 yards
WSW of bench mark 4425, 0.75 miles WSW of “NB
Updike Williams #1 boring” and 2.5 miles SSW of El
Capitan, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
28. Cherry Canyon Formation (Getaway Member): 300
yards due S of Pine Spring Camp, Guadalupe Peak
quadrangle.
33. Bell Canyon Formation (Pinery Member): Hill 5529,
Rader Ridge 0.5 mile W of Hegler (Ligon) Ranch,
Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
136
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
37. Bell Canyon Formation (Lamar Member): Hill 5151,
mouth of McKittrick Canyon (geologic map of southern
Guadalupe Mountains, P. B. King, 1948).
38. Bell Canyon Formation (Lamar Member): 0.5 mile
NNW of Pratt Place, 1 mile SSW of mouth of McKittrick
Canyon (geologic map of southern Guadalupe Moun¬
tains, P. B. King, 1948).
39. Bell Canyon Formation (Lamar Member): N side of
McKittrick Canyon (geologic map of southern Guada¬
lupe Mountains, P. B. King, 1948).
40. Bell Canyon Formation (Lamar Member): N side of
Big Canyon, just below Watkins Ranch house, Carlsbad
Caverns West (15') quadrangle.
46. Bone Spring Formation (lower): Fossiliferous dark gray
limestone about 300 feet above base, 1 mile NW of
mouth of Apache Canyon, Sierra Diablo, Van Horn
quadrangle.
B188—6. San Andres Formation (transition facies between
shelf and basin): N wall of Last Chance Canyon in SE
•4 section 32, T 23 S, R 22 E, opposite mouth of White
Oaks Canyon, Bandanna Point quadrangle.
B188-8. San Andres Formation (lower part = transition
facies): NW 14 SW 14 SE 14 section 32, T 23 S, R 22 E,
Bandanna Point quadrangle, New Mexico.
347. Bell Canyon Formation (Lamar Member): N side of
McKittrick Canyon Draw, N 80°E for 0.45 mile from
Section Twelve Well near mouth, 1.7 miles N of
McCombs Ranch house (geologic map of southern
Guadalupe Mountains, P. B. King, 1948) [nAMNH L-2].
348. Bell Canyon Formation (Lamar Member): On E side
of hill 0.2 mile E of elevation 4680 near junction of D
Ranch road with U. S. Highway 62 (geologic map of
southern Guadalupe Mountains of P. B. King, 1948)
[-USNM 728p = AMNH L-3].
369. Bone Spring Formation: Top of Shirttail Canyon,
above abandoned well. Humble E. P. Crowden A #148,
Pure Oil Co. Rig #17, near Goat Spring, 0.4 mile S 48°
W of Shumard Peak, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
373. Bell Canyon Formation (Lamar Member): On spur S
of tanks and pumping unit in small gulch of Bear
Canyon W of Pratt’s place (geologic map of southern
Guadalupe Mountains, P. B. King, 1948).
375. Bell Canyon Formaion (Pinery Member-basin facies
and overlying reef facies): S slope of Pinnacle, Pine
Canyon, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
384. Bell Canyon Formation (Lamar Member): Bluff on
the N side of Pratt’s road approximately 0.75 mile from
turnoff from highway, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
385. Bell Canyon Formation (McCombs Member): In flag¬
stone quarries on S side of road to McCombs Ranch and
Pratt’s Place, approximately 1.1 miles from turnoff from
U.S. Highway 62 (geologic map of southern Guadalupe
Mountains, P. B. King, 1948).
388. Bell Canyon Formation (Rader Member): Float, on N
spur of Rader Ridge near point where road bends to
come up over Manzanita scarp due W of Nickel Creek
Camp, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
389. Bell Canyon Formation (Rader Member, Lamar): In
minor limestone quarries approximately 0.5 mile due S
of point where Bell Canyon crosses U. S. Highway 62,
approximately 2 miles NE of Nickel Creek Camp,
Guadalupe Mountains.
398. Bell Canyon Formation (Pinery Member): In head of
small gully that meets Nickel Creek just below Hegler
(Ligon) Ranch house, approximately 0.1 mile S of ranch
house, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
401. Bell Canyon Formation (probably Pinery Member): At
head of Rader Ridge NE of Juniper Spring, Guadalupe
Peak quadrangle.
403. Bell Canyon Formation (Rader Member): Crest of
small hill immediately SE of Hegler (Ligon) Ranch,
Guadalupe quadrangle.
404. Bell Canyon Formation (probably Rader Member): W
of Hegler (Ligon) Ranch house approximately 1 mile up
small canyon that runs past house near abrupt termina¬
tion of massive Rader reef mass, Guadalupe Peak
quadrangle.
410. Bell Canyon Formation (Rader Member): On small
hill due W of Hegler (Ligon) Ranch house and SW of
Hegler Spring, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle [=USNM
725g],
414. Cherry Canyon Formation (South Wells Member):
Type-locality, hill NW of D Ranch South Wells (geologic
map of southern Guadalupe Mountains, P. B. King,
1948).
417. Carlsbad Formation? (Unit 1): In fault block on N
side of Devils Den Canyon, NE 14 NW 14 NE 14 section
20, T 26 S, R 21 E, El Paso Gap quadrangle.
430. Bell Canyon Formation (Lamar Member): In Big
Canyon on hill immediately N of Stanley Ranch house
near crest of small ridge, in first fossiliferous limestones
below bituminous limestones and above gray calcarenites,
Carlsbad Caverns West (15') quadrangle.
435. Bell Canyon Formation (probably Pinery Member): S
slope of Nipple Hill, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
437. Bell Canyon Formation (Pinery Member): Near upper
Pine Spring, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
475. Capitan Limestone (lower) and overlying Carlsbad
Formation: N McKittrick Canyon, about 100 yards
upstream from spur above scour pools, from stream bed
to top of ridge, Guadalupe Mountains.
492. Bone Spring Formation (lower massive limestone beds,
lenses of King, within 50 feet of base): About 2.5 nrles
above mouth of Apache Canyon on N side, Sierra D.a lo,
Van Horn quadrangle.
496. Cherry Canyon Formation (Getaway Member): Gully
at intersection of airplane beacon road and U. S. High¬
way 62, near Guadalupe Pass, Guadalupe Peak quad¬
rangle.
497. Bone Spring Formation (12 feet above base): 0.5 mile
S of hill 6073, N side of Apache Canyon, Sierra Diablo,
Van Horn quadrangle.
.500. Cathedral Mountain Formation (upper half): Just E
of Split Tank, Hess Canyon quadrangle; blocks contain¬
ing Instil ella leonardensis are from base of Leonard
Formation [ — Cathedral Mountain]; others are from top
of formation, which includes block numbers A-H, J-N,
O and X [ — USNM 702, 702a, 702ent, 702un],
NUMBER 14
137
501. Word limestone #1 [=Road Canyon Formation]: 1
m il e ( = 0.3 mile) NW of Old Word Ranch house site,
same as Cooper’s 703 goniatite locality but from a
different lens, Hess Canyon quadrangle [seems to be a
mixed lot].
503. Word limestone #1 [r=Road Canyon Formation]: 1
mile (0.3 mile) NW of Old Word Ranch house site,
Hess Canyon quadrangle [ = USNM 703].
504. Uppermost Leonard [ = Cathedral Mountain Formation]:
At road level 1 mile SW of Old Word Ranch house site,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
505. Word Limestone #3 [ — Willis Ranch Member]: 2.3
miles ENE of Willis Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle
[ = USNM 706e],
506. Word Limestone, about middle lower part limestone
#3 [ = Willis Ranch Member]: Approximately 1 mile
S of 505 [=USNM 706].
507. Upper Leonard [ — base of Road Canyon Formation]:
Near top of conical hill, 1.5 miles SW of Old Word
Ranch house, at S or inside loop of road, Hess Canyon
quadrangle [=USNM 702c],
509. Word Limestone #1 [=Road Canyon Formation]:
About 1 mile SE of summit of Sullivan Peak, Altuda
quadrangle [ — USNM 707e).
512. Cherry Canyon Formation (upper part of the lower
Getaway Member): Lens near break in slope on middle
header on W side of airway station road between U. S.
Highway 62 and pipeline road, on crest of ridge,
Guadalupe Peak quadrangle [ — USNM 728],
519. Cherry Canyon Formation (lower Getaway Member):
On slope of outlier due NE of bench mark 5315 in right
angle bench in U. S. Highway 62 approximately 0.5 mile
E of airway station takeoff, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
520. Leonard Formation [ = Skinner Ranch Formation]: W
fork of NE spur on Leonard Mountain, Glass Mountains,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
524. Bell Canyon Formation (probably Pinery Member): E
slope of hill 0.375 mile N of elevation 4253 on hill 0.75
mile E of pump station, 0.75 mile N of pipeline road,
Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
528. Bell Canyon Formation (probably Pinery Member):
East-west across hogbacks N of pipeline road across hills
2 miles due N of point 3940 near bend in highway ap¬
proximately 2 miles SW of Van Horn Y [intersection]
Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
537. Bell Canyon Formation (Pinery Member): Up slope
back of Lower Pine Spring, Guadalupe Peak quadmn'de.
547. Cherry Canyon Formation (Getaway Member): Inlier 1
mile due W of Anderson Pritchard #1 border location.
Guadalupe Mountains, Texas.
585. Cherry Canyon Formation (Getaway Member): Bio-
hermal limestone from ledges on S side of scarp, 0.75
mile due S of Pine Spring Camp, Guadalupe Peak
quadrangle.
591. Bone Spring Formation (lowest of reef lenses about 40
feet above base: Between N and middle branches of
Black John Canyon, Sierra Diablo, Van Horn quad¬
rangle.
592. Bone Spring Formation (“Molluscan ledge”): Between
N and middle branches of Black John Canyon, Van
Horn quadrangle.
600. Cherry Canyon Formation (Getaway Member = sub-
Getaway Zone): In small gully immediately S of first
cattle guard at junction of U. S. Highway 62 and road
to airway beacon approximately 0.25 mile E of Guada¬
lupe Pass, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle [ = USNM 732]
(see P. B. King, 1948:41).
624. Bone Spring Formation: Lower reef beds on S side of
Mine Canyon, 2 miles S 60° W of Figure Two ranch,
Van Horn quadrangle.
625. Bone Spring Formation (220 feet above top of
“clastic” beds): S side of mouth of Victorio Canyon,
Sierra Diablo, Van Horn quadrangle [z=USNM 728e,
= USNM 741],
626. Hueco Formation: Marly beds at top of Hueco "clastic”
beds, S side of Victorio Canyon, Van Horn quadrangle.
628. Bone Spring Formation: S side of mouth of Victorio
Canyon, Sierra Diablo.
629. Bone Spring Formation (30 feet above massive bed):
0.25 mile S of mouth of Victorio Canyon, Sierra Diablo,
Van Horn quadrangle [ = USNM 728f].
631. Bone Spring Formation: Directly back (W) of Figure
Two [Corn] Ranch house, Sierra Diablo, Van Horn
quadrangle.
632. Bone Spring Formation (lower): On top of Sierra
Diablo S of Victorio Flexure, 1 mile N of southernmost
outcrop of Bone Spring on top of scarp, Van Horn
quadrangle.
634. Bone Spring Formation: Near middle of formation, 2
miles from mouth of Victorio Canyon, Van Horn quad¬
rangle.
635. Bell Canyon Formation (Hegler Member, upper): Crest
of hill 5406, approximately 1.25 miles due S of Pinyon
Tank, northern Pinyon Hills, Guadalupe Peak quad¬
rangle.
636. Bell Canyon Formation (Pinery Member, lower): 0.25
mile W of upper Pine Springs, Guadalupe Peak quad¬
rangle.
652. Cherry Canyon Formation (Getaway Member) : Upper
part of lower unit, 300 yards S and SW of Glover Ranch
house, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
655. Bone Spring Formation (80 feet above base): W side of
Texas Highway 54, northernmost of Baylor Hills, Van
Horn quadrangle.
658. Bone Spring Formation: Biohermal-like lens on N
wall of seventh canyon NW of Indian Cave Canyon and
about 200 yards from mouth of canyon; 0.75 mile
slightly W of S of Williams Ranch house, Guadalupe
Peak quadrangle.
660. Bone Spring Formation: Bioherm on S side of Bone
Canyon very near entrance; about 100 feet below Brushy
Canyon basal conglomerate; 0.1 mile E of Williams
Ranch house, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
678. Bone Spring Formation (Cutoff Member): On slope 1
mile SW of point 6910 and 0.2 mile W of fault in front
of Cutoff Mountain, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
138
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
696. Bone Spring Formation (100 feet above base): Northern¬
most Baylor Hills on W side of Texas Highway 54,
Baylor Hills, Van Horn quadrangle.
697. Bone Spring Formation: 208 feet above base on north¬
ernmost Baylor Hills on YV side of Texas Highway 54,
Van Horn quadrangle.
699. Bone Spring Formation (40 feet above base): North¬
ernmost Baylor Hills on YV side of Texas Highway 54,
Baylor Hills, Van Horn quadrangle.
700. Hueco Limestone: Near top of hill on E side of last
gully to drain YV at divide on Red Tank Road, Baylor
Mountains, Van Horn quadrangle.
703. Cibolo Formation (Breccia Beds of Udden): Along
Sierra Alta Creek, NE of Cibolo Ranch, Chinati Peak
quadrangle [probable location supplied by Cooper and
Grant].
725. Yates Formation (probably Capitan): PNuevo Canyon,
reef marginal phase, section 8 (probably 18), T 25 S,
R 24 E, Carlsbad Caverns YVest quadrangle, Guadalupe
Mountains, New Mexico [Nuevo Canyon is in section 18,
not 8 as listed].
774. Capitan Limestone Formation: McKittrick Canyon, on
large spur halfway between mouth and Pratt Lodge, on
crest of spur 150 feet above knob 6350, Guadalupe Moun¬
tains.
801. Capitan Limestone Formation: McKittrick Canyon, N
side 300 feet YV of crest of ridge above Pratt Lodge at
base of cliff in gully, 6350 feet, Guadalupe Mountains.
803. Capitan Limestone Formation: McKittrick Canyon,
N side at crest of ridge above Pratt Lodge at base of
cliff, 6300 feet, Guadalupe Mountains.
804. Capitan Limestone Formation: McKittrick Canyon, N
side 300 feet E of crest of ridge above Pratt Lodge at
base of cliff in gully, 6350 feet, Guadalupe Mountains.
806. Capitan Limestone Formation: McKittrick Canyon, N
side on flat above saddle on crest of ridge above Pratt
Lodge, 6050 feet, Guadalupe Mountains.
813. Capitan Limestone Formation. N McKittrick Canyon,
S side on crest of spur, top of nose above locality 812,
6150 feet, Guadalupe Mountains.
817. Capitan Limestone Formation: YVhite City (YValnut
Canyon), S side 200 feet up canyon from locality 816
and 100 feet above valley floor, Guadalupe Mountains.
820. Capitan Limestone Formation: YVhite City (YValnut
Canyon), on crest of spur between Walnut and Bat Cave
Canyon just above bench mark 3648, Guadalupe Moun¬
tains.
830. Capitan Limestone Formation: Rattlesnake Canyon, N
side at mouth, 150 feet W of locality 829 in draw, 4000
feet, Guadalupe Mountains.
837. Capitan Limestone Formation: Slaughter Canyon, NE
side at base of last cliff (3 draws N of “836”) N62W of
bench mark 5524.
840. Capitan Limestone Formation: Nuevo Canyon, spur of
mouth N side first canyon E of Nuevo Canyon, second
knob from top, 150 feet above locality 839, Guadalupe
Mountains.
847. Capitan Limestone Formation: N side Slaughter Can¬
yon, E side on trail, 100 feet above locality 846, Guada¬
lupe Mountains.
853. Capitan Limestone Formation: Double Canyon, S side,
opposite Double Trail, 100 feet above locality 852 at
base of cliff, Guadalupe Mountains.
1028. Guadalupian (Waagenoceras Zone): Bed 25, Arroyo La
Difunta, Las Delicias, Coahuila, Mexico.
United States National Museum Localities
(USNM)
499b. [-USNM 725z.]
USNM-Renfro locality 45. Graham Formation (Jacksboro
Shale Member): 2 miles NE of Riley Ranch, on old
Chico road, 3.5 miles E of Jacksboro, Jack County, Texas.
510. Graham Formation (Jacksboro Member): 1 to 1.5 miles
NE of intersection of old Chico road with YVizard Wells
road on Riley Ranch, 3.5 miles E of Jacksboro court¬
house, Jack County, Texas.
510a. Pennsylvanian (Wayland Shale): E side of road in
bluff 1.2 miles south of Gunsight, Stephens County,
Texas.
510g. Graham Formation (Jacksboro Member): 3.5 miles
NE of Jacksboro on old Jacksboro-Chico Road, 0.2 mile
N of the Riley Ranch house. Jack County, Texas.
51 lr. Graham Formation (Finis Member): Hills 0.5 to 1
mile N of a point 0.3 mile NE of intersection of old
Chico road with YVizard YVells road, 3.2 miles E of Jacks¬
boro, on Riley Ranch, Jack County, Texas.
512h. Graham Formation (Finis Member): N of Stradley
School, on farm-market road (Texas Highway 206) to
Graford, 2 miles S of Texas Highway 24, Jack County,
Texas.
519. Shale below Cass Limestone: 200 yards YV of bridge on
N line of section 12, T 10 N, R 12 E, 2 miles NYV of
Nehawka, Cass County, Nebraska.
700. Gaptank Formation (middle of bed 10 of P. B. King):
2 miles S 17° E of Gap Tank, 1.25 miles E of point
on Marathon-Fort Stockton road (U. S. Highway 385)
2 miles S of Gaptank, about 23.5 miles NE of Marathon.
700a. Gaptank Formation (upper part of bed 10 of P. B.
King): 0.25 mile E of locality 700 in small canyon.
700f. Gaptank Formation: At Milepost 580 on Southern
Pacific Railroad, 3.85 miles YV of Marathon and 1.6 miles
S 58° E of Dccie Ranch house. Monument Spring quad¬
rangle.
700g. Gaptank Formation = Virgilian: 1.25 miles S 1° W of
Arnold Ranch house, 3.7 miles S 52.5° E of hill 5195
('Dugout Mountain), Monument Spring quadrangle
(Plate 16: figure 1).
700-1. Cathedral Mountain Formation (Wedin Member-
Fifth Leonard Limestone Member of P. B. King): 0.93
mile S 1 0 YV of Old Payne Ranch, 1.53 miles N 74° W
of hill 5195, Dugout Mountain, Monument Spring quad¬
rangle.
NUMBER 14
139
700m. Skinner Ranch Formation (Dugout Mountain Mem¬
ber, Lower part Third Limestone Member of P. B. King):
1.4 miles S 2° W of Old Payne Ranch, 1.5 miles S 89° W
of hill 5195, Dugout Mountain, Monument Spring quad¬
rangle.
700n. Skinner Ranch Formation (Dugout Mountain Mem¬
ber—Leonard Second Limestone Member of P. B. King):
1.55 miles S 5° W of Old Payne Ranch, 1.55 miles S 83°
W of hill 5195, Dugout Mountain, Monument Spring
quadrangle.
700o. Skinner Ranch Formation (Dugout Mountain Mem¬
ber, Near middle of Second Leonard Limestone Member
of P. B. King): 1.5 miles S 7° W of Old Payne Ranch,
1.7 miles S 85° W of hill 5195, Dugout Mountain, Monu¬
ment Spring quadrangle.
700p. Skinner Ranch Formation (Dugout Mountain Member,
upper Second Leonard Limestone Member of P. B.
King): 1.45 miles S 5° W of Old Payne Ranch, 1.65
miles S 87° W of hill 5195, Dugout Mountain, Monu¬
ment Spring quadrangle.
700q. Road Canyon Formation: top of knob 0.25 mile N
30° W of Old Payne Ranch, Monument Spring quad¬
rangle.
700r. Skinner Ranch Formation (Dugout Mountain, Third
Leonard Limestone Member of P. B. King): Knob (5000
feet) 1.6 miles S 37° E of Old Payne Ranch, 0.5 mile
N 78° W of hill 5195, Dugout Mountain, Monument
Spring quadrangle.
700s. Skinner Ranch Formation (Dugout Mountain Member,
Third Leonard Limestone Member of P. B. King): Hill
4811, 1.38 miles S 25° E of Old Payne Ranch, 0.78 mile
N 81° W of hill 5195, Dugout Mountain, Monument
Spring quadrangle.
700t. Skinner Ranch Formation (Dugout Mountain Member
= Second Limestone Member of P. B. King): Hill 4811,
1.43 miles S 23° E of Old Payne Ranch, 0.9 mile N 87°
W of hill 5195, Dugout Mountain, Monument Spring
quadrangle.
700v. Road Canyon Formation: 0.78 mile S 69° W of Old
Payne Ranch, 0.23 mile N 5° E of hill 4806, Monument
Spring quadrangle [ = USNM 736—1].
Figure 29.—Localities in the area northwest and west of Dugout Mountain including part of
the Sierra del Norte.
140
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
700w. Road Canyon Formation: 0.7 mile S 69° W of Old
Payne Ranch, 0.3 mile N 5° E of hill 4806, Monument
Spring quadrangle.
700x. Cathedral Mountain Formation (Wedin Member, Fifth
Leonard Limestone Member of P. B. King): 0.66 mile S
36° E of Old Payne Ranch, 1.32 miles N 53° W of hill
5195, Dugout Mountain, Monument Spring quadrangle.
700y. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member,
lower): 1.5 miles S 63° E of Old Payne Ranch, 0.7
mile N 8° W of hill 5195, Dugout Mountain, Monument
Spring quadrangle.
700z. Skinner Ranch Formation (Poplar Tank Member,
lower): 1.68 miles S 50° E of Old Payne Ranch, 0.33
mile N 23° W of hill 5195, Dugout Mountain, Monu¬
ment Spring quadrangle.
701. Neal Ranch Formation (upper 15 feet of bed 2, section
24, of P. B. King = “Gray Limestone” Member): Bed of
canyon, both banks and long dip slope to SE opposite
small canyon from N, 0.4 mile up "Geologists Canyon”
from its mouth, 0.6 mile S 87.5° W of hill 5060, Wolf
Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
701a. Neal Ranch Formation (bed 9, section 24, of P. B.
King): NW facing slope on the W side of a S-flowing
arroyo, 0.4 to 0.5 mile N 87° W of hill 5060, Wolf Camp
Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
701a 1 . Neal Ranch Formation (base of bed 9 of P. B. King):
[ = USNM 701a.]
701a 2 . Neal Ranch Formation: Slopes between beds 2 and 9
of Cooper on S side of Geologists Canyon at forks. Wolf
Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
701a 3 . Neal Ranch Formation (bed 9, section 24, of P. B.
King): From single block containing numerous sponges
taken from biohermal mass on slope just S of canyon
forks, 0.4-0.5 mile N 87° W of hill 5060, Hess Canyon
quadrangle [=USNM 701a].
701b. Neal Ranch Formation [=USNM 701a.]
701c. Neal Ranch Formation (beds 9-12, section 24, of P. B.
King): Bioherm on crest of hill facing and forming N
side of Geologists Canyon and W side of small tributary
canyon from N, 0.3 mile up Geologists Canyon from its
mouth, 0.75 mile S 84° W of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills,
Hess Canyon quadrangle [ = R. E. King 91] (Plate 16: fig¬
ure 3).
701d. Neal Ranch Formation (approximately beds 12—14 of
P. B. King) [ = USNM bed 4]: S face of low hill 1.47
miles S 77° W of hill 5060, W end of Wolf Camp Hills,
Hess Canyon quadrangle [see also USNM 721 g].
701e. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites-bearing Shale Mem¬
ber): 300 feet S of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess
Canyon quadrangle (Plate 2: figure 2: Plate 12: figure 3).
701 f. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites- bearing Shale Member):
Biohermal limestone with Parenteletes in saddle 0.33
mile N 21° E of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Can¬
yon quadrangle [ = R. E. King 199].
701 g. Neal Ranch Formation (bed 9, section 24, of P. B.
King): Patch of gray-brown limestone abounding in
Orthotichia, in S branch of Geologists Canyon near its
head, 0.35 mile N 84° W of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
701 h. Neal Ranch Formation (bed 12, section 24, of P. B.
King): Bioherm on S knob of hill 0.77 mile S 77° W of
hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle
(Plate 4: figure 3; Plate 11: figure 3).
701 k. Neal Ranch Formation (bed 12, section 24, of P. B.
King): W side of hill near base 0.97 mile S 82° W of
hill 5060, at 4750 feet elevation, W side of Wolf Camp
Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
701-1. Neal Ranch Formation (upper part, bed 4, section 24,
of P. B. King): At 4625 elevation at S base of hill 0.87
mile S 69° W of hill 5060, W side of Wolf Camp Hills,
Hess Canyon quadrangle (Pate 5: figure 2).
701m. Neal Ranch Formation (shale just above bed 14 of
P. B. King): 0.7 mile N 84° W of hill 5060, center of
Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
701 p. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites- bearing Shale Mem¬
ber): Specimens loose on sides of knob, and in saddle
on N side of knob, the "Uddenites saddle,” 0.75 mile S
66° W of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon
quadrangle (Plate 4: figure 1) .
701 q. Gaptank Formation (upper Uddenites-bearing Shale
Member): Limestone bed 25—30 feet below top of Ud¬
denites shale on E side of saddle (" Uddenites saddle”)
just N of old Wolf Camp well site, 0.7 mile S 78° W
of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
701 r. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites- bearing Shale Member):
Ammonite bed, in face of hill 4725, 300 feet SE of top
of hill, at 4615 feet on Brooks Ranch, 5 miles NE of
Wolfcamp. Hess Canyon quadrangle (Plate 19: figure 3).
701 1 . Gaptank Formation (Uddenites-bearing Shale Member):
Lower part of Uddenites zone, brown beds and below
(near middle), E side of saddle, 0.7 mile S 78° W of hill
5060, W end of Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle.
701 u. Gaptank Formation ('t/rfrfenites-bearing Shale Member):
Base of hill 0.35 mile S 30° W of hill 4815, Hess Canyon
quadrangle [ = R. E. King 201] (Plate 4: figure 1).
701v. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites- bearing Shale Member,
beds D and E of Cooper’s section): Trough on W side
of hill 5060, 0.14 mile S 61° W of hill 5060, Wolf Camp
Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
701 x. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites- bearing Shale Member):
25 feet of brown limestone at base of Uddenites zone,
0.1 mile S 46° W of hill 4952, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
701 y. Gaptank Formation: Heavy ledge on E side of Geol¬
ogists Canyon, 0.55 mile S 68° W of hill 5060, W end
of Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
701 z. Neal Ranch Formation (beds 13 and 14, of section 24,
of P. B. King): On W side of N branch of Geologists
Canyon above elbow, 0.48 mile N 66° W of hill 5060,
Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle [ = USNM
706x].
702. Cathedral Mountain Formation (mostly Institella zone):
Slopes on S side of road 0.4-0.5 mile NE of Split Tank,
1.9 miles N 56° E of Old Word Ranch house, Hess Can¬
yon quadrangle [ = R. E. King 128, 151],
NUMBER 14
141
702a. Cathedral Mountain Formation (143-173 feet above
base): 0.5 mile NE of Split Tank, 1.9 miles N 56° E of
Old Word Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle. [Con¬
sists of massive fine-grained greenish limestone abound¬
ing in small brachiopods together with some nauti-
loids.]
702a 1 . Cathedral Mountain Formation: Massive lens 12 feet
thick abounding in Collemataria 11 feet above thick
limestones just below thick (116 feet) body of shale, 184
feet above base of Cathedral Mountain Formation, 0.5
mile NE of Split Tank, 1.9 miles N 56° E of Old Word
Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle (Plate 20: figure 3).
702b. Cathedral Mountain Formation (lower Institella zone):
Lens about 0.5 mile SW of Split Tank, 0.95 mile N 51°
E of Old Word Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
702c. Road Canyon Formation: From conical knob on S
side of road at elbow just W of S branch of Hess Can
yon, 4.5 miles by road NE of Hess gate, 1.35 miles S
66.5° W of Old Word Ranch and 4.03 miles N 50° E
of Hess Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle [represents
bioherms usually occurring at base of Road Canyon
Formation] (Plate 20: figure 1).
702d. Hess Formation (Taylor Ranch Member): 130 feet
below top of hill at about 5520 feet elevation, 3.2 miles
N 67° E of Hess Ranch, 0.4 mile SW of head of S
branch of Hess Canyon, 0.15 mile S 35° E of hill 5725,
Hess Canyon quadrangle [ = R. E. King 107; fossils occur
in shaly limestone and sponge bioherms] (Plate 19:
figure 2).
702e. Hess Formation (Taylor Ranch Member): Top of hill
at 5700 feet elevation 0.15 mile S 62° W of hill 5751,
3.0 miles N 74° E of Hess Ranch house, 2.6 miles N 81°
W of hill 5060, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
702ent. Cathedral Mountain Formation ( Institella zone): 69-
81 feet above base, from smooth, greenish-gray, biohermal
limestone with abundant Enteletes, 50 yards W of gully,
0.5 mile E of Split Tank, 1.98 miles N 58° E of Old
Word Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
702f. Hess Formation (Taylor Ranch Member): 500 feet S
of hill 5767, 0.45 mile S 62° W of hill 5821, 4.8 miles
68° E of Hess Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
702h. Neal Ranch Formation (shale above bed 12 of P. B.
King): About 0.5 mile N 71° W of hill 5060, center of
Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
702inst. Cathedral Mountain Formation (base of Institella
zone): In E-flowing arroyo just W of locality 702un, 0.55
mile N 72° E of Split Tank, 2.04 miles N 60° E of Old
Word Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle [ = USNM 702un,
26-45 feet above base, on strike of 702un and at essen¬
tially same level].
702j. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites- bearing Shale Member):
Bed 9 of P. B. King in section 27, face of hill 4752, 500
feet S of top, 5 miles NE of Wolf Camp, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
702k. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites- bearing Shale Member):
30 feet above Gaptank in cobbly bed on W slope of hill
just E of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle.
Figure 30.—Localities in Dugout Mountain.
142
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
702—1. Neal Ranch Formation (bed B of Cooper, lower
granular bed): At S base of hill 5816, at about 5100 feet
elevation, in arroyo 0.5 mile S 45° W of hill 5816, Hess
Ranch horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle [ —USNM 704v].
702-low. Cathedral Mountain Formation ( Institella zone,
lower): Part of locality 702, 2.03 miles N 59° E of Old
Word Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle [includes section
of Institella zone from basal conglomerate for 81 feet,
and also includes parts of USNM 702un, 702inst, and
702ent].
702m. Hess Formation (Taylor Ranch Member): Near top
of hill about 5550 feet elevation, 0.18 'mile S 45° W of
hill 5821, 4.75 miles N 69° E of Hess Ranch, Hess Can¬
yon quadrangle [=R. E. King 108],
702r. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites- bearing Shale Member):
E slope of W side of amphitheater, 0.8 mile N 40° E
of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
702o. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites-beaving Shale Member):
Base of upper Uddenites zone hard band, slope W of
amphitheater, just W of hill 4952, 0.8 mile N 40° E of
hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
702p. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites-bearing Shale Member):
Algae beds, lower exposures at E end of Wolf Camp
Hills, base of hill, 0.35 mile N 39° E of hill 4952, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
702q. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites- bearing Shale Member,
upper bed): 0.25 mile S 50° W of hill 4952, Wolf Camp
Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
702r. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites-bearing Shale Mem¬
ber): Above brown bed at base, about 500 feet S of top
of hill 4952, amphitheater, E side of Wolf Camp Hills,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
702s. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites- bearing Shale Member):
Top of lowest biohernr, rim of canyon and gully, 700
feet S 53° E of hill 4815, 3 miles W of Montgomery
(Conoly Brooks) Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
702t. Neal Ranch Formation: 200 yards S 45° E of Gap
Tank, E side of Stockton Gap, 16 miles NNE of Mara¬
thon.
702u. Gaptank Formation: Back slope of heavy ledge of
“Basal Wolfcamp,’’ about 0.5 mile W of Stockton Gap,
25 miles N of Marathon.
702un. Cathedral Mountain Formation (Institella zone, 26-45
feet above base in beds with Uncinuloidcs—Torynechus):
Near junction of E-flowing lateral gully with main
stream and along S side of E-flowing gully, 0.58 mile
N 69° E of Split Tank and 2.08 miles N 58° E of Old
Word Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle [=USNM
702inst],
702v. Hess Formation: About 5000 feet elevation, 0.75 mile
N 85° W of hill 4815, Montgomery (Conoly Brooks)
Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
702w. Hess Formation: At 4650 feet in hill 0.6 tnile S 84°
W of hill 4815, Montgomery (Conoly Brooks) Ranch,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
702x. Neal Ranch Formation: Small hill 150 yards N 50°
E of Gap Tank, W side of Stockton Gap, 26 miles N of
Marathon.
702z. Gaptank Formation: 6 feet of dark gray limestone
over sandstone on SE face of hill 4815, 0.15 mile S 49°
E of top at 4620 feet, Montgomery (Conoly Brooks)
Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
703. Road Canyon Formation (upper): Lens with goniatites
near top of slope 0.35 mile S 75° W of Old Word Ranch,
1.15 mile S 37° E of hill 5507, and 0.65 mile SW of road
fork to Appel Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle
[ = AMNH 503].
703a. Road Canyon Formation (bioherms at base): On NW
side of road between fork to Appel Ranch house and
sheep tank, 0.2 mile N 10° E of Old Word Ranch
house, Hess Canyon quadrangle (Plate 21: figure 1).
703a 1 . Cathedral Mountain Formation (Collemataria beds):
On S side of road about 0.25 mile on road SW of fork
to Appel Ranch, about 0.1 mile along road SE of Old
Word Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
703b. Cathedral Mountain Formation (lower Institella zone):
SE side of road between fork to Appel Ranch and sheep
tank, 0.13 mile N 43° E of Old Word Ranch house, Hess
Canyon quadrangle [same interval as USNM 702un and
702inst],
703bs. Cathedral Mountain Formation (base of Institella
zone): Light gray biohermal limestone containing Age-
lesia just above Hess, 0.17 mile S 39° W of Old Word
Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle [ Agelesia oc¬
curs in great abundance almost to the exclusion of other
species].
703c. Road Canyon Formation (lower): Detrital mass of
sponges in basal part of dark platy limestone near edge
of slope above 703a (basal bioherms), 0.2 mile on road
SW of fork to Appel Ranch, 0.22 mile N 1° E of Old
Word Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle [includes also
thin platy spicule-bearing beds on each side of sponge
mass].
703d. Road Canyon Formation (lower, just above basal bio¬
herms in thin-bedded bituminous limestones, nearly at
same level as USNM 703c): Lenticular mass in elbow
of fork to Appel Ranch, at head of canyon 0.35 mile N
19° E of Old Word Ranch house, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle.
703e. Word Formation (Second Limestone Member of P. B.
