J. 2

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BULLETIN

OF THE

UNITED STATES

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

No. 83

30830

C3RKELATION PAPERS EOCENK.

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1891

DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR

BULLETIN

OF THE

UNITED STATES

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

No. 83 SO 8 50

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PKINXINO OFFICE 

1891

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

J. W. POWELL, DIRECTOR

CORRELATION PAPERS

EOCENE

BY

WILLIAM BULLOCK CLARK

30850

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1891

CONTENTS.

Letter of transmittal........................................................ 9

Outline of this paper.................. ...................................... 11

Preface..................................................................... 13

Introduction............................................................. .. 15

Atlantic and Gulf Coast region .............. ................................ 17

Preliminary remarks.................................................... 17

Historical sketch........................................................ 17

General boundaries ..................................................... 38

Stratigraphical and paleoutological characteristics....................... 39

General remarks .................................................... 39

New Jersey ......................................................... 40

Delaware............................................................ 43

Maryland........................................................... 43

Virginia.... ........................................................ 46

North Carolina.............. ........................................ 48

South Carolina...................................................... 50

Georgia........................ ..................................... 54

Florida.......................................................... .... 55

Alahama ............................................................ 57

Mississippi ......................................................... 66

Tennessee ...................... .................................... 70

Kentucky........................................................... 71

Illinois ............................................................. 73

Missouri...........................1................................ 73

Arkansas ................................................... g .. ...... 74

Louisiana...... ..................................................... 75

Texas .............................................................. 76

Correlation of deposits .................................................. 79

New Jersey..................................................... 80

Maryland........................................................ 80

Virginia................. ........................................ 80

North Carolina .............................___.............. 81

South Carolina.................................................. 82

Georgia............. ............................................ 82

Florida......................................................... 82

Alahama................ .......... .............................. 83

Mississippi.............................:.._..................... 83

Mississippi embay uiont................ .................... ...... 83

Louisiana ....................................................... 84

Texas.................i......................................... 84

Tabular representation of the Geological range of the Eocene in

the Atlantic and Gulf Coast region ............................ 85

5
6 CONTENTS.

Fage. 

Atlantic and Gulf Coast region Continued.

Provisional division into provinces ...... ................................ 85

New Jersey province............................................ 85

Maryland-Virginia province..................................... 80

Carolina-Georgia province ........................'.. ............ 87

Gulf province................................................... 87

Comparisons with European deposits .................................... 88

Appendix............................................................... 90

The Brandon formation ............................. ................ 90

Vermont........................................................ 92

Pennsylvania................................................... 93

Georgia...........................j. ............................ 93

Pacific Coast region..... .......................................-.»>........ 95

Preliminary remarks ............. ........................................ 95

Historical sketch........................................................ 96

Stratigraphical and paleontological characteristics....................... 100

Tejon group .................................................... 100

Piiget group .................................................... 107

Grounds for the reference of the Tejon and Puget groups to the Eocene... 108

Interior region.............................................................. Ill

Preliminary remarks.................................................... Ill

Historical sketch ....................................................... Ill

Stratigraphical and paleontological characteristics........................ 131

General remarks ...................................................... 131

Laraniie group...................................................... 132

Fort Union beds .................................................... 135

Bear River Estuary beds............................................. 135

Arapaho beds....................................................... 135

Denver beds........................................................ 13G

Middle Park beds................................................... 137

Puercobeds......................................................... 137

Wasatch group ..................................................... 139

Green River group........................ ............ ...... ........ 140

Wind River group .................................................. 140

Manti beds.......................................................... 141

Amyzon beds ....................................................... 141

Bridger group....................................................... 141

Huerfano beds ...................................................... 142

TJinta group ........................................................ 143

Summary of correlative evidence........................................ 141

Table showing the relative position of the Interior deposits in the Eocene

series................................................................. 14G

Bibliography ............................................................... 148

Atlantic and Gulf Coast region .......................................... 148

Pacific Coast region.................................................... 155

Interior region.......................................................... 156

Index ..................................................................... 161
ILLUSTRATIONS,

Paga 

Plate I. Map of Alabama, showing the distribution of Eocene strata......... 60

II. Distribution of the Eocene in the United States .................... 146

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 

DIVISION OF GEOLOGIC CORRELATION,

Washington, D. 0., June 1, 1891.

SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith an essay by Dr. William 

B. Clark on the Eocene of the United States, prepared for publication 

as a bulletin.

The Division of Geologic Correlation was created for the purpose 

of summarizing existing knowledge with reference to the geologic 

formations of North America, and especially of the United States; of 

discussing the correlation of the formations found in different parts of 

the country with one another, and with formations in other countries; 

and of discussing the principles of geologic correlation in the light of 

American phenomena. The formations of each geologic period were 

assigned to some student already well acquainted with them, and it 

was arranged that he should expand his knowledge by study of the 

literature and by field examination of classic localities, and embody his 

results in an essay. The general plan of the work has been set forth 

on page 16 of the Ninth Annual Eeport of the Survey, and on pages 

108 to 113 of the Tenth Annual Eeport, as well as in a letter of transmittal to Bulletin No. 80 of the Survey.

The present essay is the fourth of a series resulting from this work. 

The first, prepared by Prof. Henry S. Williams, pertains to the formations of the Carboniferous and Devonian periods, and constitutes Bulletin No. 80; the second, prepared by Mr. C. D. Walcott, pertains to 

the formations of the Cambrian, and constitutes Bulletin No. 81; the 

third, prepared by Dr. 0. A, White, pertains to the formations of the 

Cretaceous, and constitutes Bulletin No. 82. The present essay is 

closely related to the one which follows it in the series, an essay by Dr. 

William H. Dall on the formations of the Neocene, Bulletin No. 84.

Dr. Clark has devoted himself chiefly to the correlation and systematic presentation of published material and opinions bearing on correlation of the formations of the Eocene. He finds that the marine 

faunas of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts permit a separation of the

9
10 THE EOCENE. [BULL.83.

Eocene as a whole from formations belonging to earlier and later periods 

with a high degree of confidence, but that with present evidence the 

lines 4>f separation are not sharply drawn among the marine and freshwater formations of the Pacific Coast and the Interior region. The 

correlation of the individual formations one with another has not yet 

been satisfactorily made throughout the Atlantic and Gulf Coast, constituting the, district best known, and still less has this been found 

practicable when comparison is extended to the Interior and Pacific 

regions.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

G. K. GILBERT,

Geologist in Charge. 

Hon. J. W. POWELL,

Director.
OUTLINE OF THIS PAPER.

This essay comprises, first, a general discussion of the limitations of 

the term Eocene as employed in American geology. The two-fold character of the Tertiary (1. Eocene, 2. Neocene) in America is insisted on.

After a somewhat extended review of the literature, in which the 

various opinions upon disputed points are especially considered, a general study of the stratigraphical, paleontological, and topographical 

characteristics of the Eocene in the various portions of the country 

is undertaken.

A division of the Eocene of the United States into three distinct 

regions is made 

1. Atlantic and Gulf Coast region.

2. Pacific Coast region.

3. Interior region.

Following a study of the stratigraphical relations of the Eocene of 

the Atlantic and Gulf Coast region, an attempt is made to correlate 

the very diverse formations of this great area. Four provinces are provisionally established (1. New Jersey province, 2. Maryland-Virginia 

province, 3. Carolina-Georgia province, 4. Gulf province), though 

fuller knowledge may break down their bounds. The general similarity of the deposits and their fossils to extra-American Eocene is 

shown, but detailed correlation is not considered feasible.

The meager knowledge of the Pacific Coast Eocene precludes any 

general discussion of the stratigraphical and paleontological relations 

of that horizon. The local peculiarities, shown both in fossils and deposits, are referred to, and the close relationship existing between the 

Eocene and Cretaceous is dwelt upon. Their separation is a matter 

of some uncertainty with our present information. Certain points of 

identity with Eocene deposits elsewhere are mentioned. Two groups 

of strata are recognized, one marine (Tejou group), the other brackish 

(Puget group).

The remarkable conditions under which the deposits of the Interior 

region were accumulated and the interesting fauna and flora that they 

afford are fully discussed in the final division of the essay. The Lfira11
12 THE EOCENE. luuLL.83.

mie problem, although more fully presented by Dr. White in his paper 

upon the Cretaceous, is here referred to, and facts are given to show 

that the Larainie is probably in part Eocene. The conflict between the 

evidence afforded by animals and plants is stated and the consequent 

hindrance to satisfactory correlation is shown. The general relations 

of the fauna and flora of the Eocene of the Interior to that of other 

regions is pointed out, though no attempt is made at a detailed correlation of its various members.

In conclusion, an alphabetical list of the leading articles upon the 

Eocene of the United States is presented.
PREFACE.

The present report is one of a series of essays in which, as authorized 

by the Director, " existing data affecting the problems of American 

geologic nomenclature should be collected and discussed." The division 

of the work assigned to the writer embraces that portion of the American geological column designated as the " Eocene." As the limits to 

be assigned bo this horizon have been variously determined by different 

geologists, the discussion of its delimitation forms an important feature 

of the essay. Furthermore, the divisions into which the Eocene has 

been separated have each received many different names and boundaries, and have been variously correlated by those who have examined 

the different areas of their occurrence or who have employed one or the 

other of the various classes of paleontological data that the deposits 

afford.

That a wide variance in the opinions of geologists upon Eocene stratigraphy should prevail is not surprising, but oftentimes the extreme 

ineagerness of obtainable information on important points renders a 

critical comparison of their views impossible. At every point the insufficiency of existing knowledge has been forcibly shown as the investigation has proceeded.

In the preparation of the essay I have been necessarily guided largely 

by the published opinions of others, which I have endeavored, as far 

as possible, to arrange logically and correlate with one another.

Although the facts employed have thus been, in the main, acquired 

from the literature, I have nevertheless had an opportunity of personally 

examining extensive areas of the Atlantic Coast region from New Jersey 

to Georgia, together with the more typical localities of the Interior. 

As the object of the report, however, is to present a summary of existing knowledge rather than to give the results of original research, the 

investigations made have had largely for their aim the acquirement of 

a general acquaintance with the leading features of Eocene stratigraphy and the possible reconciliation of conflicting statements.

I wish especially to thank Dr. 0. A. White, of the IT. S. Geological 

Survey, for many valuable suggestions that have been kindly given 

during the preparation of this report. Thanks are likewise due to Dr. 

Whitman Cross, and Dr. W. H. Dall for much important information. 

Of special value in the preparation of this essay has been Prof. Heilpriu's " Contributions to the Tertiary Geology and Paleontology of the 

United States," from which frequent quotations have been made.

13

THE' EOCENE OF THE UNITED STATES.

BY WILLIAM B. CLARK.

INTRODUCTION.

The Eocene of the United States is widely represented both in the 

Coastal and the Interior portions of the country. Formed in the several 

areas under very different conditions, it exhibits clearly defined dissimilarities in structure and in fossils. Marine and brackish-water 

strata, with their attendant lithological and paleontological characteristics, by which the presence or close proximity of the open sea is 

attested, prevail generally throughout the Coastal regions. In the 

Interior, on the other hand, the sediments were deposited in great freshwater lakes, that admitted of the accumulation of beds that equal or 

surpass in extent those of the ocean border, and in which are entombed 

the remains of lacustrine life. A natural division, therefore, of the 

Eocene deposits into a Coastal Province and an Interior Province may 

be made. Furthermore, the coast regions of the Atlantic and Pacific 

borders are so clearly limited geographically, and at the same time present such widely varying strati graphical relations and fossil remains, 

that they merit separate consideration.

On stratigraphical and geographical grounds, then, the Eocene of the 

United States will be treated in the succeeding portions of this paper 

under the three divisions above outlined:

I. The Atlantic and Gulf Coast region.

II. The Pacific Coast region. 

III. The Interior region.

Before proceeding further with their consideration it becomes necessary to outline, in a general way, the limits of the term Eocene as employed in the present essay. As one of the eleven classificatory units 

established by the U. S. Geological Survey to designate the several 

time periods in American geological history, it has equal value with the 

terms Cretaceous and Neocene, the names adopted for the preceding 

and succeeding divisions, respectively. Together with the Neocene, it 

constitutes what is frequently denominated the Tertiary, and individually includes those deposits that have been hitherto described in Amer15
16 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

icau literature as Eocene and Oligocene. These latter terms, as indicating divisions of the lower Tertiary, have no place in the nomenclature of American geology, however applicable they may be found for 

European formations. The Tertiary strata of America, on both stratigraphical and paleontological grounds, may be best divided into two 

groups. The term Eocene, which is retained as equivalent to Lower 

Tertiary, may or may not coincide with the division so designated by 

European geologists.

The attempt at a detailed correlation of American formations with 

European, so often made in the past on insufficient data, is greatly to 

be deprecated. The Tertiary strata of America, deposited under conditions peculiar to themselves, merit consideration upon those characteristics rather than upon features typical for other and far distant 

regions. Certainly not until the strata have been much more exhaustively studied will it be possible even to approximate to an accurate 

correlation of the leading divisions of the American Tertiary with those 

of other lands.

In the treatment of the subject in the pages of this paper the Eocene, 

so far as practicable, will be separated into three divisions : (1) Lower. 

(2) Middle. (3) Upper. Although in many localities too little is known 

of the deposits, due to the partial representation of the series, to make 

an accurate determination possible, yet where best developed a triple 

division is the most natural.

More complete observations will doubtless clear up many points that 

are now obscure, and enable a correlation to be made of dissimilar deposits in contiguous areas that at present defy comparison. Until, 

such exhaustive investigations have been made many discrepancies in 

our knowledge of American Tertiary geology must continue to exist.
ATLANTIC AND GULF COAST REGION. 

PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

The Atlantic and Gulf Coast region, as regards its geographical extent, its stratigraphical diversity, and its copious literature far exceeds 

in importance the other Eocene areas. It stretches as an almost continuous belt along our eastern coast from New Jersey to Texas, and 

has been variously considered in official reports of the several States 

and in numerous articles scattered through scientific journals. Wide 

differences of opinion have prevailed among the various writers, as 

regards the geographical and stratigraphical limits of the Eocene, as 

will be set forth in the historical sketch.

In the following pages the stratigraphical relations of the Eocene 

are discussed in considerable detail, and the leading sections for each 

State given with their typical fossils. The topographical characteristics, although greatly modified by later deposits, are yet sufficiently 

distinctive in many instances to demand attention.

An extended correlation of the Eocene deposits of the Atlantic and 

Gulf Coast region is generally unsatisfactory, although a more or less 

accurate reference of the strata to a relative position in the series may 

usually be made.

The faunii, in different portions of the area, shows marked variations, 

but is as yet too imperfectly understood to warrant a division of the 

Atlantic and Gulf Coast region into established provinces. A provisional separation is, however, attempted. When further correlation is 

made by comparison with European formations the task is still more 

difficult and the results of correspondingly less value. To each of these 

subjects a special chapter will be devoted.

HISTORICAL SKETCH.

The earlier writers upon the geology of the North American continent 

dwelt exclusively upon the general relations of the strata, and included 

the entire Upper Mesozoic and Ceuozoic series of the coastal plain in 

the " alluvial formation." Later others, whose personal investigations or 

study had extended to an examination of the geology of foreign lands, 

endeavored to correlate upon lithological grounds the various formations of the coastal area with the minuter divisions established in 

Europe. Recognizing the futility of such detailed correlation before 

a knowledge of the fossils of the several horizons had been acquired, 

Conrad, Morton, Say, Lea, and others pr6ceeded with marked industry 

Bull. 83 2 17
18 THE EOCENE. [BUM,. 83.

to describe the rich fauna that the deposits afforded. Based upon this 

work, many important papers appeared, dealing either with the relations of local deposits or the general features of the entire coastal 

region. The State geological surveys, during the same time, made 

more or less complete examinations of their respective territories, presenting us with data relating to the stratigraphy. In short, during the 

last half century the activity displayed in every other field of American 

geology has not been wanting in this, the eastern Tertiary belt, if the 

numerous publications are a criterion.. Unfortunately, the results as 

a whole have not been as valuable as in many other lines of investigation, although many marked exceptions might be cited.

In the historical sketch that follows the leading articles and reports 

bearing upon the different epochs in the evolution of our knowledge of 

the Eocene will be considered, though much of value must of necessity 

be hurriedly passed over.

The first important contribution appeared in 1809, when William 

Maclure1 read before the American Philosophical Society at Philadelphia his «' Observations on the Geology of the United States," in which 

the entire coastal plain is referred to the alluvial formation, the fourth 

of the grand divisions of the geological column according to the Wernerian classification which Maclure adopted. The general limits of the 

region are given, and the shell deposits, limestone, and buhrstone are 

referred to, although it is evident that the author was ignorant of their 

stratigraphical position or taxonomic importance. Maclure subsequently revised and enlarged the work, which appeared in book form2 

in 1817, and in the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 

for the same year.3

A few years subsequent to the appearance of Maclure's articles H. 

H. Hayden published a volume of " Geological Essays " (1820) in which 

an explanation is given of the great accumulation of " alluvial deposits" 

in the eastern and southern portions of the United States, and the 

stratigraphy of the region is described in much greater detail than by 

his predecessor. Eefereuce is made to the wide distribution of fossil 

shells, and vertebrate remains, and many localities are cited.

A second work of the same general character, so far as it relates to 

the geology, was published in 1822, by Parker Cleveland, entitled "An 

Elementary Treatise on Mineralogy and Geology," in which, on page 

785, under " Kemarks on the Geology of the United States Explanatory 

of the Subjoined Geological Map," the author defines the limits of the 

" alluvial deposits," and in general terms describes their lithological 

character.

'Am.Phil. Soo. Trans.,vol. 6,1809, pp. 411-428. A translation appeared in the Journal cle Physique, vol. 69, 1809, pp. 204-213, and vol. 72, 1811, pp. 137-165.

2 Observations on the Geology of the United States of America, etc. By William Maclure, Philadelphia, ]817, 8vo , 130 pp.

3 Am. Phil. Soc. Trans., new set-., vol. 1,1817, pp. 1-92. Also Leonard's Zeitschrift, Band 1, 1820, pp. 

124-.138.
CLAKK.1 HISTOEICAL SKETCH, ATLANTIC AND GULP COAST. 19

Before the publication of the latter work, articles descriptive of local 

points in the stratigraphy had appeared, chiefly as communications to 

the American Jourual of Science and Arts.1 Of importance among 

these is a paper by Elias Cornelius in which the limits of the alluvial 

formation of the Mississippi are outlined and potent reasons given for 

its extension beyond the boundaries assigned by Maclure.

Samuel Akerly, in an essay published in New York in 1820, discusses 

the "alluvial deposits" of northern New Jersey. In this paper the 

marl beds, together with some of their fossils, are described, but no 

evidence is adduced that the author recognized their taxonomic position.

In volume 3 of the American Journal of Science two articles appeared: 

The first by John Dickson,2 on the geology of parts of North and South 

Carolina 5 the second by Dr. Troost,3 on the stratigraphy of the region 

about the Magothy Kiver, Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

James Pierce, in a " Notice of the Alluvial District of New Jersey," 4 

published in 1323, describes the marl deposits of Monmouth County.

By far the most important contribution to the stratigraphy of the 

coastal plain that had up to that time appeared was made by Prof< 

John Finch in a '' Geological Essay on the Tertiary Formations in 

America," 5 in the American Journal of Science and Arts for 1824. This 

was the first attempt at a correlation of the deposits of the coastal 

plain on scientific grounds, and although thus early in the history of 

the subject, minute comparisons, which are always unsatisfactory, were 

made, yet the knowledge of American Tertiary formations was materially advanced. The author says:

In America au immense tract of country, extending from Long Island to the Sea of 

Mexicd, and from 30 to 200 miles in width, is called an alluvial formation. From an 

examination of fossils brought from that quarter of the United States, from a personal inspection cf some of its strata, and the perusal of most of the publications 

Avhich bear a reference to it, I wish to suggest that what is termed the alluvial formation in the geological maps of Messrs. Macluro and Cleveland is identical, and 

contemporaneous with the newer Secondary and Tertiary formations of France, England, Spain, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Iceland, Egypt, and Hindostan.

The deposits, which will be discussed in a later portion of this report, 

as exhibited in New Jersey, Maryland, on the James Eiver, Virginia, on 

the Santee River and at Orangeburg, South Carolina, at Shell Bluff, on 

the Savannah Eiver in Georgia, and at numerous localities in Alabama 

and Mississippi are considered in greater or less detail, and au 

attempted correlation made with one another and with European strata. 

In short, the author states that 

Many more instances might be advanced to establish the identity of what has been 

called the alluvial district in America with "the Tertiary formation of England and

1 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 1, 1819, pp. 214-226,317-331. 

a Ibid., vol. 3,1821, pp. 1-5. 

3 Ibkl., vol. 3,1821, pp. 8-15. 

4 Ibid., vol. 6,1823, pp. 237-242. 

iIbid., vol. 7,1824; pp. 31-43.
20 THE EOCENE. IBULL.SS.

the continent of Europe. The fossil shells from the various beds would not, perhaps, 

be exactly like those of Europe, but a sufficient number would be found so to establish their relation and order of succession.

In the same volume of the American Journal, Prof. Edward Hitchcock 1 describes the presence of the "Plastic Clay formation" on 

Martha's Vineyard and the Elizabeth Islands, an attempt at detailed 

correlation that is not supported by facts as we now interpret them.

During 1824 and 1825 Olmsted's "Keport on the Geology of North 

Carolina " appeared, and a review 2 of tbe same in the American Jourunl 

in 1828. The shell marl of the Neuse is herein described, together with 

its fossils.

During the year 1825 Jer. Van Eensselaer delivered a course of lectures in the New York Athenaeum, on geology, that were subsequently 

published in book form.3 The author adopted the classification proposed by Finch, although he confined his descriptions to the more 

northern representatives of the Tertiary series.

On page 34 of " Mills's Statistics of South Carolina" (1826) reference 

is made to the limestones of the Sautee and Savannah Rivers, which 

contain " many oyster shells of uncommon size, and different from those 

now found near our shores." An occurrence of a shell deposit at 

Oraugeburg is described in this work in considerable detail, and the 

general geological characteristics of the region are given.

The American Journal for 1826 contains a communication by James 

Pierce4 "On the shell-marl region of the eastern parts of Virginia and 

Maryland," in which reference is made to the river sections on the 

James and Potomac, and to the " shell rock " -at Upper Marlboro, Maryland.

In volume 13 of the same journal Mr. S. Porter,5 in a letter to Prof. 