King = China Tank Member): About 1.4 miles S 68°
W of Split Tank and 0.35 mile N 10° W of old Word
Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle [ = USNM 703z],
703f. Hess Formation: At 4955 feet elevation in hill 0.68
mile N 83° W of hill 4815, Montgomery ( Conoly Brooks)
Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
703g. Hess Formation: At 4980 feet 0.97 mile N 50° W of
hill 5060 NW of Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle.
703h. Hess Formation: At 4875 feet elevation in hill 0.68
mile N 83° W of hill 4815, Montgomery (Conoly Brooks)
Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
703i. Hess Formation: About 5000 feet elevation on S side
of hill 1.45 miles N 87° W of hill 5060, W of Wolf Camp
Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
NUMBER 14
143
Figure 31.—Localities in the Lenox Hills.
703j. Hess Formation: Elevation 4950 feet, hill 0.68 mile N
85° W of hill 4815, Montgomery (Conoly Brooks) Ranch,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
703k. Gaptank Formation: 32 feet below top of Gaptank
Formation, 0.25 mile E of hill 4952. Wolf Camp Hills,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
703-1. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites- bearing Shale Mem¬
ber): 0.5 to 0.75 distance up slope under main ledge,
350 feet S 34° E of top of hill 4752, 2.5 miles NW of
Montgomery (Conoly Brooks) Ranch, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle.
703m. Neal Ranch Formation: 25 feet below bed 12 of
P. B. King, 0.5 mile N 70° W of hill 5060, center of
Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
703n. Neal Ranch Formation (24 feet above bed 14 of P. B.
King): North of Geologists Canyon, 0.62 mile N 74° W
of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
703o. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites-bearing Shale Member):
Lower 5 feet of biohermal limestone on Gaptank, just
under fence at E edge of hill, W slope of hill NE of
hill 5060, 0.5 mile S 51" W of hill 4952, Wolf Camp
Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
703p. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites- bearing Shale Member):
Between lower brown limestone and upper limestone
ledge, E slope of W side of ampitheater, about 400 feet S
of hill 4952, E end of Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
703q. Hess Formation: 45 feet below top of hill, 1.48 miles
N 86° W of hill 5060, W of Wolf Camp Hills, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
703r. Gaptank Formation: Base of cliff forming crest of hill
at about 4760 feet, 0.25 mile S 27° W of hill 4815, Mont¬
gomery (Conoly Brooks) Ranch, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle.
703t. Neal Ranch Formation (fusulinid bed 2—3 feet below
top of bed 14 of P. B. King): W side of small canyon
from N, 0.68 mile N 84° W of hill 5060, Wolf Camp
Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
703u. Neal Ranch Formation (35 feet above bed 14 of P. B.
King): At head of S-flowing small tributary canyon, 0.65
mile W of hill 5060, W side of Wolf Camp Hills, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
703v. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites-bearing Shale Member):
Edge of hill just SE of knob at “F” in Wolf, 0.35 mile
S 75° W of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
703x. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites- bearing Shale Member):
Just above lower brown ledge just W of hill 4950, Wolf
Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
703y. Skinner Ranch Formation (Poplar Tank Member):
20 feet above Decie Ranch Member, E slope of hill, 0.35
mile S of hill 5300, Altuda quadrangle.
704. Word Formation (Fourth Limestone Member of P. B.
King = Appel Ranch Member): 1.3 miles N 30° W of
Old Word Ranch, at head of stream valley just E of Hess
Canyon, Hess Canyon quadrangle [=USNM 710].
704a. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites- bearing Shale Member):
2 feet above P. B. King’s bed 9 in section 27, 200 feet
S of top of hill 4752, Montgomery (Conoly Brooks)
Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
144
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
704b. Lenox Hills Formation: 20 feet above Lenox Hills
conglomerate, 0.36 mile N 16° W of Hess Ranch house,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
704c. Gaptank Formation (Uddeniles -bearing Shale Member):
170 feet below top of hill 4762, 0.2 mile S 70° E of top
of hill, 2.55 miles N 25° W of Montgomery (Conoly
Brooks) Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
704d. Gaptank Formation: Coral bed at 4800 feet on S
side of knob at NE end of hill 5280 W of Iron Mountain,
1.42 miles N 82° W of Skinner Ranch, Altuda quad¬
rangle.
704e. Lenox Hills Formation: 5 feet above conglomerate,
0.36 mile N 16° E of Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
704f. Lenox Hills Formation: S side of knob at NE end of
hill 5280, 1.45 miles N 82° W of Skinner Ranch, Altuda
quadrangle [=USNM 705g].
704h. Gaptank Formation: 4606 feet elevation in saddle,
W side of hill, 0.13 mile S 86° W of hill 4752, Mont¬
gomery (Conoly Brooks) Ranch, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle.
704i. Lenox Hills Formation: 5705 feet elevation on W
face of hill 5816, in section along line S 26° E of hill
top, Hess Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
704j. Lenox Hills Formation: At 5403 to 5435 feet elevation
in section up hill along line S 29° E of top of hill
Hess Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
704k. Lenox Hills Formation: Fusulinids in conglomerate
at 5575 feet elevation above main ledge of conglomerate,
in section up hill along line S 29° E of top of hill
5816, Hess Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
704—1. Lenox Hills Formation: At 5435 feet elevation in
section up hill 5816 along line S 29° E of hill top, Hess
Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
704m. Lenox Hills Formation: At 5625 feet in same sec¬
tion as USNM 704—1.
704o. Lenox Hills Formation: Just above main ledge of
conglomerate at 5540 feet, W face of hill 5816 at saddle,
Hess Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
704p. Lenox Hills Formation: At 5570 feet, 16 feet above
conglomerate, 350 feet S 5° W of hill 5816, Hess Ranch
Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
704q. Lenox Hills Formation: At 5564 feet elevation (146
feet below top of hill), knob 0.3 mile S 69° W of hill
5816, Hess Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
704r. Lenox Hills Formation: 21 feet above conglomerate
at elevation 5550 feet, 600 feet S 5° W of hill 5816, Hess
Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
704t. Lenox Hills Formation: At 5550 feet elevation in S
side of hill 0.35 mile S 71° W of hill 5816, Hess Ranch
Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
704u. Lenox Hills Formation: 114 feet below top of hill,
section 0.35 mile S 71° W of hill 5816, at 5586 feet
elevation, Hess Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
Ficurf. 32.—Localities between Sullivan (Yates) Ranch road and Iron Mountain.
NUMBER 14
145
704v. Neal Ranch Formation: At 5060 to 5080 feet in
arroyo at S base of hill 5816, 0.48 mile S 46° W of hill
5816, Hess Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
704w. Gaptank Formation: 5000 feet elevation on NE slope
of Leonard Mountain, 0.65 mile N 49° E of bench mark
5860, 1.25 miles S 31° W of Hess Ranch house, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
704y. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
Loose on slope 0.3 mile S of hill 5300, Altuda quadrangle.
705. Lenox Hills Formation: W and S slopes of hill 0.4
mile NNW of Hess Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
705a. Skinner Ranch Formation (base of Scacchinella beds
and interbiohermal layers): 0.62 mile N 21° W of Hess
Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle [ = R. E. King 208],
705b. Skinner Ranch Formation (base): 2.05 miles N 21°
E of Hess Ranch, 1.18 miles S 78° W of hill 5816, W side
Hess Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
705ca. Gaptank Formation: Top of greenish shale near
head of ravine on E side of SE nose of Leonard Moun¬
tain, 0.28 S 64° E of bench mark 5860, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
705d. Gaptank Formation: Same as 705c but from base of
shale at 4850 feet.
705e. Gaptank Formation: Shale just above dike, NE side
of Leonard Mountain, 1.1 miles N 29° W of Hess Ranch
house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
705f. Gaptank Formation: Shale below igneous dike, NE
side of Leonard Mountain, 1.1 miles S 29° W of Hess
Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
705g. Lenox Hills Formation: Elevation of 4800-4850 feet
on S slope of N end of hill 5280, 1.45 miles N 82° W
of Skinner Ranch, Altuda quadrangle [— USNM 704f],
705h. Gaptank Formation (t/ddemtes-bearing Shale Member,
lower): Elevation 4700 feet at base of hill at NE end of
Wolfcamp Hills, 500 feet S 27° E of hill 4952, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
705j. Gaptank Formation: 5150 feet elevation on S slope
of Leonard Mountain, 0.18 mile due S of bench mark
5860, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
705k. Lenox Hills Formation (Scacchinella bioherm): At
5425 feet elevation on SE nose of Leonai'd Mountain, 0.2
mile S 80° E of bench mark 5860, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle (Plate 20: figure 2).
705-1. Skinner Ranch Formation (base): Top of shale be¬
tween Skinner Ranch and Lenox Hills Formations, bot¬
tom of section, 0.77 mile N 79° W of hill 5816, Hess
Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle [ = USNM 720e].
705m. Lenox Hills Formation (Scacchinella bioherm): De¬
tached mass of Scacchinella bioherm on SE nose of Leon¬
ard Mountain, at 5050-5075 feet elevation 0.4 mile S 49°
E of bench mark 5860, Hess Canyon quadrangle. [This
block is recorded by P. B. King (1931:140) as bed 5 of
section 17, Leonard Mountain. He remarks in a note
that this bed may be a “landslide of Hess limestone.”]
705n. Skinner Ranch Formation: About 5150 foot contour,
middle of E side of hill 5280, 1.83 miles S 70° W of
Skinner Ranch, Altuda quadrangle.
705o. Skinner Ranch Formation: About 5150 foot contour,
middle of E side of hill W of Iron Mountain, hill 5280,
1.83 miles S 70° W of Skinner Ranch, Altuda quad¬
rangle.
705q. Gaptank Formation: About 4900 feet elevation on SE
corner of Leonard Mountain, 0.48 mile S 45° E of bench
mark 5860, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
705r, Skinner Ranch Formation (upper): Edge of Leonard
Mountain at 5766 feet, about 400 feet S 62° E of bench
mark 5860, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
705s. Lenox Hills Formation: Detached block at 4960-5100
feet elevation in small ravine on SE nose of Leonard
Mountain 0.38 mile S 59° E of bench mark 5860, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
705t. Lenox Hills Formation: 10 feet above conglomerate,
0.35 mile N 20° W of Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
705u. Lenox Hills Formation: 20 feet above base, 0.25 mile
S 75° E of bench mark 5860, at 5430 feet elevation on
SE nose of Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
705v. Gaptank Formation: Uppermost shale at 5150 feet
elevation on S slope of Leonard Mountain, 0.18 mile
due S of bench mark 5860, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
705x. Gaptank Formation: 5190 feet elevation on SE nose
of Leonard Mountain, 0.28 mile S 68° E of bench mark
5860, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
705y. Gaptank Formation: 5245 feet elevation on SE nose
of Leonard Mountain, 0.27 mile S 48° E of bench mark
5860, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
706. Word Formation (lower part of Third Limestone Mem¬
ber of P. B. King=Willis Ranch Member): N slope of
hill 5611 on S side of Hess Canyon near divide, 1.85
miles S 82° W of Old Word Ranch, 3.78 miles N 40°
E of Hess Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
706a. Word Formation (China Tank Member): SW side of
small ravine 3.9 miles N 37° E of Hess Ranch house,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
706b. Word Formation (thin lens between Willis Ranch and
Appel Ranch Members): 0.2 mile SW of junction of
Hess Canyon with its S branch, 1.9 miles N 65° W of Old
Word Ranch site, and 4.78 miles N 34.5° E of Hess
Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
706c. Word Formation (near middle of Second Limestone
Member of P. B. KingrzChina Tank Member): SW
slope and crest of spur of hill 5611, 0.98 mile N 21° E of
hill 5816, 3.7 miles N 36° E of Hess Ranch and SE of
“China” tank, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
706d. Word Formation (Fourth Limestone Member of P. B.
King:= Appel Ranch Member): Low hill in fault block,
O. 1 mile NW of junction of Hess Canyon with its S
branch, 0.65 mile N 76° E of hill 5543, 1.94 miles N
60° W of Old Word Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
706e. Word Formation (top of Third Limestone Member of
P. B. King—Willis Ranch Member): E side of small
arroyo 0.55 mile N 15° W of hill 5611, 4.13 miles N 34°
E of Hess Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle [ = approxi¬
mately R. E. King 144].
146
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
706f. Road Canyon Formation: Slope up hill 1.35 miles N
25° W of Hess Ranch, 0.9 mile N 71° E of hill 5801,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
706g. Lenox Hills Formation: 20 feet above conglomerate,
0.42 mile N 8° W of Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
706h. Lenox Hills Formation: At 4885 feet elevation [=
USNM 706g].
706i. Lenox Hills Formation: At 4880 feet elevation [=
USNM 706g],
706j. Lenox Hills Formation: 96 feet below top, in section
on line S 29° E of hill 5816, Hess Ranch Horst, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
706k. Lenox Hills Formation: 5550 feet in hill 5816 [—
USNM 706j].
706-1. Hess Formation: 5005 feet elevation in section 0.73
mile N 83° W of hill 4815, Montgomery (Brooks) Ranch,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
706p. Neal Ranch Formation: Near top of bed 2 of P. B.
King [ = Gray Limestone], on knob just S of Uddenites
saddle, W side of Wolf Camp Hills, 0.75 mile S 60° W
of hill 5060, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
706q. Neal Ranch Formation: Bed 15 feet above base of
bed 2 of P. B. King [=Gray Limestone], knob on S
side of Uddenites saddle, 0.73 mile S 64° W of hill 5060,
Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
706r. Road Canyon Formation: W slope of hill about 50
yards E of road, 1.25 miles S 56° E of Sullivan Peak,
Altuda quadrangle.
706s. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites -bearing Shale Member):
Uppermost limestone, 0.25 mile S 56° W of hill 4952,
center knob of Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle.
706t. Neal Ranch Formation (bed 4 of P. B. King): About
100 yards W of Uddenites saddle, W side of Wolf Camp
Hills, 0.85 mile S 66° W of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
706u. Neal Ranch Formation: 40-50 feet below “Hess” con
glomerate [i.e. Lenox Hills], 0.65 mile N 76° W of
hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
706v. Neal Ranch Formation: On E side of arroyo, 1.15 mile
N 80° E of hill 5300, Lenox Hills, Altuda quadrangle.
Figure 33.—Localities on Leonard Mountain.
NUMBER 14
147
706w. Lenox Hills Formation: Detached block with Scac-
chinella on small flat on W side of knob on SE nose of
Leonard Mountain at approximately 5050 feet elevation,
0.34 mile S 43° E of bench mark 5860, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
706x. Neal Ranch Formation (beds 12-14): Just N of elbow
of Geologists Canyon 300 feet above (upstream) elbow,
0.47 mile N 68° W of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess
Canyon quadrangle [=USNM 715e].
706y. Lenox Hills Formation: 20 feet above base of forma¬
tion, 0.5 mile SE of hill 5300, N of Decie Ranch, Altuda
quadrangle.
706z. Word Formation (China Tank Member): About 0.35
mile N 10° W of Old Word Ranch, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle [ = USNM 703e].
707. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
Nose of hill on W side of Sullivan Ranch (Yates Ranch)
road at canyon entrance, 1.0 mile S 25° E of hill 4020,
3.5 miles N 7° E of Decie Ranch, Altuda quadrangle
[=R. E. King 17 (Plate 2: figure 3)].
707a. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch Member):
0.45 mile S 10° W of hill 5300 for 0.75 mile from this
point along base of escarpment, 2.53 miles N 21° W of
Decie Ranch, Lenox Hills, Altuda quadrangle (Plate 7:
figure 3).
707b. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member,
top): N side of arroyo 0.2 mile S 20° W of hill 4920, 1
mile NW of canyon entrance, 4.1 miles due N of Decie
Ranch house, E side of Lenox Hills, Altuda quadrangle
(Plate 12: figure 3).
707c. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member,
top): Dip slope of hill, 0.32 mile S 15° W of hill 4920,
3.85 miles due N of Decie Ranch house, E side Lenox
Hills, Altuda quadrangle.
707d. Skinner Ranch (Sullivan Peak Member): Knob of
spur on W side of entrance to canyon, W side of road
to Sullivan (Yates) Ranch, 1.38 miles N 73° E of hill
5300, 3.5 miles N 7° E of Decie Ranch, E end of Lenox
Hills, Altuda quadrangle.
707e. Road Canyon Formation: On nose of foothill on SE
side of Sullivan Peak, 0.9 mile S 25° E of Sullivan Peak,
5.3 miles N 5° W of Decie Ranch, Altuda quadrangle
[=R. E. King 46] (Plate 5: figure 3; Plate 17; figure
2; text figure 20).
707g. Skinner Ranch (Decie Ranch Member): Base of spur
on west side of road to Sullivan (Yates) Ranch at canyon
entrance, 1.1 miles S 26° E of hill 4920, 3.5 miles N 7°
E of Decie Ranch, E end of Lenox Hills, Altuda quad¬
rangle [ —R. E. King 71=USNM 707-1].
707h. Skinner Ranch Formation: Probably detached bio-
hermal blocks of Poplar Tank Member containing Co-
scinophora on small knob 0.51 mile S 49° E of hill
5300, 2.7 miles N 12° W of Decie Ranch, near center
Lenox Hills, Altuda quadrangle.
707ha. Skinner Ranch Formation (Poplar Tank Member):
Loose blocks at USNM 707h.
707i. Skinner Ranch Formation (Poplar Tank Member):
0.5 mile NE of hill 4902, 2.75 miles N 23° W of Decie
Ranch house, Altuda quadrangle.
707j. Lenox Hills Formation (base): 25 feet above base of
Lenox Hills Formation at 4560 feet elevation on nose
of hill 0.85 mile S 89° E of hill 4902, 0.9 mile S 2° W of
hill 5300, W side of Lenox Hills, Altuda quadrangle
[ = USNM 707p; contains numerous goniatites in one
thin layer],
707ja. Lenox Hills Formation: At very base of Wolfcamp
just over Devonian on nose of hill 1 mile E of hill 4902,
NW of Decie Ranch, Altuda quadrangle.
707k. Lenox Hills Formation: 0.9 mile S 1.5° W of hill
5300, 0.87 mile due E of hill 4902, NW of Decie Ranch,
Altuda quadrangle.
707-1. [= USNM 707g.]
707m. Lenox Hills Formation: In shale member between
conglomerate and overlying Skinner Ranch Formation
(Decie Ranch Member), 10 feet above base at about
4580 feet elevation in ravine 0.37 mile S 27° E of hill
5300, 1.5 miles N 63 °W of Poplar Tank, 3 miles N of
Decie Ranch, center of Lenox Hills, Altuda quadrangle.
707n. Lenox Hills Formation: 26 feet above Lenox Hills
Conglomerate in goniatite bed, 0.37 mile S 27° E of hill
5300, Lenox Hills, Altuda quadrangle.
707o. Lenox Hills Formation: Lower 30 feet of shale below
Decie Ranch Member, 0.6 mile S 73° E of hill 4902,
1.1 miles S 16° W of hill 5300, Altuda quadrangle.
707p. Lenox Hills Formation: 2.2 miles N of Decie Ranch
at base of escarpment just above basal conglomerate, 0.85
mile S 89° E of hill 4902, 3 miles E of Lenox, Altuda
quadrangle [= Plummer and Scott locality 22—t—128],
707q. Cathedral Mountain Formation (near base of thick
shale unit): In ravine at base of hill just E of Clay
Slide, 0.3 mile S 9° E of hill 4910, 2.55 miles S 83.5° E
of Sullivan Peak, Altuda quadrangle.
707r. Lenox Hills Formation: W side of knob at E end of
Lenox Hills, on W side of Sullivan (Yates) Ranch road,
1.25 miles N 78° E of hill 5300, 1.12 miles S 16° E of
hill 4920, Altuda quadrangle.
707s. Lenox Hills Formation: Center front of hills N of
Decie Ranch, 0.5 mile S 67° E of hill 5300, Altuda quad¬
rangle.
707t. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
E side of hill facing spur at canyon mouth, E end of
Lenox Hills, N of Decie Ranch, 1.62 miles N 68° E of
hill 5300, Altuda quadrangle.
707u. Skinner Ranch Formation (base): Gully near base of
hill 0.3 mile S of hill 5021, Altuda quadrangle.
707v. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch Member):
Base of spur W of road to Sullivan Ranch (Yates
Ranch) at canyon entrance, 1.1 miles S 25° E of hill
4920 and 1.4 miles N 78° E of hill 5300 E side of Lenox
Hills, Altuda quadrangle [ = R- E. King 71 (part)].
707w. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch Member
equivalent): Detached block with Scacchinella at base
of hill E of Sullivan Ranch (Yates Ranch) road, 0.47
mile S 25° W of hill 5021, Altuda quadrangle (Plate 10:
figure 3; text Figure 11).
148
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Figure 34.—Localities on Leonard Mountain and hills to the north.
707x. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch member):
Detached block with Scacchmella at 4730 feet elevation
on nose of hill 0.4 mile S 38° W of hill 5021, Altuda
quadrangle.
707y. See 708q.
707z. Skinner Ranch Formation (base): 0.3 mile S of hill
5021, E of Sullivan Ranch road, Altuda quadrangle.
708. Cathedral Mountain Formation (Institella zone): Fault
block, 1.75 miles N 48° E of Hess Ranch and 0.62 mile
N 68° W of hill 5726, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
708a. Skinner Ranch Formation (Poplar Tank Member):
Loose at fault on W side of spur, W side of Sullivan
(Yates) Ranch road, at entrance to canyon, 2.8 miles S
23° E of Sullivan Peak, Altuda quadrangle.
708b. Wolfcampian (Neal Ranch Formation?): Roadcut on
U. S. Highway 90, 4 miles W of Marathon, Altuda
quadrangle.
708c. Cathedral Mountain Formation: One-third way up
hill just W of divide, about 1.95 miles S 65° W of Old
Word Ranch site, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
708e. Skinner Ranch Formation (Poplar Tank Member-
upper): Bioherm at 4815 feet elevation, 0.3 mile S 75°
E of hill 5300, N of Decie Ranch, center of Lenox Hills,
Altuda quadrangle [ = approximately R. E, King 38]
(Plate 21: figure 2).
708f. Skinner Ranch Formation: 30 feet above Decie
Ranch Member in detached block, base of hill 5021,
0.45 mile S 30° W of hill 5021, Altuda quadrangle.
708g. Lenox Hills Formation: Base of hill E of Sullivan
Ranch, Altuda quadrangle.
708h. Lenox Hills Formation: 4800 feet elevation on S side
of knob at NE end of hill 5280, 1.4 miles N 83° W of
Skinner Ranch (Iron Mountain) house, Altuda quad¬
rangle.
708i. Skinner Ranch Formation: 30 feet above base of lime¬
stone in detached block, 0.45 mile S 28° W of hill 5021,
Altuda quadrangle.
708k. Lenox Hills Formation: At elevation 5700 feet in sec¬
tion up hill 5816, 300 feet S 63° E of hill 5816, Hess
Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
708n. Gaptank Formation: Knob 0.72 mile S 82° E of hill
5300, Lenox Hills, Altuda quadrangle.
708p. Gaptank Formation: Coral bed on S side of knob at
NE end of mountain (5280) W of Iron Mountain, 1.46
miles N 81.5° W of Skinner Ranch, Altuda quadrangle.
708q. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch member): SE
face of hill E of road to Sullivan (Yates) Ranch, 20 feet
below saddle between southern and middle knobs, 0.25
mile S 40° W of hill 5021, 3.15 miles S 46° E of Sullivan
Peak, E end of Lenox Hills, Altuda quadrangle (Plate
10: figure 2).
708u. Cathedral Mountain Formation (lower): Loose pieces
on S side of gully, under Institella zone and above basal
quartz pebble conglomerate, 0.5 mile N 83° E of Split
lank, 1.95 miles N 62° E of Old Word Ranch, Hess
Canyon quadrangle. [Although all of the pieces compris-
NUMBER 14
149
ing this locality were loose, they were taken together and
are regarded as in place; however, no other pieces like
them have since been found.]
708w. Neal Ranch Formation (bed 4 of P. B. King): Loose
on floor of canyon, 100 yards below confluence of Canyon
branches, Wolfcamp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
708x. Cathedral Mountain Formation: W slope of amphi¬
theater on Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
708y. Neal Ranch Formation (bed 8 of P. B. King): Hog¬
back N of Geologists Canyon, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
708z. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch Member):
0.95 mile N 79° E of hill 5300, Lenox Hills, Altuda
quadrangle.
709. Cathedral Mountain Formation (base): Small knob and
saddle on N side of Leonard Mountain, 2.02 miles S 79°
W of Hess Ranch and 1.9 miles N 39° W of bench mark
5860, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
709a. Skinner Ranch Formation: Small knob 0.77 mile N
3° W of Hess Ranch, 0.9 mile S 57° E of hill 5801,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
709c. Road Canyon Formation (base): On W slope of hill
just E of road to Sullivan (Yates) Ranch, 0.95 mile N 9°
E of hill 4920, 1.25 miles S 57° E of Sullivan Peak (bench
mark 6125), Altuda quadrangle.
709d. Hess Formation: At 4961 feet in Section 1.4 miles N
63° E of Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
709e. Hess Formation: At 5091 feet in section 1.4 miles N
63° E of Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
709f. Hess Formation: At 5147 feet in section 1.4 miles N
63° E of Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
709g. Hess Formation: At 5194 feet in section 1.4 miles N
63° E of Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
709h. Hess Formation: At 5200 feet in section 1.4 miles N
63° E of Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
709i. Hess Formation: At 5220 feet in section 1.4 miles N
63° E of Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
709j. Hess Formation: At 5250 feet in section 1.4 miles N
63° E of Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
709k. Hess Formation: At 5260 feet in section 1.4 miles N
63° E of Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
Figure 35.— Localities in the vicinity of the Hess Ranch house.
150
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
709-1. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
0.63 miles S 30° W of hill 5300, Altuda quadrangle.
709m. Hess Formation: At 5418 feet in section 1.4 miles N
63° E of Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
709o. Cathedral Mountain Formation (lower): Crest of
knob 0.25 mile N 65° W of bench mark 5860 on Leonard
Mountain, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
709p. Skinner Ranch Formation (base): Base of massive
ledge forming crest of knob, 1.05 miles S 50° W of Hess
Ranch house, NE end of Leonard Mountain, Hess Can¬
yon quadrangle.
709q. Skinner Ranch Formation (base): 15 feet above base
of massive ledge forming crest of knob, 1.05 miles S 50°
W of Hess Ranch house, NE end of Leonard Mountain,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
709r. Skinner Ranch Formation (lower): Top of massive
ledge forming crest of knob, 1.05 miles S 50° W of Hess
Ranch house, NE end of Leonard Mountain, Hess Can¬
yon quadrangle.
709s. Lenox Hills Formation: 0.1 mile S of knob at NE base
of Leonard Mountain, 1.05 miles S 45° W of Hess Ranch
house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
709t. Lenox Hills Formation: On the NE nose of hill 0.53
mile N 37° E of bench mark 5860 on Leonard Mountain,
1.25 miles S 37° W of Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
709u. Skinner Ranch Formation (base): On E slope of hill
below knob, 1.05 miles S 50° W of Hess Ranch house,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
709v. Skinner Ranch Formation: In sandy conglomerate at
5222 feet, 0.53 mile N 34° E of bench mark 5860 on
Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
709w. Lenox Hills Formation: Under knob at 5280 feet
elevation, N slope of Leonard Mountain, 0.48 mile N
37° E of bench mark 5860, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
709x. Lenox Hills Formation: W side of first gully under
knob (5750 contour), 0.375 mile N 24° E of bench mark
5860 on Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
709z. Skinner Ranch Formation: Detached block on slope
0.28 mile N 7° W of bench mark 5860 on Leonard
Mountain, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
710b. Cathedral Mountain Formation: On top of hill 4902,
1.6 miles N 41° E of Lenox, Altuda quadrangle.
7I0d. Cathedral Mountain (Wedin Member): 2.25 miles N
36° E of Lenox, Altuda quadrangle.
710g. Cathedral Mountain Formation: 1.18 miles due S of
Sullivan Peak, Altuda quadrangle.
71 Oh. Road Canyon Formation (lower): 0.96 mile S 3° E
of Sullivan Peak and for 600 feet NE around hilltop and
on E side of knob, Altuda quadrangle.
7lOi. Road Canyon Formation: 0.87 mile S 21° E of Sullivan
Peak, Altuda quadrangle.
710j. Road Canyon Formation: 0.9 mile S 17° E of Sullivan
Peak, Altuda quadrangle.
710-1. Road Canyon Formation: 3.1 miles S 64.5° W of
Sullivan Peak, 3.8 miles N 12° W of Lenox, Altuda
quadrangle.
710m. Road Canyon Formation: 1.7 miles S 48° W of
Sullivan Peak, Altuda quadrangle [ = R. E. King 53].
710n. Road Canyon Formation: 1.45 miles S 49° W of
Sullivan Peak, Altuda quadrangle.
710o. Road Canyon Formation: 1.4 miles S 43° W of
Sullivan Peak, Altuda quadrangle.
710p. Road Canyon Formation: 1.52 miles S 42° W of
Sullivan Peak, Altuda quadrangle.
710r. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member,
top): 0.55 mile N 85° W of hill 5021, 2.75 miles S 45°
E of Sullivan Peak, Altuda quadrangle.
710s. Skinner Ranch Formation (float): 0.53 mile S 78° W
of hill 5021, 2.87 miles S 40° E of Sullivan Peak, Altuda
quadrangle.
71 Ot. Road Canyon Formation: 0.33 mile N 40° E of Sullivan
Peak, Altuda quadrangle.
710u. Road Canyon Formation: 1.65 miles S 63° E of Sulli¬
van Peak, 1.25 miles S 55° W of hill 4910, Altuda quad¬
rangle (Plate 3: figure 4).
710w. Lenox Hills Formation: Northernmost of two knobs
on NE side of Leonard Mountain, 0.83 mile N 33° E of
bench mark 5860, 1.05 miles S 41° W of Hess Ranch
house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
710x. Skinner Ranch Formation (Poplar Tank Member):
Section 0.35 mile S 25° E of hill 5300, Altuda quadrangle.
71 Oy. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
Lowest conglomerate above thick shale, 108 feet above
Decie Ranch Member, section 0.35 mile S 25° E of hill
5300, Altuda quadrangle.
710z. Road Canyon Formation: 0.75 mile S 61° W of hill
4910, 187 miles S 79° E of Sullivan Peak, Altuda quad¬
rangle.
711c. Lenox Hills Formation: 0.4 mile N 13° W of Hess
Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
71 Id. Skinner Ranch Formation (base): 0.55 mile N 20° W
of Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle (text
Figure 8).
71 le. Lenox Hills Formation: 0.55 mile N 20° YV of Hess
Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
711 f. Hess Formation: 0.93 mile N 43° E of Hess Ranch
house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
71 Ig. Hess Formation: 0.83 mile N 42° E of Hess Ranch
house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
71 lh. Lenox Hills Formation: 0.67 mile N 21° E of Hess
Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
71 li. Skinner Ranch Formation (base): 0.7 mile N 2° W of
Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
711k. Skinner Ranch Formation (base): 1.1 miles N 83° W
of bench mark 5860 of Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
711-1. Skinner Ranch Formation: 60 feet above Scacchinella,
1.1 miles N 83° W of bench mark 5860 on top of
Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
711m. Lenox Hills Formation: 0.92 mile N 85° W of bench
mark 5860 on top of Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
71 In. Skinner Ranch Formation (base): 0.9 mile N 83° W
of bench mark 5860 on top of Leonard Mountain, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
NUMBER 14
151
711o. Skinner Ranch Formation (lower): 0.9 mile N 84° W
of bench mark 5860 on top of Leonard Mountain, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
71 lp. Skinner Ranch Formation (lower): 0.75 mile N 87°
W of bench mark 5860 on top of Leonard Mountain,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
71 lq. Cathedral Mountain Formation: 2.07 miles N 1° E
of Skinner Ranch (Iron Mountain Ranch), 1.7 miles N
39° W of bench mark 5860, on Leonard Mountain,
Altuda quadrangle [—R. E. King 123].
711 r. Cathedral Mountain Formation (uppermost): 1.8 miles
S 26° E of bench mark 4973, 0.45 mile S 38° W of hill
5779, Gilliland Canyon, Altuda quadrangle.
71 lu. Word Formation: 25 feet below Willis Ranch Mem¬
ber, 1.35 miles S 40° E of bench mark 4973, Gilliland
Canyon, Altuda quadrangle.
711v. Road Canyon Formation: Top of 40-foot limestone in
gulch 1.7 miles S 32° E of bench mark 4973, Gilliland
Canyon, Altuda quadrangle.
71 lw. Cathedral Mountain Formation (top): 40 feet below
Road Canyon Formation in gulch 1.7 miles S 32° E of
bench mark 4973, Gilliland Canyon, Altuda quadrangle.
71 lx. Neal Ranch Formation: 1.25 miles N 59° E of Skinner
(Iron Mountain) Ranch house, 0.1 mile S 15° W of
bench mark 5860 at about 5300 feet on S slope of
Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
71 ly. Skinner Ranch Formation: 1.83 miles S 67° W of
Skinner (Iron Mountain) Ranch house, 4.05 miles S 84°
E of Sullivan Peak in hill 5280, Altuda quadrangle.
71 lz. Skinner Ranch Formation (upper): 0.35 mile N 34°
W of hill 5280, 3.75 miles S 87° E of Sullivan Peak, W of
Iron Mountain, Altuda quadrangle.
712e. Hueco Formation: Basal upper Hueco 100 yards W of
bench mark 5318, 1.5 miles NNE of Hueco Inn, Hueco
Mountains (15') quadrangle, Texas.
712m. Hueco Formation: S side of saddle of hill opposite
bench mark 5318, 1.5 miles N of Hueco Inn, Hueco
Mountains (15') quadrangle.
712n. Skinner Ranch Formation (base): 4.3 miles N 83.5°
E of Sullivan Peak, 1.48 miles N 84° W of Skinner (Iron
Mountain) Ranch, N end of hill 5280, W of Iron
Mountain, Altuda quadrangle.
712o. Cathedral Mountain Formation: 0.7 mile N 72° E of
hill 4910, 1.3 miles N 39° W of hill 5280, Altuda quad¬
rangle.
712p. Skinner Ranch Formation (base): 3.28 miles S 56°
E of Sullivan Peak, knob 0.28 mile N 58° E of hill 5021,
Altuda quadrangle.
712q. Road Canyon Formation: 2.3 miles S 78° E of Sullivan
Peak, W side of Clay Slide, Altuda quadrangle.
712t. Road Canyon Formation: 1.87 miles S 87° E of Sullivan
Peak, Altuda quadrangle.
712u. Lenox Hills Formation: 0.23 mile N 64° E of hill
5021, 3.35 miles S 55° E of Sullivan Peak, in saddle,
Altuda quadrangle.
712v. Lenox Hills Formation [—USNM 712u],
Figure 36.—Localities in the Wolf Camp Hills.
152
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
712w. Neal Ranch Formation (Cooper bed 9) [=P. B. King
bed 12]: 0.93 mile S 75° W of hill 5060, Wolf Camp
Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
712x. Neal Ranch Formation (85 feet above bed 12 of P. B.
King): Cooper bed K, section of 23 May 1958, long sec¬
tion 0.53 mile N 51" W of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
712y. Neal Ranch Formation (upper): Bed U of Cooper’s
23 May 1958 section, 0.53 mile N 71° W of hill 5060,
Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
712z. Neal Ranch Formation (47 feet above bed 12 of P. B.
King —Properrinites bed) : Long section 0.53 mile N
71° W of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
713. Word Formation (China Tank Member): Hillside 1.68
miles N 11° W of Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
713a. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites- bearing Shale Mem¬
ber): S side of high cliff, 250 feet S of hill 5060, center
Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle [=USNM
701e].
713b. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites- bearing Shale Mem¬
ber): N slope of upper limestone, 0.1 mile due W of
hill 4952, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
713c. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
0.33 mile N 78° E of hill 4902, N of Decie Ranch,
Altuda quadrangle.
713d. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
Top of Dugout Mountain (hill 5195), Monument Spring
quadrangle.
713e. Gaptank Formation: Lower bioherm, SW side of the
hill, 0.4 mile S 56° W of hill 4815, Conoly Brooks Ranch,
NE of Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
713g. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites- bearing Shale Member):
Uppermost part of E end of Wolfcamp Hills, Hess Can¬
yon quadrangle.
713i. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
85' up in member or 25' below brow of hill, E side of
hill facing spur, W side of Sullivan (Yates) Ranch road,
E end of Lenox Hills, Altuda quadrangle.
713j. Lenox Hills Formation: Shale under conglomerate at
4575 feet, opposite ravine in main hill, 0.5 mile W of
Sullivan Ranch road, 1.2 miles due S of hill 4920,
Altuda quadrangle.
713k. Neal Ranch Formation (lower bed 2 of P. B. King):
Hill 5060, center of Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
713—1. Neal Ranch Formation (beds 4-8): W side of Wolf-
camp Hills, just N of the Uddenites knob, Wolfcamp
Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
713m. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
70 feet up in member, hill 1 mile NE of hill 5300, Lenox
Hills, Altuda quadrangle.
713n. Skinner Ranch Formation (top): Top of hill 5280,
W of Iron Mountain, Altuda quadrangle [—USNM
705n],
713o. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites- bearing Shale Member):
0.25 mile S 53° W of hill 4952, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
713p. Cathedral Mountain Formation: 0.4 mile S 47° E of
hill 4910, on knoll S of road, E of Clay Slide, Altuda
quadrangle.
713q. Lenox Hills Formation: E slope of hill, 0.5 mile
WSW of hill 5816, Hess Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
713r. Skinner Ranch Formation (Poplar Tank Member):
Just on top of Decie Ranch Member, above shale under
knob, 2 miles NE of Lenox, Altuda quadrangle.
713s. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch Member):
Ledge near top, under high knob (hill 5195) of Dugout
Mountain, Monument Spring quadrangle.
713t. Cathedral Mountain Formation (lower): 2.73 miles N
55° E of Hess Ranch house, 1.22 miles W of hill 5725,
Hess Canyon quadrangle [ = R. E. King 104].
713u. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites- bearing Shale Mem¬
ber): Base of first thick ledge just E of saddle, E of hill
5060, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
713w. Cathedral Mountain Formation: Spur on hill on E
side of arroyo, 0.75 mile N of entrance to canyon leading
to Sullivan (Yates) Ranch, 0.42 mile S 47° E of hill
4920, Altuda quadrangle.
713x. [ = USNM 716n.]
713y. Lenox Hills Formation: Loose fossils in shale just N
of divide, 0.56 mile S 89° W of hill 5816, Hess Ranch
Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
713z. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak member):
Spyridiophora zone, section 0.35 mile S 25° E of hill
5300, 1.18 miles N 60° E of hill 4902, center of Lenox
Hills, Altuda quadrangle.
714a. Lenox Hills Formation: At 5200 feet in deep gully
0.28 mile N 5° E of bench mark 5860 on north slope of
Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
714b. Lenox Hills Formation: Detached block of massive
granular limestone at 5248 to 5273 feet, 0.28 mile N 12°
W of bench mark 5860, on Leonard Mountain, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
714c. Lenox Hills Formation: 120 feet below top of knob
1.05 miles S 50° W of Hess Ranch house, NE end of
Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
714d. Skinner Ranch Formation (base): 1 foot above mas¬
sive Wolfcamp (Lenox Hills) 1 mile S 50° W of Hess
Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
714e. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch equivalent):
Scacchinella zone, 0.28 mile N 5° E of bench mark 5860,
above deep gully on Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon
quadrangle [ = R. E. King 207].
714f. Lenox Hills Formation: 10 to 15 feet below top of
massive Lenox Hills Formation on E slope of knob, 1.05
miles S 50° W of Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle.
714g. Lenox Hills Formation: 5.5 feet below top of massive
Lenox Hills on E slope of knob, 1.05 miles S 50° W of
Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
7I4h. Skinner Ranch Formation (base): Top of hill 3.75
miles N 41° E of Hess Ranch house, 0.72 mile N 50° E
of hill 5816, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
NUMBER 14
153
714i. Hess Formation: Nose of hill 0.68 mile N 64° E of
hill 5821, N of Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle.
714j. Hess Formation: 1.5 miles N 58° E of hill 5821, N of
Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
714k. Hess Formation: 1.53 miles N 66° E of hill 5821, N of
Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
714o. Word Formation (Appel Ranch Member): 1.32 miles
N 50° W of bench mark 5652, 0.5 mile S 60° W of hill
5575, NW of Old Word Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
714p. Skinner Ranch Formation (lower): 0.28 mile N 11°
W of bench mark 5860 on Leonard Mountain, Hess Can¬
yon quadrangle (Plate 11: figure 2).
714q. Skinner Ranch Formation: 0.25 mile N 22° W of
bench mark 5860, Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
714s. Skinner Ranch Formation: 0.2 mile N 52° E of bench
mark 5860, Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
714t. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch Member):
Detached block about 0.45 mile S 20° E of hill 5300, N
of Decie Ranch, Altuda quadrangle.
714u. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
0.85 mile N 12° E of Lenox, 0.35 mile N 60° E of hill
4801, Monument Spring quadrangle.
714v. Cathedral Mountain Formation (Second Leonard Lime¬
stone Member of P. B. King=Wedin Member): Small
knob 0.25 mile N 21° W of hill 4801, exactly 1 mile N
25° E of Lenox, Altuda quadrangle.
154
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
714w. Cathedral Mountain Formation (Institella beds, Second
Limestone Member of P. B. King — Wedin Member):
Low hill 0.66 mile N 88° W of hill 4902, 1.3 miles N
18° E of Lenox, SW end of Lenox Hills, Altuda quad¬
rangle.
714wa. Cathedral Mountain Formation (Second Leonard
Limestone Member of P. B. King=Wedin Member):
Blocks with Coscinophora [ = USNM 714w],
714y. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
0.75 mile N 42° E of Lenox, Monument Spring quad
rangle.
715. Lenox Hills Formation: Conglomeratic bed in shale, 30
feet below Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch
Member), 0.1 mile E of hill 5195, Dugout Mountain,
Monument Spring quadrangle (Plate 13: figure 4).
715a. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch Member):
Under high point of hill 5195, Dugout Mountain, Monu¬
ment Spring quadrangle (Plate 10: figure 4).
715b. Lenox Hills Formation [ = Neal Ranch of C. A. Ross]:
Near base of hill under W knob 1.6 miles N 68° E of
Lenox at 4450—4490 feet elevation, 0.9 miles due E of
hill 4801, Monument Spring quadrangle (Plate 12: figure
2). [The fact that these beds have Lenox Hills con¬
glomerate beneath them and interfingering with them
suggests that they belong to the Lenox Hills Formation.]
715c. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch equivalent):
0.1 mile N 7° W of hill 5305, 1.85 mile N 21.5° E of
Hess Ranch, on NW slope of westernmost hill of Hess
Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
715e. Neal Ranch Formation (beds 12—14 of P. B. King):
Just N of elbow of Geologists Canyon to N, 300 feet
above (upstream) elbow, 0.47 mile N 68° W of hill 5060,
Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle [ = USNM
706x],
715f. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
0.33 mile S 46° W of hill 5021, E of Sullivan Ranch
road, Altuda quadrangle.
715h. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
0.2 mile due S of hill 4920, Altuda quadrangle.
715i. Word Formation (Appel Ranch Member): 0.45 mile
N 84° E of hill 5543, 4.68 miles N 32° E of Hess Ranch,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
715j. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
25'Teet above Decie Ranch Member in section 0.95 mile
N 79° E of hill 5300, Lenox Hills, Altuda quadrangle.
715k. Skinner Ranch Formation (Poplar Tank Member): 30
feet above Decie Ranch Member in section 0.95 mile N
79° E of hill 5300, Lenox Hills, Altuda quadrangle.
715m. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
Side of hill 1.2 miles N 62° E of hill 5300, Lenox Hills,
Altuda quadrangle.
715n. Skinner Ranch Formation: 0.15 mile S 44° W of hill
5021, E of Sullivan (Yates) Ranch Road, Altuda quad¬
rangle.
7I5r. Skinner Ranch Formation (base): 42.4 feet above base
of Grant’s measured section, E slope of knob capped by
5000-foot contour, 1 mile S 50° W of Hess Ranch house,
NE end of Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon quadrangle
[=USNM 709u],
715t. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch Member
equivalent): 63 feet above base of Decie Ranch Mem¬
ber, E slope of knob, 1 mile S 50° W of Hess Ranch
house, NE end of Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
715v. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch Member
equivalent): 85 feet below top of knob near S end, 1.0
mile S 50° W of Hess Ranch, at NE end of Leonard
Mountain, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
715z. Gaptank Formation: 75 feet below Skinner Ranch
Formation on slope of hill 5280, just W of Iron Moun¬
tain, Altuda quadrangle.
716a. Hess Formation: At 4915 feet in long section 0.6 mile
due N of hill 4952, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
716d. Hess Formation: At 4987 feet in long section 0.6 mile
due N of hill 4952 in mountain front N of Wolf Camp
Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
716f. Hess Formation: At 5111 feet in long section 0.6
mile due N of hill 4952, in mountain front N of Wolf
Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
716h. Hess Formation: At 5400 feet in long section 0.6 mile
due N of hill 4952, in mountain front N of Wolf Camp
Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
716i. Gaptank Formation: At 4753 feet in hill 1.6 miles N
66° E of hill 4952, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
716k. Gaptank Formation: Loose piece on top of hill 1.6
miles N 66° E of hill 4952, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
716m. Neal Ranch Formation: 206 feet above base of sec¬
tion, hill 1.4 miles S 81° W of hill 5060, Wolf Camp
Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
716n. Hess Formation (Taylor Ranch Member): 1.55 miles
S 14° W of Old Word Ranch, 0.2 mile 38° W of hill
5767, Hess Canyon quadrangle [ = R. E. King 222].
716o. Hess Formation (Taylor Ranch Member): On front
of mountain, 0.21 mile S 52° E of hill 5767, Hess Canyon
quadrangle (Plate 9: figure 1).
716p. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch Member
equivalent): 1.52 miles S 77° E of Willis Ranch, 0.87
mile N 69° W of hill 5816, Hess Ranch Horst, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
716q. Skinner Ranch Formation: 1.6 miles S 76° E of
Willis Ranch, 0.80 mile N 70° W of hill 5816, Hess
Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
716r. Lenox Hills Formation (upper): 0.5 mile N 43° E of
hill 5306, 2.23 miles N 29° E of Hess Ranch, Hess Ranch
Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle [ = R. E. King 196],
716t. Skinner Ranch Formation (lower): 1.35 miles S 59°
E of Willis Ranch, Hess Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
716u. Lenox Hills Formation (topmost): 1.6 miles S 66° E
of Willis Ranch, 0.85 mile due W of hill 5816, Hess
Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
716v. Word Formation (Appel Ranch Member): 0.5 mile N
85° W of hill 5575, 1.43 miles N 35° W of Old Word
Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
716w. Road Canyon Formation: 1.95 miles N 9° W of
Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
NUMBER 14
155
716x. Road Canyon Formation: 1.5 miles N 20° W of Hess
Ranch, 1.03 miles N 63° E of hill 5801, Hess Canyon
quadrangle,
716xa. Road Canyon Formation: Yellowish sandy limestone
[=USNM 716x],
716y. Neal Ranch Formation: Very top of northeasternmost
knob, 1.05 miles S 41° W of Hess Ranch house, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
716z. f-USNM 709c.]
717a. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member): S
end of Lenox Hills, E of hill 4801, Monument Spring
quadrangle.
717b. Road Canyon Formation: Coscinophora bed, 0.33
mile S 17° W of Sullivan (Yates) Ranch house, Altuda
quadrangle.
717c. Lenox Hills Formation: 0.48 mile N 18° W of Hess
Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
717e. Cathedral Mountain Formation (Wedin Member):
2.1 miles N 28° E of Lenox, 0.93 mile S 74° W of hill
5300, Altuda quadrangle.
717g. Cathedral Mountain Formation: Base of Clay Slide,
0.45 mile due S of hill 4910, Altuda quadrangle [ = ap-
proximately R. E. King 5]
717i. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch Member
equivalent): 4750 feet elevation near base of W end of
Leonard Mountain, 0.85 mile N 4° E of Skinner Ranch,
E edge of Altuda quadrangle.
717v. Skinner Ranch Formation: Saddle 0.6 mile S 79° W
of hill 5021, Altuda quadrangle.
7l7q. [-USNM 7l0w.]
718d. Word Formation (Willis Ranch Member): S side of
Road Canyon, 1.5 miles W of its E entrance, Hess Can¬
yon quadrangle.
718e. Neal Ranch Formation (beds 5-8 of P. B. King):
Slope opposite canyon bed, 0.2 mile up from Geologists
Canyon mouth, about 0.7 mile S 80° W of hill 5060,
Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
718k. Road Canyon Formation: 1.32 miles S 55° E of
Sullivan Peak, Altuda quadrangle.
718-1. Road Canyon Formation: 40 feet below top of plateau,
0.9 mile S 25° E of Sullivan Peak, Altuda quadrangle.
718n. Lenox Hills Formation: 1.28 miles N 77° E of hill
5300, N of Decie Ranch, Altuda quadrangle.
718o. Lenox Hills Formation: 1.15 miles N 75° E of hill
5300, N of Decie Ranch, Altuda quadrangle.
7I8p. Lenox Hills Formation: 1.66 miles N 57° E of Lenox,
Monument Spring quadrangle.
718q. Neal Ranch Formation: 40-45 feet below “Hess”
[=Lenox Hills] conglomerate on W side of Geologists
Canyon, 0.65 mile N 76° W of hill 5060, Wolf Camp
Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
718y. Lenox Hills Formation: Saddle just S of 2 knobs
ab'out on 5150-foot contour, NE end of Leonard Moun¬
tain, 0.72 mile N 34° E of bench mark 5860, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
718z. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
1.1 miles N 20° E of Lenox, Altuda quadrangle.
719. Hueco Formation: Three Mile Mountain, 2.3 miles N
45° W of Van Horn, Van Horn quadrangle.
Figure 38.—Localities in the Old Word Ranch area.
156
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
719a. Neal Ranch Formation: About 5150 to 5300 feet in
gully at S base of hill 5816, 0.35 mile S 21° E of hill
5816, Hess Ranch Horst. Hess Canyon quadrangle.
719e. Word Formation (shale above Willis Ranch Member):
Slope of hill near base, 4.12 miles N 32.5° E of Hess
Ranch house, 2.17 miles N 80° W of Old Word Ranch,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
719q. Hess Formation (?): Float found on top of Neal
Ranch Formation just below Hess [ — Lenox Hills con¬
glomerate] just west of the canyon about 0.2 mile NW
of elbow, about 0.62 mile N 73° W of hill 5060, Wolf
Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
719r. Lenox Hills Formation: On E slope of hill below
knob, 1.05 miles S 50° W of Hess Ranch house, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
719s. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch Member):
2—3 miles S of Lenox, Monument Spring quadrangle.
719w. Road Canyon Formation (lower): 1.28 miles N 32°
W of Hess Ranch, 0.28 mile S 83° E of hill 5453, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
719x. Road Canyon Formation (lower): 1.42 miles N 19°
W of Hess Ranch house, 0.55 mile N 65° E of hill 5453,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
719y. Skinner Ranch Formation (base): Ravine 2.2 miles
N 20° E of Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
719z. Word Formation (Appel Ranch Member): 0.29 mile
S 16° W of hill 5543, 4.13 miles N 28° E of Hess Ranch,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
720a. [ = USNM 719.]
720b. Hueco Formation: W base of Franklin Mountains, 5
miles E of White Spur, Canutillo (15') quadrangle.
720c. Hueco Formation (near base): W base of Franklin
Mountains, 5 miles E of White Spur, Canutillo (15')
quadrangle.
720d. Road Canyon Formation (top): Lens 25 feet above
top of Road Canyon limestone, 1.16 miles S 31° E of
bench mark 4973, 0.6 mile N 82° W of hill 5779, Altuda
quadrangle.
720e. Skinner Ranch Formation (lower): Scacchinella zone,
0.83 mile N 67° W of hill 5816, 1.57 miles S 47° E of
Willis Ranch, on NW side of Hess Ranch Horst, Hess
Canyon quadrangle (Plate 19: figure 4).
720f. Skinner Ranch Formation (lower): 1.45 miles S 84°
W of hill 5816, W side of Hess Ranch Horst, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
720g. Skinner Ranch Formation (lower): At break in slope
1.35 miles S 83° W of hill 5816, 0.34 mile N 30° W of
hill 5305, N side of Hess Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
720j. Skinner Ranch Formation: 0.65 mile N of Hess Ranch
house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
721 g. Neal Ranch Formation (Upper): Base of small hill
at W end of Wolf Camp Hills, 1.45 miles S 77.5° W of
hill 5060, 1.76 miles S 14° W of hill 5821, Hess Canyon
quadrangle [biohermal beds containing abundance of
Striatifera ].
721 i. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites -bearing Shale Member):
0.2 to 0.3 mile NE of hill 5060, NE end of Wolf Camp
Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
721 j. Road Canyon Formation (about 25 feet below top):
1.45 miles N 19° W of Hess Ranch, 1.3 miles due S of
Willis Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
721k. Neal Ranch Formation (base of bed 2 = Gray limestone
of P. B. King): West side Uddenites knob, W side of
Wolf Camp Hills, 0.8 mile S 62° W of hill 5060, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
721-1. Gaptank Formation {Uddenites -bearing Shale Mem¬
ber): Kings section 27, bed 13, slope of hill 4732, 350
feet S 32° E of top, Montgomery (Conoly Brooks) Ranch,
Hess Canyon quadrangle [ —R. E. King 95].
721m. Gaptank Formation (Uddenites -bearing Shale Mem¬
ber): Loose on W side of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
7210. Road Canyon Formation (lower): 1.45 miles N 19°
W of Hess Ranch house, 1.3 miles due S of Willis
Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
721 p. Word Formation (China Tank Member): Main ridge
extending into Hess Canyon, N from hill 5611 for 0.5
mile W of 103° 10' line on Hess Canyon quadrangle.
721 q. Road Canyon Formation: At 5200 feet elevation, 1.83
miles N 83° W of Hess Ranch house, Hess Canyon
quadrangle (Plate 17: figure 3).
721 r. Road Canyon Formation: 1.72 miles N 82° W of Hess
Ranch house, 0.35 mile S 53° E of hill 5674, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
721s. Road Canyon Formation: 1.72 miles N 11.5° W of
Hess Ranch house, 0.98 mile S 6° E of Willis Ranch,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
7211. Road Canyon Formation: 1.8 miles N 10.5° W of
Hess Ranch house, 0.93 mile S 7° E of Willis Ranch,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
721 u. Cathedral Mountain Formation (lower): 0.57 mile N
80° E of hill 4910, 1.08 miles N 55° W of hill 5280,
Altuda quadrangle.
721v. Cathedral Mountain Formation: 2 miles S 72° E of
Sullivan Peak, Altuda quadrangle.
721w. Road Canyon Formation: 1.33 miles S 55° E of
Sullivan Peak, Altuda quadrangle.
721x. Road Canyon Formation: 1.15 miles S 26° E of bench
mark 4973 in Gilliland Canyon, Altuda quadrangle.
721 y. Road Canyon Formation: 1.2 miles S 25° E of bench
mark 4973, 0.65 mile due W of hill 5779, Gilliland
Canyon, Altuda quadrangle.
721 z. Road Canyon Formation: 0.95 mile S 28° E of bench
mark 4973, 0.78 mile N 71° W of hill 5779, Gilliland
Canyon, Altuda quadrangle.
722a. Phosphoria Formation: Muddy thin layer about 100
feet above road, in cherty limestone above road cut at
upper end of Torrey Lake, Dubois, Wyoming.
722b. Phosphoria Formation: Cherty limestone above road
cut at upper end of Torrey Lake* Dubois, Wyoming.
722c. [ = USNM 762.]
722d. Phosphoria Formation: E side of Long Valley, Nevada.
722e. Road Canyon Formation: 0.99 mile S 26° E of bench
mark 4973, 0.75 mile N 76° W of hill 5779, Gilliland
Canyon, Altuda quadrangle.
722f. Road Canyon Formation: 1.43 miles S 74° W of hill
4910, 1.3 miles N 9° E of hill 4920, Altuda quadrangle.
NUMBER 14
157
Figure 39.—Localities in Hess Ranch Horst area.
722g. Road Canyon Formation: 1.43 miles S 74° W of hill
4910, 1.3 miles N 9° E of hill 4920, Altuda quadrangle.
722h. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
1.05 miles S 28° E of hill 4920, 2.9 miles S 28° E of
Sullivan Peak, on S side of knob of spur on W side of
road to Sullivan (Yates) Ranch, Altuda quadrangle.
722j. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
1.93 miles S 12° E of Old Payne Ranch, 1.2 miles S 62°
W of hill 5195, W side of Dugout Mountain, Monument
Spring quadrangle.
722-1. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
Beds with Spyridiophora 1.73 miles S 1.5° E of Old
Payne Ranch, 1.47 miles S 75° W of hill 5195 (Dugout
Mountain) on W flank of Dugout Mountain, Monument
Spring quadrangle (Plate 6: figure 2).
722m. Skinner Ranch Formation (top): 0.88 mile S 4° E
of hill 4920, 1.6 miles S 71° W of hill 5021, Altuda
quadrangle.
722n. Skinner Ranch Formation: 0.4 mile S 38° W of hill
5021, 1.5 miles S 64° E of hill 4920, Altuda quadrangle.
722o. Skinner Ranch Formation (top): Southwestern knob
of hill 5021, 0.33 mile S 51° W of hill 5021, Altuda
quadrangle.
722p. Hess Formation: 1.5 miles S 5° W of Old Word
Ranch, 0.2 mile S 39° E of hill 5767, Hess Canyon
quadrangle [—approximately USNM 716o].
722t. Word Formation (Appel Ranch Member): 2.38 miles
N 76° W of Old Word Ranch, 4.18 miles N 29° E of
Hess Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
722v. Road Canyon Formation (Word lithology): Lens with
Compressoproductus about 25 feet above limestone of
Road Canyon, 1.15 miles S 30° E of bench mark 4973,
Gilliland Canyon, 0.6 mile N 82° W of hill 5779, Altuda
quadrangle. [This is approximately the same level as
USNM 720d.]
722w. Neal Ranch Formation (beds 9—12 of Cooper): W
side of Wolf Camp Hills, just N of the Uddenites saddle,
0.78 mile S 73° W of hill 5060, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
722x. Neal Ranch Formation (top of bed 2 of P. B.
KingrrGray Limestone Member): Small reefy patch of
Eolyttonia encrusted by algae, on W side of small ravine
on S side of Geologists Canyon, 0.4 mile above entrance
and 0.53 mile due W of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills,
Hess Canyon quadrangle. [This patch lies on the flank
of the Gray Limestone near the point where it plunges
under the main canyon.]
158
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
722z. Skinner Ranch Formation (Poplar Tank Member): 50
feet above top of Decie Ranch Member in same locality
as USNM 705o.
723a. Road Canyon Formation: 1.48 miles N 19° W of
Hess Ranch, 0.55 miles N 57° E of hill 5453, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
723d. Lenox Hills Formation: 60 feet above conglomerate,
5-7 feet above goniatite bed, 0.48 mile S 22° E of hill
5300, about 4700 feet elevation, and 1.5 miles N 63° W
of Poplar Tank, Altuda quadrangle.
723h. Skinner Ranch Formation (top): Top of hill 0.5 mile
N 7° E of hill 5280, 1.63 miles due E of hill 4910, on W
brink of a ravine, first hill (5280) W of Iron Mountain,
Altuda quadrangle [=R. E. King 3].
723j. Skinner Ranch Formation: 0.2 mile S 5° E of hill
4920, 1.55 miles N 79° W of hill 5021, Altuda quad¬
rangle.
723k. Cathedral Mountain Formation (Base): 1.25 miles S
7° W of hill 4910, 1.75 miles S 66° W of hill 5280,
Altuda quadrangle.
723—1. Skinner Ranch Formation (top): 1.32 miles S 5°
W of hill 4910, 1.8 miles S 61° W of hill 5280, Altuda
quadrangle.
723n. Cathedral Mountain Formation: 1.13 miles S 15° E
of hill 4910, 1.28 miles S 66° W of hill 5280, Altuda
quadrangle.
723o. Skinner Ranch Formation: 1.12 miles S 40° E of hill
4910, 0.85 mile S 64° W of hill 5280, Altuda quadrangle.
723p. Cathedral Mountain Formation: 0.55 mile S 10° W of
hill 4910, 1.55 miles N 88° W of hill 5280, Altuda
quadrangle.
723q. Skinner Ranch Formation: 1 mile S 32° E of hill
4910, 1 mile S 71° W of hill 5280,' Altuda quadrangle.
723r. Lenox Hills Formation: 1.45 miles S 56° E of hill
4910, 0.4 mile S 46° W of hill 5280, Altuda quadrangle.
723s. Skinner Ranch Formation: 1.55 miles S 65° E of hill
4910, 0.15 mile S 24° W of hill 5280, Altuda quadrangle.
723t. Word Formation (Willis Ranch Member): 0.35 mile S
30° E of hill 5939, 2.75 miles S 70° W of hill 5779,
Gilliland Canyon, Altuda quadrangle.
723u. Cathedral Mountain Formation: 0.85 miles S 70° E
of hill 5300, 2.15 miles N 31° E of Lenox, Altuda quad¬
rangle.
723v. Cathedral Mountain (Wedin Member): 1.25 miles N
21° E of Lenox, 1.73 miles S 56° W of hill 5300, Altuda
quadrangle.
723w. Word Formation (Willis Ranch Member): 0.68 miles
N 48° W of bench mark 4973, 1.86 miles S 77° W of
hill 5615, Gilliland Canyon, Altuda quadrangle.
723x. Road Canyon Formation: 1.13 miles S 24° E of bench
mark 4973, 0.77 mile N 87° W of hill 5779, Gilliland
Canyon, Altuda quadrangle.
723y. Cathedra] Mountain Formation: 0.5 mile S 30° E of
hill 4910, 1.2 miles N 86° W of hill 5280, Altuda quad¬
rangle.
724a. Road Canyon Formation: 0.25 mile N 56° W of hill
4910, 1.7 miles N 77° W of hill 5280, Altuda quadrangle.
724b. Road Canyon Formation: 1.13 miles N 11° E of hill
4910, 2.2 miles N 34° W of hill 5280, Altuda quadrangle.
724c. Road Canyon Formation: 0.83 mile S 26° E of bench
mark 4973, 0.88 mile N 67° W of hill 5779, Gilliland
Canyon, Altuda quadrangle.
724d. Road Canyon Formation (top): 1.55 miles N 38° E
of bench mark 4973, 0.25 mile S 62° W of hill 5779,
Gilliland Canyon, Altuda quadrangle.
724e. Road Canyon Formation: 1.55 miles S 38° E of bench
mark 4973, 0.25 mile S 62° W of hill 5779, Gilliland
Canyon, Altuda quadrangle.
724f. Word Formation (Willis Ranch Member): 1.95 miles
S 40° W of bench mark 4973, 2.45 miles S 82° W of hill
5779, Gilliland Canyon, Altuda quadrangle.
724g. Word Formation (Wills Ranch Member): Knob 0.55
mile S 51° W of bench mark 4973, 1.73 miles N 65° W
of hill 5779, Gilliland Canyon, Altuda quadrangle.
724h. Road Canyon Formation: Bed H, 2.05 miles S 50°
E of bench mark 4973, 0.45 mile S 61° E of hill 5779,
Gilliland Canyon, Altuda quadrangle.
724i. Cathedral Mountain Formation. 2.1 miles S 37° E of
bench mark 4973, 0.58 miles S 9° E of hill 5779, Gilliland
Canyon, Altuda quadrangle.
724j. Road Canyon Formation: Blocks from a loose piece
from large, lower bioherm, 2.05 miles S 50° E of bench
mark 4973, 0.45 mile S 61° E of hill 5779, Gilliland
Canyon, Altuda quadrangle (Plate 16: figure 4).
724k. Cathedral Mountain Formation: 1.23 miles S 33° W
of hill 5801, 2.06 miles S 87° W of Hess Ranch, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
724—1. Skinner Ranch Formation: 1.02 miles N 71° W of
bench mark 5860, 2.38 miles S 60° W of Hess Ranch, S
side of Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
724m. Cathedral Mountain Formation (base): Thin beds
with Institella from W knob on Leonard Mountain, 0.23
mile N 64° W of bench mark 5860, Leonard Mountain,
Hess Canyon quadrangle (Plate 2: figure 1).
724n. Cathedral Mountain Formation (base): Thick bedded
limestone above lowest shale, W knob on Leonard
Mountain, 0.23 mile N 64° W of bench mark 5860, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
7240. Lenox Hills Formation: 1 mile N 85° W of bench
mark 5860, 2.53 miles S 55° W of Hess Ranch house,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
724p. Skinner Ranch Formation: 1.0 mile N 85° W of
bench mark 5860, 2.55 miles S 55° W of Hess Ranch,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
724q. Skinner Ranch Formation: 0.9 mile N 84° W of
bench mark 5860, 2.45 miles S 54° W of Hess Ranch, on
Leonard Mountain, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
724r. Cathedral Mountain Formation: 0.42 mile S 32° E of
hill 5816, 2.7 miles N 52° E of Hess Ranch, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
724s. Cathedral Mountain Formation (lower): 0.7 mile S 35°
E of hill 5816, 2.7 miles N 58° E of Hess Ranch, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
7241. Cathedral Mountain Formation (lower) : SW end of
narrow conical hill, 0.4 miles S 67° E of hill 5816, 2.95
miles N 51° E of Hess Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
NUMBER 14
159
724u. Word Formation (Willis Ranch Member)^ In Road
Canyon 0.95 mile S 39° W of Willis Ranch, 0.46 mile S
37° E of hill 5803, Hess Canyon quadrangle (Plate 14:
figure 1).
724v. Lenox Hills Formation: 0.65 mile N 19° E of Hess
Ranch, 1.63 miles S 83° W of hill 5726, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
724w. Lenox Hills Formation: 0.7 mile N 36° E of Hess
Ranch, 1.35 miles S 83° W of hill 5726, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
724x. Lenox Hills Formation: 0.75 mile N 28° E of Hess
Ranch, 1.47 miles S 85° W of hill 5726, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
724y. Word Formation: Top of knob, 1.7 miles S 11° W of
Willis Ranch, 0.95 mile N 53° E of hill 5801, S of Road
Canyon, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
724z. Word Formation: At 5200 feet elevation on knob 1.24
miles S 10° W of Willis Ranch, 0.95 mile N 56° E of hill
5801, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
725a. Hueco Formation: W side of hill 4970, 0.25 mile N of
divide in Red Tank Canyon, on Nutt Ranch, 2.1 miles
N 85.5° E of bench mark 4290, Van Horn quadrangle.
725b. Hueco Formation: W side hill with bench mark 4970,
0.25 mile N of divide in Red Tank Canyon on Nutt
Ranch, 2 miles N 79° E of bench mark 4920, Van Horn
quadrangle.
725c. Bone Spring Formation: 130 feet above Hueco lime¬
stone on E side of hill 4402, N end of Baylor Mountains,
W side of Texas Highway 54, 0.6 mile S 22° W of bench
mark 3806, Van Horn quadrangle.
725e. Bell Canyon Formation (Lamar Member): 1.7 miles
N 63° E of Hegler (Ligon) Ranch on N side of U. S.
Highway 62-180, 0.25 mile N of intersection with road to
D-Ranch Headquarters (United States Geological Survey
Professional Paper 215, plate 3, Culberson County).
725f. Bell Canyon Formation (Rader Member): 0.4 mile S
62° W of Hegler (Ligon) Ranch, on Rader Ridge,
Guadalupe Peak quadrangle (Plate 23: figure 4).
725g. Bell Canyon Formation (Rader Member): 0.55 mile
due W of Hegler (Ligon) Ranch, Guadalupe Peak
quadrangle.
725h. Bell Canyon Formation (Pinery Member): 0.452 miles
S 2° W of Hegler (Ligon) Ranch on Rader Ridge,
Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
725i. Lower Capitan Limestone Formation ( — Upper Pin¬
ery) : Smith Canyon, NE of Pine Spring Camp, Guad¬
alupe Peak quadrangle.
725j. Capitan Limestone: Smith Canyon, Guadalupe Peak
quadrangle.
725k. Capitan Limestone Formation: From I piece of lime¬
stone, 500 feet below head of ravine in Pine Top
Mountain, 1.75 miles N 18.5° W of Pine Spring Camp,
Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
725-1. Capitan Limestone Formation: Same as USNM 725k
but from several pieces of rock.
725m. Capitan Limestone Formation: 1.9 miles N 20.5° W
of Pine Spring Camp, head of ravine leading from
Upper Pine Spring to Pine Top Mountain, Guadalupe
Peak quadrangle.
725n. Bell Canyon Formation (Pinery Member): 0.32 mile
N 62° W of Hegler (Ligon) Ranch, on Rader Ridge,
Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
725o. Bell Canyon Formation (Rader Member): Hill 5414,
0.3 mile N 44° W of Hegler (Ligon) Ranch, Guadalupe
Peak quadrangle.
725p. Capitan Limestone Formation: El Capitan Peak,
Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
725s. Bone Spring Formation: Loose on E slope of hill
4402, W side of Texas Highway 54, N end of Baylor
Hills, Van Horn quadrangle.
725v. Cibolo Formation (Spicule Beds of Udden): 15 feet
vertically above beds of Wolfcamp age, W end of
Permian plate, at narrows of Cibolo Creek, Shafter
quadrangle, Texas.
725y. Bone Spring Formation: Lens of crystalline limestone
100 feet above base of Bone Spring Formation on second
knob N of mouth of Apache Canyon, N portal of Apache
Canyon, Sierra Diablo, Van Horn quadrangle.
725z. Hueco Canyon Formation: Just above Powwow Con¬
glomerate between, and around, 2 knobs at 5000 feet
elevation, W end of ridge N of U. S. Highway 62—180,
W entrance to Powwow Canyon, 0.3 mile due E of eleva¬
tion 4940, 0.9 mile N 20° E of Powwow Tank, 0.7 mile
S 60° E of Dugout Tank, Helms West Well ('7 1 / 2 ) quad¬
rangle [ — USNM 499b].