Silliman, gives some valuable information in regard to the shell deposits 

of Alabama 5 and Elisha Mitchell6 presents still more detailed statements in regard to the stratigraphy of similar strata in South Carolina.

In notes7 by Lardner Vanuxem, arranged by Dr. S. G. Morton for 

publication in the Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of 

Philadelphia, the attempt is made to more accurately define the limits 

of the Tertiary. The author states that much that had been designated by that name properly belongs to other formations.

Up to the year 1830 all investigations upon the stratigraphy of the 

Tertiary had been carried on in the main independently of a study of 

its fossils. Generic similarities had been cited as grounds for correlation, and although this aided largely in determining the limits of the 

Tertiary itself, further subdivisions were impracticable.

'Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 7,1824, pp. 240-248. 

* Ibid., vol. 14, 1828, pp. 230-251. 

8 Lectures on Geology, 1825, 8vo., 358 pp. 

4 Ibid., vol. 11,1826, pp. 54-59. 

6Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 13,1828, pp. 77-79. 

fi Ibid., 1828, pp. 336-347.

'Geological observations on the Secondary, Tertiary, and Alluvial formations of the Atlantic coast 

of the United States of America. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Jour., vol. 6,1828, pp. 59-71
CLARK.] HISTORICAL SKETCH, ATLANTIC AND GULF COAST. 21

, With the publication of Conrad's article 1 "On the Geology and Organic Remains of a part of the Peninsula of Maryland," with an appendix containing descriptions of new species of fossil shells, a new 

era in the investigation of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast HBtcaffcft was 

inaugurated. It is true that Say2 had described several Tertiary species, but, as stated in Conrad's paper, he did not " draw any geological 

inferences from the organic remains examined." Conrad from the first 

applied the paleoutological evidence he possessed to an interpretation 

of the stratigraphy; and although many of his conclusions were erroneous, still the knowledge of the geology of the coastal plain was very 

materially advanced. In this first paper such well known early Tertiary forms as Turritella Mortoni, Cucullcea gigantea, and Crassatella 

alceformis are figured and described, and the presence of Venericardia 

planicosta Lamarck is also noted, Making use of the data afforded by 

these investigations, the strata at Fort Washington were correlated with 

the London Clay of England.

In 1832 Conrad published an important work on the "Fossil Shells of 

the Tertiary Formations of North America,"3 which was followed in 1833 

by a description4 of a large number of new forms from Claiborne, Alabama. In the latter article the position of the white limestone below 

the Claiborne sands is affirmed.

The same year Lea published his " Contributions to Geology" 5 in 

which he treats of the general features of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast 

Tertiary, but especially considers the Claiborne section, describing 219 

new species. The Claiborne beds are correlated with those at Fort 

Washington, Maryland. In regard to their European equivalence, the 

author says:

After a careful examination of a great number of genera and species from the 

Tertiary of Claiborne, Alabama, I had no hesitation in referring them to the same 

period as the London Clay of England, and the Calcaire Grossier of Paris. * " * 

This part of the Tertiary formation * * * is called by Mr. Lyell the Eocene 

period.

This is the first application of the term Eocene to American deposits.

About the same time Withers gave in the American Journal fi the 

general features of the section at St. Stephen's Bluff, Alabama.

A year later, in "Observations on the Tertiary and more recent 

formations of a portion of the Southern States," 7 Conrad adopted the 

term Eocene for the well known sections at Fort Washington, Maryland ; Eutaw Springs, South Carolina; Shell Bluff, Savannah River, 

Georgia ; Claiborue, Alabama, and many intermediate points. In an

1 Philadelphia Acad. Sci., J"<rar., vol. 6,1830, pp. 205-217.

2 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 1,1819, pp. 381-387; vol. 2,1820, pp. 34-45. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Jour., 

vol.4, 1824,pp. 124-155 (Ostreacomprestirostra).

3 8°, 56 pp. 16 pis., Philadelphia, 1832.

4 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 23,183S, pp. 339-346, 405.

* Contributions to Geology, by I. Lea. 8vo. 1833. 227 pp., 6 pis.

6 Ani. Jour. Sci., vol. 24, 1833, pp. 187-189.

'Philadelphia Aoad. Nat. Sci., Jour.- vol. 7, 1834, pp. 110-157.
22 THiE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

appendix to this paper many new fossils are described. A diagram 

representing the bluff at Olaiborne is added, in which the white limestone is again placed below the fossiliferous sands. Conrad quotes 

Lyell on European formations as stating that no secondary fossils are 

found in the Eocene, yet his own observations at Claiborne warranted 

him in claiming the admixture of a few species. He further considers 

the Eocene of Claiborne older than the Eocene of Fort Washington, 

Maryland, and of Europe.

Prof. Chas. U. Shepard published in the American Journal of Science 

the same year "Geological Observations upon Alabama, Georgia, and 

.Florida," 1 in which several of the Eocene localities of those States 

are described.

Three other articles appeared at this time by Harlan,2 McGuirc,3 

and W. B. Rogers,4 that added somewhat to the knowledge of local 

deposits. The paper by Eogers is especially interesting, as the first of 

a series of articles and reports on the geology of Virginia that give us 

a clearer insight into the Tertiary geology of that State than of any 

other on the Atlantic seaboard.

About the same time Dr. Morton published a " Synopsis of the organic remains in the ferruginous sand formations of the United States," 

in which several species from the "white limestone" of South Carolina are included through a misconception of the proper strati graphical position of that formation.

In 1835 Conrad added two more papers 5 on the Atlantic Tertiary 

region. In the transactions of the Geological Society of Pennsylvania 

he says:

Having traced the burr stone of Georgia, tlie fossilferous sands of Claiborne, Alabama, and a calcareous clay near Orangeburg, South Carolina, to common or synchronous origin, I immediately perceived that the deposit at Upper Marlboro was a 

link in the chain of older Tertiary beds.

Eeference is made in both articles to the commingling of the Cretaceous and Eocene forms, a point subsequently more fully considered. 

It was held, at the same time, worthy of mention that no fossils had 

been found common to the Eocene and Miocene.

H. B. Groom G published an account of early Tertiary fossils found in 

Craven County, North Carolina, in the American Journal of Science of 

the same year.

William B. Eogers published in the Farmers' Eegister for 1835, " Further observations on the greensand and calcareous marl of Virginia" 7 

The marked lithological similarity of the beds to the greensand of New

 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 25, 1834, pp, 162-173.

2 Am. Pbil. Soc. Trans., new ser., vol. 4,1834, pp. 397-403.

3 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 26, 1834, pp. 93-98.

* Farmers' Register, 1834. Reprinted in Geology of the Virginias, 1884, pp. 3-9.

6 Pennsylvania, Geol. Soc. Trans., 1835, pp. 335-341; Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 28, 1835, pp. 104-111.

6 A m. Jour. Sci., vol. 27,1835, pp. 168-171.

7Eeprinted in Geology of the Virginias, 1884, pp. 11-20.
CLAUK.J HISTOEICAL SKETCH, ATLANTIC AND GULF COAST. 23

Jersey is mentioned in this article, but the character of the fossils is 

shown to place those of Virginia in the Eocene.

For the next few years Professor Eogers devoted himself to a most 

careful study of the Tertiary geology of Virginia, and as State geologist 

published annual reports 1 giving detailed accounts of the progress of the 

survey. Numerous sections of early Tertiary marl and greensand are 

herein described, and lists of characteristic fossils are given. As these 

publications afford the most important literature upon the geology of 

Virginia, a consideration of the details will be reserved for a later portion of this report.

In conjunction with his brother, H. D. Rogers, the same writer published in the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society of 

Philadelphia a series of articles entitled, " Contributions to the geology 

of the Tertiary Formations of Virginia," 2 that, beyond the description 

of several new apecies of early Tertiary shells, cover much the same 

ground as the annual reports.

During this same period, Mr. T. A. Conrad contributed several papers 3 of importance, first among them being a special treatise on Tertiary shells,4 thab appeared in 1838.

A point much discussed in southern Tertiary stratigraphy was considered by Conrad in the American Journal of Science for 1840, under 

the title "On the geognostic position of the Zeuglodon or Basilosanrus 

of Harlan."5 The statement is made that the Zeuglodon occurs " in the 

limestone of Alabama immediately under the lower Tertiary fossiliferous 

strata," and further that " this formation seems to fill the chasm which 

in Europe has been often noticed to occur between the Secondary and 

Tertiary series."

While Prof. William B. Eogers and T. A. Conrad were conducting 

their important investigations, others were not idle. H. D. Rogers, as 

State geologist for ISTew Jersey, published reports in 1836 and 1840, in 

which the marls of Moumouth County at Shark River and Squankum 

are described and referred to the "upper Secondary."

In Delaware the State geological survey, under J. 0. Booth, published 

two annual reports of work done during 1837-'38, which were subsequently (1841) issued in enlarged form as a " Memoir."

In Maryland a series of annual reports, extending from 1833 to 1840, 

 were made by the State geologist, J. T. Ducatel, to the legislature. 

The sections exhibited at numerous points in the Tertiary area are given 

in these reports, together with lists of fossils.

In 1836, J. R. Cotting published a " Report of a Geological and Agri1 Reports were published for the years 1835-1841, inclusive. Reprinted in Geology of the Virginias, 

1884, pp. 21-546.

* Am. Phil. Soe., Trans., newser., vol. 5, 1835, pp. 319-342; vol. 6,1837-1839, pp. 347-370,371-377. Ab_ 

etract in Amer. Phil. Soc. Proc., Vol. 1,1840, pp. 88-90.

"Am. Jour. ScL, vol. 35,1839, pp. 237-251; vol. 38,1840, pp. 86-93. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sei., Jour., 

vol. 8,1841, p. 190. Philadelphia Aoad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol 1,1841, p. 33.

'Fossils of the Tertiary Formations of the United States, 8vo., 1838,89 pp., 49 pla.

« Am. Jour. Sci.. vol. 38. 1840, pp. 381-382.
24 * THE EOCENE. [BUM..8&

cultural Survey of Burke and Richmond counties, Georgia," in which 

the character of the Tertiary deposits is reviewed in cousiderable detail, 

though the author had little couceptiou of their strati graphical relations.

The occurrence of early Tertiary strata in Arkansas is recorded in 

Featherstonhaugh's " Geological Report of an Examination made in 1834 

of the Elevated Country between the Missouri and Red rivers."

Nine biennial geological reports were presented by G. Troost, the 

State geologist, to the legislature of Tennessee, between the years 1831- 

'47. The geology of the eastern portion of the State is in the main 

considered, though now and then references are made to the later 

formations of the west. The information conveyed is, however, of 

slight importance, so far as the older Tertiary is concerned. Very much 

the same remarks apply to W. W. Mather's " Report 0:1 the Geological 

Reconnaissance of Kentucky, made in 1838."

The activity manifested by the geological surveys of the States just 

mentioned in the study of the Tertiary deposits, was accompanied by 

much private investigation, the result of which appeared in numerous 

articles in the American Journal of Science and Proceedings of the 

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.

Some of the more striking features of the topography and geology 

of Florida are pointed out by Maj. Henry Whiting, in a paper entitled 

" Cursory Remarks upon East Florida in 1838,m that was published in 

1839.

In 1841 Edmund Ravenal2 and Henry C. Lea3 published descriptions 

of new Eocene fossils from South Carolina and Alabama, respectively.

An article by James T. Hodge, on " Observations on the Secondary 

and Tertiary Formations of the Southern Atlantic States,"4 followed in 

the succeeding volume of the American Journal of Science. So far as 

the Eocene is concerned, his observations chiefly related to points 

in North and South Carolina, and to Shell Bluff and Jacksouboro, in 

Georgia. In this article the limestone and conglomerate on the Northeast Cape Fear River and at Wilmiugton are held to be an "upper Seconda.ry" deposit, interposed between the Cretaceous and Eocene.

Some interesting points in the Eocene stratigraphy of Virginia were 

reported by Prof. Tuoiney, in ]842,5 from a shaft sunk at Evergreen, 

on the James River.

In the Proceedings of the National Institution for the Promotion of 

Science, Conrad contributed further " Observations on a portion of the 

Atlantic Tertiary Region, with a description of new species of Organic 

Remains."6 Especial importance was at that time attached to the fact

' Am. Jonr. Sci., vol. 35, ]839, pp. 47-64.

2 Philadelphia Acacl. Nat. Sci., Jour., vol. 8,1841, pp. 333-336.

8 Am. Joi^. Sci., vol. 40, ISil, pp. 92-103.

4 Ibid., voTfil, 18*1, pp. 332-348.

 Ibid., vol. 43,1842, p. 187.

8 Second Bulletin, 1842, pp. 191-194. (See Rogers, Am. Jonr. Sci.. vol. 47,1844, p. 254.)
cr,A«K.l HISTORICAL SKETCH, ATLANTIC AND GULP COAST. 25

that the author found what he considered proof of the commingling of 

Secondary and Tertiary types. He presented a list of forms that were 

supposed to show the connection of the " white limestone" of Alabama 

to the " greensand formation" of New Jersey.

The first of Lyell's contributions to the literature of the Eastern Tertiary belt appeared in the Proceedings of the Geological Society of 

London, for 1842. His conclusions were derived from personal observations, and were of special value from his wide knowledge of the Tertiary in other portions of the globe. He succeeded in explaining many 

hitherto imperfectly understood points in American Tertiary stratigraphy.1 The narrative of this first report contains the following statement:

Having examinee the most important Cretaceous deposits in New Jersey, Mr. Lyell 

proceeded, in the autumn of 1841 to investigate the Tertiary strata of Virginia, the 

Caroliuas and Georgia, with a view to satisfy himself, first, how far the leading divisions of the Tertiary strata along the Atlantic border of the United States agree in 

aspect and organic contents with those of Europe ; and secondly, to ascertain, whether 

any rocks containing fossils of a character intermediate between those of the Cretaceous and the Eocene beds really exist. The conclusions at which he arrived from 

his extensive survey are given briefly as follows:

(1) The only Tertiary formations which the author saw agree well in their geological types with the Eocene and Miocene beds of England and France; (2) he found 

no Secondary fossils in those rocks which have been called upper Secondary, and. 

supposed to constitute a link between the Cretaceous and Tertiary formations.

Each of the above mentioned States was at .this time separately considered and a careful description given of every locality visited.

During the next few years six important contributions by the same 

writer to the Tertiary geology of the eastern United States, appeared 

in the Proceedings and Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of 

London. In most cases special points in the stratigraphy, that had 

been the subject of discussion by American geologists, were taken up, 

and much light thrown upon the questions at issue.

In regard to the occurrence of early Tertiary strata on Marthas 

Vineyard, as claimed by Prof. Hitchcock2 in 1824, when the deposits at 

Gay Head were correlated with the "Plastic and London clay of Alum 

Bay," Mr. Lyell3 thought that the evidence was altogether in favor of 

considering them Miocene.

In an article on the " Cretaceous of New Jersey and other parts of 

the United States bordering on the Atlantic" 4 the lithological similarity of the Eocene and the Miocene farther south to the Cretaceous of 

New Jersey, and the necessity of fossils for the identification of the 

various green sand horizons, are clearly set forth, thus substantiating 

the earlier claims of Rogers.

A later communication *' On the Miocene Tertiary strata of Mary1 (Jeol. Soc., London, Proc., vol. 3,1842, pp. 735-742. 

« Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 7,1824, pp. 240-248. 

8 Creol. Soc. London, Proc., vol. 4,1843, pp. 31-33. 

«Ibid, Proc., vol. 4,1844, pp. 301-306.
26 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

land, Virginia, and North and South Carolina." 1 contains numerous 

sections in which the Eocene occurs.

Immediately following the last paper in both the "Proceedings" and 

the " Journal," are the " Observations " of Mr. Lyell " on the White 

Limestone and other Eocene or Older Tertiary formations of Virginia, 

South Carolina, and Georgia." 2 After stating that the Eocene of Virginia " consists in great part of green sand and marl, containing green 

earth * * * like that which characterizes the Cretaceous strata of 

New Jersey," he adds:

Farther south, in North and South Carolina and in Georgia, the Eocene formation 

acquires a larger development and a new mineral type, consisting of highly calcareous white marl and white limestone, and passing upward, especially in Georgia, 

into red and white clays, ferruginous sands, with associated layers of burrstone and 

siliceous rock.

Speaking of the already well known Claiborne section, he states in 

an article ".On the newer deposits of the Southern States of North 

America" 3 that the relationship of the deposits is different from that 

previously held, inasmuch as the "Nummulite limestone" occurs above 

the Claiborne fossiliferous sands and not below, and that the remains of 

the Zeuglodonare always found u in the Eocene white limestone below 

the level of the Nummulitic rock and above the beds which contain the 

greater number of perfectly preserved Eocene shells," among them 

Gardita planicosta, and Ostrea sellatformis. Writing 4 on the same subject a year later, he reaffirmed the position he had previously taken 

in this matter, showing at the same time from numerous sections the 

much wider application of this relationship of the strata.

During this time Lyell made four contributions 5 to the American. 

Journal of Science, which contain in the main the same conclusions as 

the previously cited articles,

Murchison,6 in his presidential address delivered to the Geological 

Society of London in 1843, reviewed the results of Lyell's investigations 

upon the "Older Tertiary" strata of America, and added his own interpretation of a few points.

During these years, due in part to Lyell's inspiring presence and 

valuable publications, many articles appeared from the pens of American geologists. Dr. Morton 7 found it necessary in 1842 to correct certain statements he had made in his synopsis in 1834 in regard to the 

occurrence of Cretaceous fossils, since the observations of Lyell had 

shown the deposits to be Eocene.

'Proc. Geol. Soc. London, vol. 4, 1845, pp. 547-563; and Quart. Jonr. Geol.Soc. London, vol. 1,1845, 

pp., 413-429.

2 Proc. Geol. Soc. London, vol. 4,1845, pp. 563-576; and Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, vol. 1,1845, pp. 

429-442.

3 Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, vol. 2,1846, pp. 405-410. 

«Il)id., vol. 4,1847, pp. 10-17.

* Am. Jour.Sci., vol. 47,1844, pp.213,214;'2dsor., vol. 1, 1846,pp.313-315; 2d sen,vol.3, pp.34-39; 2d 

eer., vol. 4,1847, pp. 186-191.

6 Proc. Geol. Soo. London, vol. 4,1843, pp. 127-133.

7 Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Jour., vol. 8,1842, pp. 216-227.
CLAKK.] HISTORICAL SKETCH, ATLANTIC ANt) GULF COAST. 27

The following year Edmund llnffiu, director of the agricultural survey of Soutb Carolina, presented to the legislature a report 1 in which 

the early Tertiary marls are given the name of the " Great Carolina 

bed." He states that " this great deposit has been by different geologists considered as belonging to different formations. _Vanuxem first, 

and also Conrad and Morton afterward, supposed it tTie^Upper Cretaceous.' Lyell, from recent inspection, includes it in the Eocene." He 

then adds : " The i Great Carolinabed' of marl will serve every present 

purpose of designation and distinction as well as if it were definitely 

settled and the bed named either Upper Cretaceous or Eocene." Over 

thirty finely printed pages are devoted to a detailed description of the 

area occupied by these calcareous deposits and the siliceous beds along 

their northern margin. The stratigraphical position of the latter is not 

properly interpreted in this work. In short, the siliceous beds are described as overlying tlie calcareous deposits.

Several papers treating especially of Eocene fossils appeared during 

this and the succeeding year by Bulkley,2 Conrad,3 and Ravenel.4

In the " Supplemental Eeport of the Agricultural Survey of South 

Carolina for 1843."Prof. M.Tuomey discusses the character and geological age of the " marl in adjacent parts of North Carolina." The occurrence of the " Great Carolina bed" with its characteristic fossils is 

asserted from the region to the north and northeast of Wilmington. In 

the American Journal of Science for 1844, the same writer5 expresses the 

opinion that the South Carolina formations will prove older than the 

Eocene of Maryland and Virginia, although he accepts LyelJ's position 

that they are not " Upper Secondary."

In an address delivered at the meeting of the Association of American Geologists and Naturalists, held in Washington in May, 1844, 

Prof. H. I). Rogers presented an outline of opinions regarding American Tertiary formations,6 in connection with a general statement of 

progress in American geology.

From the importance of the Zeuglodon as a charcteristic fossil of the 

Jackson group of the Upper Eocene, and the extended discussion which 

its character and geological position have hitherto occasioned, it becomes necessary to refer briefly to the extensive literature upon that 

subject.

Although originally described as a saurian by Dr. Harlan,7 in 1834, 

under the name of Basilosaurus, its mammalian character was subse1 Ko.port of the Commencement and Progress of the Agricultural Survey of South Carolina for 1843. 

Columbia, 1843.

2 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 44,1841!, pp. 409-412.

3 Philadelphia Acacl. Nat. Sci., Proc.. vol, 1,1843, p. 310; vol. 2,1844, pp. 173,174. 

"Ibid., vol. 2,1844, pp. 96-98. 

 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 47,1844, p. 117. 

0 Ibid..vol. 47,1844, pp. 254-259.

7 Am. Phil. Soc., Trans., new per., vol. 4, 1834, pp. 397-403; Pennsylvania Gool. Soc., Trana., vol.1, 

1853, pp. 348-357.
SB ICHE EOCENE. fnuLL.83.

queutly established by Kichard Owen1 and the name Zeuglodon substituted.

Later, papers appeared by Wyman,2 R6gers,3 Bulkley,4 Lister,5 

Gibbes,6 Tuomey,7 and others, in which the views of Owen were substantiated, and more definite information given in regard to the localities and geological horizon of the many specimens up to that time discovered.

Important contributions to the geology of the Southern States were 

made during the years 1846-'49. Conrad alone published eight8 articles in which many new species of fossil shells are described, and considerable additions made to the knowledge of the stratigraphy of the 

Eocene in Florida and Mississippi.

In the American Journal of Science for 1846, Dr. Conrad9 made the 

first attempt at correlating the "limestone" of jf'lorida. From a study 

of the fossils he proposed to place it in the Upper Eocene together with 

"the limestone of the Savannah River in Georgia, between Savannah 

and Shell Bluff."

In 1848 Conrad10 published-a description of Aturiaziczacfrom the upper 

portion of the upper marl bed of New Jersey, and referred the marl, 

principally on account of the presence of this shell, to the Eocene era.

During this time Morton, 11 Bouve",12 Lea, 13 and Gibbes14 described many 

new fossils, while Alien,15 Couper, 16 Agassiz,17 Tuomey,18 Hale,19 and 

Holmes20 contributed important data relative to the stratigraphy of local 

areas.