726c. Road Canyon Formation (beds with Perrinites): At
about 4900 feet elevation, 1.37 miles S 4° W of Willis
Ranch site, 0.98 mile N 68° E of hill 5801, Hess Canyon
quadrangle (Plate 15: figure 2).
726d. Road Canyon Formation: At 4947 feet elevation, 1.37
miles S 4° W of Willis Ranch, 0.98 mile N 68° E of hill
5801, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
726e. Road Canyon Formation: 1.25 miles S 4° W of Willis
Ranch, 1.03 miles N 63° E of hill 5801, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
726f. Road Canyon Formation (lower): 1.38 miles N 19°
W of Hess Ranch, 1.0 mile N 60° E of hill 5801, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
726g. Skinner Ranch Formation: 1.65 miles N 55° E of
Hess Ranch house, 1.28 miles S. 26° W of hill 5816,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
726h. Skinner Ranch Formation: Top of hill, 300 feet N
of hill 5305, W side of Hess Ranch Horst, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
726i. Lenox Hills Formation: S slope of hill 5305, 600 feet
S 9° W of hilltop at 5305 feet, Hess Ranch Horst, Hess
Ranch quadrangle.
726j. Skinner Ranch Formation: 1.37 miles S 52° E of Willis
Ranch, 1.23 miles S 21° W of hill 5816, Hess Ranch
Horst, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
726k. Skinner Ranch Formation (lower): N slope of Hess
Ranch Horst 1.57 miles S 75° E of Willis Ranch, 0.67
miles N 73° W of hill 5816, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
726-1. Skinner Ranch Formation: Just above saddle 0.25
mile S 46° W of hill 5021, Altuda quadrangle.
726n. Hess Formation (upper): 1.33 miles S 7° E of hill
5507, 1.0 mile S 60° W of Old Word Ranch, Hess Can¬
yon quadrangle [ = R. E. King 223].
160
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
726o. Cathedral Mountain Formation (upper): 1.08 miles
S 2° E of hill 5507, 1.03 miles S 76° W of Old Word
Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle (Plate 17: figure 1).
726q. Word Formation (China Tank Member: 1.1 mile N
77° W of Old Word Ranch, 0.58 mile S 3° W of hill
5507, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
726r. Word Formation (China Tank Member): 1.43 miles
N 70° W of Old Word Ranch, 0.45 mile S 44° W of hill
5507, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
726s. Word Formation (China Tank Member): 1.22 mile
N 73° W of Old Word Ranch, 0.5 mile S 17° W of hill
5507, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
726t. Word Formation (Appel Ranch Member): 1.12 miles
due N of Old Word Ranch, 1.06 miles N 73° E of hill
5507, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
726u. Cathedral Mountain Formation (upper): 1.35 miles S
63° E of hill 5507, 0.27 mile N 50° E of Old Word
Ranch site, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
726v. Cathedral Mountain Formation (upper): 1.75 miles
N 49° E of Old Word Ranch, 0.075 mile S 73° E of hill
5552, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
726w. Cathedral Mountain Formation: 1.74 miles N. 51.5°
E of Old Word Ranch, 0.15 mile S 68° E of hill 5552,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
726x. Cathedral Mountain Formation: 1.8 miles N 56° E
of Old Word Ranch, 0.27 mile S 47° E of hill 5552,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
726y. Cathedral Mountain Formation: 2 miles N 55° E of
Old Word Ranch, 0.35 mile S 80° E of hill 5552, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
726z. Road Canyon Formation (lower): Biohermal facies
1.03 miles N 43° E of Old Word Ranch, 0.53 mile S 20°
E of hill 5461, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
726za. Road Canyon Formation (lower): Interbiohermal
beds at same locality as USNM 726z.
727a. Skinner Ranch Formation: 1.63 miles S 50° E of Old
Payne Ranch, 0.37 mile N 31° W of hill 5195, Dugout
Mountain.
727b. Skinner Ranch Formation: 1.8 miles S 58° E of Old
Payne Ranch, 0.4 mile N 4° E of hill 5195, Dugout
Mountain, Monument Spring quadrangle.
727c. Neal Ranch Formation (bed 2): 0.42 mile N. 88° W
of hill 5060, 1.43 miles S. 19° E of hill 5821, Wolf Camp
Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
727d. Neal Ranch Formation (bed 4 of P. B. King): 0.33
mile N 74° W of hill 5060, 1.43 miles S 24° E of hill
5821, Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
727e. Neal Ranch Formation (bed 4 of P. B. King): 0.92
mile S 69° W of hill 5060, 1.7 miles S 2° E of hill 5821,
Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle (Plate 5:
figure 2).
727f. Skinner Ranch Formation (upper): Small isolated
knob 0.80 mile N 54° W of Hess Ranch house, 0.9 mile
S 57° E of hill 5801, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
727h. Skinner Ranch Formation: 1.18 miles S 83° W of hill
5816, 0.3 mile N of hill 5305, Hess Ranch Horst, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
727i. Lenox Hills Formation: 0.95 mile S 77° W of hill
5816, 0.33 mile N 45° E of hill 5305, Hess Ranch Horst,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
727j, Word Formation (Appel Ranch Member): 0.25 mile
S 4° E of hill 5543, 0.37 mile N 75° E of hill 5578, at
divide in Hess Canyon, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
727k. Skinner Ranch Formation: 0.60 mile N 10° W of
Hess Ranch, 1.35 miles S 75° E of hill 5801, Hess Can¬
yon quadrangle.
727-1. Skinner Ranch Formation: 0.65 mile N 12° W of
Hess Ranch, 1.3 miles S 74° E of hill 5801, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
727m. Skinner Ranch Formation: Small isolated knob 0.78
miles N 54° W of the Hess Ranch, 0.9 mile S 57° E of
hill 5801, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
727n. Skinner Ranch Formation: Small isolated knob 0.83
mile N 53° W of Hess Ranch, 0.85 mile S 59° E of hill
5801, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
727o. Cathedral Mountain Formation: 0.12 mile S 5° E of
hill 5300, Altuda quadrangle.
727p. Cathedral Mountain (Wedin Member): 0.22 mile S 3°
W of hill 5300, Altuda quadrangle (Plate 7: figures 1,3).
727q. Cathedral Mountain Formation: 0.23 miles S 20° W
of hill 5300, on NW side of knob ending with 5250-foot
contour, Altuda quadrangle.
727s. Cathedral Mountain Formation (Fourth Leonard Lime¬
stone Member of P. B. King?): Top of hill 5300, 2.85
miles N 31° E of Lenox, Altuda quadrangle.
727t. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch Member):
0.48 mile S 54° E of hill 4902, 1.7 miles N 57° E of
Lenox, Altuda quadrangle.
727u. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch Member):
0.53 mile S 68° E of hill 4902, 1.84 miles N 56° E of
Lenox, Lenox Hills, Altuda quadrangle.
727v. Cathedral Mountain Formation (Foutth Leonard Lime¬
stone Member of P. B. King): W side of knob 2.3 miles
S 1° W of Sullivan Peak, (bench mark 6125), 0.65 mile N
4° W of hill 5300, Altuda quadrangle.
727w. Cathedral Mountain Formation (Fourth Leonard lime¬
stone Member of P. B. King): 1.95 miles S 2° W of
Sullivan Peak (bench mark 6125), 1.0 mile N 5° W of
hill 5300, Altuda quadrangle.
727x. Cathedral Mountain Formation: Bioherm in sand¬
stone, S side of isolated hill 1.38 miles S 1° W of Sulli¬
van Peak (bench mark 6125), 1.55 miles N 2° W of hill
5300, Altuda quadrangle.
727y. Hess Formation: S slope of hill 0.35 mile N 73° E of
hill 4821, 0.5 mile S 73° W of hill 5202, Montgomery
(Conoly Brooks) Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle [fusu-
linids at 4880 feet],
727z. Hess Formation: Fusulinids at 4920 feet on rim of
hill 0.35 mile N 73° E of hill 4921, 0.5 mile S 73° W of
hill 5202, Montgomery (Conoly Brooks) Ranch, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
728. Cherry Canyon Formation (Getaway Member, upper
part of lower Getaway): 0.45 mile S 35° E of bench
mark 5426 in Guadalupe Pass, 2.55 miles S 5° W of Pine
Spring Camp, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle [ = AMNH
512].
NUMBER 14
161
728d. Hueco Formation: 0.25 mile up from mouth of Vic-
torio Canyon, 3.15 miles S 53.5° W of bench mark 3648,
on Corn Ranch, Van Horn quadrangle.
728e. Bone Spring Formation: 2-foot bed of limestone 220
feet above top of “clastic" Hueco, 2.15 miles S 54° W of
bench mark 3648, S side of Victorio Canyon, Van Horn
quadrangle [z= AMNH 625 = USNM 741] (Plate 8 : fig¬
ure 3).
728f. Bone Spring Formation: From 18-inch bed of silty
limestone, 0.6 mile S of Victorio Canyon, 2.75 miles S
44° W of bench mark 3648, Van Horn quadrangle
[ = AMNH 629] (Plate 8 : figure 3).
728g. Bone Spring Formation: W side of Apache Canyon,
4.5 miles N 55° W of Figure Two Ranch house, Van
Horn quadrangle [ = AMNH 492].
728h. Bone Spring Formation: 0.5 mile S of mouth of Vic¬
torio Canyon, 2.75 miles S 48° W of bench mark 3648,
Van Horn quadrangle.
728i. Bell Canyon Formation (Lamar Member): Beside road
in mouth of Big Canyon, 0.25 mile SE of Gray Ranch, SW
Vi SW 14 section 29, T 26 S, R 22 E, Carlsbad Caverns
West quadrangle.
728j. Cibolo Formation (Breccia Zone of Udden): Upper
bioherms under thin-bedded shaly layers, 1 mile N 79°
E of Cibolo Ranch house, in bluff above Sierra Alta
Creek, Chinati Peak quadrangle.
728k. Cibolo Formation (Breccia Zone of Udden): Lower
bioherms with Scacchinella, 0.8 mile N 83° E of Cibolo
Ranch house, in bluff above Sierra Alta Creek, Chinati
Peak quadrangle.
728-1. Cibolo Formation (Breccia Zone of Udden): Bio¬
herms low in bluff of Sierra Alta Creek, 0.8 mile N 83°
E of Cibolo Ranch house, Chinati Peak quadrangle
(Plate 22: figure 4).
728m. Cibolo Formation (top of Breccia Zone of Udden):
Fusulinids from bed from upper bioherm, 1 mile N 79°
E of Cibolo ranch house, bluff on S side of Sierra Alta
Creek, Chinati Peak quadrangle.
728n. Cibolo Formation (Thin-bedded Zone; top): Fusu¬
linids in top limestone beds just below chert, 1 mile N
79° E of Cibolo ranch house, in bluff on S side of Sierra
Alta Creek, Chinati Peak quadrangle.
728o. Bone Spring Formation (top of massive beds): About
4525 feet on nose of S side of Victorio Canyon, 2.5 miles
N 47° W of bench mark 3625, and 2.5 miles S 53° W of
bench mark 3648, Van Horn quadrangle.
728p. Bell Canyon Formation (Lamar Member): Lower
massive beds in bluff on E side of ranch road, 0.4 mile
S 54° E of junction of road to D-Ranch headquarters
and U. S. Highway 62-180, E of Hegler Ranch, Guada¬
lupe Mountains (Plate 22: figure 3).
728q. Bell Canyon Formation (Lamar Member): Massive
limestone on S side of Seven-Heart Gap at entrance,
Van Horn quadrangle.
728r. Bell Canyon Formation (Lamar Member): Upper bi¬
tuminous limestone 0.4 mile E of mouth of Seven-Heart
Gap, Van Horn quadrangle.
728s. Bell Canyon Formation (Lamar Member): Top of
massive limestone 1.1 miles NW of mouth of Seven-Heart
Gap, Van Horn quadrangle.
728t. Bone Spring Formation (lower): Victorio Peak, Van
Horn quadrangle.
728v. Bone Spring Formation (upper, 35 feet below top):
Last Chance Canyon, N side, above lower ranch, NE 14
section 33, T 23 S, R 22 E, Eddy County, New Mexico.
728w. Cherry Canyon Formation (Getaway Member): Air¬
ways Beacon, bench mark 5446, 5.5 miles SE of El Capi-
tan Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
729. [=AMNH 369.]
729a. Hess Formation: Edge of hill 0.35 mile N 65° E of
hill 4921, 0.5 mile S 76° W of hill 5302, Montgomery
(Conoly Brooks) Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle [fusu¬
linids at 4950 feet].
729b. Hess Formation: 0.6 mile N 53° E of hill 4921, 1 5
mile S 67° W of hill 5135, Montgomery (Conoly Brooks)
Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
729e. Hess Formation ( — Lenox Hills Formation): Slope
of hill, 0.33 mile N 74° E of hill 4921, 0.48 mile S 71°
W of hill 5202, Montgomery (Conoly Brooks) Ranch,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
729h. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
E side of hill capped by 5250 contour, facing spur on W
side of Sullivan Ranch road, 0.9 mile S 7° E of hill 4920,
1.55 mile S 70° W of hill 5020, N of Decie Ranch, Altuda
quadrangle.
729i. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch Member):
Under main crest of hill 5195, loose, Dugout Mountain
just under bluff formed by Decie Ranch Member,
Monument Spring quadrangle.
729j. Skinner Ranch Formation (base): Top of knob at
base of Hess Ranch Horst, N side, on N side of USNM
720e, 0.8 mile N 67° W of hill 5816, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle.
729-1. Skinner Ranch Formation (top): Crest of western¬
most knob of hill 5021, E of Sullivan Ranch road, Altuda
quadrangle.
729o. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member,
upper): W end, type section of member, knob at W end
of Leonard Mountain, Altuda quadrangle.
729p. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
0.25 mile N 17° W of hill 5280, 1.43 miles S 80° E of
hill 4910, at head of ravine, Altuda quadrangle.
729q. Skinner Ranch Formation (Poplar Tank Member):
Slope on S end of hill 4801, S end of Lenox Hills, below
large bioherms. Monument Spring quadrangle.
729r. Cathedral Mountain (Upper): Just under biggest bio¬
herm in Road Canyon at 724j, 0.4 mile S 60° E of hill
5779, Altuda quadrangle.
730, Cherry Canyon Formation (Getaway Member=:sub-
Getaway Zone, P. B. King): Near bench mark 5426 in
arroyo S of U. S. Highway 62, 0.5 mile W of road bend
at bench mark 5315, 2.25 miles S of Pine Spring Camp,
Guadalupe Peak quadrangle [ — AMNH 600] (see P. B.
King, 1948:41).
162
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
730k. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
Hill 4801, S end of Lenox Hills, Monument Spring quad¬
rangle.
730m. Gaptank Formation: SE nose of Leonard Mountain,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
730n. Gaptank Formation ( Uddenites-bearing Shale Mem¬
ber): Head of canyon NE of Wolf Camp, Wolf Camp
Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
730o. Skinner Ranch Formation: Faulted block, 1.6 miles
N 54 ° E of Hess Ranch, 0.52 mile N 75° W of hill 5726,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
730q. Cathedral Mountain Formation (base): Fault block,
1.7 miles N 53° E of Hess Ranch, 0.5 miles N 64° W
of hill 5726, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
730r. Skinner Ranch Formation (upper): Fault block 1.62
miles N 50° E of Hess Ranch house, 0.65 miles N 67°
W of hill 5726, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
730s. Skinner Ranch Formation: Fault block 1.6 mile N
52° E of Hess Ranch house, 0.55 mile N 71° W of hill
5726, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
730u. Cathedral Mountain Formation: 1.47 miles N 45° E
of Hess Ranch, 0.65 mile S 31° E of hill 5305, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
730v. Skinner Ranch Formation: Side of knob near USNM
730r.
731. Bell Canyon Formation (Hegler Member): Top of hill
5130, 0.3 mile S 13° W of Pinyon Tank, 2.25 miles S 62°
E of Airway Beacon, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle (Plate
22: figure 2).
731b. Cathedral Mountain Formation (lower): Beds with
Institella 80 feet above road, on E slope of elliptical hill
0.52 mile N 88° E of hill 5816, 0.9 mile S 9° W of hill
5611, 3 miles NE of Hess Ranch, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle.
731e. Road Canyon Formation: Top of Clay slide, Altuda
quadrangle.
731 j. Capitan Limestone Formation: McKittrick Canyon,
Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
731k. Lenox Hills Formation: 0.5 mile NNE of Hess Ranch
house, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
731—1. Neal Ranch Formation (bed 12 of P. B. King): Cen¬
ter Wolf Camp Hills, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
731m. Word Formation: 1.53 miles N 15° W of hill 4910,
0.95 mile S 28° W of hill 5939, Altuda quadrangle (Plate
14: figure 4).
7310. Skinner Ranch Formation: 1.05 mile S 79° E of hill
4910, 2.08 miles N 30° E of hill 5021, SW end of Gilli¬
land Canyon, Altuda quadrangle.
73lp. Word Formation: 1.96 miles N 13° W of Hess Ranch
house, 0.9 mile N 32° E of hill 5453, Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle.
731 q. Cathedral Mountain Formation (base) : 0.75 miles S
1° E of hill 4920, 1.6 miles S 74° W of hill 5021, Altuda
quadrangle.
7311. Cathedral Mountain Formation: 0.7 mile S 1° E of
hill 4920, 1.6 miles S 76° W of hill 5021, Altuda quad¬
rangle.
731u. Word Formation: 0.22 mile S 23° E of Sullivan Peak
(bench mark 6125), 0.7 miles S 7° W of Sullivan (Yates)
Ranch, Altuda quadrangle (Plate 15: figure 4; text Fig¬
ure 20).
731z. Word Formation (Appel Ranch Member): In Hess
Canyon 0.4 mile N 78° E of hill 5490, 0.75 mile N 40° E
of hill 5543, Hess Canyon quadrangle (Plate 15: figure 1).
732. Cherry Canyon Formation (Getaway Member—sub-
Getaway Zone): Just S of U. S. Highway 62, 0.25 mile S
76° E of bench mark 5426 in Guadalupe Pass, Guadalupe
Peak quadrangle [ = AMNH 600 and USNM 730], (See
P. B. King, 1948:41).
732a. Bell Canyon Formation (Hegler Member): Hill 5406,
1.25 miles S 7° E of Pinyon Tank, Guadalupe Peak
quadrangle.
732b. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch Member):
Center of Lenox Hills, N of Decie Ranch, Altuda quad¬
rangle.
732c. Word Formation: Lens above USNM 706b but below
Appel Ranch Member, 3.28 miles N 36° E of Hess
Ranch, 0.35 miles S 48° E of hill 5543, Hess Canyon
quadrangle.
732d. Skinner Ranch Formation (Dugout Mountain Mem¬
ber): Third Limestone of Leonard of P. B. King, 1.36
miles S 34° E of Old Payne Ranch, 0.7 mile N 72° W
of Dugout Mountain (5195), Monument Spring quad¬
rangle.
732e. Skinner Ranch Formation (Dugout Mountain Mem¬
ber): Second Limestone Member of Leonard Formation
of P. B. King, 1.25 miles S 39° E of Old Payne Ranch,
0.75- mile N 62° W of Dugout Mountain (5195), Monu¬
ment Spring quadrangle.
732i. Road Canyon Formation: Fusulinid bed at top of
section, 0.75 mile S 70° W of Old Payne Ranch, 0.25
mile N 76° E of hill 4806, Monument Spring quadrangle.
732j. Road Canyon Formation (upper): 0.64 mile due W
of Old Payne Ranch, 0.45 mile N 47° E of hill 4806,
Monument Spring quadrangle.
732m. Road Canyon Formation: Base of bioherms on coni¬
cal hill 0.25 mile N 28° W of Old Payne Ranch, Monu¬
ment Spring quadrangle.
732q. Capitan Limestone Formation (lower massive beds):
Fault block, 1.11 miles N 33° W of Old Payne Ranch,
1.3 miles N 17° E of hill 4806, Monument Spring quad¬
rangle [ = Hegler Member of Capitan Formation equiva¬
lent] .
732s. Word Formation: 0.85 mile N 46° W of Old Payne
Ranch, 0.95 mile N 21° E of hill 4806, Monument Spring
quadrangle.
732t. Road Canyon Formation: S side, top of hill 4861, 1.12
miles N 58° W of Old Payne Ranch, Monument Spring
quadrangle.
732u. Cathedral Mountain Formation: Conglomerate on W
side of hill 4861, 1.15 miles N 58° W of Old Payne
Ranch, Monument Spring quadrangle (Plate 13: figures
L 2).
732w. Road Canyon Formation: Near top of hill 4861, 1.12
miles N 58° W of Old Payne Ranch, Monument Spring
quadrangle.
NUMBER 14
163
733. Bell Canyon Formation (Pinery Member): Hegler
(Ligon) Ranch, 0.25 mile S 55° W of ranch house and,
up small canyon, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
733a. Road Canyon Formation: Low hill 1.27 miles N 49° W
of Old Payne Ranch, 0.2 mile due N of hill 4861, Monu¬
ment Spring quadrangle.
733h. Skinner Ranch Formation (Decie Ranch Member):
0.9 mile N 49° E of Dugout Mountain (5195), 1.83
miles N 64° W of bench mark 4190, Monument Spring
quadrangle.
733j. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member,
Coscinophora bioherm): 1.3 miles N 40° E of Dugout
Mountain (hill 5191), 1.97 miles N 51° W of bench
mark 4190, Monument Spring quadrangle (Plate 5:
figure 1; Plate 129).
733-1. Skinner Ranch Formation (Dugout Mountain Mem¬
ber, Fourth Limestone of Leonard Formation of P. B.
King): Limestone lens 1 mile N 33° W of Dugout
Mountain (5195), 1.03 miles S 60° E of Old Payne
Ranch, Monument Spring quadrangle.
733m. Cathedral Mountain Formation: 0.55 mile S 89° E
of hill 5552, 0.7 mile N 63° E of Split Tank, Hess Can¬
yon quadrangle.
733n. Road Canyon Formation: 0.72 mile S 69° W of Old
Word Ranch, 1.12 miles S 27° E of hill 5507, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
733q. Word Formation (China Tank Member): 2.6 miles N
83° E of Willis Ranch, 0.35 mile N 77° W of hill 5611,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
733r. Skinner Ranch Formation: 1.35 miles S 49° E of
Willis Ranch, 0.26 mile N 34° W of hill 5305, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
733z. Ross Mine Formation: 6-inch bed with fusulinids, 2
miles N 49° W of Ojo Bonito, Chinati Peak quadrangle.
735. Bell Canyon Formation (Rader Member): 0.25 mile S
55° W of Hegler (Ligon) Ranch house, Guadalupe Peak
quadrangle.
735b. Cathedral Mountain Formation (lower): Split Tank,
Hess Canyon quadrangle.
735g. Cathedral Mountain Formation (upper): Near top of
hill 4861, 1.12 miles N 58° W of Old Payne Ranch,
Monument Spring quadrangle.
736. Bell Canyon Formation (Pinery Member): 1 mile N
20° W of Hegler (Ligon) Ranch house, Guadalupe
Peak quadrangle.
736a. Bell Canyon Formation (Pinery Member): Pine
Spring, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
736t. Cathedral Mountain Formation: Beds with Institella,
0.53 mile S 57° E of hill 5816, 1.13 miles N 78° W of
hill 5725, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
736x. Road Canyon Formation (uppermost bed): 0.75 mile
S 70° W of Old Payne Ranch, 0.25 mile N 5° E of hill
4806, Monument Spring quadrangle [=:USNM 700v,
732i].
737a. Capitan Limestone Formation: Spur on N side of
Big Canyon, about 1000 feet above canyon floor, Guada¬
lupe Mountains, El Paso Gap quadrangle.
737b. Word Formation: 1 mile N 82° W of Old Payne
Ranch, 1.12 miles S 4° W of hill 4861, Monument
Spring quadrangle.
737n. Road Canyon Formation (ammonite bed near top):
2.25 miles S 60° W of Old Payne Ranch, 2.1 miles N 59°
W of point 4386, Monument Spring quadrangle.
737u. Lenox Hills Formation (base = Neal Ranch of Ross):
49 feet of biohermal beds at base of Lenox Hills For¬
mation, 0.9 mile N 85° E of hill 4801, 1.55 miles N 62°
E of Lenox, Altuda quadrangle.
737v. Basal Cathedral Mountain Formation: Limestone of
Hess lithology above basal conglomerate, 0.6 mile N 61°
E of Split Tank, 0.45 mile S 83° E of hill 5552, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
737w. Word Formation: Lens between Willis Ranch and
Appel Ranch Members, above lens at 706b, 0.8 mile S
85° W of hill 5507, 0.5 mile S 77° E of hill 5543, Hess
Canyon quadrangle.
737y. Road Canyon Formation (top beds): 1.4 miles N 80°
W of point 4386, 2.5 miles S 38° W of Old Payne Ranch
site, Monument Spring quadrangle.
738. Bell Canyon Formation (Lamar Member): N side of
McKittrick Canyon Draw, 0.3 mile N 70° E of Pratts
section 12 well, 1.7 miles N 48° E of Pratt Place, Guada¬
lupe Mountains [z=AMNH 347].
738a. Capitan Formation (Rader equivalent): E side of
North McKittrick Canyon, 0.85 mile NE of Pratt Lodge,
Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
738b. Bell Canyon Formation (Lamar Member-middle):
Slope of hill on N side of McKittrick Draw, about 0.7
mile N 25° W of Pratts Section Twelve Well, 1.7 miles
N 22° E of Pratt Place, Guadalupe Mountains.
738c. Cibolo Formation (Breccia Zone of Udden): Loose
blocks derived from the reefy beds on slope above
USNM 728-1.
738d. Cibolo Formation (Transition Zone of Udden): From
bed of Sierra Alta Creek just W of USNM 728—1, 0.75
mile N 83° E of Cibolo Ranch, Chinati Peak quad¬
rangle.
738f. Cibolo Formation (Spicule Zone of Udden): Loose
piece from ravine at 728—1, 0.8 mile N 83° E of Cibolo
Ranch house, Chinati Peak quadrangle.
738g. Cibolo Formation (Thin-bedded Zone of Udden):
100 feet above spicule zone of Udden, 0.8 mile N 83°
E of Cibolo Ranch, Chinati Peak quadrangle.
738h. Cibolo Formation (Transition Zone of Udden): 1.3
miles N 75° E of Cibolo Ranch house, just under bio¬
herm in shaly beds with loose fossils, Chinati Peak quad¬
rangle.
738—1. Cibolo Formation (Thin-bedded Zone of Udden):
125 feet above base of Thin-bedded Zone, 1.3 miles N
75° E of Cibolo Ranch, Chinati Peak quadrangle.
738n. Cibolo Formation (Transition Zone of Udden): 50
feet under Breccia Zone, under bioherms, just E of
largest bioherm and W of volcanic plug, about 1.6 miles
N 75° E of Cibolo Ranch house, Chinati Peak quad¬
rangle.
164
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
738o. Cibolo Formation (Spicule Zone of Udden): W side
largest bioherm, near gully, 1.3 miles N 75° E of Ci¬
bolo Ranch house, Chinati Peak quadrangle.
738r. Cibolo Formation (Breccia Zone of Udden): Slope
0.5 mile E of igneous plug, 2.35 miles N 58° E of Ci¬
bolo Ranch house, Chinati Peak quadrangle.
738s. Cibolo Formation (Breccia Zone of Udden): Near top
of bioherm, 3.25 miles N 53° E of Cibolo Ranch house,
Chinati Peak quadrangle.
738t. Cibolo Formation (Transition Zone of Udden): Float
from Transition Zone, 0.5 mile E of volcanic plug, 2.35
miles N 58° E of Cibolo Ranch house, Chinati Peak
quadrangle.
739. Capitan Limestone Formation: At level of Pass Sum¬
mit at foot of Signal Peak [ = Guadalupe Peak], Guada¬
lupe Peak quadrangle.
739g. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member):
100 yards W of bioherm at USNM 733j.
739k. Cibolo Formation (Spicule Zone of Udden, 20 feet
above its base): Above highest bioherm, about 1 mile
N 75° E of Cibolo Ranch, Chinati Peak quadrangle.
739—1. Skinner Ranch Formation (lower): 0.83 mile N 66°
YV of hill 5816, 0.8 mile N 28° E of hill 5305, 2.6 miles
N 26° E of Hess Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
740. Capitan Limestone Formation: Just below knob on
crest of spur running N from El Capitan, about 1000
feet below summit of El Capitan, Guadalupe Peak
quadrangle [ = USGS 2926 (green)].
740a. Bell Canyon Formation (Rader Member): Knob 0.5
mile S 45° W of Heglcr (Ligon) Ranch (southern
Guadalupe Mountains map of P. B. King, 1948: plate
3).
740c. Bell Canyon Formation (Hegler Member): W side of
knob, 0.4 mile S 53° E of hill 5130, 1.5 miles N 15°
W of hill 5506, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
740d. Bell Canyon Formation (Hegler Member): 1 mile S
39° E of hill 5130, 0.92 mile N 9° E of hill 5506,
Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
740g. Bell Canyon Formation (Rader Member, reef slide):
Rader Ridge, top of knob 1.2 miles N 88° W of Heg¬
ler (Ligon) Ranch, 1.9 miles N 2° W of point 5206 on
U. S. Highway 62—180, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
740h. Bell Canyon Formation (Rader Member, reef slide):
Knob 1.55 miles due W of Hegler Ranch, 2.0 miles N
13° W of point 5206 on U. S. Highway 62-180, Guada¬
lupe Peak quadrangle.
740i. Bell Canyon Formation (Rader Member): 0.2 mile
N 10° W of Hegler Ranch, 0.3 mile N 50° W of hill
5414, 2.2 miles N 55° E of Nipple Hill, Guadalupe Peak
quadrangle.
740j. Bell Canyon Formation (Rader Member): 0.4 mile S
25° W of Hegler (Ligon) Ranch, 1.65 miles N 65° E
Nipple Hill, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
740k. Capitan Limestone Formation: About 7400 feet ele¬
vation, 0.8 mile S 60° E of Guadalupe Peak, 0.85 mile
N 42° E of El Capitan, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
740-1. Bell Canyon Formation (Rader Member): 0.2 mile
N 10° W of Hegler (Ligon) Ranch, 0.3 mile N 50° W
of hill 5414, 2.2 miles N 55° E of Nipple Hill, Guadalupe
Peak quadrangle.
740n. Capitan Limestone Formation: About 4950 feet ele¬
vation, NE side of Yucca Canyon, NE [4 NW 14 SE
14 , section 27, T 25 S, R 23 E, 2.7 miles N 38° W of
Colwell Ranch, Carlsbad Caverns West (15') quadrangle.
741. [ = USNM 728e = AMNH 625.]
741a. Road Canyon Formation: Block from biohermal
beds at base of Road Canyon, W end of outcrop op¬
posite Old Word Ranch, W end of USNM 703a.
741k. Skinner Ranch Formation (Poplar Tank Member):
Slope above USNM 707a, 0.65 mile NE of hill 4902,
Altuda quadrangle [unusual for having elements from
low in Wolfcamp mixed with higher Skinner Ranch
species].
741 p. Word (Upper lens): Uppermost of 2 lenses between
Willis Ranch Member and Appel Ranch Member, 3.35
miles S 63° E of hill 5543 and 1 mile S 82° W of hill
5507, Hess Canyon, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
741q. Lowermost of 2 lenses between Willis Ranch and Ap¬
pel Ranch Member [at LISNM 741 p].
741s. Cathedral Mountain Formation (lower): 0.67 mile N
33° E of bench mark 5324, 0.3 mile N of 30° 10' paral¬
lel, Del Norte Mountains, Monument Spring quad¬
rangle.
742. Bone Spring Formation: 18-inch bed of silty limestone
with yellow clay pebbles, 30 feet above Hueco Forma¬
tion, 0.25 mile S of Victorio Canyon, Van Horn quad¬
rangle [ = USNM 728f],
742b. Word Formation (lens below Appel Ranch Member):
0.45 mile S 12° E of hill 5543 and 2.03 miles N 66° W
of Old Word Ranch, Hess Canyon quadrangle.
742c. Neal Ranch Formation (bed 4): Bioherm 50 yards
west of USNM 727e.
743. [—USNM 728e.]
744. [ = AMNH 631.]
745. Bone Spring Formation: 25-40 feet above Hueco lime¬
stone, hill 4402 at N end of Baylor Mountains on W
side of Texas Highway 54, Van Horn quadrangle.
746. Bone Spring Formation: 50—100 feet above brecciated
lens on E slope of Victorio Peak, Van Horn quadrangle.
747. Bone Spring Formation (Cutoff Shale Member) : Slope
1 mile SW of point 6910, and 0.2 mile W of fault in
front of Cutoff Mountain, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas
[ = AMNH 678].
748. Bell Canyon Formation (Pinery Member): Above Pine
Spring, N of Pine Spring Camp, Guadalupe Peak quad¬
rangle.
748a. Capitan Limestone Formation: First limestone ledge
above Delaware sandstone, 1 mile NW of Frijole Post
Office, Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.
750. Capitan Limestone Formation: About 4100 feet ele¬
vation, 0.5 mile S 12° W of Carlsbad Cave entrance,
SW corner NE 14 SW r / 4 , section 31, T 24 S, R 25 E,
Carlsbad Caverns East (15') quadrangle, Eddy County,
New Mexico.
NUMBER 14
165
750a. Capitan Limestone Formation: Along road in Rattle¬
snake Canyon, NW corner SW 14 SE section 4, T
25 S, R 24 E, Carlsbad Caverns West (15') quadrangle.
New Mexico.
750b. Capitan Limestone Formation: E side of Slaughter
Canyon about 0.2 mile up from mouth, SE 14 SE 14 ,
section 23, T 25 S, R 23 E, Carlsbad Caverns (15')
West quadrangle.
750e. Capitan Limestone Formation: Near contact between
Capitan and Carlsbad Formations at elevation 4200 feet
in SW 14 , section 31, T 24 S, R 25 E, Carlsbad Caverns
East (15') quadrangle, Eddy County, New Mexico.
750f. Capitan Limestone Formation: Sandstone in big
room of Carlsbad Caverns, Carlsbad Caverns National
Park, New Mexico.
750g. Capitan Limestone Formation: NE side of McKit-
trick Canyon, Guadalupe Mountains.
753. Sosio Limestone Formation: Rocca de Salomone, 3
kilometers SW of Palazzo Adriano, 48 kilometers S of
Palermo, Province of Palermo, Sosio Valley, Sicily.
755. Sosio Limestone Formation: Rocca de San Benedetto,
about 2 kilometers NNW of Rocca di Salomone, Palazzo
Adriano, Palermo Province, Sicily.
760. Park City Formation (Franson Member, upper): From
10-foot interval of resistant limestone, on NW side of
Washakie Reservoir, SW 14 NE 14 , section 17, T 1 S,
R 2 W, Moccasin Lake quadrangle, Fremont County,
Wyoming.
761. Red Eagle Formation: Quarry in NW 14 SE 14 , sec¬
tion 25, T 26 N, R 5 E, S side of U. S. Highway 60,
0.5 mile NE of Burbank, Oklahoma.