Tuomey, in a "Report on the Geology of South Carolina," published 

in 1848, enters into a detailed description of the geology of that State, 

and proposes three divisions for the Eocene formation, viz: 1, Buhrstouej 2, San tee marls, and 3, Ashley and Cooper marls.

'Geol. Soc. London, Proc. vol. 3, 1839, pp. 24-28 ; Geol. Soc., London, Traus. 1842, pp. 69-79; Anii.Sci. 

Nat, vol. 12 (Zool.), 1830, pp. 222-229; Mag. Nut., vol. 3,1839, pp, 209-213. 

"Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Proo., vol. 2,1845, pp. 65-68.

3 Ibid., p. 79.

4 Aui. Jour. Soi., 2d ser., vol. 2,1846, pp. 125-131.

6 Boston Soc. Nat. Hist, Proc., vol. 2,1846, pp. 95-96.

^Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Jonr., 2d ser., vol. 1,1847, pp. 5-15.

'Ibid., pp. 10-17.

8 Am. Jour. Soi., 2d ser., vol. 1,1816, pp. 209-221, 395-405; vol. 2, 1846, pp. 36-48,124-125, 210-215, 399-400. 

Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 3,1S46, pp. 19-27; vol. 3,1847, pp. 280-299. Philadelphia Acad. 

Nat, Sci., Jour., 2d ser., vol. 1,1848, pp. 111-134.

«Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 2,1840, p. 47.

10 Philadelphia Acad.Nat. Sci., Jour., 2d ser., vol. 1, 1848, p. 129.

" Ibid., Proc., vol. 3,1846, p. 51.

12 Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Proc., vol. 2,1846, p. 192.

13 Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 4,1848, pp. 95-107.

14 Ibid., Jour., 2d ser., vol. 1,1848, pp. 139-147; 1849, pp. 191-206. 

» Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 1,1846, pp. 38-42. 

I* Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Proc., vol. 2,1846, pp. 123,124. 

"Ibid., p. 193.

» 8 Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Proc., vol. 1,1848, pp. 32-33; Keport on the Geology of South Carolina, 1818, pp. 

136,139-170, 211.

19 Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 6,1848, pp. 354-363. 

'"Ibid., vol. 7,1849, pp. 187-201.
CLAUK.] HISTORICAL SKETCH, ATLANTIC AND GULP COAST. 29

Koemer, in 1849, published at Berne a general treatise upon Texas, 

in which he gives the first account of the occurrence of the Eocene 

in that State. Fossils were found sufficiently similar to those of 

Olaiborue, Alabama, to justify hi or in considering the deposits of like 

age. Although discovered at only one locality, he expressed the opin-. 

ion at that time that it was hardly probable that the Eocene was thus 

limited to one point, but doubtless existed as a continuous deposit 

across the State. He considered that the surface exposures were only 

prevented from being seen by overlying formations.

During 1850 papers appeared on the geology and paleontology of the 

Atlantic Coast Eocene by Eavenel,1 Buffin,2 G-ibbes,3 Wyman,4 Conrad,5 

and Holmes.6

A year later, Tuomey, in a " Notice of the Geology of the Florida 

Keys, and of the Southern Coast of Florida," 7 confi.rm.ed the observations of Conrad concerning the age of the Tampa Bay limestone, and 

showed its wider extension.

In the same volume of the American Journal of Science, Prof. J. W. 

Bailey published a notice of " Silicified Polythalamia in Florida," in 

which he speaks of large masses possessing all the mineralogical characters of flint, occurring in the white " orbitolite limestone," which, he 

says, is common throughout the portion of Florida between Tampa and 

Palatka. 8

In 1850 Desor discussed the equivalence of the American Tertiary at 

a meeting of the Boston Society of Natural History. He agreed with 

Prof. Kogers as to the want of a complete correspondence of American 

and Europaan Tertiary, and also with regard to the absence of a close 

correlation between the American Tertiary of different epochs.9

During the next few years contributions were made to the paleontology of the Eocene by Bouve",10 Tuomey,11 Holmes,12 and Conrad.13

Conrad. 14 in " Eemarks on the Tertiary Strata of San Domingo and 

Vicksburg (Miss.)," states that a comparison of fossils from the two 

localities had resulted in the recognition of several identical forms, and 

from that circumstance he drew the conclusion that the strata were 

probably of the same age.

In a later publication entitled u Observations on the Eocene deposit

'Am. Assoo. Adv. Sci., Proo., vol. 8,1850, pp. 159-161. 

"Am. Jonr. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 9,1850, pp. 127-129. 

'Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sol., Jour., 2d ser., vol. 1,1850, pp. 299,300. 

«Ara. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 10,1850, pp. 228-235. 

"Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Jour., 2d ser., vol. 2,1850, pp. 39-41. 

°Am. Assoo. Adv. Sci., Proo., vol. 3,1850, pp. 201-204. 

7Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 11,1851, pp. 390-394. 

"Ibid., p. 86.

9Boston Soc.Nat. Hist., Proc., vol. 3,1850, p. 247. 

'oibid.,vol.4,1851,pp.2-4.

"Philadelphia Acad. Nat. i>ci., Proc., vol. 6,1852, pp. 192-194. 

12Elliotfc Soo. Nat Hist., Proo., vol. 1,1853, p. 21.

»Philadelphia:Acad. Nat. !3cL, Proc., vol. 6,1853, pp. 316-319,320,321,448J 449; vol. 7,1854, pp. 29-31, vol. 

7,1855, pp. 257-263, 265-268,269 ; vol. 9,1857, p. 166, 

>«lbid., vol. 6,1852, pp. 108, r.99.
30 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

of Jackson, Mississippi, etc."1 the same author presents a table to "show 

the order of succession of Eocene groups." The Jackson group is 

placed between the Claiborne and the Vicksburg, and the " orbitolite 

limestone" of St. Stephen's Bluff is placed in the lower part of the 

Vicksburg series. From the fossils sent him Conrad came to the conclusion that the Jackson deposits contained no species in common with 

those of Vicksburg, and very few with those of Claiborne.

During this time Wiiichell,2 Le Conte,3 Bmmons,4 Rogers,5 Safford,6 

and McCrady 7 contributed the results of observations that relate 

wholly or in part to the stratigraphy of the eastern Eocene.

During the decade 1850-'60, while so much valuable information 

relative to the Eocene was accumulated by private industry, the State 

governments were not inattentive to the importance of geological investigations of their territories.

The State Geological Survey of New Jersey, under William Kitcliell, 

published three annual reports for 1854, 1855, and 1856, in which the 

descriptions of the marls in the eastern and southern parts of the State 

were prepared by the assistant geologist, Geo. H. Cook. As a result 

of his investigations, he states in the first report that " there are three 

distinct beds of marl," and that " the third bed includes the marls of 

Deal, Poplar, Shark River, and Squankum ," localities that will receive 

later consideration. The second and third reports added nothing as 

to the taxonornic position of the upper marls, though the local stratigraphy had been worked out in greater detail. Although accepting the 

conclusions of Vauuxem and Morton that the marls of the State were 

Cretaceous, he wisely says that "it is felt to be a matter of much importance to know as many as possible of the fossils found here."

In Maryland the State agricultural chemist published six reports 

between 1850-'583 but they are of slight importance from a geological 

standpoint.

Prof. Einrnons, in a report on the Geological Survey of North Carolina, published in 1852, considers the Eocene at some length. The 

outliers in the central part of the State are referred to in connection 

with the more extensive deposits that occupy the eastern portions. In 

a subsequent report, published in 1858, the special features of the Eocene 

are treated in much greater detail, and many sections and new species 

of fossils are described.

During 1856-'60 the State geologist of South Carolina, Oscar M. 

Lieber, presented four annual reports to the general assembly, but 

nothing of importance was added to the earlier contributions of Ruffin 

and Tuomey upon Eocene stratigraphy.

1 Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 7,1855, pp. 257-203.

2 Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Proc., vol. 10, pt. 2, 1856, pp. 91-103.

3 Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 23, 1857, pp. 46-60.

4 Am. Assoc. Adv., Sci., Proc., vol. 11, part 2,1857, pp. 70-80. 

6 Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Proc., vol. 7,1859, pp. 60-01. 

 6 Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser. vol. 27,1859, pp. 363, 301. 

'ElliottSoo. Nat. Hist., Proc., vol. 1, 1859, pp. 282,283.
CLARK.] HISTORICAL SKETCH ATLANTIC AND GULF COAST. 31

Prof. Tuoiney, in the " First Biennial Beport on the Geology of Alabama " (1850), considers the extent, structure, and stratigraphy of the 

earlier Tertiary of that State, and gives numerous typical sections 

and a list of fossils. A second report, finished in 1855, but on account of the death of the author not published until 1858, contains 

considerable new information and extended lists of fossils from well 

known localities.

Wailes's "Beport on the Agriculture and Geology of Mississippi" 

appeared in 1854. The work deals largely with the economic features 

of the deposits, but lists and figures of characteristic fossils are given, 

together with the local character of the beds in which they occur.

Three years later a "Preliminary Beport on the Geology and Agriculture of the State of Mississippi, by L. Harper," was published, but 

very little of importance was added to the stratigraphy of the Eocene.

A greatly expanded account of his geological observations in Texas 

is given by Prof. Boemer in "Die Kreidebildungen von Texas," published in Bonn in 1852.

The " First Beport of the Geological and Agricultural Survey of 

Texas" was prepared by Dr. Shnmard in 1859, but little attention is 

given in this work to the Tertiary, although reference is made to the 

lignite brown coal of the eastern and middle portions of the State. 

Nothing of importance was added to the earlier statements of Boemer.

Two reports upon the geology of Arkansas were published in 1858 

and 1860 by D. D. Owen, in which several occurrences of the Eocene, 

with characteristic fossils, are cited. But slight attempt, however, 

was made at a delimitation of the Tertiary area.

Safford's first and second biennial reports on the geology of Tennessee, presented to the general assemblies of 1855 and 1857, contain a 

few references to "The Lignite group" which crosses the western portion of the State.

The four large quarto volumes of the Kentucky Geological Survey 

that was prosecuted between the years 1854 to 1859 are devoted 

almost exclusively to a description of the economic products of the 

State. The Tertiary strata are barely referred to.

Important contributions were made to the paleontology of the Eocene 

by Conrad, 1 Gabb,2 Whitfield,3 and Marsh4 during the next decade 

(1860-'70).

An important paper by J. M. Safford, on the lignitic beds of the 

southern Tertiary, entitled " On the Cretaceous and Superior Formations of west Tennessee," 5 appeared in the American Journal of Science

1 Philadelphia Acad.Nat. Sci., Jour., new set-., vol.4,1860, pp. 275-298. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., 

Proc., vol. 14,1862, pp. 284-291; ibid., vol. 10,1804, pp. 211-214. Amer. Jour. Conch., vol. 1,1865, pp. 1-35, 

137-141, H2-149, 210-212,21U-215; vol. 2, 1800, pp. 75-78,101-103,104-100; vol.3,1807, pp. 188-100. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc. vol.. 17,1805, pp. 73-75, 75,184.

"Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 13,1861, pp. 307-372, Jour., now sor., vol. 5,18C2, pp. 111-179.

3 Am. Jour. Conch., vol. 1,1805, pp. L'59-2C8.

4 Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser. vol. 48,1809, pp. 397-400. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Proc,, vol. 18,1869, pp. 227-230. 

6 Ibid., vol. 37,1804, pp. 300-372.
32 THE EOCENE. [BULL, 83.

for 1864. In this article the lignite beds of the Eocene are divided into 

the Porters Creek group (lower) and the Orange Sand or La Grange 

group (upper). Overlying these is placed a third group, called the 

Bluff Lignite, that at that time was provisionally considered Tertiary 

by Safford.

In an article by Conrad " On the Eocene Lignite Formation of the 

United States," x the upper marl of the Upper Marl Bed of New Jersey 

is correlated with the Brandou (Vermont) andsouthern lignites. Thepresence of such a horizon between Cretaceous and Eocene is claimed in 

this paper on the authority of Vanuxem and Tuomey to occur in South 

Carolina and Alabama, and upon that of Duraiid 2 and Harper in Maryland and Mississippi.

Conrad 3 proposed, in 1866, the name " Shell Bluff group " for certain 

strata of the Eocene he considered characterized by Ostrea georgiana, 

an oyster found at Shell Bluff, on the Savannah Eiver, as well as "at 

Vicksburg * * *, in the lower part of the bluff below the Orbitolite limestone of the Jackson group."

In a communication in the succeeding volume of the American Journal of Science, Hilgard 4 takes exception to Conrad's statements and 

conclusions upon this point.

In this article he says that the " Orbitolite limestone of the Jackson 

group " is erroneous, as he knows of no case where OrMtoides are found 

below the Vicksburg strata. He further casts doubt upon the occurrence of Ostrea georgiana at Vicksburg. In conclusion, he says that 

the " Shell Bluff group " is above the Jackson and probably identical 

with his own "Red Bluff group.?7

In an article " On the Tertiary Formations of Mississippi and Alabama,"5 the same writer says:

I cannot, therefore, with, the lights before me, agree to the propriety of distinguishing as separate divisions the OrMtoides limestone and the Vicksburg group of fossils.

* * Even the occurrence of a different species of Orlitoides (0. tiupera, Con.) at 

Vickburg can not alter the case, for the undoubted 0. ManteUi occurs there also 

in the solid rock, and, there are few of the characteristic fossils of the Vicksburg 

profile which I have not on some occasions found side by side with the 0. Mantclli 

and its companions, the Pecten Poulsoni and Ostrea vicksburyensis,

He states further that Lyell and Hale were the only two observers 

who had hitherto comprehended the proper position of the " Zeuglodou 

bed " in relation to the " OrMtoides rock."

In "Notes on American Fossiliferous strata," 6 published in 1869, 

Conrad presents some facts relative to the section at Shark River, New 

Jersey, and gives an account of the more interesting fossil remains 

found there.

1 Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 17, 1865, pp. 70-73. AID. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 40,1865, pp. 

265-268. 

2 Philadelphia College of Pharmacy, Jour., vol. 5,1834, p. 12.

3 Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 41,1866, p. 96.

4 Ibid., vol. 42,1800, pp. 08-70. 

8 Ibid., vol. 43,1867, pp. 29-41. 

' Ibid., tol. 47,1869, pp. 358-364,
OLABK.] HISTORICAL SKETCH, ATLANTIC AND GULF COAST. 33

During the period 18GO to 1870 the State governments interested 

themselves but little in geological surveys. The war broke up those 

that did exist, excepting in New Jersey, and the inauguration of new 

ones had hardly begun at the close of the decade.

In New Jersey George H. Cook, now appointed State geologist, prosecuted the survey of that State vigorously, and presented a report of 

progress for 1833, which was followed by yearly reports thereafter. In 

the report for 1363 he states that " a section has been surveyed across 

the State from the mouth of Shark Eiver Inlet, on the Atlantic shore, 

to the Delaware Water Gap." The areal distribution of the Eocene, 

together with certain of its characteristics, is described, though its taxonomic position was but partially appreciated. In the report for 1864 

an analysis of the Eocene marl is given, together with the most important localities at which it is exposed. Nothing further of importance 

upon Eocene geology appeared until the publication of the u Geology of 

New Jersey," in 1868, in which the boundaries, structure, and fossil remains of the Upper Marl Bed receive careful and detailed treatment.

In Maryland a geological survey was started under Philip T. Tyson, 

who published reports in 1860 and 1862. The sudden termination of 

the survey, after the appearance of the second report, prevented the 

publication of a large amount of important data that would have thrown 

much light upon the stratigraphy of the Maryland Eocene.

Maury's " Physical Survey of Virginia," which appeared in 1869, contains several references to the stratigraphy of the Eocene.

The later reports of Emmons at the opening of this decade, and the 

earlier reports of Kerr, at its close, present (practically nothing new on 

the Eocene geology of North Carolina.

In the "First Eeport to the Cotton Planters' Convention of Georgia 

on the Agricultural Resources of Georgia" (1860), the author, Joseph 

Jones, gives an account of " the Tertiary lime formations " of the State. 

Many localities are cited where fossils had been found, and the general 

character of the strata in Burke and Washington Counties is dwelt 

upon.

Of the geological work performed under State authority during this 

period, the investigations of Hilgard in Mississippi and Louisiana deserve special mention. In the former his "Eeport on the Geology and 

Agriculture of the State of Mississippi (1860)" has been by far the most 

important contribution to its geology. In this report the early Tertiary 

is divided into (1) Great Northern Lignite ; (2) Claiborne; (a) siliceous, 

(b) calcareous ; (3) Jackson; (4) Vicksburg. The most detailed observations are there recorded, and from a comparative study of the fossils 

collected a correlation of the leading horizons of the Eocene is successfully accomplished.

Two short reports on the geology of Louisiana by the same author 

appeared at the close of the decade. The second or final report was 

not published, however, until 1873. The stratigraphy of the Eocene is 

Bull. 83 3
34 THE EOCENE. [BULT-.83.

not dwelt upon very fully in these reports, but the author's conclusions 

are valuable from his intimate knowledge of the same formations in 

Mississippi.

Safford's " Geology of Tennessee " (1869), contains much of importance 

upon the Teritary of that State. The lignite deposits are divided into 

(1) Porters Creek group (provisional); (2) Orange Sand or La Grange 

group ; (3) Bluff Lignite group.

Numerous sections and lists of plant remains are given, and the general limits of the Eocene are designated.

The second of Owen's reports on the geology of Arkansas (1860), 

although it appeared at the beginning of this decade, has been earlier 

referred to.

A valuable classificatory list of Eocene fossils was published by 

Conrad in 1866, in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. 1

Some most valuable contributions to the history of the life of the 

Eocene period, which includes the descriptions of many new species, 

were presented by Conrad2 , Marsh3, Cope4, Lesquereux5, and Heilprin6, 

during the decade 1870-'80.

In an article on the " Geological History of the Gulf of Mexico," 7 

read before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 

Hilgard presents some important conclusions as to the age of the lignite deposits of the Gulf States. He says:

So far, indeed, from considering the predominently lignitiferous area as representing a period distinct from the older marine Tertiary, I have little doubt that the 

larger portion, if not all, of the beds I have heretofore designated as the northern 

lignitic (and Flatwood clay) group (La Grange and Porter's Creek groups of Safford) are the strict equivalents in time of the oldest marine beds observed in South 

Carolina and Alabama, and designated by Tuomey as the Bnhrstone group ("Sillceous Claiborne" of my Mississippi Report).

He adds, further, that the lignitic facies is but slightly developed in 

Alabama as compared with the upper portion of the Mississippi Embayment. " In Arkansas, nevertheless, small marine beds are more 

liberally interspersed among the lignitic clays than is the case east of 

the Mississippi."

Articles by Shaler8 ? Hitchcock9, Leidy10, Vogdes11 , Heinrich12, and 

Fontaine13, contain references to early Tertiary stratigraphy that are of

1 Smitlisonian Misc. Coll., vol. 7,1866, art. 6, pp. 1-41.

2 Am. Joiir. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 1,1871, pp. 468,469 ; Philadelphia Acad. Eat. Soi., Proc., vol. 24,1872, pp. 

60-55, 216, 217.

3 Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Proc., vol. 26,1877, pp. 211-258.

« Am. Phil. Soo., Proc., vol. 11,1870, pp. 285-294; vol. 17,1877, pp. 82-84.

6 Ibid., Trans., now ser., vol 13,1870, pp. 411-433.

6 Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 31,1879, pp. 211-216, 217-225.

7 Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Proc., vol. 20, 1871, pp 222-236; Am. Jour. Sci., 31 ser., vol. 2, 1871, pp. 

391-404.

8 Boston Soc. Nat. History, Proc., vol. 13,1870, pp. 222-230.

9 Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Proc., vol. 22, pfc. 2,1873, pp. 131,132.

10 Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Jour., new ser., vol. 8, pp. 209=202,

11 Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 16,1878, pp. 69, 70.

12 Am. Inst. Min. Bug., Trans., vol. 6,1878, pp. 227-274.

13 Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 17,1879, pp. 25-39,151-157,229-239.
CLARK.] HISTORICAL SKETCH, ATLANTIC AND GULF COAST. 35

value in conjunction with the more extended accounts of the same 

localities elsewhere published and referred to.

A work that contains much scattered information in regard to the 

Eocene is Macfarlane's "American Geological Eailroad Guide," that 

first appeared in 1879. A second edition was published in 1890.

During the decade (1S70-'80) a marked increase in activity in geological work was manifested on the part of the States.

In New Jersey annual reports were published by Prof. Cook, though 

little of importance was added to the knowledge of the Eocene.

"Virginia, a geographical and political summary," by Jed. Hotchkiss, is the title of a book that appeared in 1876. It contains a brief 

summary of the Tertiary geology of that State and several type sections of the Eocene. Most of the author's conclusions are identical 

with those in the earlier reports of Rogers.

The State geologist of North Carolina, W. C. Kerr, published several reports during this period, the most important of which is a "Beport of the Geological Survey of North Carolina, vol. 1,1875," in which 

the Eocene is stated as limited by the Neuse and Cape Fear Rivers on 

the north and south respectively, a few isolated outcrops alone excepted. An appendix to this report contains an article by Conrad on 

the Tertiary, with descriptions of new species of fossils.

Several works of a geological character appeared at this time bearing upon the Eocene of Georgia. Three short reports by the State 

geologist, George Little, were published in 1875,1876, and 1878. The 

"Geology and Mineralogy of Georgia" (1871), by M. F. Stevenson, 

contains an outline of the main features of the Eocene, which were 

later restated by T. P. Janes in his "Handbook of the State of 

Georgia" (1876.)

The earlier publications of the present geological survey of Alabama, beginning in 1875, contain nothing upon the Eocene., In an 

"Outline of the Geology of Alabama," by E. A. Smith, State Geologist, in " Beruey's Handbook of Alabama" (1878), the Eocene is divided 

into:

6. Grand Gulf? ....................................................Upper Eoceuc. 4. Vicksburg $ ltf

3. Jackson J .................... ................................ Middle Eocene. 2. Claiborne $

1. Lignitic and Bubrstoue...........................................Lower Eocene.

The characteristic features of each group are given, and in a general 

way its boundaries.

Three annual reports on the geology of Louisiana were published in 

the early part of this decade by F. V. Hopkins. Much attention is 

given to the Eocene, particularly to the Jackson and Yicksburg groups, 

and lists of fossils are appended.