762. Park City Formation (Franson Member): S fork of
Little Wind River, Little Wind River Mountains, Wy¬
oming.
763. Park City Formation (Franson Member): SW 14 , sec¬
tion 26, T 13 S, R 10 W, Big Sheep Canyon, Beaver¬
head County, Montana.
766. Coleman Junction Formation: On U. S. Highway 67,
2.4 miles E of junction with U. S. Highway 283 in
Santa Anna, Coleman County, Texas.
766b. Coleman Junction Formation: San Angelo Junction,
4 miles SE of Coleman, Texas.
767. Permian (Hughes Creek Formation): Center N } 2 ,
section 12, T 8 N, R 8 E, SE of Bennett, Nebraska.
806d'. Monos Formation: Spiriferellina zone, knob with
217 meters elevation, just S of S face of hill (294 meters
elevation), 1.2 kilometers W of Alamo, Sonora, Mexico.
3361. Bursum Formation: 100 feet below level of Tularosa
Clay pit fauna, shale and limestone in round hill above
microgranite sill, NW 14 NE 14 NW 14 , section 2, T
15 S, R 10 E, Otero County, New Mexico.
Glass Mountains Localities by Formation
Appel Ranch Member (of Word Formation): USNM 704,
706d, 714o, 7I5i, 716v, 719z, 722t, 726t, 727j, 731z, 742b.
Capitan Limestone Formation: USNM 732q.
Cathedral Mountain Formation: Moore 23; USGS 3763
(part), 3840; AMNH 500, 504; USNM 702, 702a, 702a 1 ,
702b, 702ent, 702inst, 702 low, 702un, 703a, 703b, 703bs,
707q, 708, 708u, 708x, 709, 709o, 710b, 710g, 711q, 711r,
71 lw, 7l2o, 713p, 713t, 713w, 717g, 721u, 721v, 723k,
723n, 723p, 723u, 723y, 724i 724k, 724m, 724n, 724r,
724s, 724t, 726o, 726u, 726v, 726w, 726x, 726y, 727o,
727q, 727s, 727v, 727w, 727x, 729r, 730q, 730u, 731b,
731 q, 731 1 , 732u, 733m, 735b, 735g, 737v, 741s [for addi¬
tional numbers see Wedin Member],
China Tank Member (of Word Formation) : USNM 703e,
706a, 706c, 706z, 713, 721p, 726q, 726r, 726s, 733q.
Decie Ranch Member (of Skinner Ranch Formation):
USNM 707a, 707g, 707v, 707w, 707x, 708q, 708z, 713s,
714e, 714t, 715a, 715c, 715t, 715v, 716p, 717i, 718t, 719s,
727t, 727u, 729i, 732b, 733h.
Dugout Mountain Member (of Skinner Ranch Formation):
USNM 700m, 700n, 700o, 700p, 700r, 700s, 700t, 730e,
730f, 730g, 730i, 730j, 732d, 732e, 732f, 733-1.
Gaptank Formation: USNM 700, 700a, 700f, 700g, 701y,
702u, 702z, 703k, 703r, 704d, 704h, 704w, 705ca, 705d,
705e, 705f, 705j, 705q, 705v, 705x, 705y, 708n, 708p,
713e, 7l3g, 715z, 716i, 716k, 730m.
Hess Formation: USNM 702v, 702w, 703f, 703g, 703h, 703i,
703j, 703q, 706-1, 709d, 709e, 709f, 709g, 709h, 709i,
709j, 709k, 709m, 7llf, 71 lg, 713v, 7141, 714j, 714k,
716a, 716b, 716c, 716d, 716f, 716h, 718u, 719q, 722p,
726n, 727y, 727z, 729a, 729b, 729e, 729u, 730x, 730y,
731a, 739i, 742a.
Lenox Hills Formation: USNM 704b, 704e, 704f, 704i, 704k,
704-1, 704m, 704o, 704p, 704q, 704r, 704t, 704u, 705,
705g, 705k, 705m, 705s, 705t, 705u, 706g, 706h, 706i,
706j, 706k, 706w, 706x, 706y, 707j, 707ja, 707k, 707m,
707n, 707o, 707p, 707r, 707s, 708g, 708h, 708k, 709s,
709t, 709w, 709x, 710w, 711c, 711e, 71 lh, 711m, 7l2u,
712v, 713j, 7l3q, 713y, 714a, 714b, 714c, 714f, 714g,
715, 715b, 715r, 716i, 716r, 716u, 717c, 718n, 718o, 7l8p,
7l8y, 719r, 723d, 723r, 724o, 724v, 724w, 724x, 726i,
727i, 731k, 737u.
Lenses between Willis Ranch and Appel Ranch Members
(of Word Formation): USNM 706b, 737w, 742b.
Neal Ranch Formation: USNM 701, 701a, 701a 1 , 701a 2 ,
701a 3 , 701c, 701d, 701g, 701h, 701k, 701-1, 701m, 701n,
701 z, 702h, 702-1, 702t, 702x, 703m, 703n, 703t, 703u,
703v, 704v, 706p, 706q, 706t, 706u, 706v, 706x, 708b,
708w, 708y, 71 lx, 712w, 712x, 712y, 712z, 713h, 713k,
713-1, 7I5e, 716m, 716y, 718e, 7l8q, 7l8r, 719a, 721g,
721k, 721n, 722w, 722x, 727c, 727d, 727e, 731-1, 742c.
Poplar Tank Member (of Skinner Ranch Formation):
USNM 700z, 703y, 707ha, 707i, 708a, 708e, 710x, 713r,
715k, 718v, 722z, 729q, 741k.
Road Canyon Formation: AMNH 501, 503, 507, 509; USNM
700q, 700v, 700w, 702c, 703, 703a, 703c, 703d, 706f, 706r,
707e, 709c, 710h, 710i, 710j, 710-1, 710m, 710n, 7l0o,
710p, 71 Ot, 710u, 710z, 7llv, 712q, 7l2t, 716w, 7l6x,
7l6xa, 717b, 718k, 718-1, 7l9w, 719x, 720d, 721j, 721o,
72lr, 721s, 721t, 721w, 721x, 721y, 721z, 722e, 722f,
722g, 722v, 723a, 723x, 724a, 724b, 724c, 724d, 724e,
724h, 724j, 726, 726d, 726e, 726f, 726z, 726za, 731e,
732i, 732j, 732m, 732t, 732w, 733n, 733y, 736x, 737n,
737y.
166
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Skinner Ranch Formation (undifferentiated): AMNH 520;
USNM 705a, 705b, 705-1, 705n, 705o, 705r, 707h, 707u,
707z, 708f, 708g, 708i, 708k, 709a, 709p, 709q, 709r,
709u, 709v, 709z, 710s, 71 Id, 71 li, 711k, 711-1, 711n,
711o, 71lp, 71ly, 71lz, 712n, 712p, 713n, 7l3x, 714d,
714h, 714p, 714q, 714s, 715n, 715t, 716q, 7l6t, 717v,
719y, 720e, 720f, 720g, 720j, 722m, 722n, 722o, 723h,
723j, 723-1, 723o, 723q, 723s, 724-1, 724p, 724q, 726g,
726h, 726j, 726k, 726-1, 727a, 727b, 727f, 727h, 727k,
727-1, 727m, 727n, 729j, 729-1, 730o, 730r, 730s, 730v,
731o, 732b, 733r, 739-1.
Sullivan Peak Member (of Skinner Ranch Formation):
USNM 700y, 704y, 707, 707b, 707c, 707d, 707t, 709-1,
710d, 71 Or, 7l0y, 713c, 713d, 713i, 713m, 713z, 714u,
714y, 715f, 715h, 715j, 715m, 717a, 718z, 722h, 722j,
722-1, 729h, 729m, 729o, 729p, 729s, 730k, 733j, 735f,
736d, 739g.
Taylor Ranch Member (of Hess Formation): USNM 702d,
702e, 702f, 702m, 716n, 716o, 722p, 729d.
Uddenites- bearing Shale Member (of Gaptank Formation):
USNM 701e, 701f, 701p, 701q, 701r, 701t, 701u, 701v,
701x, 702j, 702k, 702n, 702o, 702p, 702q, 702r, 702s,
703-1, 703o, 703p, 703v, 703x, 704a, 704c, 705h, 706s,
713a, 713b, 7l3o, 713u, 721i, 721-1, 721m, 721n, 730n.
Wedin Member (of Cathedral Mountain Formation):
USNM 700-1, 700x, 710d, 714v, 714w, 714wa, 717e, 723v,
727p.
Willis Ranch Member (of Word Formation): AMNH 505,
506; USNM 706, 706e, 718d, 723t, 723w, 724f, 724g,
724u, 731m, 732s, 735c, 736w.
Word Formation: USGS 3763 (part); USNM 711u, 719e,
724y, 724z, 731m, 731p, 731u, 732c, 732s, 737w.
Guadalupe Mountains and Sierra Diablo
Localities by Formation
Bone Spring Formation: AMNH 46, 369, 492, 497, 591,
592, 624, 625, 628, 629, 631, 632, 634, 655, 658, 660, 696,
699; USGS 2920, 2967; USNM 725c, 725s, 725y, 728e-h,
728o, 728t, 728v, 734e, 741, 742, 743, 745, 746.
Brushy Canyon Formation: USGS 2919.
Capitan Limestone Formation: AMNH 475 (part), 774,
801, 803, 804, 806, 813, 817, 820, 830, 837, 840, 847, 853;
USGS 2906, 2926, 7404, 7417, 7612; USNM 725j, 725k,
725-1, 725m, 725p, 731j, 737a, 738a, 739, 740, 740k, 740m,
740n, 740o, 748a, 750, 750a, 750b, 750e, 750f, 750g.
Carlsbad Formation: AMNH 417, 475 (part); USGS 7416.
Cutoff Shale Member (Bone Spring Formation): AMNH
678, 747; USGS 7666 (?).
Delaware Mountain Formation: USGS 2962, 2969.
Getaway Member (Cherry Canyon Formation): AMNH 21,
28, 496, 512, 519, 547, 585, 600, 652; USNM 728, 728w,
730, 732; Moore 31.
Hegler Member (Bell Canyon Formation): AMNH 635;
USNM 731, 732a, 740b, 740c, 740d, 740e.
Hueco Group: AMNH 626, 700; USGS 19999; USNM 712e,
712m, 719, 720b, 720c, 725a, 725b, 725z, 728d, 741a-h.
Lamar Member (Bell Canyon Formation): AMNH 25, 37,
38, 39, 40, 347, 348, 373, 384, 430; USNM 725e, 725j,
728i, 728p, 728q, 728r, 728s, 737, 738, 738b.
McCombs Member (Bell Canyon Formation): AMNH 385,
409.
Pinery Member (Bell Canyon Formation): AMNH 33, 375,
397 (?), 401 (?), 435 (?), 437, 524 (?); 537, 636; Moore 30;
USGS 2930; USNM 725h, 725i, 725n, 733, 734, 736, 736a,
748.
Rader Member (Bell Canyon Formation) : AMNH 388,
389, 403, 404 (?), 410; USNM 725f, 725g, 725o, 738a,
740a, 740g, 740h, 740i, 740j, 740-1.
South Wells Member (Cherry Canyon Formation) : AMNH
417; USGS 7649; USNM 740f.
Yates Formation: AMNH 725.
Chinati Mountains Localities by Formation
Cibolo Formation: (Transition zone) USNM 738dj 738h,
738i, 738n, 738t. (Breccia Zone) USNM 728j, 728k, 728-1,
728m, 738c, 738e, 738j, 738r, 738s; AMNH 703 (?). (Spi¬
cule Zone) USNM 738f, 738o, 738q, 738u, 738v, 738w,
739j, 739k. (Thin-bedded Zone) USNM 728n, 738f,
738g, 738-1, 738x, 738y, 738z.
Cibolo Formation (at Ojo Bonito): USNM 733w, 734a,
734b, 734c, 734d. (Ross Mine Formation) USNM 732z.
Cibolo Formation undivided: USNM 725x, 728n.
Literature Cited
Adams, J. E., and H. N. Frenzel [leaders of field trip]
1952. West Texas Geological Society Guidebook: Spring
Field Trip, Marathon Basin, Brewster and Pecos
Counties, Trans-Pecos, Texas. Pages 26-28. [Fig¬
ure 22 by Don Meyers.]
Adams, J. E., et al.
1939. Standard Permian Section of North America.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bul¬
letin, 23 (11): 1673—1681.
Ager, D. V.
1965. Mesozoic and Cenozoic Rhynchonellacea. In R. C.
Moore, editor, Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontol¬
ogy, H:597-626, figures 478-510.
Aigner, G„ and F. Heritsch
1931. Das Genus Isogramma im Carbon der Siidalpen.
Akademie der Wissenschajten zu Wien, Mathema-
tische-Naturwissenschaflliche Klasse, Denkschriften,
102:303-316, 5 plates.
NUMBER 14
167
Alekseeva, R. E.
1967. Brakhiopody i Stratigrafiia Nizhnego Devona Se-
rero-Vostoka SSSR [Brachiopods and Stratigraphy
of the Lower Devonian of Northeastern USSR].
Akad emiya Nauk SSSR Sibirskoe Otdelenie, In-
stitut Geologii i Geofiziki (Moscow), 144 pages, 16
plates.
Bain, R. J.
1967. Paleoecology of Some Leonardian Patch Reefs in
the Glass Mountains, Texas. Brigham Young Uni¬
versity Geology Studies, 14:195-236, 15 plates.
1971. An Overgrowth Relationship among Permian Fos¬
sils from Texas. Journal of Paleontology, 45 (1):
134-136.
Baker, C. L.
1929. Note on the Permian Chinati Series of West Texas.
University of Texas Bulletin, 2901:73-84.
Bancroft, B. B.
1928. On the Notational Representation of the Rib-sys¬
tem in Orthacea. Manchester Literary and Philo¬
sophical Society Memoirs and Proceedings, 72 (5):
53-90, 3 plates.
Barrois, C.
1882. Recherches sur les Terrains Anciens des Asturies
et de la Galice. Societe Geologique du Nord Me-
moires, 2:630, 20 plates.
Batten, R. L.
1958. Permian Gastropoda of the Southwestern United
States, 2: Pleurotomariacea: Portlockiellidae, Phy-
matopleuridae, and Eotomariidae. American Mu¬
seum of Natural History Bulletin, 114 (2): 157-246,
plates 32-42.
Bell, W. A.
1929. Horton-Windsor District, Nova Scotia. Canada
Geological Survey, Department of Mines and Re¬
sources, Memoir, 155: 268 pages, 36 plates.
Biernat, Gertruda
1961. Diorygma atrypophila, n. gen., n. sp. A Parasitic
Organism of Atrypa zonata Schnur. Acta Palaeon-
tologica Polonica, 6:17—28.
Bittner, A.
1890. Brachiopoden der Alpinen Trias. Abhandlungen
Kaiserlich-Koniglichen Geologischen Reichsanstalt,
14: 325 pages, 41 plates.
1893. Neue Koninckiniden des Alpinen Lias. Kaiser-
lich-koniglichen Reichsanstalt, Jahrbuch, 43 (1) :
133-144, plate 4.
Boos, M. F.
1929. Stratigraphy and Fauna of the Luta Limestone
(Permian) of Oklahoma and Kansas. Journal of
Paleontology, 3 (3):241—253, 1 plate.
Bose, E.
1916. Contributions to the Knowledge of Richthofenia
in the Permian of West Texas. University of
Texas Bulletin, 55: 50 pages, 3 plates.
1917. The Permo-Carboniferous Ammonoids of the Glass
Mountains, West Texas, and Their Stratigraphical
Significance. University of Texas Bulletin, 1762:
241 pages, 11 plates.
Bostwick, D. A.
1962. Fusulinid Stratigraphy of Beds near the Gaptank-
Wolfcamp Boundary, Glass Mountains, Texas.
Journal of Paleontology, 36 (6): 1189-1200, plates
164-166.
Bouchard-Chantereaux, N. R.
1849. M^moire sur un nouveau genre de brachiopode
formant le passage des formes articulees 4 celles
qui ne sont pas. Annales des Sciences Naturelles,
series 3, Zoologie, 12:84-93, 1 plate.
Boucot, A. J.
1959. A New Family and Genus of Silurian Orthotetacid
Brachiopods. Journal of Paleontology, 33 (1):25—
28, plate 3.
Boyd, D. W.
1958. Permian Sedimentary Facies, Central Guadalupe
Mountains, New Mexico. State Bureau of Mines
and Mineral Resources, New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology, Bulletin, 49: vi -(- 100
pages, 8 figures, 5 plates.
Branson, C. C.
1930. Paleontology and Stratigraphy of the Phosphoria
Formation. University of Missouri Studies Quar¬
terly, 5 (2): 99 pages, 16 plates.
1948. Bibliographic Index of Permian Invertebrates. Ge-
ological Society of America Memoir, 26: vii _f-
1049 pages.
1958. Review of Permian Invertebrate Faunas. Palaeon¬
tological Society of India Journals, Lucknow, Bir-
bal Sahni Memorial, 3:103-113.
1966. New Genus of Spiriferoid Brachiopod from Okla¬
homa. Oklahoma Geological Survey Notes, 26(3):
74-77, plate 1.
Brill, K. G.
1940. Brachiopods of the Whitehorse Sandstone. In N.
D. Newell, The Invertebrate Fauna of the Late
Permian Whitehorse Sandstone. Geological Soci¬
ety of America Bulletin, 51:316—319.
Broili, F.
1916. Die permischen Brachiopoden von Timor. In Er-
gebnisse der Expeditionen G.A.F. Molengraaff, J.
Wanner und F. Weber, VII: 104 pages, 13 plates.
Stuttgart.
Brown, Thomas
1849. Illustrations of the Fossil Conchology of Gt. Britain
and Ireland. VII: 273 pages. London.
Browne, I. A.
1953. Martiniopsis Waagen from the Salt Range, India.
New South Wales Journal, Proceedings, 36 (4): 100-
107.
Brunton, H.
1965. The Pedicle Sheath of Young Productacean Brachi¬
opods. Palaeontology, 7 (4):703—704, plate 109.
Buch, L. von
1835. Ueber Terebrateln. Konigliche Akademie der ITf’s-
senschaften, Berlin, aus 1833, pages 21—144, 3 plates.
168
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Campbell, K. S. W.
1953. Fauna of the Permo-Carboniferous Ingelara Beds
of Queensland. University of Queensland, Depart¬
ment of Geology, Papers, 4 (3): 1-44, 4 figures, 7
plates.
1957. A Lower Carboniferous Brachiopod-Coral Fauna
from New South Wales. Journal of Paleontology,
31 (1):34-98, 7 plates.
1959a. The Type Species of Three Upper Palaeozoic
Punctate Spiriferoids. Palaeontology, 1 (4): 351—
363, plates 58-60.
1959b. The Martiniopsis- like Spiriferids of the Queens¬
land Permian. Palaeontology, 1 (4):333-350, plates
50-57.
1961. New Species of the Permian Spiriferoids Ingela-
rella and Notospirifer from Queensland, and Their
Stratigraphic Implications. Palaeontographica, 117
(A): 159-192, 13 figures, plates 23-28, 1 table.
Caneva, G.
1906. Ober die Bellerophonkalkfauna: Zur frage der
Perm-Triasgrenzen. Neues Jahrbuch fur Minera-
logie Abhandlungen (Stuttgart), 1:52-60.
1907. La fauna del calcare a Bellerophon: Contributo
alia conoscenza die limiti Permo-Triassici. Societa
Geologica Italiana Bolletini, 25 (3):427-452, plate 9.
Chao, Y. T.
1927. Productidae of China, part 1: Producti. Geologi¬
cal Survey of China, Palaeontologia Sinica, series B,
5 (2): 244 pages, 16 plates.
1928. Productidae of China, II: Chonetinae, Productinae
and Richthofeniinae. Geological Survey of China,
Palaeontologia Sinica, series B, 5 (3): 103 pages, 6
plates.
Chronic, B. J.
1949. Brachiopoda. In N. D. Newell, B. J. Chronic, and
T. G. Roberts, Upper Paleozoic of Peru, 46-114,
plates 5-20. New York, N.Y.: Columbia Univer¬
sity.
1953. In N. D. Newell, B. J. Chronic, and T. G. Roberts,
Upper Paleozoic of Peru. Geological Society of
America Memoir, 58: viii-(-276 pages, 44 plates.
Clifton, R. L.
1945. Permian Word Formation: Its Faunal and Strati¬
graphic Correlatives, Texas. American Association
of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 29 (12): 1766-1776.
Cloud, P. E., Jr.
1942. Terebratuloid Brachiopoda of the Silurian and
Devonian. Geological Society of America Special
Papers, 38: xii -f-182 pages, 26 plates.
1944. In R. E. King, C. O. Dunbar, P. E. Cloud, Jr., and
A. K Miller, Geology and Paleontology of the Per¬
mian Area Northwest of Las Delicias, Southwestern
Coahuila, Mexico, Part III: Permian Brachiopods.
Geological Society of America Special Papers, 52:49-
69, plates 17-19.
1952. Facies Relationships of Organic Reefs. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 36
(11):2125—2149.
Cohee, G. V.
1960. Series Subdivisions of Permian System. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 44
(9): 1578, 1579.
Coleman, P. J.
1957. Permian Productacea of Western Australia. De¬
partment of National Development, Bureau of
Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics, Bulle¬
tin, 40:188, 21 plates.
Conrad, T. A.
1839. Second Annual Report of the Palaeontological De¬
partment of the Survey, New York Assembly Docu¬
ment, 275:57-66,
Cooper, G. A.
1942. New Genera of North American Brachiopods.
Washington Academy of Sciences Journal, 32 (8):
228-235.
1944. Phylum Brachiopoda. In H. W. Shimer, and R. R.
Shrock, Index Fossils of North America, 277-365,
plates 105-143. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
1952. Unusual Specimens of the Brachiopod Family Iso-
grammidae. Journal of Paleontology, 26(1): 113-
119, plates 21-23.
1953. Permian Faunal Studies in the Glass Mountains,
Texas. In Spring Field Trip to Chinati Mountains,
Presidio County, Texas May 28—30, 1953. West
Texas Geological Society [Guidebook ], pages 70-76.
1956a. New Pennsylvanian Brachiopods. Journal of
Paleontology, 30 (3):520—530, plate 61.
1956b. Chazyan and Related Brachiopods. Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections, 127: part I (text):xvi-[-
1024 pages; part II (plates): 1025-1245, 269 plates.
1957a. Permian Brachiopods from Central Oregon. Smith¬
sonian Miscellaneous Collections, 134 (12): 79 pages,
12 plates.
1957b. Paleoecology of Middle Devonian of Eastern and
Central United States: Treatise on Marine Ecology
and Paleontology. Geological Society of America
Memoir, 67 (2):249-278.
1957c. Study of the Wolfcamp and Related Faunas of the
Glass Mountains, Texas. In Wolfcamp of the Glass
Mountains and the Permian Basin, Permian Basin
Section, Society of Economic Paleontologists and
Mineralogists, Guidebook, pages 8-12.
1957d. Loop Development of the Pennsylvanian Terebrat¬
uloid Cryptacanthia. Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collections, 134(3): 18 pages, 2 plates.
1959. Genera of Tertiary and Recent Rhynchonelloid
Brachiopods. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collec¬
tions, 139(5): iv-)-90 pages, 22 plates.
1970. Generic Characters of Brachiopods. In North
American Paleontological Convention 1969, Pro¬
ceedings, Part C: 194-263, 5 plates.
Cooper, G.A., C.O. Dunbar, Helen Duncan, A.K. Miller, and
J. B. Knight
1953. Permian Fauna of El Antimonio, Western Sonora,
Mexico Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections,
119(2): 111 pages, 25 plates.
NUMBER 14
169
Cooper, G. A., and R. E. Grant
1962. Torynechus: New Name for Permian Brachiopod
Uncinuloides King. Journal of Paleontology, 36(5):
1128-1129.
1964. New Permian Stratigraphic Units in Glass Moun¬
tains, West Texas. American Association of Pe¬
troleum Geologists Bulletin, 48 (9): 1581-1588, 2
figures.
1966. Permian Rock Units in Glass Mountains, West
Texas. United States Geological Survey Bulletin,
1244-E; 9 pages, 2 plates.
1969. New Permian Brachiopods from West Texas.
Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology, 1: 20
pages, 5 plates.
1970. New Name for Brachiopod Homonym and Citation
of Types. Journal of Paleontology, 44 (3):579.
Cooper, G. A., and J. B. Knight
1946. Permian Studies at the Smithsonian Institution,
Washington. Journal of Paleontology, 20(6):625-
626.
Cooper, G. A., and H. M. Muir-Wood
1951. Brachiopod Homonyms. Washington Academy of
Sciences Journal, 41 (6): 195—196.
1967. New Names for Brachiopod Homonyms. Journal
of Paleontology, 41 (3):808.
Cooper, G. A., and F. G. Stehli
1955. New Genera of Permian Brachiopods from West
Texas. Journal of Paleontology, 29 (3):469-474,
plates 52-54.
Cox, E. T.
1857. A Description of Some of the Most Characteristic
Shells of the Principal Coal-seams in the Western
Basin of Kentucky. Geological Survey of Kentucky,
Third Report, 566-576, 2 plates.
Crickmay, C. H.
1952. Nomenclature of Certain Devonian Brachiopods.
2 pages. Calgary, Canada: published by author.
Cumings, E. R.
1932. Reefs or Bioherms. Geological Society of America
Bulletin, 43:331—352.
Cumings, E. R., and R. R. Shrock
1928. Niagaran Coral Reefs of Indiana and Adjacent
States and Their Stratigraphic Relations. Geologi¬
cal Survey of America Bulletin, 39:579-620.
Dali, W. H.
1877. Index to the Names Which Have Been Applied to
the Subdivisions of the Class Brachiopoda. United
States National Museum Bulletin, 8: 88 pages.
Davidson, T.
1862. On Some Carboniferous Brachiopoda, Collected in
India by A. Fleming, M. D., and W. Purdon, Esq.,
F.G.S. Geological Society of London, Quarterly
Journal, 18:25-35, 2 plates.
1880. A Monograph of British Fossil Brachiopoda. Pa-
laeontographical Society (London), supplement 4,
number 3 (Supplement to the Permian and Carbon¬
iferous Species): 243-316, plates 30-37.
Dagys, A. S.
1968. Yurskie i Rannemelovie brakhiopodi severa Sibiri
[Jurassic and Early Cretaceous Brachiopods of
Northern Siberia], Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Trudy
Institute Geologii i Geofizihi, 41: 167 pages, 26
plates.
Derby, O. A.
1874. On the Carboniferous Brachipoda of Itaituba, Rio
Tapajos, Prov, of Part, Brazil. Cornell University,
Science Bulletin, 1 (2) : 63 pages, 9 plates.
Diener, C.
1897a. The Permocarboniferous Fauna of Chitichun
Number 1. Geological Survey of Lidia Memoirs,
Palaeontologia Indica, series 15, 1 (3): 105 pages,
13 plates.
1897b. The Permian Fossils of the Productus Shales of
Kumaon and Gurhwal. Geological Swvey of India
Memoirs, Palaeontologia Indica, series 15, 1 (4):
54 pages, 5 plates.
1899. Anthracolithic Fossils of Kashmir & Spiti. Geologi¬
cal Survey of India Memoirs, Palaeontologia Indica,
series 15, 1 (2): 95 pages, 8 plates.
1903. Permian Fossils of the Central Himalayas. Geo¬
logical Sui~vey of India Memoirs, Palaeontologia
Indica, series 15, 1 (5): 204 pages, 10 plates.
1911. Anthracolithic Fossils of the Shan States. Geologi¬
cal Survey of India Memoirs, Palaeontologia Indica,
new series, 3 (4): 74 pages, 7 plates.
Dittmar, A. von
1872. Ueber ein neues Brachiopoden Geschlecht aus dem
Bergkalk. Russische-Kaiserliche mineralogische Ge-
sellschaft, Verhandlungen, St. Petersburg, series 2,
7: 14 pages, 1 plate.
Douville, H.
1909. Sur quelques brachiopodes a test perfore: Syrin-
gothyris, Spiriferella, Derbyia. Societc Geologique
de France, Bulletin, 4th series, 9:144—157, 1 figure,
plates 4-5.
Dresser, H.
1954. Notes on Some Brachiopods from the Itaituba For¬
mation (Pennsylvanian) of the Tapajos River, Bra¬
zil. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 35(149):
15-84, 8 plates.
Dunbar, C. O.
1940. The Type Permian: Its Classification and Correla¬
tion. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, 24 (2):237—281
1941. Permian Faunas: A Study in Facies. Geological
Society of America Bulletin, 52:313-332.
1955. Permian Brachiopod Faunas of Central East Green¬
land. Meddelelser om Gr0nland, 110(3): 169 pages,
32 plates.
1958. A Zone of Pseudoschwagerina Low in the Leonard
Series in the Sierra Diablo, Trans-Pecos, Texas.
American Journal of Science, 251:798-813.
Dunbar, C. O., and G. E. Condra
1932. Brachiopoda of the Pennsylvanian System in Ne¬
braska. Nebraska Geological Survey, Bulletin, sec¬
ond series, 5: 377 pages, 44 plates.
170
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Dunbar, C. O., and J. W. Skinner
1937. Permian Fusulinidae of Texas: The Geology of
Texas. University of Texas Bulletin, 3701, 3 (2):
519-825, figures 89-97, plates, 42-81.
Dunbar, C. O., et al.
1960. Correlation of the Permian Formations of North
America. Geological Society of America Bulletin,
71 (12): 1763—1805, chart 7.
Dutro, J. T., Jr.
1955. Occurrence of the Brachiopod Isogramma in the
Baird Formation of California. Journal of Paleon¬
tology, 29 (5): 920-922.
Dutro, J. T., Jr., and E. L. Yochelson
1961. New Occurrences of Leptodus (Brachiopoda) in the
Permian of the Western United States. Journal of
Paleontology, 35 (5):952—954, 1 plate.
Elias, M. K.
1937. Carboniferous and Permian of the Southern Urals.
American Journal of Science, 33:279-295.
Elias, M. K., and G. E. Condra
1957. Fenestella from the Permian of West Texas. Geo¬
logical Society of America Memoir, 70: x-J-158
pages, 17 figures, 23 plates, 10 tables.
Emmrich, H.
1855. Notiz fiber den Alpenkalk der Lienzer Gegend.
Geologische Bundesanstalt Wien, Jahrbuch, 6:444-
450.
Finks, R. M.
1955. Conularia in a Sponge from the West Texas Per¬
mian. Journal of Paleontology, 29 (5):831-836, plate
82.
1960. Late Paleozoic Sponge Faunas of the Texas Region.
American Museum of Natural History Bulletin,
120(1): 160 pages, 50 plates.
Fischer de Waldheim, G.
1825. Notice sur la Choristite: Programme d’invitation a la
Societe Imperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou. 12
pages, 1 plate. Moscow.
1829. Quelques fossiles du gouvernement de Moscou.
Societe Imperial des Naturalistes de Moscou Bulle¬
tin, 1 (12):375—376.
1830 [1837]. Oryctographie du gouvernement de Moscou.
1 st edition, ix-]-26 pages, 60 plates; 2nd edition,
202 pages, 51 plates. Moscow: A. Semen.
Frebold, H.
1937. Das Festungsprofil auf Spitzbergen, IV: Die Brachi
opoden und Lamellibranchiatenfauna und die
Stratigraphic des Oberkarbons und Unterperms.
In Norges Svalbard- og Ishavs-Underspkelser.
Skrifter om Sxialbard og Ishax'et, 69: 94 pages, 11
plates. Oslo.
Freeh, F.
1911. Die Dyas. In F. von Richthofen, China, volume 5:
Abschliessende Bearbeitung der Sammlungen F. von
Richthofens, pages 103-202, plates 19-28. Berlin:
D. Reimen.
Fredericks, Georg
1916. Ober einige oberpalaozoic Brachiopoden von Eu-
rasien. Comite Geologique Memoires, . 156: 87
pages, 5 plates.
1919. Note sur 1’Origine de appareil septal Lyttoniinae.
Vserossiiskoe Paleontologicheskoe Obshchstvo Ezhe-
godnik [Societe Paleontologique de Russie, An-
nuaire ], 3:108-110.
1924a [1923]. Upper Paleozoic of the Ussuriland, I:
Brachiopoda. Materialy po Geologii i Poleznym
Iskopaemym Dal’nego Vostoka [Records of the
Geological Committee of the Russian Far East],
28: 52 pages.
1924b. O Verkhne-Kamennougol’nykh spiriferidakh Urala
[On Upper Carboniferous Spiriferids from the
Urals], Geologicheskogo Komiteta Izvestiya (1919),
38 (2):295-324.
1924c [1919]. Etudes paleontologiques, 2: Sur les Spiri-
ferides du carbonifere superieur de l’Oural. Bulle¬
tins du Comite Geologique (Petrograd), 38 (3):279-
324.
1925a [1924]. Upper Paleozoicum of the Ussuriland, 2:
Permian Brachiopoda of Cape Kalouzin. Materialy
po Geologii i Poleznym Iskopaemym Dal’nego
Vostoka [Records of the Geological Committee of
the Russian Far East], 40: 28 pages.
1925b. New Lyttoniinae from the Upper Paleozoic of the
Oural. Uralskogo Obshchestva Liubitelei Estest-
voispytatelei, Sverdlovsk, Zapiski [Societe Ouralien
des Amis de Science Naturelle, Bulletin], 40(1):
59-65.
1926a. Choristiti i Choristito-podobnic spiriferi izh
Myatchkova [Choristites and Choristites-like Spiri-
fers from Myatchkova], Izvestiya Akademii Nauk
SSSR [Bulletin of the Academy of Science, USSR]
(Leningrad), 20 (6):253-276, 2 plates.
1926b. Tablitsa dlya opredeleniya semeistva Spiriferidae
King [Synopsis of the Genera of the Family Spiri¬
feridae King], Izvestiya Akademii Nauk, SSSR
[Bulletin of the Academy of Science, USSR], (Len¬
ingrad), 20 (6):393-422.
1927a. New Lyttoniinae from the Upper Carboniferous
of Krasnoufimsk. Societe Paleontologique de Rus¬
sie, Annuaire, 6:84-89.
1927b. Der Apikalapparat der Brachiopoda Testicardines
(Morphologische Nomenclatur). Neues Jahrbuch
fur Mineralogie, Geologie und Palaontologie,
LVII (B): 11 pages, plate 1.
1932a. Die Fauna des Obercarbons vom Flfisse Koschim-
Torove im Petschoraland. Akademia Nauk SSSR,
Paleontologicheskii Institut, Trudy, 2:135-185, 3
plates.
1932b. The Upper Paleozoic of the Western Slope of the
Ural. Russia, Vsesoiuznoe Geologo-razvedochnoe
ob’edinenie, Trudy [All-union Geological and
Prospecting Institute, Transactions], 106: 91 pages.
NUMBER 14
171
1933. Palaeontological Notes, 4: On Some Upper Paleo¬
zoic Brachiopods of Eurasia. Tsentralii Nauchno-
issledovatelskii Geologorazvedochnyi lnstitut SSSR
Monografi, [Central Geological and Prospecting In¬
stitute USSR Monograph ], 2:24-33.
Gallitelli, E. M.
1954. II Permiano del Sosio e i suoi Coralli. Palaeonto-
graphica Italica, 49 (new series, volume 19): 98
pages, 10 plates. [Complete list of brachiopods of
Sosio Limestone.]
Gatinaud, G.
1948. Position generique de Spirifer canaliferus Lamarck
(Brachiopode) et description d’une nouvelle variety.
Bulletin du Museum National d’Historie Naturelle
(France) , series 2, 20(2) :201-206, 5 text-figures.
1949. Contributions a l’dtude des brachiopodes Spiriferi-
dae, 1: Expose dune nouvelle methode d’etude de
la morphologie externe des Spiriferidae a sinus
pliss£. Bulletin du Museum, series 2, 21 (1—4): 153—
159, 300-307, 408-413, 487-492.
Gauri, K. L., and Anton Ramovs
1964. Eolyttonia (Brach.) and Brachymetopus (Tril.)
from the Upper Carboniferous (Orenburgian) of
Karawanken, Yugoslavia. Neues Jahrbuch fur
Geologie und Paldontologie Abhandlungen (Stutt¬
gart), 119(1): 103-112.
Geinitz, H. B.
1884. Die Versteinerungen des deutschen Zechsteinge-
birges. 26 pages, 8 plates. Dresden and Leipzig:
Arnoldische Buchhandlung.
Gemmellaro, G. G.
1892. Studi sopra due famiglie di Brachiopodi (Stropho-
menidae e Productidae) provenienti dei calcari con
Fusulina della valle del flume Sosio nella Provincia
di Palermo. Societa di Scienze Naturali ed Econo-
miche di Palermo Bolletini, 3:22-27.
1894. Sopra tre famiglie de Brachiopodi (Spiriferidae,
Rhynchonellidae e Terebratulidae) provenienti dei
calcari con Fusulina della valle del Fiume Sosio
nella provincia di Palermo. Societa di Scienze
Naturali ed Economiche di Palermo Bolletini, 1:
6 pages.
1897. Sopra due nuovi generi di brachiopodi provenienti
dei calcari con Fusulina della provincia di Palermo.
Societa di Scienze Naturali ed Economiche di
Palermo Giornale, 21:8-10. [Often cited as 1896.]
1899. La fauna dei calcari con Fusulina della Valle del
Fiume Sosio nella provincia di Palermo. Societa
di Scienze Naturali ed Economiche di Palermo
Giornale, 22:95-214, 46 figures, plates 25-36.
Girty, G. H.
1903. The Carboniferous Formations and Faunas of
Colorado. United States Geological Survey Pro¬
fessional Paper, 16: 546 pages, 10 plates.
1904. New Molluscan Genera from the Carboniferous.
Proceedings of the United States National Museum,
27 (1372):721-736, plates 45-46.
1909 [1908]. The Guadalupian Fauna. United States
Geological Survey Professional Paper, 58: 627 pages,
31 plates.
1910. The Fauna of the Phosphate Beds of the Park City
Formation in Idaho, Wyoming and Utah. United
States Geological Survey Bulletin, 436:3—82, 7
plates.
1920. Carboniferous and Triassic Fauna (of Utah).
United States Geological Survey Professional Paper,
111:641-648, 6 plates.
1927. Descriptions of Carboniferous and Triassic Fossils.
In G. R. Mansfield, Geography, Geology and Min¬
eral Resources of Part of Southeastern Idaho.
United States Geological Survey Professional Paper,
152: 453 pages, 70 plates, 46 figures.
1929. New Carboniferous Invertebrates, II. Journal,
Washington Academy of Sciences, 19 (18):406—415,
1 plate.
1931. New Carboniferous Invertebrates, IV. Journal,
Washington Academy of Sciences, 24 (6):249—266,
1 plate.
Glaus, M.
1964. Trias and Oberperm in zentralen Elburs (Persien).
Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae, 57 (1):497—508, 3
plates.
Glenister, B. F., and W. M. Furnish
1961. The Permian Ammonoids of Australia. Journal of
Paleontology, 35 (4):673-736, plates 78-86.
Gobbett, D. J.
1963. Carboniferous and Permian Brachiopods of Sval¬
bard. Norsk Polarinstitutt Skrifter, 127: 201 pages,
25 plates.
Gortani, M„ and G. Merla
1934. Fossili del Paleozoico: Spedizioni Italiana de Filippi
nell’Himalaia etc. (1913-1914). 323 pages, 27 plates.
Bologna.
Grabau, A. W.
1931a. The Permian of Mongolia. In Natural History of
Central Asia, 4: 665 pages, 72 figures, 53 plates. New
York: American Museum of Natural History.
1931b. The Significance of the Sinai Formula in Devonian
and Post-Devonian Spirifers. Geological Survey of
China Bulletin, 11 (1):93—96, 2 plates.
1931c. Studies for Students, series 1: Paleontology: The
Brachiopoda. National University of Peking,
Science Quarterly, 2:235-254, 397-422.
1932. Studies for Students, series 1: Paleontology: The
Brachiopoda. National University of Peking,
Science Quarterly, 3:75-112, 219-252.
1934. Early Permian Fossils of China, I: Early Permian
Brachiopods, Pelecypods and Gastropods of Kuei-
chow. Geological Survey of China, Palaeontologia
Sinica, series B, 8(3): 168 pages, 11 plates.
1936. Early Permian Fossils of China, II: Fauna of the
Maping Limestone of Kwangsi and Kueichow.
Geological Survey of China, Palaeontologia Sinica,
8 (4): 441 pages, 31 plates.
172
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Grabau, A. W., and Y. T. Chao
1927. Brachiopod Fauna of the Chihsia Limestone. Geo¬
logical Survey of China Bulletin, 6:83-120.
Grabau, A. W., and H. W. Shimer
1907. North American Index Fossils. 1: 853 pages. New
York: A. G. Seiler.
Grant, R. E.
1963. Unusual Attachment of a Permian Linoproductid
Brachiopod. Journal of Paleontology, 37 (1): 134-
MO, plate 19.
1965a. The Brachiopod Superfamily Stenoscismatacea.
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 148(2): vi-f-
192 pages, 24 plates.
1965b. Superfamily Stenoscismatacea. In R. C. Moore,
editor, Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, H:
625-632, figures 511-516.
1966a. A Permian Productoid Brachiopod: Life History.
Science, 152 (3722): 660-662, 2 figures.
1966b. Spine Arrangement and Life Habits of the Produc¬
toid Brachiopod Waagenoconcha. Journal of Pa¬
leontology, 40 (5): 1063—1069, 2 figures, plates 131 —
132.
1968. Structural Adaptation in Two Permian Brachiopod
Genera, Salt Range, West Pakistan. Journal of
Paleontology, 42(1): 32 pages, 21 figures, 9 plates.
1970. Brachiopods from Permian-Triassic Boundary
Beds and Age of Chhidru Formation, West Pakistan.
In Kummel, Bernhard, and Curt Teichert, Strati¬
graphic Boundary Problems: Permian and Triassic
of West Pakistan. University of Kansas Special
Publication, 4:117-151, 1 figure, 3 plates, 2 tables.
Sichli. F. G„ and R. E. Grant [Ed. note: listed out of order]
1970. Permian Brachiopods from Huehuetcnango, Guate¬
mala. Journal of Paleontology, 44 (1):23—36, plates
8-13.
1971. Brachiopods in the Permian Reef Environment of
West Texas. Proceedings of the North American
Paleontological Convention, September, 1969, (J):
1444-1481, 22 figures.
Gray, G. E.
1840. Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum.
42nd edition, 370 pages. London.
Greco, Benedetto
1938. Revisione degli Strofomenidi Permiani del Sosio
conscrvati nel musco di geologia della R. Universita
di Palermo (parte prima). Giornale di Scienze
Naturali ed Economiche di Palermo, 39(11): 46
pages, 2 plates.
1942. La fauna Permiana del Sosio, III: Brachiopoda,
volume 1: Fam. Orthidae, Strophomenidac. Pa-
laeontographica Italica, 40:115-159, plates 16-21.
Gregorio, A. de
1930. Sul Permiano di Sicilia (Fossili del calcare con Fu-
sulina di Palazzo Adriano non descritti del Prof. G.
Gemmellaro conservati nel mio privato gabinetto).
Annales de Geologic el de Palconlologie (Palermo),
52:18-32, plates 4-11.
Grubbs, D. M.
1939. Fauna of the Niagaran Nodules of the Chicago
Area. Journal of Paleontology, 13 (6):543—560,
plates 61, 62.
Haack, Wilhelm
1914. fiber eine marine Permfauna aus Nordmexiko nebst
Bcmcrkungen iiber Devon daselbst. Zeitschrift der
Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft (Berlin), 66(4):
482-504.
Hall, James
1856. Descriptions and Notices of the Fossils Collected
upon the Route. In Whipple’s Reconnaisance near
the 35th Parallel. United States Thirty-third Con¬
gress, Second Session, Senate Executive Document
78 and House Executive Document 91, 4:99-105.
Hall, James, and J. M. Clarke
1890. Extract. In Palaeontology of New York, VIII: 120—
137, 160 [repaged as 2-20], plates 4E, 4F. Albany,
New York.
1892-1895. An Introduction to the Study of the Genera
of Palaeozoic Brachiopoda. New York Geological
Survey, Palaeontology, 8 (1): 367 pages, 20 plates
(1892); (2): 317 pages (1893); pages 319-394, plates
21-84 (1895).
Hall, W. E.
1956. Marathon Folded Belt in Big Bend Area of Texas.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bul¬
letin, 40 (9): 2247-2255.
Hamada, Tadashi
1964. Notes on the Drifted Nautilus in Thailand. XXI
in Contributions to the Geology and Palaeontology
of Southeast Asia. University of Tokyo, Scientific
Papers of the College of General Education, 14(2):
255-278, 5 plates.
Hamlet. Beata
1928. Permische Brachiopodcn, Lamellibranchiaten und
Gastropoden von Timor. Jaarboek von het
Mijnwezen (Dutch East Indies), 56(2): 115 pages,
12 plates.
Harker, Peter, and R. Thorsteinsson
1960. Permian Rocks and Faunas of Crinnell Peninsula,
Arctic Archipelago. Geological Survey of Canada
Memoir, 309: 89 pages, 25 plates.
HavlUek, Vladimir
19.56. The Brachiopods of the Branik and Hlubofepy
Limestones in the Immediate Vicinity of Prague.
Sbornik, Ostredniho Ustavu Gcologickeho, oddil
Paleontologie, 22:653-659.
Hayasaka, Ichiro
1932. On Three Brachiopod Species of the Subfamily
Orthotetinae in the Fusulina-limcsione of Kinsyozan,
Alasaka-Mati, Prov. Mino, Japan. Tohoku Im¬
perial University, Faculty of Sciences mid Agricul¬
ture, Memoir, 6(1), Geological Series, 2: 7 pages,
2 plates.
NUMBER 14
173
1933. On the Carboniferous Brachiopod Fauna from the
Nabeyama Region, Totigi Prefecture, Japan. To-
hoku Imperial University, Faculty of Sciences and
Agriculture, Memoir, 6(2), Geological Series, 3:9-44,
plates 3-14.
1953. Hamletella, a New Permian Genus of Brachiopoda,
and a New Species from the Kitakami Mountains,
Japan. Paleontological Society of Japan, Trans¬
actions and Proceedings, new series, (12):89—95,
plate 9.
Hayasaka, Ichiro, and S. Hayasaka
1953. Fossil Assemblages of Molluscs and Brachiopods of
Unusually Large Size from the Permian of Japan.
Paleontological Society of Japan, Transactions and
Proceedings, (10):37-44, plate 5.
Hayes, P. T.
1964. Geology of the Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico.
United States Geological Survey Professional Paper,
446: iv-f-69 pages, 19 figures, 3 plates.
Heritsch, Franz
1927. Materialen zur Kenntnis des Karbons der Karnischen
Alpen und der Karawanken Akademie der Wissen-
schaften in Wien, Mathematische-naturwissen-
schaftliche Kl'asse Situngsberichte, part I, 136(7):
295-332, 6 figures, 3 plates.
Herrmannsen, A. N.
1846. Indices generum Malacozoorum Primordia. 1: 637
pages. Kassel, Germany.
Hill, Dorothy
1950. The Productidae of the Artinskian Cracow Fauna
of Queensland. University of Queensland Papers,
3 (2): 36 pages, 9 plates.
Hill, R. T.
1901. Physical Geography of the Texas Region. In
United States Geological Survey, Topographic Atlas
of the United States, folio 3: page 4.
Hoare, R. D.
1961. Desmoinesian Brachiopoda and Mollusca from
Southwest Missouri. University of Missouri Studies,
36: xiii —)—262 pages, 23 plates.
Huang, T. K.
1932. Late Permian Brachiopoda of Southwest China.
Geological Survey of China, Palaeontologia Sinica,
series B, 9(1): 138 pages, 9 plates.
1933. Late Permian Brachiopoda of Southewestern China,
part II. Geological Survey of China, Palaeontologia
Sinica, series B, 9(2): 172 pages, 11 plates.
1936. On the Occurrence of Lyttonia in the Wolfcamp
Series of the Glass Mountains of Texas with Notes
on Lyttonids from South-west China. Geological
Survey of China Bulletin, 14:489-496, 1 plate.
Hudson, R. G. S., and Sudbury, M.
1959. Permian Brachiopoda from Southeast Arabia.
Notes et Memoires sur le Moyen-Orient, VII: 19-55,
6 plates.
Imbrie, John
1959. Brachiopods of the Traverse Group (Devonian) of
Michigan, part 1: Dalmanellacea, Pentameracea,
Strophomenacea, Orthotetacea, Chonetacea and
Productacea. American Museum of Natural His¬
tory Bulletin (New York), 116 (4) :345—409, plates
38-67.
Ivanov, A. P.
1925. Sur la syst^matique et la biologie du genre Spirifer
et de quelques brachiopodes de Cu et Cm du
Gouvernement de Moscou. Moskovskoe Obshchestvo
Ispytatelei Prirody, Otdel Geologicheskii [Societe
des Naturalistes de Moscou Bulletin'], new series,
33:105-123.
1935. Brachiopods of the Middle and Upper Carboni¬
ferous of the Moscow Basin, part 1: Productidae
Gray. Moskovskogo Geologicheskogo Tresta, Trudy,
8 : 134 pages, 15 plates.
Ivanova, E. A.
1949. Usloviya sushchestvovaniya, obraz zhizni i istorya
razvitiya nektorikh brakhiopod srednego i verkhnego
Karbona Podmoskovnoi Kotlovini [Ecology, Life
History and Development of Certain Brachiopoda
of the Middle and Upper Carboniferous of the
Moscow Basin]. Akademia Nauk SSSR, Trudy
Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, 21: 144 pages, 20
plates.
1951. New Data on Productid Systematics (Genus Kutor-
ginella). Akademia Nauk SSSR, Doklady, 77:329-
331.
Jarvis, Daniel
1957. Correlation of the Basal Permian Beds of the West¬
ern Glass Mountains. In Wolfcamp of the Glass
Mountains and the Permian Basin, Permian Ba¬
sin Section, Society of Economic Paleontologists and
Mineralogists, Guidebook, 4-7.
Jux, Ulrich, and Friederich Strauch
1966. Die Mitteldevonische Brachiopodengattung Un¬
cites DeFrance 1825. Palaeontographica, 125(A):
176-222, plates 21-25.
Kaiser, H. E.
1964. Pathological Conditions of the Soft Parts in a
Devonian Brachiopod Species Stropheodonta. Neues
Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie, Geologie, und Palaon-
tologie (Stuttgart), 4:196-198.
Keyser, E.
1883. Obercarbonische Fauna von Loping. In von Rich¬
thofen, China, 4:160-208, plate 21.
Keyserling, A. G.
1846. Geognostiche Beobachtungen. In A. G. Keyserling
and P. von Krusenstern, Wissenschaftliche Beo¬
bachtungen auf einer Reise in das Petschora-Land
itn Jahre 1843, pages 151—336, 22 plates. St. Peters¬
burg: Carl Kray.
Keyte, I. A.
1929. Correlation of Pennsylvanian-Permian of Glass
Mountains and Delaware Mountains. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin,
13 (8):903—906.
Keyte, I. A., W. G. Blanchard, Jr., and H. L. Baldwin, Jr.
1927. Gaptank-Wolfcamp Problem of the Glass Moun¬
tains. Journal of Paleontology, 1 (2): 175-178, plate
31.
174
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Kier, P. M.
1958. Permian Echinoids from West Texas. Journal of
Paleontology, 32 (5):889-892, plate 114.
1965. Evolutionary Trends in Paleozoic Echinoids. Jour~
nal of Paleontology, 39 (3):453-456, plate 55.
King, P. B.
1926. The Geologic Structure of a Portion of the Glass
Mountains of West Texas. American Association
of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 10 (9): 877—884,
map.
1927. The Bissett Formation, a New Stratigraphic Unit
in the Permian of West Texas. American Journal
of Science, 5th Series, 14:212-221, map.
1931 [1930], The Geology of the Glass Mountains, Texas,
part 1: Descriptive Geology. University of Texas
Bulletin, 3038: 167 pages, 15 plates, map.
1932. Limestone Reefs in the Leonard and Hess Forma¬
tions of Trans-Pecos, Texas. American Journal
of Science, 24 (143):337—354.
1934. Permian Stratigraphy of Trans-Pecos Texas. Ge¬
ological Society of America Bulletin, 45:697—798,
13 figures, plates 103—107.
1935. Outline of Structural Development of Trans-Pecos,
Texas. American Association of Petroleum Geol¬
ogists Bulletin, 19 (2):221—261.
1938 [ 1937]. Geology of the Marathon region, Texas.
United States Geological Survey Professional Paper,
187: ix-j-148 pages, 33 figures, 24 plates.
1942. Permian of West Texas and Southeastern New
Mexico. American Association of Petroleum Ge¬
ologists Bulletin, 26 (4):533-763, 2 plates.
1947. Permian Correlations. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 31 (4):776—777.
1948. Geology of the Southern Guadalupe Mountains,
Texas. United States Geological Survey Profes¬
sional Paper, 215: 183 pages, maps.
1965. Geology of the Sierra Diablo Region. United
States Geological Survey Professional Paper, 480:
vi -(-185 pages, maps.
King, P. B„ and R. E. King
1929[ 1928]. The Pennsylvanian and Permian Stratigra¬
phy of the Glass Mountains. University of Texas
Bulletin, 2801:109—145, plate 1.
King, P. B., and N. D. Newell
1956. McCombs Limestone Member of Bell Canyon For¬
mation, Guadalupe Mountains, Texas. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 40(2):
386-387.
King, R. E.
1931 [dated 1930]. The Geology of the Glass Mountains,
part 2: Faunal Summary and Correlation of the
Permian Formations with Description of Brachi-
opoda. University of Texas Bulletin, 3042: 245
pages, 5 figures, 44 plates.
1934. The Permian of Southwestern Coahuila, Mexico,
American Journal of Science, 5th Series, 27 (158):
98-112.
King, R. H.
1938. New Chonetidae and Productidae from Pennsyl¬
vanian and Permian Strata of North-Central Texas.
Journal of Paleontology, 12 (3): 257—279, 4 plates.
King, William
1844. On a New Genus of Palaeozoic Shells. Annals
and Magazine of Natural History (London) 14 (92):
312.
1850. A Monograph of the Permian Fossils of England.
Palaeontographical Society Monograph, 3: xxxvii-f-
258 pages, 29 plates.
1856. Notes on Permian Fossils. Annals and Magazine
of Natural History (London), 17 (21):258-269, 333-
341, plate 12.
1859. On Gwynia, Dielasma and Macandrevia, Three
New Genera, etc. Dublin Zoological and Botanical
Association, Proceedings, 1 (3):256—262.
1865. Remarks on the Histology of Two Specimens of
Rhynchopora geinitziana deVerneuil, from near the
River Oukhla, Province of Archangel. Annals and
Magazine of Natural History (London), series 3,
16:124-128.
Knight, J. B.
1940. Are the “Omphalotrochus Beds” of the U.S.S.R.
Permian? American Association of Petroleum Ge¬
ologists Bulletin, 24 (6): 1128—1133.
Konishi, Kenji, and J. L. Wray
1961. Eugonophyllum, a New Pennsylvanian and Per¬
mian Algal Genus. Journal of Paleontology, 35(4):
659-666, plate 75.
Kotlyar, G. V.
1961. The Genus Yakovlevia Fredericks. Doklady Akad-
emia Nauk SSSR, 140 (2): 459—460, 3 figures.
Kozlowski, Roman
1914. Les Brachiopodes du Carboniffere Sup6rieur de Bo-
livie. Annales de Paleontologie (Paris), 9:3—97, 11
plates.
1929. Les Brachiopodes Gothlandien de la podolie Po¬
lonaise. Palaeontologia Polonica, 1: xiii -(-253
pages, 12 plates.
Krumbein, W. C., L. L. Sloss, and E. C. Dapples
1949. Sedimentary Tectonics and Sedimentary Environ¬
ments. American Association of Petroleum Geol¬
ogists Bulletin, 33 (11): 1859-1891.
Kuhn, O.
1949. Lehrbuch der Palaozoologie. 326 pages, 224 fig¬
ures. Stuttgart. [Brachiopods on pages 94-106.]
Kummel, Bernhard, and Curt Teichert
1966. Relations between the Permian and Triassic For¬
mations in the Salt Range and Trans-Indus
Ranges, West Pakistan. Neues Jahrbuch fur Ge-
ologie und Palaontologie, 125 (Schindewolf Fest-
schrift):297-333, 4 figures, plates 27, 28.
Kutorga, S. S.
1842. Beitrag zur Palaontologie Russlands. Verhand-
lungen der Russisch-Kaiserlichen Mineralogischen
Gesellschaft zu St. Petersburg, 34 pages, 6 plates.
NUMBER 14
175
1844. Zweiter Beitrag zur Palaontologie Russlands. Ver-
handlungen der Russich-Kaiserlichen Mineralogis-
chen Gesellschaft zu St. Petersburg, 4:62—104, 10
plates.
Lamont, A.
1935. The Drummock Group, Girvan: A Stratigraphical
Revision, with Descriptions of New Fossils from
the Lower Part of the Group. Geological Society
of Glasgow, Transactions, 19 (2):288—334, plates 7-9.
Land, L. S., and Goreau, T. F.
1970. Submarine Lithification of Jamaican Reefs. Jour¬
nal of Sedimentary Petrology, 40 (l):457-462.
Lang, W. B.
1937. The Permian Formations of the Pecos Valley of
New Mexico and Texas. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 21 (7):833-898.
Licharew, B. K.
1913. Die Fauna der permischen Ablagerungen aus der
Umgebung der Stadt Kirilov. Trudy Geologiches-
kago Komiteta, Russia, new series, 85: 99 pages, 5
plates.
1925. Zur frage iiber das alter der Perm-Kalksteine der
Onega-Dwina Wasserscheide. Russisch-Kaiserlich
Mineralogische gesellschaft, Leningrad Verhand-
lungen, series 2, 54 (1): 109-152, plates 1-2.
1928. Uber einige seltene und neue Brachiopoden aus
dem Unterpernr des nordlichen Kaukasus. Palaon-
tologische Zeitschrift, 10:258-259, plate 5.
1930. To the Classification of the Upper Paleozoic Rep¬
resentatives of the Subfamily Orthotetinae Waagen.
Annuaire de la Societe Paleontologique de Russie
1928—29 [Russkogo Paleontologicheskogo Obshchest-
va, Ezhegodnik ], 8:117-139, 2 figures.
1931. fiber eine problematische Brachiopode aus dem
unterpermischen Ablagerungen des nordlichen
Kaukasus. Societe Paleontologique de Russie, An¬
nuaire, 9:157-161.
1932. Fauna of the Permian Deposits of Northern Cau¬
casus, I: Brachiopod Subfamily Orthotetinae (Waa¬
gen). Vsesoyuoznogo Geologo-Razvedochnogo Obe-
dineniya SSSR, Trudy, 215: 54 pages.
1934a. On Some New Genera of Upper Paleozoic Brachi-
opods. Academie des Sciences URSS, Comptes
Rendus, new series, 1 (4):210—213.
1934b. Die fauna der Permischen Ablagerungen des
Kolyma-gebietes [Fauna Permiskisch Kolymiskogo
kraya]. Akademia Nauk SSSR, Trudy, Yakut,
series 14(2): 148 pages, 11 plates.
1935. Bemerkungen fiber einige oberpalaozoischer Brachi¬
opoden. Zentralblatt fiir Mineralogie, Geologie
und Palaontologie, part B, 9:369-373.
1936. Some Uncommon Upper Paleozoic Brachiopods.
Moskovskogo Obshchestvo Ispytateley Prirody [So-
ciete des Naturalistes de Mouscou] Bulletin, series
geologique, 14 (2) : 133-158, plates a-c.
1937. Permian Brachiopods of North Caucasus, Families:
Chonetidae Hall and Clarke and Productidae
Gray. Tsentralii Nauchno-issledovatelskii Geolo-
gorazvedochnyi Institut SSSR [Central Geological
and Prospecting Institute USSR Monograph ],
Monograp (Leningrad, Moscow), 39(1): 151 pages,
13 plates.
1947. O novom podrode Muirwoodia roda Productus,
Sow. s. 1. [On a New Subgenus Muirwoodia of the
Genus Productus, Sow. s. 1.]. Akaclemyia Nauk
SSSR, Doklady, 57 (2): 187-190.
1964. Richthofenidae from the Permian of Southern Pri-
mor. Trudy Vsesoyuzhnogo Nauchno-lssledovatel-
skogo Geologicheskogo Institut [VSEGEI] (Lenin¬
grad), new series, 93:113-121, 2 plates.
1965. Neskolko zamechanii po pobody stati T. G. Sary-
chevoi “Oldhaminoidnie brakhiopodi iz Permi
Zakavkazya” [Some Notes Apropos of T. G. Sary-
cheva’s Article "Oldhaminoid Brachiopods from
the Permian of Transcaucasia”]. Paleontolo-
gicheskii Zhurnal, 2:149-150.
Licharew, B. K., editor
1939. The Atlas of the Leading Forms of the Fossil
Fauna of the USSR. Tsentralii Nauchno-issledova-
tekskii Geologorazvedochnyi Institut SSSR, (Lenin¬
grad), 6: 267 pages, 56 plates.
Licharew, B. K., and O. L. Einor
1939. Materiali k poznaniyo Verkhnepaleosoiskikh faun
Novoi Zemli Brachiopoda [An Understanding of
the Upper Paleozoic Faunas of Nova Zemlya,
Brachiopoda']. Paleontologiya Sovietskoi Arktiki,
T’ipusk /, Trudy Arkticheskogo Nauchno-Issledo-
vatelskogo Instituta, 127: 245 pages, 28 plates.
Logan, Alan
1966. The Upper Paleozoic Productoid Brachiopod
Horridonia timanica (Stuckenberg) and Its Close
Relatives. Leeds Geological Association, Transac¬
tions, 8 (4): 193-210, 1 figure.
Maillieux, Eugene
1939. La Faune des schistes de Barvaux-sur-Ourthe
(Frasnien superieur) de la Belgique. Musee
Royal d’Histoire naturelle de Belgique, Bulletin,
15 (53): 8 pages.
Martin, William
1809. Petrifacta Derbyensia: Figures and Descriptions of
Petrifactions Collected in Derbyshire. ix-J-28 pages,
52 plates. London: D. Lyon.
Marcou, Jules
1858. Geology of North America, with Two Reports on
the Prairies of Arkansas and Texas, the Rocky
Mountains of Nexa Mexico, and the Sierra Nevada
of California. 144 pages. Zurich.
McCunn, H. J„ and R. D. Walker
1962. Geologic Relationships between Outcrops of the
Diablo Plateau Region and the Subsurface of the
Permian Basin of West Texas. In Society of Eco¬
nomic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Permian
Basin Section, Guidebook: Leonardian Facies of
the Sierra Diablo Region, West Texas, 62-7:91-
103.
176
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
McKee, E. D.
1936. In A. A. Stoyanow, Correlation of Arizona Paleo¬
zoic Formations. Geological Society of America
Bulletin, 47 (4):459-540, 1 plate.
1938. The Environment and History of the Toroweap
and Kaibab Formations of Northern Arizona and
Southern Utah. Carnegie Institute of Washington
Publication, 492: viii—(-268 pages, 51 plates.
Meek, F. B.
1860. Descriptions of New Fossil Remains Collected in
Nebraska and Utah by the Exploring Expeditions
under the Command of Capt. J. H. Simpson.
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, pages
308-315.
1864, Description of the Carboniferous Fossils. Califor¬
nia Geological Survey, 1: 16 pages.
1871. Descriptions of New Species of Fossils from Ohio
and Other Western States and Territories. Acad¬
emy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Proceed¬
ings, 23 (2): 159-184.
1872[dated 1871]. Report on the Paleontology of Eastern
Nebraska. In F. V. Hayden, United States Geologi¬
cal Survey of Nebraska, Final Report, United
States, 42nd Congress, 1st Session, House Executive
Document, 19:83—239, 10 plates.
1877. Paleontology. In Clarence King, United States
Geological Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel, 4:
50 pages.
Meek, F. B„ and A. H. Worthen
1870. Descriptions of New genera and Species of Fossils
from the Paleozoic of the Western States. Acad¬
emy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Proceed¬
ings, 22-56.
Mendes, J. C.
1956. Orthotetacea e Dalmanellacea do Carbonifero su¬
perior do Rio Tapajos (Serie Itaituba) . Sociedade
Brasileira de Geologic, Boletim, 5 (1): 11—38, 4
plates.
Menke, C. T.
1828. Synopsis methodica molluscorum generum omnium
et specierum earum quae in Museo Menkeano
adservantur. 91 pages. Pyrmonti.
Merla, Giovanni
1928. Contributo alia conoscenza della fauna dei calcari
a Schwagerina della Valle del Sosio (Prov. di Pa¬
lermo). Atti della Societa Toscana di Scienza Na-
lurali Memoir (Pisa) , 38:70-88, plate 2.
1930. La fauna del Calcare a Bellerophon della Regionc
Dolomitica. Instituto Geologico della Universita
di Padova, Memoir, 9: 221 pages, 11 plates.
1934. Fossili anthracolitici del Caracorum. In Spedi-
zione italiana de Filippi nell’Himdlaia Caracorum
e Turchestan Cinese (1913-1914) (Bologna), series
2, 5:101-319, plates 20-27.
Miller, A. K.
1930. A New Ammonoid Fauna of Late Paleozoic Age
from Western Texas. Journal of Paleontology,
4 (4):383—412, 2 plates.
1933. Age of the Permian Limestones of Sicily. Ameri¬
can Journal of Science, 5th series, 26 (154):409-427.
1938. Comparison of Permian Ammonoid Zones of Soviet
Russia with Those of North America. American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Bulletin,
22 (8): 1014-1019.
1945a. Some Exceptional Permian Ammonoids from West
Texas. Journal of Paleontology, 19(1):14—21, plates
7, 8.
1945b. Permian Nautiloids from the Glass Mountains
and the Sierra Diablo of West Texas. Journal of
Paleontology, 19 (3):282-294, plates 44, 45.
Miller, A. K., and W. M. Furnish
1940. Permian Ammonoids of the Guadalupe Mountain
Region and Adjacent Areas. Geological Society of
America Special Papers, 26:10-|-242, 59 figures, 44
plates, 6 tables.
1957. Ammonoids of the Basal Word Formation, Glass
Mountains, West Texas. Journal of Paleontology,
31 (6): 1052-1056, plate 133.
Miller, A. K., and H. F. Garner
1953. Permian Ammonoid Zones of the West Texas Re¬
gion. In Spring Field Trip to Chinati Mountains,
Presidio County, Texas May 28-30, 1953. West
Texas Geological Society [ GuidebookJ, pages 64-
69.
Miller, A. K., and W. L. Youngquist
1947. Mollusca: Lower Permian Cephalopods from the
Texas Colorado River Valley. University of Kan¬
sas Paleontological Contributions, 2(1): 15 pages,
3 plates.
1949. American Permian Nautiloids. Geological Society
of America Memoir, 41: viii-f-218 pages, 39 figures,
59 plates.
Miloradovitch, B. V.
1935. Materials to the Study of the Upper Paleozoic
Brachiopoda from the Northern Island of Novaya
Zemlya. Vsesoiuzhyi Arkticheskii Institute USSR
(Leningrad), 19: 167 pages, 6 plates.
1936a. Lower Permian Fauna from the Island Mezhdu-
sharsky [Southern Island of Novaya Zemlya].
Transactions of the Arctic Institute, Leningrad,
USSR, 37:37-82, 4 plates.
1936b. Some Spiriferidae from the Middle and Upper
Carboniferous of Timan. Transactions of the Arc¬
tic Institute, Leningrad, USSR, 30:4—65, 6 plates.
Moore, R. C.
1940. Carboniferous-Permian Boundary. American As¬
sociation of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 24 (2):
282-336.
Moore, R. C., et al.
1944. Correlation of the Pennsylvanian Formations of
North America. Geological Society of America
Bulletin, 55:657-706, chart.
Muir-Wood, H. M.
1955. A Flistory of the Classification of the Phylum
Brachiopoda. viii-)-124 pages. London: British
Museum (Natural History).
NUMBER 14
177
1962. On the Morphology and Classification of the
Brachiopod Suborder Chonetoidea. vii-f-132 pages,
24 figures, 16 plates. London: British Museum
(Natural History).
Muir-Wood, H. M., and G. A. Cooper
1960. Morphology, Classification and Life Habits of the
Productoidea (Brachiopoda). Geological Society of
America Memoir, 81: 447 pages, 135 plates.
1967. New Names for Brachiopod Homonyms. Journal
of Paleontology, 41 (3):808.
Nelson, S. J., and C. E. Johnson
1968. Permo-Pennsylvanian Brachythyrid and Horridonid
Brachiopods from the Yukon Territory, Canada.
Journal of Paleontology, 42 (3):715—746, 13 figures,
plates 90-96.
Netschajew, A. W.
1911. Die fauna der Perm-ablagerungen vom osten und
vom aeussersten norden des Europaeischen Russ-
lands, 1: Brachiopoda Russia. Memoires du Co-
mitd Geologique, St. Petersbourg, new series, 61:
164 pages, 15 plates.
Newberry, J. S.
1861. Geological Report, Paleontology. In J. C. Ives,
Report upon the Colorado River of the West.
United States 36th Congress, Senate Executive Doc¬
ument and House Document 90, part 3:116—132, 2
plates.
Newell, N. D.
1934. Some Mid-Pennsylvanian Invertebrates from Kan¬
sas and Oklahoma: Fusulinidae, Brachiopoda.
Journal of Paleontology, 8 (4):422-432, plates 52-55.
1940. Invertebrate Fauna o? the Late Permian White¬
horse Sandstone. Geological Society of America
Bulletin, 51:261-335.
1955. Depositional Fabric in Permian Reef Limestones.
Journal of Geology, 63 (4):301-309.