Two reports of the geological and agricultural survey of Texas were 

presented by S. B. Buckley in 1874 and 1876. They added little of 

value to previously existing knowledge of the Eocene.

Prof. N. S. Shaler published four reports upon the geology of Ken-
36 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

tacky that contain meager reference to the Eocene strata of the western 

portion of the State.

It is hardly necessary to consider in detail the literature of the last 

decade (18SO-'90), as the results of the investigations of that period will 

be incorporated in the subseqent portions of this report. In passing, 

however, it is necessary to refer to a discussion, precipitated by Dr. 

Otto Meyer, in regard to the stratigraphical position of the various 

members of the early Tertiary of the Gulf States. Chiefly from a study 

of the fossils, but likewise from investigations in the field, Meyer caine 

to the conclusion that the order of succession of the various Tertiary 

formations is just the reverse of that generally accepted, viz: That 

the Vicksburg beds occupy the position accorded to the Claiborne, and 

that the order, beginning with the lowest, is (1) Vicksburg, (2) Jackson, 

(3) Claiborne, instead of (1) Claiborne, (2) Jackson, (3) Vicksburg, as first 

made out by Lyell and accepted by all subsequent investigators. 

Meyer's position was attacked by Hilgard, Smith, Heilpriu, and others, 

whose long experience in the study of the southern Tertiary showed 

the fallacy of such conclusions. It is not necessary here to enter into 

the details of the discussion, or present more at length the grounds 

upon which Meyer based his argument. Most of the articles appeared 

in the American Journal of Science 1 and Science 2 in 1885-'86.

Among the contributors upon Eocene geology during this decade 

are Heilprin,3 Smith,4 Hi-lgard, 5 Aldrich,6 Johnson,7 Meyer,8 Kerr,9 

Gardner,10 Dall,n Mell, 12 White,13 Winchell, 14 Hill,15 Miller,16 Uhler,17 

Campbell, 18 Langdon, 19 McGee,20 Darton,21 and the writer of this paper.22

1 Am. Jour. Sci., 3dser., vol. 29,1885, pp. 457-468; vol. 30,1885,pp. 60-72,266-209, 270-275, 300-308, 421-435; 

vol. 32,1880, pp. 20-25.

'Science, vol. 5,1885, pp. 475,476; vol. 6,1885, pp. 44,83,143,144; vol. 7,1886, p. \ 1.

3 Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc.. vol. 32, 1880, pp. 20-33,364-375 ; vol. 33,1881, pp. 151-159,416-422, 

423-428,444-447,448-453; vol. 34, 1882, pp. 150-186, 189-193; vol.36, 1884,pp. 321-322; vol. 39,1887,pp. 

314-322; Science, vol. 5,1885, pp. 475,47G ; Wagner Freelnst. Sci., Trans., vol. 1,1887, pp 1-134; U. S. Geological Survey, Fourth Ann. Report, 1882-'83, Appendix I, pp. 309-316.

4 Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 21,1881, pp. 292-309; Science, vol. 5, 1885, pp. 376, 395-396; Am. Geol., 

vol. 2,1888, pp. 269-284; U. S. Geol. Stirv., Bull. No. 43,1887.

8 Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 22,1881, pp. 58-65.

6Cinciunati Soc. Nat. Hist. Jour., vol. 8,1835, pp. 145-153,256, 257; vol. 9,1886, pp. 104-114.

7 Science, vol. 2,1883, p. 777 ; Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 36,1888, pp. 230-236.

 Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 36,1884, pp, 104-112; vol. 30,1887, p. 51; Bericht iiber d. 

Senck. Nattirf. Gesells. in Frankfurt, a. M., 1887, pp. 1-20.

9 Am. Nat., vol. 19, 1885, p. 69 ; Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc., Proc., vol. 2, 1884-'85, pp. 79-84, 86-90.

'"Brit. Assoc., Kept. 54th meet, 1884, pp. 739-741; Geol. Mag., new ser., decade 3, vol. 1,1884, pp. 492- 

506.

11 Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 34,1887, pp. 161-170.

12 Am. Inst. Min. EUR., Trans., vol 8,1880, pp. 304-313.

> 3 Washington Biol. Soc., Proc., vol 3,1885, pp. 1-20 ; Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 35,1888, pp. 432-438.

» Science, vol. 3,1884. p. 32.

I6 TJ. S. Geol. Surv., Bull. 45,1887.

16 North American Mesozoic and Cenozoic Geology and Paleontology, 1881.

17 Maryland Acad. Sci., Trans. vol. 1,188S-'90, pp. 10-32. 45-72, 97-101.

18 Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 31,1880, pp. 193-202.

J'J Ibid., vol. 31,1886, pp. 202-209 ; Geol. Soc. America, Bull, vol. 2,1891, pp.587-605.

26 Ibul, vol. 35, 1888, pp. 120-143,328-330,367-388,448-466; Geol. Soc. America, Bull., vol. 2,1891, pp. 2-6.

21 Geol. Soc. America, Bull., vol. 2,1891, pp. 431-450

22 Ibid,, vol. 1,1890, pp. 537-540; Johus Hopkius University, Circulars, vol. 7, 1887, pp. 65-57; vol. 9, 

1800, pp. 69-71; vol. 10,1891, pp. 105-108.
CLARK.I HISTORICAL SKETCH, ATLANTIC AND GULF COAST. 37

Iii 1884 Heilprin published the most important treatise1 that has 

appeared upon the general features of Eocence stratigraphy. In the 

main the work embodies the points*presented in numerous articles in 

the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 

and referred to above. It has thus far been the only attempt at a 

succinct treatment of the subject of Tertiary geology, and the conclusions at which Prof. Heilprin has arrived are most valuable, and will 

often find place iia the pages of this report.

Surveys were prosecuted in many of the States during this decade. 

In New Jersey Prof. Cook, the State geologist, published annual reports. Under the same auspices a memoir by Prof. Whitfield on the 

Brachiopoda and Lamellibranchiata, appeared, in which the Eocene 

species from Moumouth County are figured and described.

In the Carolinas two works of a general character that include chapters upon geology appeared in 1883; the first, entitled a "Handbook 

of the State of North Carolina," was published under the direction of 

the board of agriculture; the second, " South Carolina Resources and 

Population, Institutions and Industries," prepared by H. Hainmond.

The municipal report of the city of Charleston for 1884 contains an 

article on artesian wells, in which a detailed section is given of the 

geological strata beneath the city, to a depth of nearly 2,000 feet.

" The Commonwealth of Georgia" (1885), by J.T. Hendersou, gives 

the boundaries and general character of the Eocene belt.

The Florida State geological survey, under J. Kost, has published 

but little on the older Tertiary limestones.

In Alabama the State Geological Survey has been ably prosecuted 

under Prof. E. A. Smith, and the reports of the survey, together with 

Bulletin 43 of the U. S. Geological Survey, afford a detailed account of 

the most important sections of the Eocene of that State.

In Arkansas the State geological survey published in 1889 a report 

on the Neozoic formations by Prof. Robert T. Hill, in which the Eocene 

is fully considered.

The present Texas geological survey lias presented in its first annual 

report for 1889 a preliminary statement by R. A. F. Penrose, jr., concerning the Gulf Tertiary area in which the strati graphical relations of 

the Eocene are discussed.

A critical examination of the literature, a brief summary of which has 

been given, will convince one that although much has already been 

done, far more exhaustive and systematic investigations must be made 

before our knowledge of the Eocene formation of the Atlantic and Gulf 

coast region approaches in any degree to completeness.

1 Contributions to the Tertiary Geology and Paleontology of the United States, PLiladelpllia, tlio 

authoi, 1884,4to, 117 pp. and map.
38 THE EOCENE. [BULL 83.

GENERAL BOUNDARIES.

The Eocene of the Atlantic coast extends as a narrow baud inter - 

mittiugly appearing1 and disappearing across the States of New Jersey, 

Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, and thence with an increase in 

width of surface exposure across the Carolinas and Georgia into Florida. 

Within the Gulf States it outcrops over a still greater area, extending 

from Florida across central Alabama and Mississippi, while in the latter 

a northward extension covers much of the northern portion of that State 

together with parts of eastern Tennessee and Kentucky and southern 

Illinois. Upon the western bank of the Mississippi the Eocene is found 

in southeastern Missouri, and much more widely represented over 

eastern and southern Arkansas and western Louisiana, while a band 

of considerable width extends across Texas in a southwesterly direction to the Mexican border.

Throughout the Atlantic and Gulf States the exposures of Eocene are 

separated from the coast line by a region of greater or less width, in 

which later Tertiary and post-Tertiary deposits constitute the land 

surface. On the other hand, the Eocene seldom comes in contact 

with the older rocks of the Piedmont Plateau, but is in nearly all cases 

separated from them by an area of Mesozoic formations. Occupying 

as it does a more or less central position in the coastal plain, the 

Eocene, after its first appearance in eastern New Jersey near the coast, 

maintains a distance of from 50 to 75 miles from the same through 

Maryland and Virginia. Beginning with a width of exposure in eastern 

New Jersey of less than 5 miles, it broadens in Maryland and Virginia 

to 20 or 25. This is very greatly increased in North Carolina, where 

many isolated outcrops are found scattered from Wilmington and New 

Berne to near Raleigh, the first scarcely 10 miles from the coast, the 

last considerably over 100 miles. In South Carolina the different 

divisions of the Eocene are found over quite as wide an area, and in the 

vicinity of Charleston approach within a few miles of the sea. Less is 

known of its boundaries in Georgia and Florida, but that it is widely 

extended and in the former State reaches over 150 miles from the coast 

is recognized. The careful study made of the Eocene in Alabama and 

Mississippi make it possible to speak with some accuracy as to its limits. 

Extending in a north westerly direction across the southern and central 

portions of these States, its distance at the boundary between them is 

not far from 100 miles from the Gulf, while its northward extension in 

the latter State, to form the Mississippi embaymeut, reaches across 

Tennessee and Kentucky into Illinois, with a width of exposure north 

of the Gulf and east of the Mississippi Eiver of from 50 to over 100 

miles. The region of the Eocene extending from Missouri southwestward through Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas, although a continuation of the eastern belt is yet separated from it and the Gulf by a 

wide area of more recent deposits that have been formed by the Missis-
OLABK.I GENERAL STRATIGRAPHICAL RELATIONS. 39

sippijand other streams reaching the coast. The width of the outcrop 

in Louisiana and Arkansas is quite 150 miles, which again becomes contracted as eastern central Texas is reached.

In the next chapter a more detailed discussion of the geographical 

distribution of the deposits in the several States will be found.

 STRATIGRAPHICAL AND PALEONTOLOG-ICAL CHARACTERISTICS.

GENERAL REMARKS.

The Eocene constitutes a well defined stratigraphical and paleontological unit in the series of late Mesozoic and Cenozoic deposits of 

the coastal plain. A brief sketch of the succession of events during 

the formation of that area will aid in acquiring a clear idea of the relationship of tbe Eocene to the other members of that series.

At about the opening of the Cretaceous period, or perhaps somewhat 

earlier, a great depression of the continent took place along the Atlantic and Gulf borders, by which the coast line was moved far inland 

against the buttress of Archean and Paleozoic strata. The gravels, 

sands, and clays of this basal formation have received different names 

in the different regions in which they are represented upon the Atlantic coast the Potoinac, on the eastern Gulf coast the Tuscaloosa, and 

on the western Gulf the Trinity formation. In the western Gulf region 

the Trinity formation is succeeded by the Comanche series, characterized by limestones and a fauna that denotes a deep infralittoral origin.

A marked continental elevation occurred previous to the great subsidence that opened the Upper Cretaceous epoch throughout the Atlantic and Gulf coast region. The deposits of this age, largely greensand marls on the Atlantic coast and marls and limestone on the Gulf 

border, are the basement beds upon which the Eocene strata have been 

chiefly laid, though these are also found uiicouforinably overlying the 

earlier horizons in local areas.'

Tbe materials of which the Eocene deposits are formed were mainly 

derived from the softer beds of the Cretaceous series, although the 

continental area to the north and west supplied a considerable admixture 

of sand and clay. The deeper water deposits of late Eocene time were, 

however, largely the accumulations of organic remains in a sea only 

periodically exposed to the inroads of land-derived materials. Throughout the Gulf area and at times locally represented on the Atlantic coast 

are shore deposits of lignitic character and in part at least of brackish 

water origin,, that attain great thickness in the Mississippi einbayinent, and in the southwest appear at different horizons to the top of 

the Eocene.

Unconformably overlying the Eocene with its varied development in 

brackish and marine deposits, is the Neocene which likewise occurs 

under very different facies in different portions of the coastal area. 

Composed largely of sands, clays, and marls that have been in part
40 THE EOCENE. [DULL. 83.

derived from the Eocene itself, it occupies a baud of varying breadth 

upon the shoreward side of the deposits of that horizon.

Spread widely over nearly the entire area of the coastal plain are 

post-Tertiary deposits of varied origin, the details of which it is unnecessary to discuss here, that bury, almost complete^7 , the CretaceoTertiary series.

Due to the slight elevation of the region above sea level and the com-, 

paratively slight inroads that have been made into the surface covering 

by denudation since their deposition, the outcrops of the pre-Quaternary series are confined chiefly to the channels of the rivers and their 

larger tributaries. The strata that have just been described as entering into the formation of the coastal plain are approximately horizontal, 

with a dip of a few feet to the mile toward the east on the Atlantic 

coast and toward the south on the Gulf border. Few disturbances of 

the strata have occurred throughout the territory, aud only locally 

have the beds shown any change from the original condition of their 

deposition.

When search is made in the literature for data upon which to construct a typical section of Eocene strata for the Atlantic and Gulf 

coast region the contradictory nature of the material at hand renders 

the consummation of the task difficult and the results doubtful.

The Eocene is so varied in its facies in different portions of the area 

that it becomes often perplexing to determine to which division of the 

series a particular deposit belongs.

As the work has been prosecuted largely under State supervision, 

and as the State geologists have employed chiefly local terms in the 

designation of the different horizons, it is thought advisable to consider 

the stratigraphy of each State by itself, and subsequently to endeavor 

to correlate, so far as may be, the different divisions. Such treatment 

is but seldom warranted on stratigraphical grounds, yet the character 

of the literature makes it in this case the only feasible method. A 

consideration of the subject by provinces is much more to be desired, 

but this would be hazardous with our present meager knowledge of the 

area. A provisional establishment of provinces is, however, attempted 

in a later chapter.

NEW JERSEY.

The green-sand marls of JSew Jersey early attracted the attention of 

geologists, and the similarity of the fossils to those of the Cretaceous 

of Europe was soon recognized. That horizons other than the Cretaceous were represented in the marl series was not at first entertained, 

and even after the upper beds were shown to contain Eocene fossils 

their conformity to the Cretaceous marls was for a still longer period 

considered probable. Conrad, 1 in 1818, first referred the marls of the 

upper portion of the Upper Marl Bed near Long Branch to the Eocene,

1 Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci. Jour., 2d ser., vol. 1,1848, p. 129.
CLARK.J NEW JERSEY. - 41

and Coot,1 iii 1883, first proved by detailed field work tlie unconformity 

of tliat formation to the Cretaceous. The paleoutological investigations of Whitfield have further substantiated the results of Conrad and 

Cook.

From the standpoint of stratigraphy the Eocene of New Jersey does 

not form a prominent feature in the coastal deposits. The conditions for 

its formation were not markedly different from those in other portions 

of the marl series, so that stiucturally the dissimilarities are not conspicuous. Furthermore, the inconsiderable thickness of the deposits 

renders the geographical distribution limited. Although the dip has 

been estimated to be only 25 feet 2 to the rnile, it soon carries the strata 

below sea level in a country so slightly elevated above tide as this portion of the coastal plain.

It is probable that the Eocene extends as an unbroken band from 

northeast to southwest across the State, although its surface continuity 

is frequently interrupted by the covering of more recent deposits. 

These toward the south acquire considerable thickness.

The most northern exposure is on Deal Beach, where numerous pits 

have been sunk into the marl near tide water. Several other localities 

are found in Monrnouth County, particularly that of Shark River, the 

best known of all, and isolated exposures near Farmingdale, Squankum, 

and neighboring places. To the southeast of these localities an almost 

continuous band of the Upper Marl Beds is found extending from near 

New Egypt, Ocean County, across Burlington County to near Clementon in Camden County. A continuation of this belt, beginning at Deal 

and extending to Clementon, would reach the Delaware Kiver not far 

from Salem, but to the southwest of Clemeuton it is buried from sight 

by later deposits.

The stratigraphical sequence of deposits in the Upper Marl Bed, as 

established by the late Prof. Cook, State geologist, is as follows :

I Blue Marl............................. Eocene.

Upper Mar! M.................. j A-bMgL. j.............. .........Cl,taceo,,s.

He thus describes the Blue Marl:

The Blue Marl. Thin layer lies directly upon the Ash Marl, without "any well 

marked line of division, and it is terminated above by surface sand and loam, or by 

what is called rotten stone; it is 11 feet thick ; it is a mixture of green sand and lightcolored earth : the upper 2 or 3 feet are quite hard and stony. It lies uuconformably 

on the layers beneath ; its fossils are quite distinct and are pronounced by paleontologists to be of the Eocene division of the Tertiary age. 3

The stratigraphical and paleontological individuality of the New 

Jersey Eocene thus clearly stated by Cook has been recognized by many 

other geologists who have investigated the strata.

The fossils, although varying in a marked degree from those of the 

preceding deposits of the marl series, still lack the more characteristic

1 Geol. Surv. New Jersey, Aim. Kept., 1883, pp. 13-19.

'Ibid., p. 19.

'Geology of New Jersey, KIG8, p. 275; reprinted iu Gool.Surv. New Jersey, Ann. Rept., 1886, p. 182.
42 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

forms found in the Eocene to the south. Such typical species as 

Ostrea compressirostra, Ostrea seUceformis, Cucullcea gigantea, Cardita 

planicosta, and Turritella Mortoni are wanting. The important contributions (published and in press) to the paleontology of the New Jersey 

Cretaceous and Eocene by Prof. E. P. Whitfield, give the following 

Eocene species from the Blue Marl of the Upper Marl Bed:

Lamellibranchiata.

Ostrea glauconoides Whitfield.

liuguafelis Wliit6eld. 

Pecteii Knetskerni Conrad.

Eigbyi Whitfield. 

Avicula annosa Conrad. 

Nucula circe Whitfield. 

Nuculana albaria Conrad (Yoldia protexta Conrad). 

Nucularia secunda Whitfield. 

Axiuea Conradi Whitfield. 

Astarte castanella Whitfield (Crassina 

veta Conrad).

planimargiuata Whitfield. 

Cardita perantiqua Conrad (Cardifca subquadrata Gabb).

Brittoui Whitfield. 

Crassatella alta Conrad.

obliquata Whitfield. 

Protocardiuni cnrtum Conrad. 

Caryatis ovalis Whitfield (Caryatis delawarensis Conrad). 

Veleda equilatera Whitfield. 

Corbula (Netera) nasutoides Whitfield. 

Neuera sequivalvis Whitfield. 

Parapholas Kueiskerni Whitfield. 

Teredo emacerata Whitfield.

Glossopliora.

Leptomaria gigantea Whitfield.

pergranosa Whitfield.

perlata Conrad sp. 

Architectouica annosa Conrad. 

Natica globulella Whitfield. 

Xenophora lapiferens Whitfield. 

Scalaria tenuilirata Whitfield. 

Mesalia elongata Whitfield. 

Calyptophorua vetusta Conrad. 

Rhinocantha [?] Conradi Whitfield. 

Cypraea sabuloroides Whitfield. 

Cassidaria carinata Lamarck. 

Ficus penitus Conrad. 

Triton eocense Whitfield.

Psendoliva vetusta Conrad. 

Fusus angularis Whitfield.

eoceuicus Whitfield.

paucicostatus Whitfield.

perobesus Whitfield.

pluricostatus Whitfield.

(Neptunea) hector Whitfield.

var. multilineatus Whitfield. 

etaiuinea Conrad.

(Urosalpiux) multicostatus Whitfield. 

Trematofusus venustus Whitfield. 

Clavella raphanoides Conrad. 

Fasciolaria hercules Whitfield.

propinqua Whitfield.

Samsoni Whitfield. 

Voluta Newcoinbiana Whitfield.

parvula Whitfield.

perelevata Whitfield.

scaphoides Whitfield.

vesta Whitfield.

lelia Wliitfield. 

Caricella ponderosa Whitfield. *

pyruloides Conrad. 

Volutilithes cancellata Whitfield.

Sayana Conrad.

Murex (Pleurouotus?) levivaricosa Whitfield.

Caucellariarudis Whitfield. 

Pleurotoma surculiformis Whitfield.

regularicostata Whitfield.

(Surcula) altispira Whitfield.

perobesa Whitfield. 

Surculites arenosa Conrad.

cadaverosa Whitfield.

curta Whitfield. 

Conus snbsauridens Whitfield. 

Actaeou prisca Conrad.

(Tornatiua) lata Conrad. 

Wetherelli Lea.

Cephalopoda.

Nautilus Cookana Whitfield. 

Aturia Vanuxemi Conrad.
CLARK.] DELAWARE. 43

In addition to the invertebrate fossils described by Conrad and Whitfield, Marsh1 and Cope2 have added a few vertebrate forms.

Mammalia ........ .Sits, sp ........................................ Moumouth Co.

( Diuopbis littoralisCope ....................... Shark River.

Reptilia.......... < halidanus Cope ................. ..........Squanknm.

( grandis Marsh ............................ Shark River.

f Myliobatis glottoidos Cope .................... Fariningdale.

rectidens Cope ............................Harrisonville.

bisoulus Marsh............ ................Moumouth Co.

Pisces............ ( Coelorhynchus acus Cope ....... ..............Farmingdale.

I Histiophorns parvnlus Marsh................. -Squankuua.

Embalorynchus Kinnei Marsh ...... ........... Squankum.

tPhyllodus elegans Marsh ......................Farmingdale.

DKLAWARE.

Until the recent investigations of Barton3 no positive evidence had 

been adduced of the occurrence of Eocene within the limits of the State 

of Delaware, although Heilprin in his "Contributions to the Tertiary 

Geology and Paleontology of the United States " says:

No reasonable doubt can be entertained as to its existence there (although possibly 

entirely obscured by the newer Miocene deposits) as a direct continuation of, or connection between, the belts developed in Maryland and New Jersey.

Booth4 mentions the occurrence as far north as Old Duck Creek of 

Tertiary fossils which, from their description, must be Neocene, while 

Chester's5 investigations show that the Cretaceous is found somewhat 

to the south of Appoquininrink Creek.

The intervening country, at most 6 miles in breadth, has been hitherto doubtfully referred to the Eocene. Darton, by the recent discovery of several characteristic Eocene fossils, among them Cardita planicosta, has proved beyond doubt that surface exposures of Eocene strata 

occur within this area. The characteristic greenish gray and red sandstone that is typical for the more northern exposures of the Maryland 

Eocene has been recognized at numerous localities.

The lithological and. paleontological features of the Delaware Eocene 

ally it so closely with the Maryland representatives of this horizon, of 

which it is, in fact, only the northward prolongation, that a consideration of its relations will be deferred until the Maryland strata are discussed.

MARYLAND.

The Eocene of Maryland is much more extensively developed than in 

New Jersey and Delaware and becomes for the first time a marked 

structural feature in the stratigraphy of the coastal plain. This fact, 

together with the great number and excellent state of preservation of

1 Am. Jour. Soi., 2d ser., vol. 48,1889, pp. 397-400; Am. Asaoc. Adv., Sci., Proc., vol. 18,1869, pp. 227-230. 

3 Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Soi., Proc., vol. 20, 1808, pp. 234-235; Am. Phil. Soc.,Proc., vol. 11,1870, pp. 

285-294.

3 Geol. Soc. America Bull., vol. 2,1891, pp. 441,442.

4 Memoir of the Geological Survey of the State of Delaware, 1841, pp. 18,81,84. 

 Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, vol. 30,1884, pp. 249-258.
44 THE EOCENE. [BULL.83.

the fossils, early attracted the attention of geologists. Although the 

valuable contributions of Finch 1 and Say 2 in 1824 included references 

to the Mary laud Tertiary, the first really important geological inferences, 

drawn from a study of the organic remains, were made by Conrad3 in 

the Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia for 

1830. Many articles by the same author upon the Maryland Tertiary 

followed in subsequent years, and to-day the contributions of Conrad 

remain the most exhaustive that we have upon the Eocene of the State. 

The more recent articles of Tyson, Uhler, Darton,4 Heilpriu and the 

writer of this bulletin have added many new facts, but there is much to 

be done before all the problems presented by the Eocene of Maryland 

will be fully solved.

The Eocene deposits extend as a nearly unbroken belt from the Delaware line to the Potomac River, and are found in Cecil, Kent, Queen 

Anne, Anne Aruudel, Prince George, and Charles counties. The strike 

is approximately northeast and southwest; the dip 20 to 30 feet in the 

mile toward the southeast. The breadth of outcrop upon the eastern 

shore of the Chesapeake is scarcely 5 miles at the head of the Sassafras 

Eiver, but gradually expands toward the southwest until upon the western shore it is in places more than 25 miles wide.

The lithological character of the rocks is remarkably persistent. The 

typical deposit is a green-sand marl, which may, however, by chemical 

changes, lose its characteristic green color, and by the deposition of a 

greater or less amount of hydrous iron oxide be found as an incoherent 

red sand or firm red or brown sandstone. To this is added at times a 

siliceous cement that produces'a firm siliceous sandstone, from which 

generally most of the carbonate of lime has been removed in solution, so 

that the organic forms are found only in the shape of casts. The greensand type is chiefly confined to the southwestern portion of the area in 

Charles and Prince George counties, where the deposits overlying the 

Eocene attain their greatest thickness. In Anne Arundel County and 

on the eastern shore of the Chesapeake the Eocene is less .deeply buried 

and the strata are more thoroughly weathered, affording greenish gray 

or red sands and at times bands of firm sandstone.

No widespread division of the series into different horizons is indicated upon lithological grounds, as the variations in composition are 

apparently due to subsequent chemical changes rather than to original 

deposition. It is likewise impossible with our present imperfect knowledge of the Eocene fauna to attempt to establish definite horizons upon 

such a basis, as even the geological range of the best known forms has 

not been as yet fully determined.

1 Am. Jonr. Sci., vol. 7,1824, pp. 31-43.

2 Philadelphia Aoad. Nat. Sci,, Jour., vol. 4,1824, pp. 124-155.

3 Ibid., vol. 6,1830, pp. 205-217.

4 Geol. Soc. America, Bull., vol. 2,1891, pp. 440-442,450.
OLAHK.] MARYLAND. 45

Among the more common species found in the Maryland Eocene are 

Ostrea compressirostra Say. Dosiniopsis Meekii Conrad.

Cucullaea gigantea Conrad. Cytherea ovata Eogers.

transverea Rogers. Pholadoniya marylaudica Conrad.

Pectuncnlus stamineus Conrad. Glycimeiia elongata Conrad.

Crassatella alteformis Conrad. Pholas petrosa Conrad.

palmula Conrad. Monodoiita glandula Conrad.

capricraninm Rogers. Turritella humerosa Conrad.

Cardita regia Conrad. Mortoni Conrad.

planicosta Lamarck.

Among these Cucullcea gigantea is chiefly con fined to the basal strata, 

although in individual cases, as reported by Uhler and Darton, it has 

been found in the upper portions of the series. Turritella Mortoni, on 

the other hand, is infrequent in the lowest beds, and in the sections on 

the Potomac and its tributaries is found above those layers in which 

the Cucullcea gigantea is most numerous.

Hitherto few Eocene fossils have been obtained from the deposits of 

the eastern shore of the Chesapeake. At the head of the creeks tributary to the Chester Eiver and on the hills to the north of the latter 

several characteristic forms are reported by Uhler.1 Among them Turritella Mortoni, Cardita planicosta, Cucullcea transversa, Pectunculus 

stamineus, and Ostrea compressirostra have been identified.

On the western shore of the Chesapeake there are numerous localities where typical Eocene fossils are found in great numbers. At South 

River, in Anne Arundel County, and Tipper Marlboro, Fort Washington, and Piscataway Creek, in Prince George County, the sections 

with their fossils have been studied with some care.

The section2 afforded by the Fort Washington bluff, so frequently 

referred to in geological literature, is presented below.

Section at Fort Washington.

Pleistocene.. Coarse gravel................................................ 8 feet.

Eocene ......Red sand with casts of Turritella Mortoni, Dosiniopsis Meekii,

Cytherea ovata, Crassatella sp., Ostrea sp................... 12 feet.

£ Light, variegated sands, slightly glanconitic......lO feet. )

Cretaceous... < Dark, micaceous sand, with Cyprimeria densata, Crassaiclla > 20 feet. 

( vadosa, Cuciillwa vtilyaris, etc .................... 10 feet. S'

Potouiac . ....Variegated clay, slightly liguitic on upper surface, with layers of ironstone .......................................... 55 feet.

The Eocene deposits of Maryland must be considered to represent a 

single horizon until a more detailed examination of the range of the 

different fossil forms afford us evidence for a division upon that basis.

1 Maryland Acatl. Sci. Trans., vol. 1,1888, p. 29.

2 Johns Jlopkiua UniversUyCii'CularB, vol. 9,1890, p. 70.
46 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

VIRGINIA.

There is no State upon the Atlantic seaboard in which the Eocene 

has received such careful examination as in Virginia, and certainly 

none where the literature exists in such a compact and accessible form. 

For this geology is in the main indebted to Prof. William B. Kogers, 

who from 1835 to 1841 held the position of State geologist of Virginia 

and who published during that time annual reports, in each of which 

defined areas were taken up for detailed investigation.

The first mention by Prof. Eogers of the occurrence of Eocene deposits in Virginia was made in the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society for 1835* where, to use the author's words, "the existence of an extensive Eocene formation in eastern Virginia is now for 

the first time announced."

In my study of the Eocene of Virginia I have had occasion to refer 

constantly to Prof. Eogers's writings, and from personal examination of 

the localities described have been impressed with the accuracy of that 

investigator's observations.

More recently Mr. N. H. Barton,2 of the TJ. S. Geological Survey, has 

examined the Tertiary area of Virginia, and has more accurately delimited the extent of the Eocene in the various river basins.

The deposits of the early Tertiary of Virginia form an intimate continuation southward of the Maryland belt, and extend from the Potomac 

Eiver, where the width of outcrop is about 25 miles, to the James and 

its southern tributary the Appomattox, where the limits have been 

much narrowed. Throughout much of this region the thick covering of post-Eocene sediments renders an exact delimitation of the boundaries of the Eocene formation altogether impossible. Presumably this 

belt continues on to the southern border of the State, but so far as we 

have any evidence it is buried, throughout most if not all of that distance, by more recent deposits. McGee 3 reports a single occurrence 

on the Nottoway Eiver below Boilings Bridge where the Potomac formation "is unconformably overlain by 3 or 4 feet of stratified greenishblue clay containing Eocene fossils."

The strike of the strata is approximately north and south ; the dip at 

a very low angle toward the east. If we take the data furnished by the 

well-boring at Fortress Monroe, not 50 miles to the east of the supposed 

seaward boundary of the Eocene, we find the sands that have been 

referred to that formation at a depth of something less than 600 feet. 

This at the outside would admit of a dip of 10 to 15 feet to the mile.

On account of the surface covering of post-Tertiary deposits, the 

sections are chiefly found along the water courses or on the steeper

1 Am. Phil. Soc., Trans., new ser., vol. 5,1835, pp. 319-341.

2 Geol. Soc. America, Bull., vol 2,1891, pp. 439-413. 

8 Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 35,1888, p. 126.
CLARK.] VIRGINIA. 47

slopes of the higher ridges. The slight elevation of the coastal plain 

above tide level, together with the incoherent nature of the materials, 

renders the occurrence of high cliffs even along the larger rivers exceptional arid consequently the superposition of any considerable thickness of strata in a single section out of the question. It thus becomes a 

matter of some difficulty to measure accurately the entire thickness of 

the Eocene deposits, but it is doubtful if they are found to exceed 150 feet. 

In fact no single section thus far described shows a thickness of even 

100 feet.

The deposits are in the main identical with those hitherto described 

as typical for Maryland. The green-sand marl predominates, though 

beds of a micaceous or aluminous character are not infrequent in the 

southern portion of the area.

Along the northern portion of the belt, the Eocene marl rests unconformably upon the Fredericksburg sandstone, the local representative of the Potomac formation. Farther south, however, the Eocene 

overlaps the Archean and so continues until it is itself buried by more 

recent deposits. To the east it is followed in direct succession by the 

Neocene, while over the whole, when not completely eroded, an uneven 

covering of post-Tertiary deposits is found. ,

The most northern and one of the most typical of the river sections 

of the Yirgiuia Eocene is found upon the south bank of the Potomac 

River, extending from the mouth of Acquia Creek to the vicinity of 

Mathias Point,,

At Acquia Creek the following section of the Eocene overlain by 

Pleistocene has been observed by the writer.1

Section at Acquia Creek.

Pleistocene.. ..Red sandy loam........................................... 20 feet.

f Light-colored sand, slightly glanconitic..... ...... 20 feet.'

Light green-sand, with Cardita planicosta^ TurriteUa 

Afortoni, Cucullcea onochela. Crasatella capricranhtm, Cytherea ovata, etc ........................ 9 feet.

Soft, yellowish green-sand, with Ostrea compressiEocene ......< rostra .......................................... 15 feet. )> 65 feet.

Ledge of dark green-sand, with TurriteUa Mortoni, 

Cardita planicosta, Panopcea elongata, Fusus sp. 

etc............................................. 3 feet.

Dark green-sand, with Cytherea ovata, Craesatella 

{ carrier anium, etc ............................... 18 feet, j

In the basin of the Rappahannock the Eocene is reported by Darton 

as extending from the vicinity of Fredericksburg to a point below Port 

Royal. He says that it consists at the higher elevations landward of 

buff colored weathered green-sand that to the east becomes a typical 

green-sand with abundant and characteristic fossils. Rogers and Barton both refer to the exposures of Eocene in the valleys of the Matapouy 

and Pamunky that afford a marked admixture of argillaceous materials

1 John Hopkius University Circulars, vol. 9, 1890, p. 70.
48 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

aud at times show bands of limestone. The Eocene is not reported 

from the basin of the Chickahominy. On the Jatnes River, however, 

the bluffs, particularly in the vicinity of City Point, aiford excellent 

exposures of Eocene green-sand with numerous characteristic fossils.

In its paleontological characteristics the Eocene of Virginia is closely 

allied to that of Maryland. The common forms Turritella Mortoni and 

Cardita planicosta are widely distributed, while the prevalent oyster of 

Maryland, the Ostrea compressirostra, has given place for the most part 

to Ostrea sellceformis, so important as a typical Eocene fossil in the 

States farther south.

Among the species recognized from the Virginia strata are the following :

Ostrea sellaeformis Conrad.

sinuosa Rogers. 

Anornia Ruffini Courad. 

Cucullueatransversa Rogers.

onochela Rogers. 

Nucula cultelliforruis Rogers.

parva Rogers.

Nuculaua iruprocera Conrad. 

Cardita planicosta Lamarck.

ascia Rogers.

Crassatella capricraniura Rogers. 

Protocardia virginiana Courad. 

Cytherea ovata Rogers.

lenticularis Rogers.

eversa Conrad.

leuis Conrad.

liciata Courad.

perbrevis Conrad. 

Dosiniopsis alta Courad. 

Turritella Mortoui Conrad.

Even less is known of the range of these forms in Virginia than in 

Maryland, and they afford no basis for a division of the strata into 

separate horizons. The Eocene, of Virginia must be considered, for the 

present at least, as a single lithological and paleontological unit.

NOHTH CAROLINA.

The Eocene of North Carolina is very different from that in Marylaud and Virginia. Neither in the stratigraphical nor paleontological characteristics of its members does it afford many points for comparison with the Eocene of the more northern areas. Furthermore, 

the isolated manner of its occurrence makes a determination of its 

boundaries extremely difficult, and thus, hitherto, where fossils have 

not been found its separation from other horizons has been rendered 

uncertain. From the State reports of Emmous and Kerr and the paleoutological writings of Conrad our knowledge of the structure and 

fossils of the Eocene is mainly derived.

Geographically considered, the Eocene is confined in its northern and 

southern extension between the Neuse and Cape Fear Rivers, and is 

found scattered between those limits from near the mouths of the larger 

streams to over a hundred miles inland. As in Virginia the sections 

are chiefly exhibited along the river channels, which alone cut through 

the surface covering of more recent deposits. Thus the cliffs along the 

banks of the Neuse, New, and Cape Fear Eivers and their larger tributaries afford the best exposures. The Neuse, between New Berne and
CLARK.] NORTH CAROLINA. 49

Goldsboro and its large southern tributary, the Trent, for the last 30 

or 40 miles of their courses, frequently cut through Eocene strata. The 

headwaters of the New, in Orislow County, and its southwest branch 

penetrate similar deposits. The lower course of the Cape Fear in Bladeu and New Hanover Counties and the Northeast Cape Fear, in the 

latter county, afford extensive sections. Some distance to the west of 

the Coas'tal region several isolated areas of the Eocene occur, that in 

each case reach an altitude of over 300 feet above sea level. The most 

northern of these areas is situated a short distance east of lialeigh, 

while two others occur to the northwest of Fayetteville in Harnett and 

Moore Counties. If, as seems probable, these isolated outcrops are but 

the remnants of a once continuous belt of Eocene strata, then the inland extension of the Eocene must have been more than 100 miles from 

the present coast line.

The relations of the Eocene to the Cretaceous on the one hand and 

the Neocene on the other are especially well exhibited in the basin of 

the Cape Fear Kiver, where the Eocene has been shown by the writer 1 

to occupy hollows within the Cretaceous, which afforded an unevenly 

eroded surface upon which the sediments of the Eocene period were 

accumulated. The erosion that followed the elevation of the Eocene 

deposits approximately base-leveled the region before the submergence 

in Neocene time.

Kerr became convinced latterly of a much wider extension of the 

Eocene than had been previously admitted by him or other writers upon 

the geology of the State. In an article in the American Naturalist for 

1885 upon " The Eocene of North Carolina," 2 he states:

I have recently ascertained by the discovery oi; the unmistakable superposition of 

the small outliers of Eocene fossiliferous rocks (noted in the text and geological 

map of the State in the report of 1875) and of other similarly situated patches of the 

same beds, with Upper Eocene shells capping the highest hills of the so-called Drift 

or Quaternary, that nearly all of these beds of sand and gravels heretofore referred to 

the latter horizons are of Eocene age. The area of Tertiaries in this State must now 

be extended over a wide stretch of country from the tops of the Laurentiau hills near 

Raleigh and the higher elevations of the Huronian slates to from 50 to 75 miles southeast along the course of the Deep River and so onward to the South Carolina border, 

reaching at one point a,u elevation of 600 feet above tide. This leaves the Quaternary, like the Miocene, to be represented by a thin and broken covering of superficial 

deposits of only a few feet to a few yards in thickness and reaching from the coast 

only about 100 miles inland, and an elevation of but little above 100 feet.

Although from the data at hand it seems probable that the views. 

of Professor Kerr, as to the wide distribution of the Eocene, are too 

extreme, yet the supposition that the post-Eocene depressions were not 

sufficient to bring the higher and more inland portions of the Eocene 

deposits below sea level, is fully substantiated by the facts. Our 

knowledge of the stratigraphy is far too meager to admit of the incorporation in the Eocene of many of the unfossiliferous beds that such a

1 Gool. Soc. America, Bull., vol. 1,1890, p. 538. 

2 Am. Naturalist, vol. 19,1885, p.6D.

Bull. 83 4
50 THE EOCENE. [Buu,83.

conclusion would require. Much that Kerr has included in the Eocene 

is referred by McGee and Holmes to the Appomattox formation.

In the character of its deposits the Eocene is in a marked degree calcareous, occurring as a finely comminuted, light-colored marl, shell conglomerate, calcareous sandstone or hard, gray limestone. The isolated 

outcrops situated far inland are more siliceous than the deposits in the 

extreme eastern portions of the State, which afford still further evidence 

of their closer proximity to the shore of the Eocene sea. The calcareous nature of the eastern deposits indicates a comparatively clear and 

open sea and a sufficient distance from the Eocene shore to prohibit the 

intermingling of large quantities of land-derived sediments with the 

calcareous accumulations of marine organisms out of which the strata 

are largely formed.

The paleontological characteristics of the North Carolina Eocene are 

very imperfectly comprehended. No collections of importance are now 

in existence, and the lists of fossils hitherto reported can not at the 

present time be substantiated. Moreover, there is particular danger in 

the use of such data so far as the North Carolina deposits are concerned from the fact that a commingling of Cretaceous and Eocene fossils is known to occur. Futhermore, that intermixture has been shown 

to be due to mechanical agencies rather than contemporaneous existence. The best evidence of this may be seen in the limestone beds in 

the vicinity of Wilmington, where this remarkable occurrence has been 

observed and recorded by several investigators.1

A few typical Eocene fossils have been recognized by myself from 

the North Carolina Eocene deposits,, including Ostrecu sellceformis and 

Cardita planicosta. From the fact that the fossils are chiefly preserved 

in the form of casts, their determination is frequently in doubt, and extensive collections will have to be made before a comparative study of 

the forms will afford satisfactory results.

SOUTH CAROLINA.

In many of its structural peculiarities the Eocene of South Carolina 

shows a close relationship to the early Tertiary deposits of North Carolina that have just been described. In its geographical distribution it 

covers a much more extensive area than in the States hitherto referred 

to, and becomes one of the most important features in the geology of 

the Coastal plain.

The reports of Etiffin3 Tuomey, and Lieber present us with detailed 

descriptions of the stratigraphy of the Eocene, while Eavenel, Conrad, 

Bouve", and others have figured and described the organic remains from 

the same horizon. Although a review of the conclusions arrived at by 

these different authors affords but few points for comparisons with

1 Tuoiney, Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Proc., vol. 1,1848, p. 33; Tuoraey, Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., 

vol.0, 1852, 193; Conrad, Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 17, 1865, p. 72; Clark, Geol. Soc. 

America, Bull., vol. 1,1890, pp. 537-540.
CLABK.J SOUTH CAROLINA. 51

other areas, careful descriptions of local deposits render the literature 

of South Carolina geology among the best of official publications. 

Numerous sections within the Tertiary belt are discussed in minute detail, but the attempt at a geological establishment of boundaries has 

given vague and unsatisfactory results.

The inland border of the Eocene forms a more or less continuous 

line "from the mouth of Stevens Creek, on the Savannah, north of 

Hamburg, crossing the Saluda and Broad Eivers near their junction; 

the Wateree at the canal; Lynch Creek at Evans Ferry, and Thompson Creek at the point where it enters the State in Chesterfield district." 1 Its seaward extension is buried under more recent deposits, of 

different character, or the disturbed upper layers of the Eocene itself, 

a condition of outcrop that occasions an extremely sinuous boundary, 

and one at the same time very difficult of determination. In the vicinity of Charleston the strata approach nearly to the coast line, though 

complicated in the aforesaid manner. As the river sections afford 

almost the only indications of the pre Quaternary geology the field of 

observation is much narrowed, and the tracing out of intermediate 

deposits, binding what may be only different facies of contemporaneous development, is greatly hindered.

Tuoiney, in the " Eeport on the Geology of South Carolina," published in 1848, divides the Eocene of the State into three horizons, 

which in ascending; order are: 1, Buhrstone; 2, San tee Beds ; 3, Ashley 

and Cooper Beds. Euffin had previously (1843) designated the last two 

of Tuomey's 2 divisions as the "Great Carolinian Bed," and had likewise described the Buhrstone and its fossils, although he did not consider the latter apparently of much taxonomic importance, and, moreover, entirely mistook its strati graphical position. Following in great 

measure the authority of Lyell, Euffiu accepted tentatively the Eocene 

age of the " Great Carolinian Bed," thus going counter to the opinions 

of Vanuxem, Conrad, and Morton, who had pronounced it " Upper 

Secondary." In a later statement he says, " the ( Great Carolinian Bed' 

of marl will serve every present purpose of designation and distinction 

as if it were definitely settled and the bed named either ' Upper Cretaceous'or Eocene." 3 The important contributions made by Euffin to 

the geology of the State were greatly augmented by the more extensive observations of Tuomey. For our present purpose the three divisions established by the latter will be accepted, although some suggestions as to their taxonomic value will be Stated in subsequent pages.

The Bulir stone. TheBnhrstone, the basal member of theEocene series, 

as recognized by Tu.om.ey, occupies the inner border of the Tertiary belt.

1 Tuomey: Report on the Geology of South Carolina, 1848, p. 140.

2 The Santce Beds and Afliley and Cooper Beds are also referred to by Tuomey at the "Calcareous 

Strata of the Charleston Bauin."