1957. Paleoecology of the Permian Reefs in the Guada¬
lupe Mountains Area. Geological Society of
America Memoir, 67:407-436.
Newell, N. D„ and D. W. Boyd
1970. Oyster-like Permian Bivalvia. American Museum
of Natural History Bulletin , 143 (4):217—282, 34 fig¬
ures, 6 tables.
Newell, N. D., J. Chronic, and T. G. Roberts
1949. Upper Paleozoic of Peru. 241 pages. New York:
Columbia University.
1953. Upper Paleozoic of Peru. Geological Society of
America Memoir, 58:1-276, 44 plates.
Newell, N. D., J. K. Rigby, A. G. Fischer, A. J. Whiteman,
J. E. Hickox, and J. S. Bradley
1953. The Permian Reef Complex of the Guadalupe
Mountains Region, Texas and New Mexico — A
Study in Paleoecology. xix-)-236 pages. San Fran¬
cisco, Calif.: W. H. Freeman and Co.
North, F. J.
1920. On Syringothyris Winchell and Certain Carbonif¬
erous Brachiopoda Referred to Spiriferina d’Or-
bigny. Geological Society of London, Quarterly
Journal, 76 (2): 162-227, plates 11-13.
Norwood, J. G., and H. Pratten
1855. Notice of Fossils from the Carboniferous of the
Western States, Belonging to the Genera Spirifer,
Bellerophon, Pleurotomaria, Macrocheilus, Natica,
and Loxonema, with Descriptions of Eight New
Characteristic Species. Academy of Natural Sci¬
ences of Philadelphia, Journal, series 2, 3 (8):71—77,
plate 9.
Oehlert, D. P.
1887. Brachiopodes. In P. Fischer, Manuel de Con-
chyliologie, 11:1190-1334, figures 892—1138.
1888. Descriptions de quelques especes d^voniennes du le
department de le M ayenne. Societe etudes science
d’Angers, 17:65-120 [Brachiopoda: pages 99-103].
1890. Notes sur differentes groupes 6tablis dans le genre
Orthis et en particulier sur Rhipidomella Oehlert
(—Rhipidomys Oehlert, olim). Journal de Con-
chiliologie, series 3, 30:366-374.
Opik, A. A.
1933. Ober Plectamboniten. Tartu University (Dor-
pat), Acta et Commentationes, series A, 24(7): 79
pages, 12 plates.
1934. Uber Klitamboniten. Tartu University (Dorpat) ,
Acta et Commentationes, series A, 26 (3): 239 pages,
48 plates.
d’Orbigny, Alcide
1842. Voyages dans l’Amerique m£ridionale. Paleonto-
logie 3:50-56, plates 3—5. Paris: Pitois-Levrault et
Cie.
Oriel, S. S., D. A. Myers, and E. J. Crosby
1969. In McKee, et al., Paleotectonic Investigation of the
Permian System in the United States. United
States Geological Survey Professional Paper, 515:
xvi-f271 pages [West Texas Permian Basin Re¬
gion: 21-60], maps.
Ozaki, K.
1931. Upper Carboniferous Brachiopods of North China.
Shanghai Science Institute Bulletin, 1 (6): 205
pages, 15 plates.
Ozawa, Y.
1927. Stratigraphical Studies of the Fusulina Limestone
of Akasaka, Province of Mino. Faculty of Science,
Imperial University of Tokyo, Journal, section II,
2 (3): 121-164, plates 34-46.
Paeckelmann, W.
1930. Die Brachiopoden des deutschen Unterkarbons, I.
Preussischen Geologischen Landesanstalt, Abhand-
lungen, new series, 122: 326 pages, plates 9-24.
Pajaud, Daniel
1968. La n^otenie chez Th6cidees (Brachiopodes). Comp-
tes Rendus I’Academie Science de Paris, series D,
267 (2): 156-159.
Pittman, J. S„ Jr.
1959. Silica in Edwards Limestone, Travis County, Texas.
Silica in Sediments: Symposium. Society of Eco¬
nomic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special
Publication, 7:121—134.
178
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Pitrat, C. W.
1965. Spiriferidina. In R. C. Moore, editor, Treatise on
Invertebrate Paleontology, H:667-728, figures 543-
593.
Plummer, F. B., and Gayle Scott
1937. Upper Paleozoic Ammonites in Texas. In The
Geology of Texas. University of Texas Bulletin,
3701, 3 (1): 516 pages, 41 plates.
Ramsbottom, W. H. C.
1952. The Fauna of the Cefn Coed Marine Band in the
Coal Measures at Aberbaiden, near Tondu, Glamor¬
gan. United Kingdom Geological Survey Bulletin
(London), 4:8-32, plates 2, 3.
Raymond, P. E.
1911. The Brachiopoda and Ostracoda of the Chazy.
Carnegie Museum, Annals, 7 (2):215—259.
Reed, F. R. C.
1944. Brachiopoda and Mollusca from the Productus
Limestones of the Salt Range. Geological Survey
of India Memoirs, Palaeontologia Indica (Calcutta),
new series, XXIII (2): xiv-j-678 pages, 65 plates.
Reimann, I. G.
1945. Real and Simulated Color Patterns in Meristella.
Buffalo Society of Natural Science, Bulletin, 19 (2):
10-15, 1 plate.
Richter, Rudolf
1919. Zur Farbung fossiler Brachiopoden. Senckenber-
giana, 1 (3): 83-96.
Rigby, J. K.
1958. Mass Movements in Permian Rocks of Trans-Pecos,
Texas. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 28(3):
298-315, 14 figures.
Rix, C. C.
1953a. Geology of Chinati Peak Quadrangle, Presidio
County, Trans-Pecos, Texas. University of Texas:
Ph.D. dissertation.
1953b. Geology of the Chinati Mountain Quadrangle.
In Spring Field Trip to Chinati Mountains, Pre¬
sidio County, Texas May 28-30, 1953. I Vest Texas
Geological Society [ Guidebookf, pages 1-22, map.
Rodda, P. U., and W. L. Fisher
1962. Upper Paleozoic Acrothoracic Barnacles from
Texas. Texas Journal of Science, 14 (4):460-479.
Ross, C. A.
1959. The Wolfcamp Series (Permian) and New Species
of Fusulinids, Glass Mountains, Texas. Journal of
the Washington Academy of Sciences, 49(9):299-
316, 4 plates.
1960. Fusulinids from the Hess Member of the Leonard
Formation, Leonard Series (Permian), Glass Moun¬
tains, Texas. Contributions from the Cushman
Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, 11 (4): 117—
133, plates 17-21.
1962a. Permian Tectonic History in Glass Mountains,
Texas, American Association of Petroleum Geolo¬
gists, Bulletin, 46 (9): 1728-1746.
1962b. Fusulinids from the Leonard Formation (Per¬
mian), Western Glass Mountains, Texas. Con¬
tributions from the Cushman Foundation for Fora¬
miniferal Research, 13 (1): 21 pages, 6 plates.
1963a. Standard Wolfcampian Series (Permian), Glass
Mountains, Texas. Geological Society of America
Memoir, 88: vii-(-205 pages, 11 figures, 29 plates.
1963b. Fusulinids from the Word Formation (Permian),
Glass Mountains, Texas. Contributions from the
Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research,
14(1): 17-31, plates 3-5.
1965. Late Pennsylvanian Fusulinidae from the Gaptank
Formation, West Texas. Journal of Paleontology,
39 (6): 1151—1176, plates 141-145.
1967. Stratigraphy and Depositional History of the Gap-
tank Formation (Pennsylvanian), West Texas.
Geological Society of America Bulletin, 78:369—384,
4 plates.
Ross, C. A., and S. Oana
1961. Late Pennsylvanian and Early Permian Limestone
Petrology and Carbon Isotope Distribution, Glass
Mountains, Texas. Journal of Sedimentary Petrol¬
ogy, 31 (2):231—244, 4 figures, 2 plates.
Ross, C. A., and J. P. Ross
1963a. Pennsylvanian, Permian Rugose Corals, Glass
Mountains, Texas. Journal of Paleontology,
36 (6): 1163-1188, plates 160-163.
1963b. Late Paleozoic Rugose Corals, Glass Mountains,
Texas. Journal of Paleontology, 37 (2):409-420,
plates 48-50.
Rotai, A. P.
1951. Brachiopodi srednogo karbona Donetzkogo Bas-
seina, Chast 1: Spiriferidae [Brachiopoda of the
Middle Carboniferous of the Donetz Basin, part 1:
Spiriferidae]. Trudy Vsesoyuzhnogo Nauchno-Is-
sledovatelskogo Geologicheskogo Institut [ J'SEGEI ]
(Moscow), 178 pages, 25 plates, 2 tables.
1952. Brachiopody srednego karbona Donetzkogo Bas-
seina, chast 2: Marginifera [Bvachiopods of the
Middle Carboniferous of the Donetz Basin, part
2: Marginifera~\. Trudy Vsesoyuzhnogo Nauchno-
Issledovatelskogo Geologicheskogo Institut [F.SEGE7]
(Moscow), 76 pages, 6 plates, 3 tables.
Rothpletz, August
1892. Die Perm-, Trias-, und Jura- Formation auf Timor
und Rotti im indischen Archipel. Palaeonto-
graphica, 39:57-106, plates 9-14.
Rudwick, M. J. S.
1961. The Feeding Mechanism of the Permian Brachio-
pod Prorichthofenia. Palaeontology, 3 (4):450—471,
plates 72-74.
1964. The Function of Zigzag Deflections in the Com¬
missures of Fossil Brachiopods. Palaeontology,
7 (1): 135-171, plates 21-29.
1968. Some Analytic Methods in the Study of Ontogeny
in Fossils with Accretionary Skeletons. In Paleo-
biological Aspects of Growth and Development, a
Symposium. Paleontological Society Memoir 2,
Journal of Paleontology, 42 (Supplement to 5, part
II of II):35—49, 17 figures.
NUMBER 14
179
Rudwick, M. J. S., and R. Cowen
1968[dated 1967]. The Functional Morphology of Some
Aberrant Strophomenide Brachiopods from the
Permian of Sicily. Bolletino della Societa Palaeon-
tologia Italiana, 6 (2): 113—176, 29 figures, plates
32-43.
Ruzhentsev, V. E.
1950. Upper Carboniferous Ammonites of the Urals.
Akademyia Nauk SSSR, Trudy Paleontologiches-
kogo Instituta, 29: 223, pages.
Ruzhentsev, V. E., and T. G. Sarycheva
1965. Razvitie i Smena Morskikh organizmov na Rubezhe
Paleozoia I Mesozoia [Development and Alteration
of Marine Organisms at the Paleozoic-Mesozoic
Boundary], Akademyia Nauk SSSR, Trudy Pa-
leontologicheskogo Instituta, volume 108, [Brachio¬
pods: pages 198-253].
Rzhonsnitskaya, M. A.
1956a. Semeystvo Pentameridae i sem. Camarotoechiidae
[Family Pentamerdae and Fam. Camarotoechiidae].
In V. K. Khalfina, Atlas Rukovodyashchikh Form
iskopaemykh fauny i flory zapadnoy Sibirii [L. L.
Khalfin, editor, Atlas of Leading Fossil Forms of
Fauna and Flora of Western Siberia ], 1: 502 pages,
85 plates; 2: 320 pages. Zapadno-Sibirskoe Geolog-
icheskoe Upravlenie Tomskii Politekhnicheskii In-
stitut.
1956b. Systematization of Rhynchonellida. In 20th Con-
greso Geologico Internacional Mexico, Resumenes
de los Trabajos Presentados, pages 125-126 [ab¬
stract].
1958. K sistematike rinkhonellid [The Classification of
the Rhynchonellids]. 20th Congreso Geologico In¬
ternacional, Mexico, section 7:107-121.
1959. K Sistematike Rinkhonellid [Systematics of the
Rhynchonellids]. Paleontologicheskii Zhurnal, Ak-
ademiya Nauk SSSR, 1:25—35.
Sadlick, Walter
1963. Quadranetes, a New Carboniferous Chonetid.
Journal of Paleontology, 37 (3):721—723.
1965. Anderidium, a New Term for Lateral Septa of
Chonetids (Brachiopoda). Journal of Paleontology,
39(1)157-159.
Sartenaer, Paul
1961a. Etude nouvelle en deux parties, du genre Camaro-
toechia Hall et Clark, 1893, first part: Atrypa con-
gregata Conrad, Esp£ce-Type (1). Institut Royal
des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique Bulletin, 37 (22):
11 pages, 2 plates.
1961b. Etude nouvelle en deux parties, du genre Cama-
rotoechia Hall et Clark, 1893, 2nd part: Cupularo-
strum recticostatum, n. gen., n. sp. Institut Royal
des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique Bulletin, 37 (25):
15 pages, 2 plates.
Sarycheva, T. G.
1949. Morphology, Ecology and Evolution of the Carbonif¬
erous Productids of the Moscow Basin (Genera
Dictyoclostus, Pugilis and Antiquatonia) . Aka¬
demyia Nauk SSSR, Trudy Paleontologicheskogo
Instituta, 18: 304 pages, 36 plates.
1964. Oldgaminoidnye brakhiopody iz permi Zakavazya
[Oldhaminoid Brachiopods from the Permian of
Trans-Caucasia], Palaeontologicheskii Zhurnal, (3):
58-72, plates 7-8.
Sarycheva, T. G., assistant editor
1960. Osnovi Paleontologii, spravochnik dlya paleontolo-
gov i geologov SSR; Mshanki, Brakhiopody, 343
pages, 82 plates. Isdatelstvo Akademii Nauk.
Sarycheva, T. G., and B. K. Licharew
1960. Nadsemeistvo Productacea [Superfamily Produc-
tacea]. In T. G. Sarycheva, assistant editor, Osnovi
Paleontologii, pages 223-238, figures 203-241.
Sarycheva, T. G., and A. N. Sokolskaja
1952. Opredelital Paleozoiskikh brakhiopod Podmoskov-
noi Kotlovini [A Key to the Paleozoic Brachiopods
of the Moscow Basin], Akadetnyia Nauk SSSR,
Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, 38: 307 pages,
71 plates.
Schellwien, E.
1892. Die fauna des Karnischen Fusulinenkalks, part 1:
Geologische Einleitung und Brachiopoda. Pa-
laeontographica, 39: 56 pages, 8 plates.
1900a. Bcitrage zur Systematik der Strophomeniden des
oberen Palaeozoicum. Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie,
Geologie und Paldontologie (Stuttgart) , 1: 15 pages,
1 plate.
1900b. Die Fauna der Togkofelschichten. In den Karni¬
schen Alpen und den Karawanken, I: Die Brachio-
poden. Abhandlungen des Kaiserlich-koniglichen
Geologischen Reichsanstalt, Wien, 16(1): 122 pages,
15 plates.
Schlaudt, C. M., and K. Young
1960. Acrothoracic Barnacles from the Texas Permian and
Cretaceous. Journal of Paleontology, 34 (5):903—907,
plates 119-120.
Schlotheim, E. F. von
1816. Beitrage zur Naturgeschichte der Versteinerungen.
In geognostische Hinsicht. Akademie der Wissen-
schaften zu Munchen, mathematische-physikalische
Klasse, Denkschrift, 6:13—36.
Schmidt, Hermann
1931. Bau und Anheftungsweise des Brachiopoden Iso¬
gamma aus dem Oberkarbon Kamtens. Palaon-
tologische Zeitschrift, Berlin, 13 (4):278—283, plate
10 .
Schmidt, Herta
1937. Zur Morphogenie der Rhynchonelliden. Sencken-
bergiana, 191 (1 /2):22—69.
Schuchert. Charles
1893. A Classification of the Brachiopoda. American Ge¬
ologist, 11 (3): 141-167.
1905. Catalogue of the Type Specimens of Fossil Inverte¬
brates in the Department of Geology, United States
National Museum. Section 1 in Merrill, Catalogue
of Type Specimens of Fossils, Minerals, Rocks, and
Ores, part 1: Fossil Invertebrates. United States
National Museum Bulletin, 53 (1): 704 pages.
180
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
1913. Brachiopoda. In K. A. von Zittel, (translated and
edited by C. R. Eastman, Text-book of Paleontology,
1 (2nd edition): 355-420, figures 526-636. London:
MacMillan and Co., Ltd.
1927. The Pennsylvanian-Permian Systems of Western
Texas. American Journal of Science, 14 (83):381—
401.
1935. Correlations of the More Important Marine Permian
Sequences. Geological Society of America Bulletin,
46: 46 pages.
1939. Notes on the Brachiopod Genus Cardinocrania.
American Journal of Science, 237:424—428, plate 1.
Schuchert, C., and G. A. Cooper
1932. Brachiopod Genera of the Suborders Orthoidea and
Pentameroidea. Peabody Museum of Natural His¬
tory Memoir, 4(1): 270 pages, plates A, 1-29.
Schuchert, C., and C. M. LeVene
1929. Fossilium Catalogus. 1: Animalia, part 42: Brachio¬
poda. 140 pages. Berlin: W. Junk.
Sellards, E. H.
1932. The Pre-Paleozoic and Paleozoic Systems in Texas.
The University of Texas Bulletin, 3232:15—238, 6
plates.
Shaw, A. B.
1962. Rhynchonellid Brachiopods and a Torynifer from
the Madison Group (Mississippian). Journal of
Paleontology, 36 (4):630-637, figure 1, plates 97-98.
Shumard, B. F.
1869 [1858], Notice of New Fossils from the Permian
Strata of New Mexico and Texas. Collected by Dr.
George G. Shumard of the United States Govern¬
ment Expedition for Obtaining Water by Means
of Artesian Wells along the 32d Parallel, under the
Direction of Capt. John Pope, U.S. Corps Top. Eng.
Academy of Science of St. Louis, Transactions, 1 (2):
108, 113, 290-297.
1860 [1859], Notice of Fossils from the Permian Strata of
Texas and New Mexico, Obtained by the U. S.
Expedition under Capt. John Pope for Boring
Artesian Wells along the 32d Paral., with Descrip¬
tions of New Species from These Strata and the Coal
Measures of That Region. Academy of Science of St.
Louis, Transactions, 1 (3):387—403, plate 11.
Simic. Vasilije
1933. Gornji Perm u zapadnoj Serbiji (Das Oberperm
in Westserbien): Yugoslovia, Rasprave Geoloskog
Instituta Kralj. Service geologique royaume dc
Yougoslavie, Memoirs, 1: 130 pages, 9 plates.
Skinner, J. W.
1940. Upper Paleozoic Section of Chinati Mountains,
Presidio County, Texas. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 24 (1): 180—188.
1946. Correlation of the Permian of West Texas and
Southwest New Mexico. American Association of
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 30 (11): 1857—1874.
Smith, J. P.
1929. The Transitional Ammonoid Fauna of Texas.
American Journal of Science, 5th series, 17:63-80,
3 plates.
Sohn, I. G.
1950. Growth Series of Ostracodes from the Permian of
Texas. United States Geological Survey Professional
Paper, 221C: 33-39.
1954. Ostracoda from the Permian of the Glass Moun¬
tains, Texas. United States Geological Suivey Pro¬
fessional Paper, 264A:l-24, 5 plates.
Sokolskaya, A. N.
1952. See Sarycheva, T. G., and A. N. Sokolskaja, 1952.
1954. Strofomenidy Russkoy Platformy [Strophomenids of
the Russian Platform] Akademyia Nauk SSSR,
Trudy Paleonlologicheskogo Instituta, 15: 191 pages,
18 plates.
1960. Otryad Strophomenida i Nadsemeistvo Chonetacea
[Order Strophomenida and Superfamily Chone¬
tacea]. In T. G. Sarycheva, assistant editor, Osnovi
Paleontologii, pages 206-223, figures 138-202.
1963. In T. G. Sarycheva, A. N. Sokolskaya, G. A. Bez-
nossova, and S. V. Maksimova, Brachiopoda and
Paleogeography of the Carboniferous of the Kuznetz
Basin. Travaux Institute Paleontologie Academie
Science URSS, 95: 547 pages, 64 plates.
Sowerby, James
1821 [1822]. Mineral Conchology. 4: 113 pages, plates
307-383.
Stainbrook, M. A., and R. F. Madera
1941. A Deep Subsurface Permian Fauna from Hockley
County, Texas. Journal of Paleontology, 15 (4):
376-383, plate 55.
Stehli, F. G.
1954. Lower Leonardian Brachiopoda of the Sierra
Diablo. American Museum of Natural History
Bulletin, 105 (3):263—358, plates 18-27.
1955. Notes on Permian Rhynchonellids. Journal of the
Washington Academy of Sciences, 45 (3):69-74, 1
plate.
1956a. Notes on Olhaminid Brachiopods. Journal of Pa¬
leontology, 35 (2):305—313, plates 41, 42.
1956b. Evolution of the Loop and Lophophore in Tere-
bratuloid Brachiopoda. Evolution, 10:187-200.
1956c. A late Triassic Terebratellacean from Peru. Journal
of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 46:101-103.
1957. Possible Permian Climatic Zonation and Its Impli¬
cations. American Journal of Science, 255:607-618.
1961a. New Genera of Upper Paleozoic Terebratuloids.
Journal of Paleontology, 35 (3):457-466, plate 62.
1961b. New Terebratuloid Genera from Australia. Jour¬
nal of Paleontology, 35 (3):451—■456, plate 61.
1965. Paleozoic Terebratulida. In R. C. Moore, editor,
Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, H:730-762,
figures 594-621.
Stepanov, D. L.
1936. Contribution to Knowledge of the Brachiopod
Fauna of Spitzbergen. Leningrad State University
A. S. Bubnof, Annals (Geology, Soil Science and
Geography Series), 9 (2): 114-128, 5 plates.
NUMBER 14
181
1937. O Nekotorikh Verkhekamennougolnikh brakhio-
podakh Urala [On Some Upper Carboniferous
Brachiopods of the Ural], Uchenie ZairslA r
g radskii Universitet, number 16 (Seria Geologo-
Pochvenno-Geographicheskaya) issue 4, volume 3,
144-150.
Stoyanow, Alexander
1910. On a New Genus of Brachiopoda. Academie Im¬
perial Science St. Petersbourg Bulletin, series 6,
4 (11): 853-855.
1915. On Some Permian Brachiopoda of Armenia.
Comite Geologique St. Petersbourg Memoir, new
series, 111: 95 pages, 6 plates.
Strand, E.
1938. Miscellanea nomenclatorica zoologica et palaeonto-
logica, 1—II. Archiv fur Naturgeschichte, Berlin,
92 (A8):37-38.
Stubblefield, C. J.
1960. Sessile Marine Organisms and Their Significance in
Pre-Mesozoic Strata. Geological Society of London,
Quarterly Journal, 116:219-238.
Stuckenberg, A.
1898. Allgemeine geologische Karte von Russland,
Blatt 127. Comite Geologique Memoires 16(1):
362 pages.
Teichert, Curt
1966. Stratigraphic Nomenclature and Correlation of the
Permian “Productus Limestone” of the Salt Range,
West Pakistan. Geological Survey Pakistan Records,
15 (1): 20 pages, 6 figures.
Termier, H., and G. Termier
1957. Contribution a l’^tude des brachiopodes permiens
du Djebel Tebaga (extreme sud Tunisien). So¬
ciety Geologique de France, Bulletin, series 6, 7:197-
214, 8 plates.
1960 [1959]. Contribution a la classification des Brachio¬
podes: le Lophophore des Collolophides nov. ord.
Appendice. Les Oldhamides du Cambodge. So-
cittt Geologique de France, Bulletin, series 7, 1 (3);
241-243.
Termier, Genevieve, Henri Termier, and Daniel Pajaud
1967. Decouverte d’une Thecid^e dans le Permien du
Texas. Comptes Rendus des seances de VAcademie
des Sciences (Paris), series D, 263:332-335.
Thomas, G. A.
1957. Olhaminid Brachiopods in the Permian of Northern
Australia. Palaeontological Society of India, Journal,
2:174-182, plate 20.
1958. The Permian Orthotetacea of Western Australia.
Australia Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology
and Geophysics, Bulletin, 39: 158 pages, 13 figures,
22 plates.
Thomas, H. D.
1935. The Brachiopod Punctospirifer pulchra (Meek).
American Midland Naturalist, 16 (2):203-207, 1
plate.
1937. Plicatoderbya, a New Permian Brachiopod Sub¬
genus. Journal of Paleontology, 11 (1): 13—18, plate
3 .
Thomas, Ivor
1910. British Carboniferous Orthotetinae. Great Britain
Geological Survey Memoir, 1 (2):83—134, plate 13.
Thomson, J. A.
1926. A Revision of the Subfamilies of the Terebratulidae
(Brachiopoda). Annals and Magazine of Natural
History, series 9, 18:523-530.
1927. Brachiopod Morphology and Genera (Recent and
Tertiary). New Zealand Board of Scie?ice and Art,
Manual, 7: vi-|-338 pages, 2 plates.
Tomlinson, J. T.
1969. The Burrowing Barnacles (Cirripedia: Order Acro-
thoracica). United States National Museum Bul¬
letin, 296: v-[-162 pages, 45 figures.
Trautschold, H.
1876. Die Kalkbrueche von Mjatschkova, eine mono¬
graphic des oberen Bergkalks. Societe Impdriale
des Naturalistes de Moscou, Nouveaux Memories,
13 (5):327—374, plates 32-38.
Trenker, W.
1867. Palaontologische Novitaten vom Nordwestlichen
Harze, I: Ibergerkalk und Kohlengebirge von
Grund. Abhandlungen der Naturforschenden
Gesellschaft zu Halle, 10 (1): 3—60, 4 plates.
Tschernyschew, T. N.
1888 [1889]. Note sur une collection du carbonifere des
environs de la ville de Vladivostok. Russia, Vse-
souiznaia Geologorazvedochnoe Ob’edinenie, Izvestia
[ All-union Geological and Prospecting Institute,
Bulletin ], 7 (22):353-359, 3 figures.
1889. Beschreibung des Central-Urals und des Westab-
hanges. In Allgemeine geologische Karte von
Russland, Blatt 139. Comite Geologique Mdmoires,
3 (4): 393 pages, 7 plates.
1902. Die obercarbonischen Brachiopoden des Ural und
des Timan. Comite Geologique St. Petersbourg,
Memoire, 16(2): 749 pages, atlas, 63 plates.
1914. Die Fauna der oberpalaeozoischen Ablagerungen
des Darvas. Comite Geologique St. Petersbourg,
Memoire, new series, 104: 66 pages, 10 plates.
Tschernyschew, T. N., and P. Stepanow
1916. Obercarbonfauna von Konig Oscars und Heibergs
Land. In Report of the Second Norwegian Arctic
Expedition in the “Fram” 1898—1902. Videnskabs-
Selskabet i Kristiania, 4(34): 67 pages, 12 plates.
Tyrrell, W. W„ Jr.
1969. Criteria Useful in Interpreting Environments of
Unlike but Time-equivalent Carbonate Units
(Tansill-Capitan-Lamar), Capitan Reef Complex,
West Texas and New Mexico. Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publica¬
tion (Tulsa), 14.
Udden, J. A.
1904. The Geology of the Shatter Silver Mine District,
Presidio County, Texas. Texas University Mineral
Survey Bulletin, 8: 60 pages, map.
1917. Notes on the Geology of the Glass Mountains
University of Texas Bulletin, 1753:3-59.
182
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
Udden, J. A., C. L. Baker, and E. Bose
1916. Review of the Geology of Texas. University of
Texas Bulletin, 44: 164 pages, map.
Ulrich, E. O., and G. A. Cooper
1936. New Silurian Brachiopods of the Family Triple-
siidae. Journal of Paleontology, 10 (5):331—347,
plates 48-50.
Ustritsky, V. I.
1963. In V. I. Ustritsky and G. E. Cherniak, Biostrati-
grafiia i Brakhiopody Verkhnogo Paleoziia Taimyra
[Biostratigraphy and Brachiopods of the Upper
Paleozoic of Taimyr]. Nauchno-issledovatelskogo
Institut geologii Arktiki, Trudy, 134: 139 pages.
Vanuxem, Lardner
1842. Geology of New York, part 3: Comprising the Sur¬
vey of the Third Geological District. In Natural
History of New York. 306 pages. Albany.
Verneuil, E. de
1845. Paleontologie, mollusques, brachiopodes. In R. I.
Murchison, E. de Verneuil, and A. de Keyserling,
Geologie de la Russie d’Europe et des Montagues
de I’Oural, 2 (3): 17-395, 43 plates. London: John
Murray; Paris: Bertrand.
Waagen, W. H.
1882 [1885]. Salt Range Fossils, part 4: (2) Brachiopoda.
Palaeontologia Indica, Memoir, series 13, 1:329-
770, plates 25-86 [ (l):329-390, plates 25-28, De¬
cember 1882; (2):391-546, plates 29-49, August
1883; (3):547-610, plates 50-57, May 1884; (4):611-
728, plates 58-81, December 1884; (5):729-770,
plates 82-86, July 1885].
Walter, J. C., Jr.
1953. Paleontology of the Rustler Formation, Culberson
County, Texas. Journal of Paleontology, 27(5):679-
702, plates 70-73.
Wang, Y.
1955. New Genera of Brachiopods. Scientia Sinica, 4(2):
327-357, 6 plates.
Wanner, Johannes, and Hertha Sieverts
1935. Zur kenntnis der permischen Brachiopoden von
Timor, 1: Lyttoniidae und ihre biologische und
stammes-geschichtlichc Bedeutung. Jahrbuch fur
Mineralogie, Geologic und Paldontologie, Beilage-
Band, 74 (B):201-281, 4 plates.
Watson, D. M. S.
1917. Poikilosakos, a Remarkable New Genus of Brachio¬
pods from the Upper Coal-measures of Texas.
Geological Magazine, new series, 4:212-219, plate 14.
Waterhouse, J. B.
1964. Permian Brachiopods of New Zealand. New Zea¬
land Geological Survey Palaeontological Bulletin,
35: 288 pages, 81 figures, 37 plates.
1968. New Species of Megousia Muir-Wood and Cooper
and Allied New Genus from the Permian of Aus¬
tralia and North America. Journal of Paleontology,
42 (5):1171-1185, plates 154-156.
Weller, J. M.
1944. Permian Trilobite Genera. Journal of Paleon¬
tology, 18 (4):320-327.
Weller, Stuart
1910. Internal Characters of Some Mississippian Rhyn-
chonelliform Shells. Geological Society of America
Bulletin, 21:497-516, 18 figures.
1914. The Mississippian Brachiopoda of the Mississippi
Valley Basin. Geological Survey of Illinois, Mono¬
graph, 1: 508 pages, 83 plates.
White, C. A., and O. St. John
1867. Descriptions of New Subcarboniferous Fossils, Col¬
lected upon the Geological Survey of Iowa; Together
with a Notice of New Generic Characters Involved
in Two Species of Brachiopoda. Chicago Academy of
Science, Transactions, 1:115-127.
Whitfield, R. P.
1908. Notes and Observations on Carboniferous Fossils
and Semifossil Shells, Brought Home by Members
of the Peary Expedition of 1905—1906. American
Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 24:51-58, 4
plates.
Wilde, G. L.
1962. Lower Permian Biostratigraphic Relationships and
Sedimentation in Leonardian Facies of the Sierra
Diablo Region, West Texas. Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Permian Basin
Section, Guidebook, Publication, 62-7:68-77.
1968. In G. L. Wilde and R. G. Todd, Guadalupian Bio-
stratigraphic Relationships and Sedimentation in
the Apache Mountain Region, West Texas, part 1:
Surface Correlations. Symposium and Guidebook,
1968 Field Trip, Permian Basin Section, Society of
Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Publi¬
cation, 68-11:10—24.
Williams, Alwyn
1953a. The Classification of the Strophomenoid Brachio¬
pods. Journal of the Washington Academy of
Sciences, 43(1): 13 pages, 13 figures.
1953b. The Morphology and Classification of the Old-
haminid Brachiopods. Journal of the Washington
Academy of Sciences, 43 (9):279-287, 3 plates.
1962. The Barr and Lower Ardmillan Series (Caradoc) of
the Girvan District, South-west Ayrshire, with De¬
scriptions of the Brachiopoda. Geological Society
of London, Memoir, 3: 267 pages, 25 plates.
Williams, Alwyn, et al.
1965. Brachiopoda. Part H in R. C. Moore, editor,
Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, 927 pages,
746 figures. Geological Society of America and
University of Kansas Press.
Williams, J. S.
1938. Pre-Congress Permian Conference in the U.S.S.R.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bul¬
letin, 22 (6):771—776.
1939. Lower Permian of the Type Area, U.S.S.R. Journal
of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 29 (8):351—
353.
1943. Stratigraphy and Fauna of the Louisiana Limestone
of Missouri. United States Geological Survey Pro¬
fessional Paper, 203: 133 pages, 9 plates.
NUMBER 14
183
Williams, T. E.
1963. Fusulinidae of the Hueco Group (Lower Permian),
Hueco Mountains, Texas. Peabody Museum of Nat¬
ural History Bulletin, 18: viii-f-122 pages, 10 figures,
25 plates.
Yanagida, Juichi
1964. Permian Brachiopods from Central Thailand.
Kyushu University Faculty of Science Memoir, series
D (Geology), 15 (1): 22 pages, 3 plates.
1967. Contributions to the Geology and Paleontology of
Southeast Asia, xxxv: Permian Brachiopods from
North-central Thailand. Geology and Palaeontology
of Southeast Asia, 3:16-97, plates 11-23.
Yochelson, E. L.
1954. Some Problems Concerning the Distribution of the
Late Paleozoic Gastropod Omphalotrochus. Science,
120 (3110):233-234.
1956. Permian Gastropoda of the Southwestern United
States, 1: Euomphalacea, Trochonematacea, Pseu-
dophoracea, Anomphalacea, Craspedostomatacea,
and Platyceratacea. American Museum of Natural
History Bulletin, 110 (3):177—275, plates 9-24.
1960. Permian Gastropoda of the Southwestern United
States, 3: Bellerophontacea and Patellacea. American
Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 119 (4):209—
293, plates 46-47.
Young, Addison
1960. Paleozoic History of the Fort Stockton-Del Rio
Region, West Texas. In Aspects of the Geology
of Texas: A Symposium. University of Texas Pub¬
lication, 6017:87—109.
Zugmayer, H.
1880. Untersuchungen fiber rhatische Brachiopoden.
Beitrdge Paldontologie und Geologie Osterreich-
Ungarns Orients, 1: 42 pages, 4 plates.
PLATES 1-23
186
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 1
1. Acidizing laboratory of the National Museum of Natural History, showing tubs along the
wall and carboys of acid on small tables beside them: Stainless steel tank in middle ground
is for washing the decalcified residues.
2. Placing block in the acid tub by means of a hoist picturesquely called a “shoplifter."
3. Profile of the Wolf Camp Hills, showing dip of about 10° to the northwest: Low knob
on the right is composed of the Gray (bed 2) Limestone of P. B. King. The long slope in
the background is composed of the same limestone. The valley in the middle ground repre¬
sents the position of the t/ddem'fes-bearing Shale Member and the long slope on the left is
formed by Neal Ranch Formation (beds 12-14 of P. B. King — beds 9—12 of Cooper and
Grant): View is from southwest'about 3 miles northeast of Hess Ranch house. (Hess Canyon
quadrangle.)