8 Ku (flu: Report of the Cljintnoucemout and Progress of the Agricultural Survey of South Carolina, 

1843.
52 THE EOCENE. |BULL.83.

It is chiefly developed in the area lying between the Congaree and 

Savannah Kivers. Its eastern boundary begins at or near Lower Three 

Runs, on the Savannah River, passes in a sinuous line near Barnwell 

and Orangeburg, and thence to the Santee River, beyond which its 

limits are unknown.

The Buhrstone receives its name from the layer of silicified shells 

that forms but an insignificant portion of the strata. Sands, clays, and 

marls are the chief deposits. They are generally incoherent, though at 

times consolidated. In the area to the east of the Savannah River beds 

of kaolin (reaching at Aiken 60 feet in thickness) form an important 

element in the series.

Tuomey 1 gives a section of the beds in the vicinity of Aiken that is 

held to be typical for the Buhrstone elsewhere. The strata rest upon 

granite, and are in descending order, as follows :

6. Beds of sand and iron ore.

5. Silicified shells.

4. Siliceons clay bed.

3. Beds of sand, gravel, colored clay, etc.

2. Bed of sandstone and grit.

1. Granite on Horse Creek.

Tuomey mentions the occurrence of individual members of the series 

at inauy other places throughout the area above outlined, although the 

different beds exhibit more or less important variations in thickness and 

lilhological characters. The stratum of silicified shells is found often at 

the top of the Buhrstone and in close proximity to the marl of the "calcareous strata." The lower deposits of the Buhrstone are composed 

largely of coarse sands that may upon further study afford evidence for 

a stratigraphical separation from the overlying beds. A statement as 

to their probable equivalence is given in the chapter on correlation.

The northward extension of the Buhrstone toward the North Carolina 

State line has received but little attention. Tuomey cites localities on 

the Pee Dee River and Lynch Creek where beds of silicified shells are 

found, and mentions the occurrence of Carditaplanicosta and other fossils. The thickness of the Buhrstone has been estimated at 200 feet in 

its typical localities. Tuomey gives a list of over ninety species of fossils from the Buhrstone in the Report on the Geology of South Carolina, which, with a few exceptions, belong to marine mollusca. Among 

other well known forms the writer has recognized Turritella humerosa, 

T. Mortoni, Cardita planicosta, and Pectunculus stamineus.

The Santee Beds^ 'which overlie the Buhrstone, form, according to 

Tuomey, the lowest member of the " Calcareous Strata of the Charleston Basin." They occupy the region between the boundaries given 

above as the seaward limits of the Buhrstone and an undetermined line 

farther eastward. The deposits are most typically developed on the

1 Report on Geology of South Carolina, 1848, p. 143.
CLARK.] SOUTH CAROLINA. 53

Sautee River, where they reach as far down the stream as Mazyck's 

Ferry. The base of the Sautee beds is at times a green sand, though 

this is uot constant. Tuomey mentions a locality on the headwaters of 

the Cooper River where a bed of "white marl abouudingin corals, which 

may be designated the coralline bed of the Charleston basin" underlies 

the green sand. That the green sand is allied with the Santee Beds 

rather than with the Buhrstone is shown by the occurrence of the bones 

of the Zeuglodon that have not been found in the latter formation. The 

typical deposits of the Sautee Beds are white marls, more often incoherent, though frequently consolidated to form a marl stone. At Vance's 

Ferry, on the San tee, a superb section of the Sautee Beds 6 miles in 

extent is exposed that in places reaches 30 feet in height.

Tuoraey gives a list of 60 to 70 species of fossils, chiefly lamellibrauchs, 

gasteropods, echinoderms, and corals. The bones of Zeuglodon likewise occur. Ostrca sellwformis, Crassatella alta, Lucina panda, and 

Lutraria petrosa are common types.

The Askley and Cooper Beds, which are held by Tourney to occupy a 

position above the Santee Beds and to constitute a separate formation, 

have many species of fossils in common with the Santee, including the 

Zenglodon, which ranges throughout the Santee and Ashley and Cooper 

Beds. More than that, the deposits are similar lithologically, and no 

break has been recognized in the series of beds, which shows that the 

conditions under which they were formed were probably the same and 

continuous. In this connection Heilprin says: " There appears tome 

no good reason for separating the above deposits from each other as 

indications of special horizons, although they may occupy different 

strati graphical positions in the geological scale, and therefore I have 

retained them as one group, the correspondent of the ' Jacksonian.'" 1

The geographical range of the Ashley and Cooper Beds is limited to 

the basins of the Ashley and Cooper Rivers, and even there the surface 

outcrops are much complicated by the post-Pliocene rearrangements 

to which the upper layers have been subjected. As the fossils of the 

earlier beds have been transported and occur commingled with those 

of later date, accurate discrimination between the original and derived 

deposits is rendered difficult. In general the Ashley and Cooper Beds 

are darker than the Santee Beds. They are sometimes dark gray, and 

at other times approach an olive color.

Tuomey mentions 25 invertebrate fossil forms from this horizon. 

The Zeuglodon is likewise found and is the most characteristic of the 

Eocene types. Among the molluscan forms Panopwa elongata, Lucina 

panda, and Modiola cretacea are common species.

Upon the Carolina bank of the Savannah River are deposits of white 

marl containing fossils whose stratigraphical position in reference to 

the deposits just described has not as yet been satisfactorily determined.

1 Contributions to the Tertiary Geology and Paleontology of the United States^ 1984, p. 20.
54 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83,

By many they Lave been considered to be later than the uppermost 

strata of the Charleston Basin, though the data for such conclusions 

seem to the writer inadequate. As these beds are much better developed on the Georgia bank of the Savannah River, a discussion of them 

will be deferred until the geology of that State is considered.

GEORGIA.

The Eocene deposits of Georgia are less fully comprehended than 

those of any other State on the Atlantic Coast. No works of great importance have been published, due largely to the fact that Georgia 

has not hitherto maintained a geological survey of the pretensions of 

the States immediately to the north. The publications of Cottiug, 

Hodgson, Jones, Stephensou, Little, and Hendersou, all of a more or less 

official character, present a meager outline of the Eocene geology of local 

areas or the entire State, though generally the information given is 

rather of agricultural than stratigraphical importance.

Stephenson1 and Little2 give the inland boundary of the Eocene as a 

sinuous line extending from near Augusta, on the Savannah River, past 

Macon and Milledgeville to Pataula Creek, just above Fort Gaiues, on 

the Chattahoochee River. Too little is known of its seaward extension 

to warrant a statement of its boundaries, although should any portion 

of the deposits in Screven County, hitherto referred to the Eocene, be 

proved such, the width of the belt would reach fully 50 miles. On the 

Ocmulgee River its most eastern outcrop has been found by Burns near 

the boundary of Dodge and Telfair Counties.

A separation of the Eocene into definite horizons has not been 

attempted in Georgia as in South Carolina and Alabama, although it 

is probable that the leading divisions there represented extend across 

the State, as beds of sand and clay here form the base of the series and 

are followed by calcareous strata. Situated as the Eocene deposits 

of Georgia are, intermediate between the Atlantic and Gulf areas, an 

accurate knowledge of their relations would render it possible to determine many points in the stratigraphy of each that are at present 

very imperfectly understood.

The locality of Shell Bluff, on the Savannah River, about 20 miles below 

Augusta, has been so often referred to in geological literature as to 

merit more special attention than the other Eocene areas of the State. 

Conrad3 was led to the conclusion that on both structural and paleontological grounds the deposits at Shell Bluff possessed sufficient individuality to warrant the establishment of a new and distinct "group" 

which he called the Shell Bluff group. The common oyster, Ostrea 

georgiana, was considered by him to be the characteristic fossil for the

1 Geology anil Mineralogy of Seorgia, 1871, p. 28.

2 Catalogue of Ores, Eocks, etc., for the Paris Exposition, 1878, p. 14. 

8 Am. Jour. Sci.. 2d ser., vol. 41,1866, p. 96.
CLARK.] GEORGIA. 55

horizon. The deposits are similar to those represented on the Carolina 

bank of the Savannah Kiver, and previously referred to. The position 

of the strata in the Eocene series can not be determined until more is 

known of the fossils and the stratigraphical relations of the beds. A 

section made by myself at the locality is given below:

Feet.

Red loam ...................................................................... 40

White sandy marl.... .......................................................... 4

Coarse white marl with shell fragments ........................................ 2

' Fine white marl with Ostrea sp ................................................ 2

8 hell marl with numerous casts ................................................ 4

Coarse yellowish white shell marl.............................................. 5

Compact fine white marl....................................................... 2

White sandy marl with Ostrea georgiana ................ ....................... 10

Ledge of hard white marl ....................................................... 1

Fine yellowish white, sandy marl .................................. ............ 8

Compact marl filled with casts of shells, Oslrea sp .............................. 5

Yellow shell marl alternating with beds of clay................._!............... 6

Indurated yellow and white variegated shell mini................ ............... 6

Yellowish white, coanse shell marl wilh numerous fragments of shells............ 14

The detailed sections of other observers 1 differ considerably from that 

just given, both as to the divisions of the beds and the fossil-bearing 

horizons.

The deposits at Jacksonboro in Screveu County, hitherto referred to 

the Eocene, although presenting similar characteristics lithologically, 

afford, so far as the collections made by myself are concerned, no forms 

in common with other Eocene localities. Lyell gives a long.list of such 

similar types, but I have failed to obtain them. The specimens collected 

seem to point to a decidedly younger fauna, probably Neocene in age.

Dr. Jones, in a report on the agricultural resources of the State, refers 

to the shell marl of Washington and Jefferson Counties, although presenting few data of stratigraphical importance. Of the more western 

counties even less information is at hand.

The section of Eocene strata afforded by the Chattahoochee Kiver 

has been quite recently investigated by Langdon,2 who, however, has 

studied the deposits in their relations to the Alabama series and 

mainly on the Alabama bank of the river, so that a detailed consideration of them will be deferred until the strata of that State are discussed. 

Eepresentatives of the°Lignitic, Buhrstoue, Claiborue, and White limestone have been established and the thickness of the series placed at 

1,200 feet.

FLORIDA.

The presence of Eocene strata in Florida was early recognized by 

Conrad3 and Tuomey4, though later doubt was cast upon their conclu-

'Loughbridge Report on the Cotton Production of tlie State of Georgia, Tenth Census of the TJ. S. 

vol. 5,1884, pp. 14-16.

Singleton see Heilpr.'.n, Contrib. Tert. Geol. and Pal. U. S., 1884, p. 22, foot-note. 

3 Geol. Soc. America, Bull., vol. 2,1891, pp. 594-605. ° 

3 Am. Jour. Sci., 2il ser., vol. 2, 1846, pp. 30-48, pp. 399,400. 

"Ibid., vol. 11, 1851, pp. 390-394.
56 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

sious by Agassiz 1 and Le Goiite,2 who endeavored to prove tbat the 

peninsula was of coral formation and more recent in origin. Tbe later 

investigations of Smitb, Ball, Heilprin, and Jobnson bave sbowu tbe 

truth of the earlier observations, and bave more fully identified tbe 

various horizons represented.

Tbat Eocene covers a wide area in Florida is now generally conceded, 

though the various writers differ as to the limits tbat are to be assigned 

to it. Direct reference to the publications will best explain these differences. Smith says:

From specimens collected by me at points widely distant from each other, from 

the observations of others as quoted above, and from evidence derived from other 

sources, I am brought to the conclusion that almost the whole of Florida, from the 

Perdido River on the west, eastward and southward, including the middle and western parts of the peninsula, certainly as far south as the latitude of Tarnpa Bay, and 

probably as far as the latitude of Charlotte Harbor, has for its underlying formation 

the white or Orbitoides limestone of Vicksburg age, the exceptions as yet known 

being the post-Pliocene or recent limestones forming the Keys and the immediate 

coasts along the western, southern, and eastern shores, and isolated patches, if nofc 

a continuous belt, of Miocene limestone between the St. Johns River and the elevated 

tablelands westward.

Heilprin,3 in his " Contributions to tbe Tertiary Geology and Paleontology of the United States," remarks upon the geographical boundaries :

From what has preceded, taken in connection with the observations tbat have 

been made iu western as well as iu northern Florida, it may safely be conceded that 

the underlying rock of the greater portion, if not of nearly the entire State, is of 

Oligocene age, and therefore no countenance is given to the theory which assumes a 

recent formation. How far south the Orbitoitic limestone extends has not yet been 

determined, but there appear to be no reasons for assigning it to a limit far removed 

from the border line of the Everglades. For aught we know to the contrary, it may 

extend quite or nearly to the peninsula's extremity.

.Dall,4 discussing the same point, says:

The older rocks of course come out to the northward and along the central part of 

the peninsula, and the succession of the newer ones is toward the southern extreme 

end, and the Atlantic and Gulf shores. The hypothetical southward extension of the 

Oligocene (sometimes taken as Eocene) on most recent'geological maps, now seems 

erroneous. It is without doubt represented as considerably too great.

Johnson 5 states in regard to its limits that 

The most southern actually seen are at Pemberton, Pasco County, and on the headwaters of Hillsboro River, in Polk County, Sees. 27 and 28, T. 26, R. 23 which, till 

further advised, may be set as the southern boundary of Eocene exposure.

From tbe above statement of views it will be perceived that the Eocene 

covers a wide area in tbe State, even though somewhat restricted in

1 Report TJ. S. Coast Survey, 1851, pp. 145 et seq.

2 Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 23,1857, pp. 48-60. 

8 Pages 23, 24.

4 Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 34, 1887, p. 165. 

«Ibid., vol. 36,1888, p. 233.
ciA«K.] FLORIDA. 57

range, as suggested by Dall and Johnson. The deposits are in the 

main calcareous, and possess many points in common with the u calcareous strata of the Charleston basin," though paleontologically more 

closely allied to the limestone of Alabama and Mississippi, described 

later on.

The Eocene strata in the northern portions of the State apparently 

afford two horizons, the significance of which has not been as yet fully 

determined. The lower horizon, composed chiefly of limestones and 

marls, and the one most generally represented, contains great numbers 

of Orbitoides Mantelli and Pecten perplanus. Overlying this is a thin 

layer, generally silicified, that contains Orbitoides ephippium, 0. dispansa, 

and Operculina complanata.

Johnson states that "it is a mistake, however, to suppose that this 

Nummulitic formation everywhere hides the Yicksburg rocks of the 

Orbitoides Manteili, or ever did overlie the whole of it. Numerous 

are the exposures to prove the contrary." A typical locality in which 

to see the superposition of the beds is at Lovyville, Levy County, 

where the upper horizon is "really a stratum overlying the Vicksburg rocks," and " is a beautiful, soft, porous building stone about 

20 feet in thickness." "Often struck in artesian borings and easily 

identified by the peculiar numniulites, it has a greater thickness under 

the Neocene formations to the east. In these western regions it has 

probably suffered general removal by erosion. Apparently conformable in deposition with the Vicksburg stage, the Levyville formation is 

evidently not identical with it, and demands a further investigation." 

Later observations tend to show that Johnson has confounded the Eocene and Miocene siliceous rocks at many points, so that his conclusions 

are somewhat vitiated.

ALABAMA.

No other portion of the coastal area has received such careful and detailed investigation, as that contiguous to the Tomb^gbee and Alabama 

Rivers. The publications of Hale, Conrad, Tuouiey, Lyell, Hilgard, 

Wiiichell, Smith, Johnson, Langdon, Heilprin, Aldrich, and others afford 

an extensive literature that gives us the results of investigations extending over a long term of years. The State geological survey, under the 

directorship of Prof. E. A. Smith, has been the chief factor in this work, 

and its members have compiled the only complete section of the early 

Tertiary strata that has thus far been made.

The deposits of Eocene age.extend across the State from the Chattahoochee River to the Mississippi border in a slightly sinuous southeast 

and northwest direction, and with an average width of about 60 miles. 

The thickness of the entire series has been estimated by Smith to be 

not far from 1,700 feet and the dip seaward approximately 30 feet to 

the mile, although marked variations occur at several points. The
Eocene. <:

Lignitic

58 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

divisions established by Smith and Johnson 1 are adopted here, and are 

in descending scale as follows:

Feet. 

C Coral limestone (Vicksburg ?) ............... 150

White limestone . < Vicksburg (orbitoidal) ...................... 140

( Jackson .................................... 60

Claiborne .................. .................................... 140-145

Buhrstone...................................................... 300

f Hatchetigbee ............................... 175

Woods Bluff................................ 80-85

Bells Landing .............................. 140

Nanafalia .................................. 200

Matthews Lauding and Naheola............. 130-150

Black Bluff................................. 100

t Midway ....................'................ 25

Lignitic, The lowest member of the Eocene series has been designated the Lignitic by Hilgard. It has a thickness of about 900 feet, 

and according to Smith and Johnson 

Is made up of laminated clays and laminated and cross-bedded sands of a prevailing 

gray color, except immediately below the Buhrstone, where for 200 feet or more they are 

of dark brown, often purplish colors. With the above-mentioned laminated clays and 

sand are interstratified several beds of lignite and several beds holding marine fossils, 

and usually characterized by the presence of glauconite or greensand. * * * The 

Liguitic formation comprises three well marked divisions denned by color, which is 

here an index of constitution. The upper one-fourth consists of irregularly bedded, 

dark, siliceous, and lignitiferous clays and heterogeneous sands, approaching the 

basal portion of the Buhrstone formation in composition and structure, interstratifiod 

with discontinuous beds of lignite and continuous layers of clay and sand containing 

marine fossils. The medial three-fifths of the formation is made up of rather more 

regularly stratified clays and sands of light color, frequently cross bedded, containing occasional beds of lignite and of marine sands yielding littoral fossils, one of 

which (the Gryplioea thirsce bed) is 50 to 60 feet in thickness. The basal deposits are 

irregularly bedded, dark, or even black, calcareous, shaly or slaty clays, with few 

fossils or definite beds of lignite, though considerable quantities of carbonaceous matter are disseminated throughout its mass.

 At the base of the Lignitic there is a rapid change in the character of both rocks 

and fossils, the lowermost 15 to 20 feet of the formation being limestone, at first argillaceous, then quite pure, and even crystalline. This crystalline limestone rests with 

apparent conformity upon the yellow sands which make the summit of the Cretaceous group.2

The Liguitic group as a distinct horizon is, according to Smith, separated from the overlying formation (Buhrstone) upon lithological 

grounds alone. He says:

In the strata which we have called Lignitic the material, as compared with that 

of the Buhrstone, is more sandy and calcareous and at the same time more fossiliferous. The shells in many cases are decayed and the calcareous matter of the same 

often appears to have been leached out and diffused through the surrounding sands, 

occasionally cementing them together and forming calcareous sandstone. These 

sandstone beds always show a tendency to weather into rounded, bowlder-like 

masses, which project from the faces of the blufi's or, broken off, roll down, forming 

a talus. When broken open these bowlders usually show a nucleus of thoroughly 

decayed shells or of ferruginous, liguitic matter. * * * A ledge of calcareous 

sandstone of this kind is found about 20 or 30 feet below the lowermost of the alu1 U. S. Geol. Surv., Bull. 43,1887, p. 18. 2 Ibid., pp. 39,135.
CLARK.] ALABAMA. 59

minous rocks, which we consider as characteristic of the Buhrstone, and siuiilar calcareous sandstones weathering into bowlders occur at intervals throughout the underlying Lignitic strata. f * * None of the beds of the underlying Lignitic have 

even a remote resemblance to the Buhrstone rocks, except certain indurated clays 

which overlie the G-ryplitea thirsce beds in the Grampian Hills of Wilcox County and 

their prolongation into Butler County. Even in this case the distinction between 

the two can readily bo discovered, as the indurated, clays of the Lignitic are, in some 

of the beds, quite full of shell casts, principally Turritellas and Cythereas, and the 

material itself, upon close examination, does not so strongly resemble the Buhrstone 

as upon first sight appears. 1

Tho Lignitic occupies the inland border of the Eocene area, increasing in thickness from the east toward the west. The interstratified 

marine beds, each of which has its " peculiar association ot fossils," 

together with certain "-lithologic and structural character," have been 

divided by Smith and Johnson into the following 7 horizons, which are 

given in descending order: >

7. The Hatchotigbee marls.

6. The Woods Bluff' or Bashi marl.

5. The Bells Landing series.

4. The Nanafalia or Gryplicea thirsce marl.

3. The Matthews Landing and Naheola marls.

2. The Black Bluff beds.

1. The Midway or Pine Barren beds.

The sections exhibited on the Alabama and Tombigbee Eivers are 

characterized as follows: 2

The Midway or Pine Barren section. Thickness, 25 feet. The strata are: a white, 

argillaceous limestone holding a large nautilus, which is characteristic of the horizon, 10 feet; calcareous sands and a yellowish crystalline limestone, with Turritellas, Carditas, and corals, the sands 6 feet, the limestone 8 or 9 feet. This section is 

best seen in eastern Wilcox County, on Pine Barren Creek, but the upper or Nautilus 

rock occurs at Midway, on the Alabama River, and westward across Marengo County.

The Black Bluff section. We have difficulty in determining the exact thickness, 

since on the Tombig'bee the strata of this section are spread over an extent of surface which would, with uniform dip, correspond to a thickness of over 200 feet, while 

on the Alabama, and more particularly inland in the eastern part of Wilcox County, 

the thickness is not greater than ?5 or 40 feet. Since 80 feet of these beds are seen 

in superposition at one locality (Black Bluff), we think that the maximum thickness 

can not be less than 100 feet. The characteristic strata which compose nearly the 

whole of this section, are black or very dark brown clays, which are in part fossiliferous.

The Nalteola and Matthews Landing St-ction. It is difficult to give the precise thickness of this section, since it vnries on the two rivers. We have placed it at 130 to 

150; the strata are gray, sandy clays in the main, alternating with cross-bedded 

sand. The beds of dark, sandy, and glancouitic clay, containing marine fossils, lie at 

the base of the section. At Naheola, on the Tombigbeo, the upper and more glauconitic part of the bed is most prominent, while at Matthews Landing, on the Alabama, 

the lower part of the bed dark gray sandy clay forms the bluff.

The Nanafalia or Coal Bluff section. The strata of this section are 200 feet in thickness, and consist of about 50 feet of gray sandy clays at top, which shows a tendency 

to indurate into tolerably firm rocks resembling very closely some of the strata of the

"U.S.Geol. ISurv., Bull. 43,1887, pp. 35,36. 2 Ibid.,pp.G9,70.
60 THE EOCENE. IBUM.. 83.

Buhrstone. Below this, about 80 feet of sandy beds, often strongly glaucouitic, characterized throughout by shells of a small oyster (Gr-yphasa thirsts'). Near the base of 

this sandy division there is a bed about 20 feet thick, literally packed with these 

shells. Below the Gryphosa thirsce beds follow some 70 feet of cross-bedded sands, 

glauconitic and apparently devoid of fossils, including, about 10 feet from the base 

of the section, a bed of lignite which varies in thickness from 4 to 7 feet.

The Sells Landing section. This is 140 feet in thickness, and includes two important marine beds, and a third quite small and apparently unimportant. These fossiliferous beds are interstratified with yellowish sands in the upper and rather heavy 

bedded sandy clays in the lower part of the section. The upper marine bed, called 

the Bell's Landing marl, is about 10 feet in thickness and has 40 feet of sandy strata 

above it. The middle bed is called the Greggs Landing marl, and it is 20 to 25 feet 

below the preceding; it is about 5 feet in thickness. The lowermost of the fossiliferous beds of this section is only about one foot in thickness and lies about 50 feet 

below th6 Greggs Lauding bed. It is highly glauconitic, but does not contain any 

great variety of fossils. The Bells Landing marl is distinguished from all others in 

Alabama by the great size of the shells which it contains.

Voluta N ewcombiana, Rostellaria trinodifera, Turritella Mortoni, Cardita planicosta, and Ostrea convpressirostra are common forms.

The Wooffa Bluff or Bashi section. This is 80 to 85 feet in thickness. The uppermost 30 feet of the section consist of dark brown clays passing into a green sand, 

which holds a great variety of finely preserved marine shells. Below this greensand 

marl are gray sandy clays, with 4 or 5 thin beds of lignite within the first 25 feet, 

succeeded by about 30 feet of cross-bedded sands, with a 2-foot seam of lignite at the 

base.

The Hatclietiglee section. This section is 175 feet in thickness, made up of sandy 

clays of prevailing brown or purplish color, containing 3 or 4 beds of marine fossils 

in the uppermost 75 feet, and of somewhat similar purplish brown sandy clays nearly 

devoid of marine fossils in the lower 100 feet. All these brown sandy clays become 

much lighter colored upon drying and exposure to the weather.

Due to several folds in the strata, the Lignitic beds appear at the surface at several points to the south of its continuous outcrop, and have 

been very fully investigated in the western portion of Ciarke County.

Langdon 1 has recently published an article in which the continuation 

of the Lignitic into the Chattahoochee drainage is shown. Several of 

the horizons established by Smith in the central and western portions 

of the State are traced to the banks of the Chattahoochee River, although they frequently exhibit marked changes in both deposits and fossils. In general the strata present a more marine phase, and the lignitic character of the beds farther west is gradually lost. The Midway 

or Piue Barren beds reach the thickness of about 220 feet on the Chattahoochee and become the most important member of the Lignitic series. 

The Black Bluff beds and the Matthews Landing and Naheola marls 

are wanting. The Nanafalia marl rests uuconformably upon the Midway beds and attains a thickness of 175 feet. This marl was considered 

Claiborne by Loughridge.2 The Bell's Landing series is 173 feet thick 

on the Chattahoochee, and is with difficulty separated from the overly-

»Geol. Soc. America, Bull., vol. 2,1891, pp. 587-605.

1 Hep. on the Cotton Production of Ga., lOtb Census, vol. 15, p. 14.
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. BULLETIN 83. PLATE I.

r>6 / .*^

DISTRIBUTION OF THE EOCENE

IN TWE

UNITED STATES

Scale. 200 300 400 500 Miles

.___.___/ _~mr^=

JULIUS 81EN & CO-LITH.
CLARK.] ALABAMA. 61

ing formation, the Wood's Bluff or Bashl marl, which here attains a 

thickness of 44 feet. The uppermost member of the Liguitic, the 

Hatchetigbee marls, present quite similar litliological characteristics on 

the Chattahoochee River as at the place of its typical development, 

though the beds have been reduced to 10 feet in thickness.

Buhrstone. Overlying the Lignitic is a series ot'alluminous sands and 

sandstones that are at times glauconitic, even appearing locally as welldefined layers of greensand.

In most cases they are merely alterations of indurated clays, with allumiuous sand' 

stones of varying degrees of hardness. While i n the extremes of pure clay and almost 

pure quartz the materials of this formation differ widely, the formation as a whole 

leaves upon the mind of the observer a lively impressiou of the uniformity in the lithological structure and general appearance of its constituent strata. * * * In 

general the uppermost beds (15 to 20 feet) are composed of joint clays, which, when 

indurated, form tolerably firm rocks. Near the base of the formation similar clays or 

claystones are usually seen. In many places there is a bed several feet in thickness 

of a hard, siliceous, or flinty sandstone, almost a qnartzite, just at the base of the 

Buhrstono. 1

Smith and Johnson separate this horizon from the Lignitic upon lith. 

ological grounds alone. Following Tuoiney, they employ the term 

Buhrstone to designate it. They say, " The aluminous rocks we assign 

to the Buhrstone, while the sandy rocks, with the intercalated beds of 

calcareous matter we place with the Lignitic." Although this discrimination seems possible in Alabama, too little is known of the relationship 

of the beds beyond the .State to say whether this difference is widespread.

The Buhrstoue is found as a sinuous band to the south of the Ligiiitic, and extending from southeast to northwest across the State.

On the Alabama River the uppermost of the Buhrstono beds are well exposed at 

Lisbon Landing, and the lowermost a short distance above Hamilton's, whence they 

extend across Clarke County westward or northwestward to White Bluff and McCarthy's Ferry, and thence in a northwesterly direction across Choctaw County, just south 

of Butler. On the eastern side of the Alabama River they appear in the hills south 

of Bells Landing, and across Mouroe County north of Kecnpsville and south of Turnbull, turning a little to the northward in the eastern part of the county. To the eastward they may be seen again near 0/ark, in Dale County, and near Abbeville, in 

Henry County. 8

There is considerable doubt as to the thickness of the Buhrstone 

series, but the least estimate places it at 300 feet. The fossils do not 

afford a means of discrimination either from the Glaiborne above or the 

Lignitic below. They are not numerous and are for the most part 

poorly preserved.

Langdon 3 has more recently noted the occurrence of the Buhrstoue 

on the Chattahoochee, where " the percentage of clay decreases, while 

the rocks become more calcareous and the fossils more abundant. In 

lieu of the silicified casts characterizing the Buhrstone of the Tombigi IT. S. Geol. Srirv., Bull, 43, 1887, pp. 35, 30.

"Ibid., p. 36.

*Gool. Sou. America, Bull., vol. 2, 1891, p. 597.
62 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

bee and Alabama Elvers, extensive beds of Ostrea sellceformis (var. 

divaricatd) and an Anomia occur." The thickness of the beds here is 

stated to be about 190 feet.

Claiborne. The Claiborne formation, so typically represented at the 

Claiborue Bluffs, on the Alabama Eiver, consists of incoherent sands 

and clays, that are frequently ferruginous or calcareous and often glaucouitic. The thickness of the deposits is about 150 feet. The beds of 

this horizon are renowned for their many fossils, which, however, are 

chiefly confined to the ferruginous sands near the top of the formation. 

Beneath this upper bed, known as the "Claiborne Fossiliferous sand," 

and which is about 15 feet in thickness, are " some 60 feet of calcareous 

clays and calcareous sands."

The whole of this 60 feet of strata, except perhaps some 10 feet of blue clay near 

the top, is distinguished from all the other beds of the Claiborne formation by the 

great numbers of shells of Ostrea sellceformis which it holds. These shells are found 

more abundantly in the hard sandy ledges which occur at intervals of a few feet 

through the whole thickness of these beds. * * * Below these Ostrea sellceformis 

beds we find at Claiborne and at Lisbon some 50 feet or more of sandy and clayey 

beds in many cases strongly glauconitic and holding a great number as well as a 

great variety of well preserved fossils. 1

A generalized section of the Claiborne Bluff, according to Prof. E. EL 

Smith, is given below: 2

7. A bed of very variable thickness, consisting of sand, pebbles, arid red loam, which 

forms the surface over a great part of the State. The average thickness of this 

bed along the bluff may be put at...................................35 to 40 ft.

6. A band of white limestone, containing glauconite grains, forming vertical faces 

usually striped by thin projecting ledges............................about 45 ft.

5. A band showing two very distinct parts, viz, an upper part, a bed holding great 

numbers of Soutella Lyelli, 3 feet thick, and a lower part, 6 feet thick, of coarse, 

ferruginous sands, which are indurated at the base and form a very marked projecting ledge..............................................................9 ft.

4. A band of very uniform appearance of reddish yellow or buff color, consisting of 

a mass of shells embedded in red sand. This is the celebrated Claiborne sand. 

It weathers very smoothly and is less projecting than the ledges above and below it ..............................................................15 to 17 ft.

3. A band of light gray calcareous clay with a few sandy stripes and indurated 

ledges..............................................................25 to 28 ft.

All these beds make up the nearly vertical part of the bluff near and between 

the two landings. Below these to the river level the slope is almost entirely 

covered by the loose fragments rolled down from above, so that the underlying 

stratified rocks are discovered only where these loose materials have been removed. Between the upper landing and the ferry these lower strata of the bluff 

are more clearly exposed to view.

2. A band of light yellowish, gray, calcareous sand striped with a number of hard 

ledges of similar sandy material. This band is a very prominent part of the 

bluff, but is in many places, as above stated, much obscured by the fragments of 

the other beds which have rolled clown from above ................ about 35 ft.

1 IT. S. Geol. Siirv., Bull. 43,1887, pp. 20,27. 2 Ibid., p. 28.
CLAKK.] ALABAMA, 63

I. A baud of dark bluish green color, consisting of clayey sands and clays passing 

downward into a green Hand bod 6 to 8 feet thick, which appears, however, 

above water only above the upper landing........................ about 12 ft.

No. 4, probably represents the top of the Claiborne division. The base 

of the series is not reached at this point, but the following more detailed 

section presents in Nos. 6-15 the portion of the Claiborne Bluff just given 

in Nos. 1-4, while Nos. 1 [l]-6 [6] in the detailed section are represented 

at Lisbon Landing, a few miles above, thus affording a complete series 

of the Claiborne in the vicinity of its type locality. Smith says:

There is no doubt as to the geologic horizon of the Lisbon section, since the two 

lowermost beds of the Claiborne section appear at the top of the Lisbon Bluff, the 

peculiar association of the shells making the identification easy and certain. 1

Detailed section of Claiborne group of Claiborne Bluff and Lisbon Landing, Alabama 

River, after Smith and Johnson.*

15. Ferruginous sand, holding vast numbers of comminuted as well as well preserved 

shells. Near the center of this there are in places thin bauds of lignite, and 

along the ferry road the upper part of it is composed of laminated gray clays 

filled with leaf impressions. This is the source of the celebrated Claiborue 

fossils, and we shall call it the Claiborne Fossiliferous sand. In many parts of 

Monroe and Clarke Counties, where this bed is more protected, the material iu 

which the shells are embedded is seen to be a green sand, while at the Claiborne 

Bluff and vicinity, and at a bluff above St. Stephens, it is completely oxidized 

into a red ferruginous sand. Thickness about Claiborne .......... 15 to 17 ft.

14. Bluish green glauconitic, sandy marl, with Ostrea selkeformis usually somewhat 

indurated above, and forming a hard projecting ledge................3 to 4 ft.

13. Calcareous clay or clayey marl, of gray color when dry, but blue when wet. It 

contains a few badly preserved chalky fossils, Bulla and small Turritellas. 

This bed becomes sandier below, as well as glauconitic and highly fossiliferous, 

the principal shells being Oslrea sellaiformis and a few Pecteus. The clayey 

sandy parts, together about.............................................18 ft.

12. Light gray calcareous clay similar to the upper part of the preceding bed, with 

hard, sandy ledges at the top and bottom ................................7 ft.

II. Light yellowish gray calcareous sands, with Ostrea sellaiformis and Pecteus; the 

lower half indurated and full of the molds or cai3ts of univalve shells... ..5 ft.

10. Light yellowish gray calcareous sands, like those which make the upper half of 

bed No. 11. This bed has several hard projecting ledges of the same sandy 

material and contains a number of fossils: Ostrea selkeformis, fragments of 

Scutella Lyelli, Scalpellum eocense, Pecten Deshayesii, etc. The sandy parts of this 

bed are loose, crumbling easily between the fingers. There are thin beds of 

more clayey texture, one of which, about the center of the stratum, holds a 

number of irregularly shaped concretionary masses of clay. Near the base are 

one or two indurated ledges of glauconitic sand and shells of Ostrea sellaiformis ................................................................. '27 ft.

9. Layer of comminuted shells of Ostrea sellwformis, together with perfect shells of 

some other species embedded in glauconitic or green sand................ 3 ft.

8. Dark bluish black sandy clay,...............................................2 ft.

7. Bluish green clayey sands with few fossils in the upper part, but becoming more 

clayey below and highly fossiliferous: Venericardia planicosta, V. rotunda, 

Nucula magnifica, Area rhomboidella, Ostrea sellwformis, Valuta Sayana, Turritella 

lineata, '£. lellifera Aldrich, besides species of Natica, Corbula, Cytherea, Luoina, 

etc. This bed averages 10 feet or more in thickness.

>U.S.Geol.(3urv.,Bull.43,1887, p.30. "Ibid., pp.29,30.
64 THE EOCENE. , [BULL.83.

6. Dark green sandy marl, glauconitic; grayish above, bluish below. This bed is 

sometimes badly weathered and of more brownish color. It holds a number of 

fossils, among which the most noticeable are a peculiar small form of Venericardiaptanicosta Lam. and large Turritella Morioni Con. This bed,which is the 

lowest at Claiborne, may be seen between the upper landing and the ferry, and 

its exposure is from 6 to 8 feet, according to the stage of the'water.

6. [6] Dark brown sandy clays, badly weathered, highly fossil iferotiSj containing 

the same shells as beds Nos. 7 and 6 at Claiborue, viz, the peculiar small variety 

of Venericardiaplaniscosla Lam., large Turritella Mortoni Con., Area rhomboidella 

Lea, Lucina compressa Lea, Nuoula magnifica Con., Turritella bellifera (Aldrich), 

etc. This bed becomes more sandy below...................... ....8 to 12 ft.

5. [5] Hard projecting sandy ledge ...........................................8 in.

4. [4] Calcareous, clayey sands, light yellow when wet, nearly white when dry, 

glauconitic, forming smooth vertical bluff................... .... ....6 to 8 ft.

3. [3] Coarse grained sandy glauconitic bed with comminuted shells and many 

finely preserved shells of uncommon occurrence..........................3 ft.

2. [2] Light yellow glaucouitic sands capped with hard ledge................15 ft.

1. (.!] Blue glaucouitic sands, probably the same as No. 2 above, but less completely 

oxidized, lowest of Claiborne strata .....................................5 ft.

Important sections are found at Gosport Landing and Rattlesnake 

Bluff, on the Alabama Eiver, and at Coffeeville Landing, on the Tombigbee Eiver, as well as at other points in Choctaw, Washington, Clarke, 

and Monroe Counties.

On the Chattahoochee River Langdon 1 states that the Claiborne is 

represented by the Ostrea sallceformis zone alone, which persists across 

Alabama with a thickness of about 75 feet, occurring as a bed of gray 

calcareous sand.

White limestone. Under this division are included deposits that have 

hitherto been generally designated as the Jackson and Vicksburg 

groups, terms derived from Mississippi localities, where strataof similar 

age are more extensively represented. That there is little distinctive 

difference in the fauna of these two horizons has been shown by the 

fossils which have recently been collected in Alabama by Mr. T. H. 

Aldrich, as well as " the finding by him of Cardita planicosta in the 

uppermost beds of the White limestone near Claiborne." Smith and 

Johnson 2 state that although certain paleontological and lithological 

differences may be observed in the two portions of the series, these differences do not justify the division of a formation which in Alabama 

so clearly presents itself as a unit. Moreover, overlying the Jackson 

and Vicksburg groups a third horizon has been recognized by them 

and designated the Coral limestone.

The term White limestone, which includes these three subdivisions, 

was early employed by Tuorney 3 with much the present significance, 

although later used by Heilprin 4 for the lower or Jackson group only.

The literature of the White limestone is" rather confusing, owing to 

the fact that the stratigraphical position of the Zenglodon beds was

1 Geol. Soc. America, Bull., vol. 2,1891, pp. 597,598. 

S U. S. Geol. Surv., Bull., 43,1887, p. 19. 

8 Geol. Surv., Alabama, 1st Bien. Kept., 1850, p. 154. 

« Contrib. Tert. Geol. and Pal. U. S., 1884, p. 33.
CLAUK.] ALABAMA. 65

not early recognized. Conrad hold that the Zenglodon and Orbitoides 

were referable to deposits of the same age, Lyell l was the first to 

properly distinguish the two horizons and to assign to the Zeuglodon 

beds (Jackson) their real position below the Orbitoides limestone 

(Vicksburg). The same fact was also recognized by Hale 2 and strongly 

insisted on by Hilgard 3 and most subsequent writers.

The general features of the White limestone are described in the following terms by Smith and Johnson : 4

It consists chiefly of regularly bedded, impure limestone, with intercalated layers 

of marl, calcareous clay and sand, and some ledges of pure limestone. Its upper 

portion is perceptibly more calcareous than the lower, and contains a notably greater 

proportion of deep sea, fossils; but neither the lithologic nor the paleoutologic features are sufficiently distinct to warrant division of the formation. Its position and 

its structure alike indicate that it was laid down in a deep and probably deepening 

sea.

The different subdivisions of the White limestone are further described in detail.5

The lower division of the White limestone, about 60 feet in thickness, is in general 

terms a light colored argillaceous limestone, resembling the Eotten limestone of the 

Cretaceous formation both in the character of the rock and in that of the soils to 

which it gives rise on disintegration. It is traversed by thin bands of tolerably pure 

white limestone, and by beds of slightly calcareous clay, the latter often impregnated 

with gypsum. In places it is strongly glauconitic. This division contains a greater 

variety of fossils than either of the other two, though probably a smaller number. 

The fossils appear in general to be much more abundant in the upper half of the rock, 

where the more commonly occurring species are J.'ccten pcrplanua Mort., Spondijlua 

diimosus Mort., Ostrsa cretacea Mort., sharks' teeth, bones of Zcuylodon cctoides, and 

Ttrebratula lachryma Mort. This upper and most highly fossiliferous part holds calcareous clays which are strongly phosphatic and occasionally well filled with phosphatic or coprolitic nodules. The lower half of this division, while less fossiliferous 

than the preceding, has, in nearly every locality examined, abed near its base at least 

3 feet in thickness holding vast numbers of Scutella Lyelli Con. This, which we have 

called the Scutella bed, has often served us as a guide in the study of this formation 

in the field, since it overlies by a few feet only the Claiborne fossiliferous sands.

The middle division of the White limestone has a thickness of at least 140 feet. 

Lithologieally it varies considerably, being in part a hard, crystalline limestone 

weathering into rough, irregularly shaped pieces, which have suggested the name 

"horse bone" rock, popularly used to designate it. Another variety is a soft, sometimes pulverulent mass of nearly pure carbonate of lime, which is everywhere quarried for building purposes. When fresh, this rock may easily be cut with an ax or 

a saw, but it hardens on exposure to the air and lasts for many years in chimneys 

and pillars to houses. This part of the White limestone contains as a characteristic 

fossil Orbitoides Mantelli, often in such numbers that the rock is little more than a 

mass of the disks of Orbitoides packed in soft, white carbonate of lime. The Orbitoides are most abundant in the upper two-thirds of this division, becoming less and 

less abundant below this.

The uppermost division, 150 feet in thickr.ess, has as yet been observed in one 

locality only, viz, at Salt Mountain at the Middle Salt Works in Clarice County.

1 Am.Jonr. Sci.,2d ser., vol.4,1847, pp. 186-191.

2 Ibid., vol. G, 1848, pp. 354-363.

3 Ibid., vol. 43,1867, p. 29-31.

«TJ. S. Geol. Surv., Bull. 43,1887, p. 134.

6 Ibid., pp. 20, 21.

Bull. 83 5
66 THE EOCENE. [DULL. 83.

The rock here is a hard, white limestone, composed in great measure of masses of 

corals partly silicified. Near the base of this rock there occur great numbers of the 

spines and plates of ecbiuoderms.

The White limestone is widely represented in Choctaw, Washington, 

Clarke, Mouroe, Conecuh, Covington, and Geneva Counties. The White 

limestone of the Chattahootchee section, according to Langdou, is 

represented by both the Jackson and Vicksburg, though " it loses its 

distinctiveness as Jackson and Vicksburg, and may well be included 

under one head."1 It is estimated to attain a thickness of 275 feet.

MISSISSIPPI.

The Eocene of Mississippi covers a wide area in the central and 

northern portions of the State. The publications of Prof. E. W. Hilgard, whose exhaustive investigations have extended over fully 40 

years, afford the chief source of information upon the geology of this 

area.

The boundary of the Eocene upon the north and east passes in a 

curve northwest to north, through Kernper, Noxubee, Oktibbeha, Clay, 

Chickasaw, Pontotoc, Union, and Tippah Counties, near Macon, Starkville, Houston, and Kipley. Upon the south the boundary passes in a 

somewhat sinuous line through Wayue, Jones, Jasper, Smith, liankin, 

Hinds, and Warren Counties, and somewhat to the south of Wayneboro, Jackson, and Vicksburg,

The Eocene overlies the Cretaceous upon the north and east, which 

it succeeds in its various horizons regularly from northeast to southwest. The relations of the deposits are described by Hilgard, in his 

Keport on the Geology and Agriculture of the State of Mississippi. 

He says:

The position of the Tertiary strata appears to he more or less in conformity with 

that of the Cretaceous beds. It certainly is so in the southern portion of the State, 

where their dip is distinctly southward. Whether or not the same is true in reference to the strata occupying the northern portion of the State I have thus far been 

unable to determine, iu consequence both of the rare accessibility of the strata and 

their character. If, however, any westerly dip exists in the Tertiary strata of 

northern Mississippi (as is the case in the Cretaceous strata) it is certainly much less 

than that of the latter.

In a later publication 2 the same writer estimates the dip in the north as 

4 to 5 feet in the mile toward the west; in the south 10 to 13 feet iu the 

mile toward the south.