4. Sierra del Norte about due west of the site of the Old Payne Ranch: Lower part of moun¬
tain comprises Cathedral Mountain Formation, but the greater part is the Word Forma¬
tion, sandstone and limestone, overlain by the Cretaceous, which forms the crest of the
mountain. (Monument Spring quadrangle.)
5. Sullivan Peak at the north end of Cathedral Mountain, composed of Capitan Formation
(dolomite) underlain by sandstone and limestone of the Word Formation: The spur in
front of the peak is formed by the Road Canyon Formation (USNM 707e) and the low
hill in front of the spur is composed of the Cathedral Mountain Formation with topmost
Skinner Ranch Formation at its base. (Altuda quadrangle.)
&X f '
■
■ .. .,.: , 1
#§ 111 ®
/'/'■' •]
. ;:-V" /<'/;-■ J
iM;
?0- 1
fyW'l
A 1'" f/J
. j
'»*? & W'jJis X
■ W/mmSBBl y, ■
flMw /J
■V//Tmk "S/mt/A ■
WP-M$wn ” - ' *
WMam?' '' k w r M
Haft* kT_ jaWT ffil
m ^. -
: v;
WtwEmtfm" ■ %
/£>
T ’jB$m?3- ■ ’ //& SU’ntW** '
•- £ 'A V
i-WyWM'f/W
’z' qY<W %$,&/'. ’/TV*, I > • ]
188
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 2
1. West side of Leonard Mountain, showing the type section of the Skinner Ranch Forma¬
tion at the north end, or left, of the picture: Scacchinella beds of the Skinner Ranch
Formation appear at the base of the mountain on the left of the ravine. These beds can
be traced southward up the mountain side for a considerable distance. Under them ap¬
pears a slope formed by shaly beds of the Lenox Hills Formation. The highest point in the
picture is formed of Cathedral Mountain Formation shaly beds with interbedded lime¬
stone containing Institella (USNM 724m). This is the only Leonardian shale on the moun¬
tain. The limestone capping the leftmost knob and containing Institella is assigned to the
Cathedral Mountain Formation. Under this is the complete type section of the Skinner
Ranch Formation. (Altuda quadrangle: see text Figure 14.)
2. South face of the Wolf Camp Hills: The high bluff in the center (hill 5060) is capped
by the Gray Limestone or Bed 2 of P. B. King. Under it is the Uddenites -bearing Shale
Member (USNM 701e), which rests on the uppermost limestone ledge of the Gaptank For¬
mation. At the extreme left is a knob formed by the Gray Limestone, which marks the west
side of the entrance to Geologists Canyon. The dark limestone bed between this knob and
the center hill (5060) is the topmost, heavy, bedded layer of the Gaptank Formation. The
hills forming a wall in the background are composed of the Hess Formation. (Center of
Hess Canyon quadrangle; see text Figure 4.)
3. East end of the Lenox Hills on the west of the road to Sullivan (Yates) Ranch (view toward
north): The spur or low hill on the right is composed of Poplar Tank Member of the
Skinner Ranch Formation capped by the Sullivan Peak Member forming thick, solid ledges.
The Decie Ranch Member is on the floor of the basin at the base of the hill. In the higher
hills on the left the Decie Ranch Member, forming the lowest conspicuous ledge, is in
seeming continuity with the Sullivan Peak Member forming the top of the spur. A fault
near the break in slope between the two hills throws the spur downward to bring about
this relationship. The second or highest conspicuous ledge is the Sullivan Peak Member,
here very thick and containing bioherms with Scacchinella. The two highest knobs on the
left and the highest parts of the hills are the lower beds of the Cathedral, Mountain Forma¬
tion, made up of orange-yellow, siliceous, shaly rock. (Altuda quadrangle: USNM 707, see
text Figure 10.)
i§tip
'
rf V; V • -v;
■ ,r -V'.,’
190
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 3
1. Hess Ranch Horst viewed from the west, showing an unbroken section of the Lenox Hills
Formation: The conspicuous ledges are formed of limestone conglomerate. (Hess Canyon
quadrangle.)
2. West side of Hess Ranch Horst just west of hill 5816, showing the gigantic cross-bedding in
the conglomerates of the Lenox Hills Formation. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
3. Lenox Hills limestone conglomerate at the northeast base of Leonard Mountain and
about 1 mile northwest of Hess Ranch. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
4. Capping ledge of massive Road Canyon Formation (USNM 710u), overlying thick, upper
Cathedral Mountain shale that contains Perrinites, about 2 miles southeast of Sullivan
Peak. (Altuda quadrangle.)
wmm
. •' -W-Ji -:A *V J
192
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 4
1. The “ Uddenites saddle,” Uddenites-bcaxing Shale Member forming a saddle between two
exposures of the Gray (bed 2) Limestone of I’. B. King, one forming the capping ledge of
the knob on the left and (he other dipping off to the north on the right. The saddle
between the limestone ledges is the famous locality for Uddenites and other ammonites
(USNM 701 u), west end of the Wolf Camp Hills. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
2. Looking east from the saddle on the east side of hill 5060, Wolf Camp Hills, showing the
Uddenites-beaxing Shale Member in profile: The back slope on the extreme left is the
Gray Limestone of P. B. King, and the limestone at the very crest of the highest point is
the uppermost limestone of the Uddeniles-beaxix\g Shale Member. The lowest limestone
ledge is the top of the Gaptank Formation. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
3. Mosaic in Neal Ranch Formation, formed by compaction of thin calcarenite over subjacent
bioherms (USNM 701h), west side of Wolf Camp Hills. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
4. Beds 12—14 of P. B. King (9—12 of Cooper and Grant) in the middle ground and the upper
shale of the Neal Ranch Formation, forming the slope on the left and capped by the Lenox
Hills Conglomerate, center Wolf Camp Hills. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
M W
iiHSB
'■■■-'-i :< '’JBFSb
I'WKlT^T
• $
m . ■
194
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 5
1. Bioherm with Coscinophora in the Sullivan Peak Member of the Skinner Ranch Formation
on the east side of Dugout Mountain (USNM 733j): The cold chisel points to specimens
of Coscinophora; other specimens lie near the edge of the block just under the chisel. This
part of the bioherm was taken into the laboratory and decalcified. The result is shown on
Plate 129 [volume II] (Monument Spring quadrangle.)
2. Bed 4 (of P. B. King) of the Neal Ranch Formation at the west end of the Wolf Camp
Hills: View includes USNM 701—1 and 727e. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
3. View from the east, showing Sullivan Peak in the right middle ground: The long spur
extending through the center to the left is underlain by the Road Canyon Formation
(USNM 707e) and overlain by lower Word shale. (Altuda quadrangle.)
4. Small butte capped by the Decie Ranch Member of the Skinner Ranch Formation and im¬
mediately overlying shale of the Lenox Hills Formation: The shale is underlain by nearly
400 feet of Lenox Hills Conglomerate. View is about 0.25 mile south of hill 4902 at south
end of the Lenox Hills. (Altuda quadrangle.)
'a&t y
m-i »\ -'
& . riH
;'v ^ I
m
Sy>; ■ j
!
Bfr-<-, (- > S£V ■* J
f*J'V ■
f. fv
t> •* '■:■■• mMffiiimk mSR
i - ■ ■
XU C sj
Jx ^’l i % ;V*•?•. V-,
MPii, s 4
f ‘ • *VwhX&TJH,&‘ <Wr
fr?¥Mni
M #Wvi-i. >v J '.,JJ aAv . aV/#S
|§ip|lp
196
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 6
1. Southwest face of Leonard Mountain, south end, showing thickening limestones and sec¬
ondary dolomites: The farthest right ledges of massive dolomite belong in the lower part
of the Skinner Ranch Formation. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
2. Skinner Ranch Formation (Sullivan Peak Member) on the southwest side of Dugout Moun¬
tain (USNM 722—1), showing thick limestone beds. (Monument Peak quadrangle.)
3. East side of Leonard Mountain, seen from near Hess Ranch House: The soft lower slopes
on the left are Gaptank shale and are overlain by massive limestone conglomerate of the
Lenox Hills Formation. The two conical knobs on the left side of the mountain are com¬
posed of dolomite, and the saddle between them is Lenox Hills shale rich in fusulinids.
The farthest right and stratigraphically highest dolomite knob is lower Skinner Ranch
Formation, containing Schwagerina crassitectoria Dunbar and Skinner. The highest part of
the mountain in the middle background is Skinner Ranch Formation capped by a thin
layer of Cathedral Mountain shale with Jnstitella at the highest part of the mountain. (Hess
Canyon quadrangle; sec text Figures 15, 18.)
me*
:; : / ■■ >, (
m ■
st’m!
hj- t r?
., -jr 1 "/'«•%;> Ve. y 1 1 > %k
\w
'- i'^f- /-' •
$. 'M'fil'&tw tj&'w
Igf, K ■
sasaaSw' t?
I
£ / V;
SSSf%;'i bmse
H)< a*
BteA k \sL . vSB
- 'St - «
• _-,. ■ r-’M—
■H K U
> : & - vpyrfAl
KScsp'. •wr i
SjL- ■ '
>: * ‘
f
K&h|
UK'* >>• y®
198
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 7
1. Massive limestone of the Cathedral Mountain Formation, Wedin Member (just under the
highest knob in the hill on the extreme left of figure 3 below): This is USNM 727p, which
produced Agelesia, Institella, and associated fossils of the Cathedral Mountain Formation.
Hill capped by the 5250-foot closed contour about 0.25 mile south-southwest of hill 5300.
(Altuda quadrangle.)
2. Clay slide, a gash in the face of the hill just south of hill 4910, showing the soft blue shale
of the upper part of the Cathedral Mountain Formation: The limestone capping the hill
is Road Canyon Formation. (Altuda quadrangle.)
3. Panorama of the Lenox Hills toward northeast, from hill capped by the closed 5250-foot
(extreme left), 0.25 mile south-southwest of hill 5300. The lowest prominent ledge is the
Decie Ranch Member (LLSNM 707a), and the next higher prominent ledge is the Sullivan
Peak Member with the Poplar Tank Member between them, all constituting the Skinner
Ranch Formation. Overlying the Sullivan Peak Member is the Cathedral Mountain Forma¬
tion with the Wedin Member (LiSNM 727p) just below the prominent knob (hill 5250)
on the left. The crest of the knob is formed by Third Limestone Member of the Leonard
Formation of P. B. King. Along the base of the scarp, on the right and extending to the
middle, are ledges of Lenox Hills conglomerate. The slope under the Decie Ranch Member
is composed of Lenox Hills shale. (Altuda quadrangle; see text Figures 9, 12.)
200
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 8
1. Hill just east of the Hess Ranch house displaying nearly 1000 feet of the Hess Formation
that overlies the Lenox Hills conglomerate at the base of the hills: Low foothills on the
right are Wolf Camp Hills in profile (see text Figure 18; Plate 1: figure 3). Distance from
left to right is about 3.5 miles. (Hess Canyon cpiadrangle.)
2. South face of Leonard Mountain: Low hills at base of mountain are toreva blocks of
Lenox Hills Formation. The lowest limestone in place in the mountain belongs to the
Gaptank Formation; medial massive beds are conglomerates and limestones of the Lenox
Hills Formation; high cliffs are of Skinner Ranch Formation here massively dolomitized.
No Leonardian beds (Cathedral Mountain) are visible on this side of the mountain. (Hess
Canyon quadrangle; see text Figure 18.)
3. Panorama in the Sierra Diablo: Victorio Peak is the mountain mass on the left; Corn
Ranch at left base of mountain (two white spots) and the cliffs on the right are along
Victorio Canyon on the south of wall (USNM 728e). USNM 728f is 0.5 mile south (left)
of the canvon mouth. The lowest massive beds are the Skinner Ranch equivalents in the
Bone Spring Formation. Below these is the Hueco Formation. Above them is the thin-
bedded basinal Bone Spring Formation. The massive beds capping the mountains on the
left and right are dolomitic limestones of the Victorio Peak Formation. (Van Horn [30']
quadrangle.)
3
202
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 9
1. Cherty limestone at the top of the Taylor Ranch Member of the Hess Formation (USNM
7l6o), 1.5 miles south of Old Word Ranch. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
2. Poplar Tank Member of the Skinner Ranch Formation, forming the south slope of hill
4801 beneath the Sullivan Peak Member of the Skinner Ranch Formation, south end of
the Lenox Hills: The Poplar Tank Member is predominantly shaly, but it contains thin,
blocky, sandy-to-conglomeratic limestone beds. (Monument Spring quadrangle.)
3. Profile view, showing the entire thickness of the Decie Ranch Member at its type section,
overlying Lenox Hills shale, about 1 mile east-northeast of hill 4801, south end of the Lenox
Hills. (Boundary between Altuda and Monument Springs quadrangles.)
4. Specimens wrapped in burlap and banded, ready for shipment: Banding with steel tape
proved to be the most efficient and safest method of wrapping for shipment. (Marathon,
Texas.)
v* :
|^:v3j
'■ T®
l>" 1
*jv \H4
.'Ik' A '.x . • m||
p> / "
Ml : J
I '’ ' ' ! i
E -: : f
Wi.
0fim
jl cA.
JJf
- W' : - 1
-f-Hf
IJ 7 ■.
M.n
Vpg
r^P
EH H; i
;pr?v <
■»i A ^
ay ysjy k ^
'J X|
' r* ralMlUt
, a ' i^r.w'
h v~ .r tr»
K«-V' t?
PXA'i m -^v'-,' V
i H /
yjy
204
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 10
1. Hill 5021 (center knob) of Dccic Brothers Hill, one of the significant points in Glass Moun¬
tains stratigraphy: The extreme left hill contains Lenox Hills Formation in the lower
part. The lowest ledge is the Decie Ranch Member, and the capping ledge is the Sullivan
Peak Member. Between them is a considerably thinned Poplar Tank Member. To the
right (east), the two limestone members converge and unite to form the undivided Skinner
Ranch Formation. (Altuda quadrangle; see text Figure 11.)
2. View of hill 5021 from the south, with the peak 5021 on the light: The peak on the left
corresponds to the extreme left knob in the previous picture. The saddle is formed of the
Decie Ranch Member (USNM 708q), a prolific place to collect Scacchinella. The Decie
Ranch and Sullivan Peak Members merge in the hill to the right (5021).
3. View from the south of the west or left knob of hill 5021 (Decie Brothers Hill): The white
limestone at the base of the hill in the middle ground of the picture is a toreva block
of the Decie Ranch Member of the Skinner Ranch Formation. This block produced the
best of the silicified Scacchinella (USNM 707w). The slope above the light-colored bed con¬
sists of Pennsylvanian sandy shale, Lenox Hills Formation, Decie Ranch Member (first
dark band), the Poplar Tank Member, and the capping ledge formed by the Sullivan Peak
Member. (Altuda quadrangle; see text Figure II.)
4. Full section of the Decie Ranch Member seen in profile (USNM 715a), Dugout Mountain.
(Monument Spring quadrangle.)
may'.
- ‘ •
friac*. >:. ^MyjPagQB
BMSB
IM§
^S^i-JT JU33D
il
are*
Wn
for
P-i:
tSmy
206
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 11
]. Conglomerate lying on the west side of the large bioherm in hill 4801 at the south end of
the Lenox Hills: In the upper right the massive rock of the bioherm may be seen (see
Plate 18: figures 1—3). The boulders contain the same fossils as the bioherm (.Scacchinelln
and Geyerella) and were undoubtedly derived from the bioherm or others like it.
2. Bioherm containing abundance of Scacchinelta (L'SNM 714p): In the deep ravine on the
northeast side of Leonard Mountain, 0.2 mile north-northeast of bench mark 5860. (Hess
Canyon quadrangle.)
3. Polished surface of biohermal limestone, Neal Ranch Formation, from USNM 701 h, show¬
ing cross-sections of sponges, detrital matter, and some laminated limestone, possibly algal,
Wolf Camp Hills. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
4. View of the Sullivan Peak conglomerate at the south end of the Lenox Hills in hill 4801,
showing an enormous boulder about 4 feet in long diameter. (Monument Spring quad¬
rangle.)
■fcW&m
yor- - Tmfrsgajt,
.Jfcv j - w
s v*'c-3tyr *L-$' c- v £, x /'’y < -'^H
r.br-js+J . -JPl • ^ .fc -*A. -
•7-*'•. <>*>** V '*’>■' Ji* r " ■
J^5
gEfi&SK
!V**P®lt!Ti
1 • -^V.fV %-' >^|
: * rTV*; ^ 7 r ^ ..^v :Ca -"..
y < -.;. y.
i.
vs£^ * j9‘*f r r -riffsyp^
jSkgj
75**5S2r^ fr/ ’Pi.^
* j£*v '-> #'£'- jgj iLt;.. a-.
B ;■
'• Vr.-' /,'• - '. ;• •'
B • '
&>!&?%j
&<■ Hi.i*
".V®
208
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 12
1. Gigantic crinoid stems with a diameter of more than 2 inches (60 mm) in the Sullivan
Peak Member (USNM 707b), in the small canyon on the south side of hill 4920. (Altuda
quadrangle.)
2. In the foreground, massive and biohermal beds of the basal Lenox Hills Formation [USNM
715b] (Neal Ranch of Ross (1963:23, 24); in the background, the lower dark ledge is
Lenox Hills conglomerate and the capping ledge on the right is Decie Ranch Member of
the Skinner Ranch Formation; Lenox Hills shale lies below the Decie Ranch Member.
Reds of the Lenox Hills conglomerate finger into the limestones of the foreground. View
is toward the south end of the Lenox Hills. (Altuda quadrangle.)
3. Largest hill (5060) of the Wolf Camp Hills, seen in profile: The slope just under the top
ledge is the Uddenites -bearing Shale Member (USNM 701 e). (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
4. Small-pebble conglomerate at the base of the Cathedral Mountain Formation, about 0.5
mile south of Old Word Ranch site. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
WJfWW&rA
mMp'M
■PM'M
'iwUA-li
mBm
210
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 13
1. Hill 4861, showing the nipple-like cap of Road Canyon Formation underlain by Cathedral
Mountain shaly beds: The dark ledge forming an oblique line where the conical hill
broadens is a conglomerate abounding in Perrinites (USNM 732u). (Monument Spring
quadrangle; see Figure 2 below).
2. Close-up of the upper bed of the conglomerate in figure 1 above (hill 4861) with Perrinites
(USNM 732u): See large pebble above hammer handle end. This conglomerate is thought
to be a beach or shallow water deposit into which the large ammonites drifted after death.
(Monument Spring quadrangle.)
3. Thin-bedded bituminous limestone in the lower part of the Road Canyon Formation, op¬
posite (north of) the site of the Old Word Ranch house. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
4. East face of Dugout Mountain: Ledge at right is Lenox Hills conglomerate overlying the
Gaptank Formation, which forms the low'er slopes. The lowest ledge on the left is the
Decie Ranch Member of the Skinner Ranch Formation overlying a 60-foot bed of Lenox
Hills shale that contains a limestone band abounding in ammonites (USNM 715). The
highest part of the mountain on the left is capped by the Sullivan Peak Member of the
Skinner Ranch Formation, overlying shaly beds of the Poplar Tank Member that rest on
the Decie Ranch Member.
jr-
V?' » '
' 4 X > v, >
' * ■ Jk?
.
' '.■=»
K j
- ’•V' : *
.
vSJ -
212
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 14
1. Word Formation (Willis Ranch Member) at its type section in Road Canyon (USNM
724u) about 1 mile up (west) the Canyon from its east mouth. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
2. Cherty, thick-bedded limestone of the Appel Ranch Member of the Word Formation, Ap¬
pel Ranch. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
3. Sandstone stringers in Word Formation (Willis Ranch Member) in Gilliland Canyon,
about 0.75 mile northwest of bench mark 4973. (Altuda quadrangle.)
4. West side of Gilliland Canyon at south end, showing lowest bench capped by the Willis
Ranch Member of the Word Formation: At the extreme left this member (USNM 731m)
extends as a continuous band, but to the west it is identified as discontinuous lenses. (Al¬
tuda quadrangle.)
I I ~
•': ; -• ’.• ‘- . ‘ \f ■ *..,/ : ^
') yyS
■l, -^.-n
f 9
y / ' : m
■r
jfr r/M
L f
, ■
GlJ /$JII
P*'. V .*f
f t k
yjpJI
Rgl . 1
& *i y
If, '
1
BrI .SraSSiife^^^
1
•t-; ''T4fc
1 :
■<s s ?
* ^iiil f f j®#)
214
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 15
1. Cherty limestone of the Appel Ranch Member of the Word Formation, in the north branch
of Hess Canyon, about 2 miles northwest of Appel Ranch (USNM 73 lz). (Hess Canyon
quadrangle.)
2. Road Canyon Formation in Hill 5453, 1.5 miles northwest of Hess Ranch, showing bio-
herms: The locality (USNM 726c) that produced large Perrinites is on the slope on the
left side of the ravine. (Hess Ranch quadrangle.)
3. View looking northeast and taken about 2 miles west of the site of the Old Payne Ranch,
showing low hills at the base of the Sierra del Norte in the background: The three hills
on the right have different sections. The one nearest the edge of the picture is composed
mainly of Cathedral Mountain Formation and is capped by Road Canyon Formation. The
next low hill to the left is composed mostly of Road Canyon Formation, while the large
hill with a long, flat dip slope is composed of Word Formation capped by a 40-foot sand¬
stone; it essentially marks the top of the Word at this place. The conical knob at the
extreme left is hill 4861 (USNM 732u), which is Cathedral Mountain for the most part but
capped by biohermal Road Canyon Formation. This is the locality that produced many
Perrinites from a conspicuous conglomerate in the Cathedral Mountain Formation.
4. Sullivan Peak in the background capped by Capitan dolomite and with a limestone lens
of Willis Ranch Member of the Word Formation in the foreground (USNM 731u): This
is one of the discontinuous lenses mentioned in the legend to Plate 14r figure 4. (Altuda
quadrangle.)
216
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 16
1. Bioherm in the Gaptank Formation, 1.5 miles south of the Arnold Ranch (USNM 700g) ,
containing the earliest species of Scaccliinella and Limbella. (Monument Spring quadrangle.)
2. Small bioherm in the Sullivan Peak Member of the Skinner Ranch Formation in hill 4801
at the south end of the Lenox Hills. (Monument Spring quadrangle.)
3. Small bioherm in the Neal Ranch Formation in bed 12 of P. B. King, containing many
Eolyttonia (USNM 701c), Wolf Camp Hills. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
4. Large bioherm with a face of 80 feet vertical in the Road Canyon Formation on the nose
of hill 5779, 2.4 miles north of Skinner (Iron Mountain) Ranch (USNM 724j) . (East edge
of Altuda quadrangle.)
WpjaSk i .>Sw 7 r& JSriFjJ
"■;< '$/,:’-ffiw
Xvv&u&J: ?>i /
218
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 17
1. Bioherm replete with Hercosia delicata, new species (USNM 726o), near top of Cathedral
Mountain Formation, 1 mile southwest of the site of Old Word Ranch. (Hess Canyon quad¬
rangle.)
2. Massive bioherms at the base of the Road Canyon Formation in the east side of the spur
extending south from Sullivan Peak (USNM 707e): Overlying the bioherms may be seen the
thin-bedded limestone of the main mass of the Road Canyon Formation. (Altuda quad¬
rangle.)
3. Large bioherm in the Road Canyon Formation with lower part on right crowded with the
reef-forming oldhaminid genus Coscinophora (USNM 721 q), 1.8 miles west-northwest of the
Hess Ranch house. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
4. Closeup view of the base of the preceding bioherm, showing abundant Coscinophora.
| : : % W
1 ? . I
220
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 18
1. Hill 4801 at the south end of the Lenox Hills, showing the prominent ledge formed by the
Sullivan Peak Member, which contains large bioherms: The Cathedral Mountain Forma¬
tion forms the conical mound. The Poplar Tank Member forms all the slope from the
base of the hill to the Sullivan Peak Member. The Decie Ranch Member occurs near the
base of the hill. Visible in the Sullivan Peak Member are two large bioherms separated by
a boulder conglomerate. The Sullivan Peak Member to the left of the bioherm at the center
is mostly boulder conglomerate. At the extreme right, the Sullivan Peak Member is dis¬
placed by a small fault. (Monument Spring quadrangle.)
2. Bryozoan masses in the lower middle part of the bioherm and above the crinoidal con¬
glomerate at the base, hill 4801, Lenox Hills. (Monument Spring quadrangle.)
3. The larger bioherm of figure 1 in closer detail, showing its massive character and a por¬
tion overlying the conglomerate bed to its left.
4. Detail at the base of the same large bioherm, showing the conglomerate made up of gi¬
gantic crinoid stems in its lower part. These bioherms commonly start on a conglomeratic
layer or mound before becoming bound by bryozoans, algae, and other reef organisms.
222
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 19
1. Three bioherms, containing Scacchinella, in lower part of the Skinner Ranch Formation
at its type section: West end of Leonard Mountain is about 1 mile north of Skinner (—
Iron Mountain) Ranch. (East side of Altuda quadrangle.)
2. Bioherm, containing numerous individuals of the large cylindrical sponge Heliospongia
(USNM 702d), Taylor Ranch Member of the Hess Formation, 3.8 miles northeast of Hess
Ranch house. (Hess Canyon quadrangle; photo by W. T. Allen.)
3. Slope of hill 4752, containing ammonite beds (USNM 701r), capped by limestone corre¬
lated with upper part of Uddetiites-bearing Shale Member, Montgomery (Conoly Brooks)
Ranch. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
4. Closcup of a bioherm showing great abundance of Scacchinella, north base of Hess Ranch
Horst (USNM 720e). (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
■ 4 *
224
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 20
1. Low knob of hill at USNM 702c with biohermal beds on the crest in the Road Canyon
Formation: Another small bioherm appears on the right side of the picture in the Cathe¬
dral Mountain Formation, about 4 miles, by road, northeast of Hess Ranch house. (Hess
Canyon quadrangle.)
2. Small biohermal mass in the Lenox Hills Formation on Leonard Mountain at elevation of
5425 feet, containing Scacchinella, Tropidelasma, and Parenteletes (USNM 705k). (Hess
Canyon quadrangle.)
3. Biohermal limestone (USNM 702al), containing a mass of Collemataria, 0.5 mile east of
Split Tank. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
4. On the right, light gray biohermal limestone and, on the left, siliceous shaly rock of the
Cathedral Mountain Formation: Cooper stands near the contact of the two, which lie at the
same level, 1 mile southwest of the site of the Old Word Ranch. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
f ■'■• rS
MEL
226
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 21
1. Detail of the surface of a bioherm at U.SNM 703a in the lower part of the Road Canyon
Formation: Photograph shows a section of the brachiopod Edriosteges multispinosus Muir-
Wood and Cooper partially filled with matrix but with mineralized cavity above. The line
of junction is at the regional dip as shown by the Brunton Compass. Such geopctal struc¬
ture indicates that the bioherm is in place and undisturbed. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
2. Bioherm near the contact of the Poplar Tank and Sullivan Peak Members, USNM 708e,
in hill 5300. (Altuda quadrangle.)
3. Profile of the Lenox Hills from the southwest, showing the regional dip of about 10°: The
conical knob on the skyline near the center is hill 5300 in the upper Cathedral Mountain
Formation. (Monument Spring and Altuda quadrangles.)
4. Dugout Mountain from the northeast, showing the long dip slope: The highest point on
the right is held up by the Sullivan Peak Member of the Skinner Ranch Formation. The
small knob on the right is hill 4811, which contains limestone of the Dugout Mountain
Member of the Skinner Ranch Formation. (Monument Spring quadrangle.)
5. Hess Ranch Horst from the south: On the extreme lower left, just above the road lead¬
ing to Old Word Ranch site, is the igneous plug that extends up the ravine to its end. The
face of the hill on the left side of the ravine is Lenox Hills Formation with beds of lime¬
stone conglomerate overlying shale of the Neal Ranch Formation, which forms much of the
ravine. The conical hill on the right side of the ravine is upper Skinner Ranch Member in
fault contact with the Neal Ranch Shale. The Skinner Ranch is overlain by lower Cathedral
Mountain Formation with Institella, and this extends across the road on the right, about 3
miles northeast of Hess Ranch. (Hess Canyon quadrangle.)
06 08 Q*
Im 4*v- ; j
A
is&:fM
j . • ■
i # t& ■ f
1 HB - . 1
1 :J
j |r r. jjft.. J
t if
228
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 22
1. Bold face of El Capitan, composed of the Capitan Limestone Formation resting on Dela¬
ware Mountain Sandstone. (Guadalupe Peak quadrangle.)
2. Small conical hill with elevation of 51S0 feet, about 1 mile south of Pinyon Tank, capped
by Bell Canyon Formation (Hegler Member) and overlying fine-grained yellowish sand¬
stone: USNM 731 is on the nose of the hill facing the viewer. (Guadalupe Peak quad¬
rangle.)
3. Capping ledge of Bell Canyon Formation (Lamar Member), forming a small butte: This
is the site of USNM 728p, and the fossilferous ledge is about 12 feet above the base of the
limestone. The view is about 0.25 mile south of the junction of D-Ranch headquarters
road and U. S. Highway 62-180, 3.25 miles northeast of Hegler ( = Ligon) Ranch, Culber¬
son County.
4. Biohermal limestone (USNM 728-1) in the Cibolo Formation (Brecciated Zone of Udden),
on the south bank of Sierra Alta Creek, about 1 mile east of Cibolo Ranch house, Presidio
County. (Chinati Peak quadrangle.)
t •
'r/i-l'ft
rore-asm ' Mia >
Mr
j
ipfefe^p^
eks!
230
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
PLATE 23
1. View toward northeast up Sierra Alta Creek, showing an igneous plug on the extreme left
and low hills capped by massive limestones of the Brecciated Zone (of Udden), in the
Cibolo Formation: These consist of biohermal limestone masses with Scacchinella and
interbiohermal conglomerates. They rest on shale and thin limestone of the Cibolo Forma¬
tion (Transition Zone of Udden), about 1.5 miles northeast of Cibolo Ranch house. Pre¬
sidio County. (Chinati Peak quadrangle.)
2. Loose block of massive biohermal or reef limestone, containing abundant cross-sections of
Scacchinella (calcite filled and white) in the bed of Sierra Alta Creek, detached from the
bioherms of the Cibolo (Brecciated Zone) masses, about 1 mile northeast of Cibolo Ranch
house, Presidio County. (Chinati Peak quadrangle.)
3. Bluff on the south side of Sierra Alta Creek about 1 mile northeast of Cibolo Ranch house,
Presidio County, showing thick mass of LTdden’s “Breccia Zone" with bioherms of Scac¬
chinella and interbiohermal conglomerate overlying Udden’s "Transition Zone” with large
Scacchinella but containing Wolfcampian fusulinids. (Chinati Peak quadrangle.)
4. Rader Ridge just west of Hegler ( = Ligon) Ranch, with massive reefy Capitan Limestone
Formation in the background and the Rader Ridge in the foreground composed of Bell
Canyon Formation, which consists of Rader and lower members. (Guadalupe Peak quad¬
rangle; USNM 725f.)
wT U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1972-494—320/27
mwm.
Publication in Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology
Manuscripts for serial publications are accepted by the Smithsonian Institution Press, sub¬
ject to substantive review, only through departments of the various Smithsonian museums.
Non-Smithsonian authors should address inquiries to the appropriate department. If submission
is invited, the following format requirements of the Press will govern the preparation of copy.
Copy must be typewritten, double-spaced, on one side of standard white bond paper, with
lyh" top and left margin, submitted in ribbon copy with a carbon or duplicate, and accom¬
panied by the original artwork. Duplicate copies of all material, including illustrations, should
be retained by the author. There may be several paragraphs to a page, but each page should
begin with a new paragraph. Number consecutively all pages, including title page, abstract,
text, literature cited, legends, and tables. The minimum length is 30 pages, including typescript
and illustrations.
The title should be complete and clear for easy indexing by abstracting services. Taxonomic
titles will carry a final line indicating the higher categories to which the taxon is referable:
“(Ammonoidea: Goniatitidae).” Include an abstract as an introductory part of the text.
Identify the author on the first page of text with an unnumbered footnote that includes his
professional mailing address. A table of contents is optional. An index, if required, may be
supplied by the author when he returns page proof.
Two headings are used: (1) text heads (boldface in print) for major sections and
chapters and (2) paragraph sideheads (caps and small caps in print) for subdivisions. Further
headings may be worked out with the editor.
In taxonomic keys, number only the first item of each couplet; if there is only one couplet,
omit the number. For easy reference, number also the taxa and their corresponding headings
throughout the text; do not incorporate page references in the key.
In synonymy, use the short form (taxon, author, date:page) with a full reference at the
end of the paper under “Literature Cited.” Begin each taxon at the left margin with sub¬
sequent lines indented about three spaces. Within an entry, use a period-dash (.—) to separate
each reference. Enclose with square brackets any annotation in, or at the end of, the entry.
For references within the text, use the author-date system: “(Jones, 1910)” and “Jones
(1910).” If the reference is expanded, abbreviate the data: “Jones (1910:122, pi. 20: fig. 1).”
Simple tabulations in the text (e.g., columns of data) may carry headings or not, but they
should not contain rules. Formal tables must be submitted as pages separate from the text, and
each table, no matter how large, should be pasted up as a single sheet of copy.
Use the metric system instead of, or in addition to, the English system.
Illustrations (line drawings, maps, photographs, shaded drawings) can be intermixed
throughout the printed text. They will be termed Figures and should be numbered con¬
secutively; however, if a group of figures is treated as a single figure, the components should
be indicated by lowercase italic letters on the illustration, in the legend, and in text references:
“Figure 9b.” If illustrations (usually tone photographs) are printed separately from the text as
full pages on a different stock of paper, they will be termed Plates, and individual components
should be lettered (Plate 9b) but may be numbered (Plate 9: figure 2). Never combine the
numbering system of text illustrations with that of plate illustrations. Submit all legends on
pages separate from the text and not attached to the artwork. An instruction booklet for the
preparation of illustrations is available from the Press on request.
In the bibliography (usually called “Literature Cited”), spell out book, journal, and
article titles, using initial caps with all words except minor terms such as “and, of, the.” For
capitalization of titles in foreign languages, follow the national practice of each language.
Underscore (for italics) book and journal titles. Use the colon-parentheses system for volume,
number, and page citations: “10(2) :5-9.” Spell out such words as “figures,” “plates,” “pages.”
For free copies of his own paper, a Smithsonian author should indicate his requirements
on “Form 36” (submitted to the Press with the manuscript). A non-Smithsonian author will
free copies; order forms for quantities above this amount with instructions for
payment will be supplied when page proof is forwarded.
■
mtm "
A- ■'
*•={. Wm§k ■'■ ^ ■ = .:'?■ if"
■
rnm^ ^ - :v «f. Ji tfJri
■ S ■> • <«JL
€#/*&#'"'■ ' 4? :M* ,iv-m:c-
',*»'■■■?■'' •;/%> -; >»,.; Sg -;,;
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11