In the official report first referred to, the lithological character of the 

Eocene is thus described :

It exhibits, essentially, three different facies, viz, that of lignitiferous clays and 

sands, varying in color from black to brown, blue, green, yellow, gray, and almost 

white, with remains of vegetables ; that of siliceous sandstones and claystones with 

marine fossils; and that of limestone and calcareous marls, with marine fossils.

Although these three divisions correspond in the main with the leadjug strati graphical divisions of the Eocene, yet many modifications

1 Geol. Soc. America, Bull., vol. 2,1891, p. 600. 

9Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol.43,1867, p. 30.
CLARK.] MISSISSIPPI. 67

occur in the series. The lignitic phase has often bands of sandstone intercalated which contain marine fossils, while " the several 

marine stages are separated by intervening strata of dark colored, often 

lignitic clays." This peculiarity is not confined alone to the sands and 

sandstones, but is likewise found in the calcareous beds. The following generalized section, changed but slightly from that given by Hilgard in the report above mentioned, is presented in descending scale:

VICKSBUUG. Crystalline limestones and marls with, Ostrea, vicksburrjensis, Ostrea

yiyaiiiea, Peclen Poulsoin, Area mississiptnensis, Navicala mississippiensis, Navicula

lima, CrassatcUa mississippiensis, Cardium dirersum, Panopcca oblongala, Dentalium

mississippicnsis, Fulgoria mississlppiensis, Oyprcca lintea, Madrepora mississippiensw,

Orbitoides Mantclli............ ........................................... 80 feet.

Ferruginous rock of Red Bluff, with Playiostoma dnmona, etc.............. 12 feet.

Lignitic clay and lignite, at Vicksburg and north of Brandon.......... 20 feet.

JACKSON. White (of ten indurate) and blue marls with Zeuylodon maoroapondylus, etc.

Lignitic clay and lignite, at Jackson, Garlandsville, Coounpy Creek...... 80 feet.

CLAIBORNE (Calcareous Claiborne). White (sometimes) indurate) and blue marla

with Ostrea cellceformis, etc.

Liguitic clays and sands of northern Clarke County. 

BUJIKSTONE (Siliceous Claiborne). Sandstones .and claystones with Carditaplanicosta,

etc. Found in Neshoba, Nowton, Lauderdale, and Clarke Counties. 

LIGNITIC. Lignitiferous strata with intorstratilied beds of brown, yellow, and gray

sands and clays containing marine fossils and plant remains. Quercus sp., etc.

Cardita planicosta, etc.

Lignitic. Theterm ligaitic, first employed by Hilgard to designate the 

deposits now under consideration, had, under the name " the Northern 

Lignitic," much the same stratigraphical significance that it has received 

in the present report.

Heilprin has suggested the use of Eolignitic,, but the earlier term is 

here retained. Although there seems to be but little doubt as to the 

stratigraphical position of the greater part of the deposits here referred 

to the Lignitic, the evidence is somewhat conflicting as to other portions. Much more exhaustive examinations must be made before all 

the lignitic strata can be assigned to their proper horizons. The deposits of undoubted Lignitic age have been observed to dip below the 

Buhrstone, and further afford specimens of Cardita planicosta, Aturia 

ziczac, and other early Eocene forms. The Lignitic occupies a much wider 

area than any other member of the Eocene series. It covers the whole 

or portions of Lauderdale, Kemper, Feshoba, Leake. Madison, Yazoo, 

Holmes, Attain, Winston, Noxubee, Oktibbeha, Clay, Webster, Choctaw, Montgomery, Oarroll, Grenada, Tallaluitehee, Yallabusha, Calhoun, Chickasaw, Poutotoc, Union, Lafayette, Panola, Tate, De Soto, 

Marshall, Benton, and Tippah Counties.

The northeastern portion of the area bordering the Cretaceous has 

been designated by Hilgard the "Flatwoods." The deposits are gray 

or whitish, olten laminated clays. The Liguitic strata to the west of 

this area are thus described by Hilgard;
63 THE EOCENE.' (BULL. 83.

Westward of the Flatwoods proper, however, the clays are commonly laminated, 

less uniform in their character, and iuterstratified more or less with the sand. Such, 

usually are the clays associated with the lignite beds and containing impressions of 

leaves; nevertheless, the genuine "Flatwoods clay" character frequently reappears 

over the whole region. * * * Through these clay stones any sign of lithological 

transitions, from the pure almost white clay to the fossiliferons sandstone of Tippah 

County, maybe traced, and careful examination will sometimes detect in them unequivocal remnants of marine fossils. * * * In short, the greatest diversity of material generally obtains in connection with the lignite beds.

Buhrstone. The Buhrstone called Siliceous Claiborne by Hilgard is 

characterized by aluminous sandstones and claystones. It is found 

chietiy in the eastern portion of the State and extends from the Alabama State line across Clarke, Laudefdale, Newton, and Neshoba 

Counties into Scott and Leake Counties, occurring also as an outlier in 

Attala, Holmes, Choctaw, Montgomery, and Carroll Counties. Its 

strati graphical position below the Claiborne and above the Lignitic has 

been fully established, and among its more important fossils are Ostrca 

divaricata, Gardita,planicosta, Cardita rotunda, Gardium Nicollcti and 

Voluta pelrosa. Hilgard corroborates the statements of Tuome.y and 

Conrad of the division of the Buhrstone into two horizons, but the 

investigations have hardly been exhaustive enough as yet to admit of 

their final acceptance.

Claiborne. The Claiborne, or as it is designated by Hilgard, the Calcareous Claiborne, is poorly represented in Mississippi. So far as its 

presence has been reported it is found mainly in Clarke County, although 

Hilgard, in an article in the American Journal of Science in 1867, states 

that he has " received evidence that it extends somewhat farther westward, between the territory of the Jackson and Siliceous Claiborne 

groups, than it appears on the map" in his State report. As a group 

the strata are not very sharply defined "inasmuch as the transition 

from siliceous to calcareous materials is a gradual one" and on this account the Claiborne deposits occupy a somewhat intermediate position 

lithologically between the Buhrstoue and the Jackson.

The beds are chiefly blue and white marls, the latter generally arenaceous and often indurated. The fossils of this horizon are so poorly 

preserved that but few have been recognized. Among those reported 

by Hilgard are Ostrea divaricata, Ostrea sellceformis, Pecten Lyclli, Corbula gibbosa, and Voluta petrosa.

Jacltson. This division of the Eocene was first recognized in Mississippi by Conrad,1 who described an extensive collection of fossils from 

the neighborhood of Jackson and first employed that name to designate the horizon since so called. He assigned to the strata their 

proper stratigraphical position above the Claiborne and below the 

Vicksburg, although from the nature of the material he had for examination he failed to recognize the true fan mil relationship of the several 

horizons. His investigations Jeil him to the conclusion that there were

1 Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 7,1855, pp. 257-263.
CLARK.] MISSISSIPPI. 69

no forms in common with the Vicksburg series and but four or five 

with the Glaiborne. Subsequent observations,however, have shown in 

Mississippi, as well as in Alabama, that there are many forms common 

to the three horizons. Such common species as Cardita planicosta and 

Cardita rotunda of the Claiborue, with many less usual types, are found, 

while the list of species reported as likewise occurring in the Vicksburg is very large. The most distinctive fossil of the Jackson beds is 

the Zeuglodon, which, as already stated under Alabama, had been reported by Conrad and others to occur at the same horizon with Orbitoides, though this was denied by Hilgard. If such intermingling has 

been locally found it is explained probably on the ground of subsequent rearrangement of the deposits.

The Jackson beds are composed " at times of a soft yellowish limestone or indurate marl containing a good deal of clay ; at others of, in 

reality, nothing more than soft gray or jellowish calcareous clay." 

Hilgard recognizes two horizons, an upper of about 70 feet of marl or 

clay in which the bones of the Zenglodou are prominent, and a lower 

of 10-20 feet of bluish sandy strata, containing green-sand grains. It is 

the lower horizon that is developed at Jackson and contains the important series of fossils described by Conrad. In this lower division beds 

of lignite are conspicuously developed at several points.

The Jackson deposits extend as a baud of varying width from Wayne 

across Clarke, Jasper, Smith, Scott, Eankiu, and Madison Counties, 

into Yazoo, where they disappear below the alluvium of the Mississippi.

Viclcsburg. The Vicksburg strata extend as a narrow band across 

the State south of the region occupied by the Jackson group, and 

pass through Wayne, Jasper, Smith, E^ankin, Hinds, and Warren 

Counties, reaching the Mississippi Eiver at Vicksburg Bluff.

As stated in a previous paragraph, the Vicksburg group is both lithologically and paleontologically closely associated with the Jackson. 

This is shown most clearly when the section exposed at Ked Bluff in 

Wayue County is considered. The intermediate deposits there exhibited, which Hilgard thought sufficiently important to establish as a subgroup of the Vicksburg series, contain a most interesting association of 

typical Jackson and Vicksburg forms (the latter predominating), together with a large number of species peculiar to the horizon. Conrad, 

who had examined beds on the Savannah Eiver at Shell Bluff, held 

that this division (Eed Bluff group of Hilgard), in which the same species of oyster (Ostreageorgiana) was reported to occur, was of the same 

age and, moreover, that its position was between the Claiborne and 

Jackson. He called the formation the Shell Bluff group.1 In the 

American Journal of Science for 1806, Hilgard 2 opposed the opinions 

of Conrad and showed the proper position of the deposits in Mississippi 

to be at the base of the Vicksburg. The strata of this horizon are

1 Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser,, vol. 41,1806, p. 90. 

»Ibid., vol. 42,1806, pp. 68-70.
70 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

never of great thickness, and at Bed Bluff Station, Wayne County, 

where typically developed, are only about 4 feet thick. At this point, 

the beds consist of "irregular masses of fine grained, ferruginous rock, 

imbedded in a brownish or greenish clayey mass."

The deposits of the Vicksburg group proper consist chiefly of limestones, marls, and clays, which are frequently arenaceous and at times 

glauconitic. The change is often very marked, for, as Hilgard states, 

" not only do the materials of the different groups often bear a most 

extraordinary resemblance to each other, but their character varies incessantly in one and the same stratum within short distances."

The typical fossil is the Orbitoides. Conrad, although at first recognizing in its fossils the close relationship of the Orbitoides limestone 

with the beds exposed at Vicksburg bluff, was later l of the opinion 

that the faunas should be separated and the former associated with 

the Jackson group. Subsequent investigation has shown the error of 

this position, for the Orbitoides lias been found iu sufficient numbers 

mingled with the other characteristic Vicksburg forms, to prove the 

identity of the deposits.

The following section of the Vicksburg Bluff is given in its main 

details as found in the State report of Hilgard:

7. Bluff formation...... ............................. 10-20 ft.

6. Orange Sand..................................... 5-20ft.

"5. Alternating strata, 1 to 6 feet thick of limestone 

and marl, containing the Vicksburg fossils, and some 

bands of non-effervescent, gray sand and clay.... GO-65 ft.

4. Black lignitic clay, and gray sand, with Ostcrea <jiVicksburg group.. \ gantea, Corbula alia, Natica mississippiensis, Cytherea sobrina, Madrepora mississippiensis ............ 5 ft.

3. Gray or black liguitic clays and sand, with iron

pyrites; eluding salts and sulphurated hydrogen 25ft. 

,2. Solid lustrous lignite, with whitish cleavage planes 3 ft.

1. White limestone of the Jackson group ?. ......... 3 ft.

TENNESSEE.

The Eocene of Mississippi, which reaches the northern boundary of 

that State, continues in a southwest-northeast direction across the 

western part of Tennessee. It has been reported to cover much of the 

area lying between the Tennessee Eiver on the east and the Mississippi 

Eiver on the west, and has been found to outcrop at several localities 

on the bluffs of the latter stream. It has been estimated to attain a 

width of quite 50 miles, but with the fragmentary data at hand the 

exact delimitation of the formation is in much doubt.

The several official reports of Troost upon the Geology of Tennessee 

barely touch upon the Eocene. Considerable attention, however, is 

given to this portion of the State by Safford, though the recent investigations of McG-ee tend to show that much that has been hitherto held 

to belong to the Eocene series must be referred to later horizons.

Safford,2 whose authority has been followed up to this time, divides

1 Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 41, 1886, p. 96.

8 Am. Jour. Sci., 2d sor., vol. 37,1861, pp. 360-372. Geology of Teuuessee, 1869, pp. 422-428-
CI.AKK.I TENNESSEE KENTUCKY. 71

the series into two groups which ho terms I. The Porter's Creek group, 

II. The La Grange group. The Upper or La Grange group McGee 

has recently correlated with the Appomattox formation of the Atlantic 

slope, so that a large part of the deposits hitherto referred to the 

Eocene has been given by him a much more recent origin. The Bluff 

Lignite group, which Safford doubtfully referred to the Tertiary and 

placed above the La Grange group, is held by Loughridge1 to be a 

phase of the Porter's Creek group. McGee, on the other hand, considers it Pleistocene. It will thus be seen that the various authorities 

upon the geology of western Tennessee vary widely in their opinions. 

The problems here presented for solution have to, be determined 

almost wholly on stratigraphical data due to the absence of distinctive 

fossils. In short, with the exception of a somewhat limited flora, which 

has not as yet received much study, and a few poorly preserved molluscau remains, there is nothing of a paleoutological character to aid 

in the determination of the geological horizons represented. The Lignitic (Porter's Creek group) is probably, however, the single member 

ot the Eocene series found in Tennessee. In its lithological characters 

it has much in common with the same formation found in Mississippi. 

The Flatwoods phase, with its laminated and aluminous structure, is 

widely represented. Arenaceous and lignitic strata likewise occur. 

We have much yet to learn of the Eocene of Tennessee, however, before its distinctive features can be at all accurately defined.

KENTUCKY.

The Eocene of Kentucky is the northward extension of the Tennessee formation and presents much the same characters as its more southern representative. It occupies that portion of the State lying between 

the Tennessee and Mississippi Rivers and the same divisions in the 

series have been found to occur as in Tennessee. It has been hitherto 

stated, however, that McGee correlates the La Grange group with the 

Appomattox and refers the Bluff Lignite to the Pleistocene, although 

the latter is by Loughridge considered to be a phase of the Porter's 

Creek group.

The Eocene series as subdivided by Loughridge2 in his Report upon 

the Jackson Purchase Region is as follows in descending order:

3. La Grange group (of Safford's Tennessee).

2. Lignitic (Salford's Porter's Creek and Bluff Lignite).

1. Hickm.iu (provisional).

The HicJcman group, the lowest member of the Eocene, which Loughridge has provisionally established, is found chiefly in the vicinity of 

Hickman, where exposures occur "in the bluff bordering the Mississippi bottom from Hick man south into Tennessee." In evidence that

 Gool. Surv. Kentucky, Kept. Jackson Purchase Eegion, 1888, p. 41. 

».Ibid, p. 37.
72 THE EOCENE. ' [BULL.83.

the deposits at Hickraan are older than the Lignitic the author says : 

"These exposures are embraced in a belt of country 5 miles west of a 

line running south from the liguitic outcrops at Columbus, and both of 

the formations have an apparent slight easterly and northwesterly dip, 

which would carry the Hickmau beds much below those of Colnmbns." 

The deposits consist of clay, sand, and gravel, but have not been exposed to their base.

The Lignitic group, which, according to Loughridge, is the equivalent 

of Safford's Porter's Creek group 

enters from Tennessee with a width of about 10 miles', passes northward through the 

middle of Galloway County, soon bends to the northwest through the southwest corner of Marshall, and passes diagonally through the center of McCracken and the 

northern part of Ballard County into Illinois ; southward along the Mississippi Kiver 

bluffs, its first outcrops occur 2 miles north of Wickliffe, Ballard County, and in the 

bluffs between Wickliffe and Fort Jefferson reaching eastward 7 miles to Bland ville and 

southward to Laketon ; at Columbus and a mile above, and also at Chalk Bin if,'2 

miles south, the greatest exposures of the lignitic beds occur.

Loughridge characterizes the group lithologically as follows :

First. A lower heavy bed of massive joint clay, black when wet, but drying to a 

lead-gray color, and on exposure to air crumbling to a fine shaly mass. This is tlio 

Porter's Creek group of the Tennessee series. It is popularly called soapstom1 . Along 

the Mississippi River bluffs the clays, while dark and somewhat joiuty, are more 

sandy than those on the eastern aide of the region.

Second. An upper bed of dark sandy clay, holding two layers of lignite, each varying from 2 to 4 feet in thickness, the topmost being about 5 feet from the surface 

of the formations. This upper or lignitic portion of the group, while perhaps at one 

time continuous from the Mississippi Eiver eastward nearly to the Cretaceous, has 

now almost disappeared on the east, outcropping only on Panther Creek, 6 miles rnst* 

of Mayfield, in Graves County On the west, however, in the neighborhood of Wickliffe, the lignite beds reach for 3 miles to north and south, and for 7 miles eastward 

to Blaudville.

Loughridge gives the following section which shows the character 

of the several members comprising the group:

Section of the Lignitic group.

Feet. 

Dark sandy clays .......-...----.....,-.....----...---..-....,,................ 3

Lignite bed................................................................... 4

Dark sandy clays ............................................................. 5

Lignite bed................................................................... 3

Dark sandy clays ............................................................. 3

Clay stone with fossil-leaf impressions......................................... 2

Dark sandy clay, the upper holding leaf impressions........................... 2

Micaceous sandstone with fossil casts.......................................... 3

Black joint clay, changing to dark sandy clay ................................. 100

The paleontological evidence, with the exception of a few poorly preserved molluscau remains from the micaceous sandstone near Paducah, 

depends entirely upon fossil leaves, of which a considerable number 

have been described by Lesquereux from the beds near Columbus 1 

and Wickliffe.2 The rnolluscan forms, five in number, Mysia ungulina (?),

1 Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 27,1859.

*U. S. National Museum Proc., vol. 11,1888, pp. 11-13.
CLAHK.J ILLINOIS MISSOURI. 73

Ledaprotexta (?), Leda sp., Nucula ovula (?), and Turritclla Mortoni are 

described by Heilprin 1 in the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural 

Science, of Philadelphia, as occurring u mainly in the form of casts in 

a highly ferruginous and fairly micaceous yellow-white sandstone."

The non-occurrence of Lignitic strata in the area between the eastern 

and western outcrops above described is accounted for by the removal 

of the deposits and " the filling up of the gap by the La Grange beds." 2 

This is considered probable from the fact that the La Grange is found 

at depths below the level of the Lignitic deposits.

The wide surface covering of more recent deposits limits the examination of the PJocene to the exposures afforded by streams and well 

borings.

ILLINOIS.

In Geology, vol. 1 of the Eeports of the Geological Survey of Illinois, 

certain deposits in the southern portions of the State, in Massac, 

Pulaski, and Alexander Counties, are referred to the Tertiary. They 

consist of gravels, sands, and clays that are at times cemented into 

a ferruginous conglomerate, In Pulaski County, a bed of greensand 

marl occurs, witfo. casts of marine shells that are referred by Worthen to the genera Cucullsea and Turritella. The bluff at Caledonia, 

on the Ohio River, affords a fine section of Tertiary strata 100 feet 

in thickness. Worthen states that a thin bed of lignite is found at the 

water's edge. Loughridge, who visited the locality at high water, 

states that the basal member is " greeusand (glauconite) with hyoline 

sand; also, some black sand and clay, 2 to 4 feet." Overlying this he 

mentions the occurrence of u 75 feet of the dark joint clay weathering to 

a gray shale and Himilar in every regard to the clay beds of the lignitic." The presence of 20 feet of " dark, sandy clay, indurated " above 

the joint clay is further stated. This is supposed by Loughridge to 

represent the micaceous sandstone of the Paducah series.

Worthen is of the opinion that the Tertiary strata may have extended 

along the basin of the Mississippi as far north, at least, as Hancock 

County, since the occurrence there of shark's teeth in the alluvial deposits can be explained only on the ground of subsequent rearrangement of earlier marine deposits. It seems probable that the various 

deposits here referred to are the northward extension of the Lignitic 

represented in Tennessee and Kentucky and described in the previous 

pages.

MISSOURI.

Little more than the bare statement of the occurrence of Eocene in the 

southeastern portion of the State is found in the literature. That the 

stiata partake of the character of the deposits in Kentucky and

1 Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci. Proc., vol. 38,1880, pp. 57, 58.

2 GeoL Survr. Kentucky, Kept. Jackson Purchase Region, 1888, p. 51.
74 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

Illinois, which collectively oatliue in a general way tlie head of the 

Mississippi embaymeut in early Tertiary times, is recognized. The outcrops are found chiefly in Mississippi and New Madrid Counties. So far 

as known, the strata are entirely confined to the Lignitic. No fossils 

have been reported from the beds, and even the stratigraphical relations 

of the deposits themselves are very imperfectly understood. '

ARKANSAS.

Our knowledge of the Eocene of Arkansas is confined chiefly to a 

small area in the southwestern portion of the State that has lately been 

investigated by Prof. Robert T. Hill.1

The earlier reports of David Dale Owen, State Geologist of Arkansas, contain many casual references to Tertiary deposits, in the eastern 

and southern counties, a portion of which can be shown to be Eocene, 

while the remainder are to be referred in part to older, in part to younger 

formations. The Tertiary area examined by Hill includes portions of 

Hot Springs, Dallas, Clark, Howard, Hempstead, Nevada. Ouachita, 

Columbia, La Fayette, and Miller Counties, and the sections are found 

for the most part along the Ouachita and Red Rivers and tlieir tributaries. The inland border of the formation is found to extend in an 

irregular line from southwest to northeast, a short distance to the west 

of the Iron Mountain Eailway and passes near Texarkana, Washington, 

Apkadelphia, and Malvern. From the scattered data accessible for the 

remainder of the State it seems probable that this line extends in approximately the same direction toward the northeast, past Little Rock 

to the Missouri border.

The lignitic formation of this area has been designated by Hill the 

"Ctimden series." He describes it as "an extensive, shallow-water, 

marine formation of stratified, micaceous, non-indurated, alternating 

laminse of sands and clay shales1 , sandy shales occasionally accompanied 

by bituminous shales, lignitic shales, thin sandstones (quartzites), etc. 2 " 

The series takes its name from the town of Cainden on the Ouachita 

River, near which the most typical exposure is found. The following 

section is from Hill's report:

8. Surface soil (residuum of substructure) ferruginous sandy.................. 5 ft.

7. Laminated sand, with green-sand specks, originally white, but ferrnginating 

and cementing into red iron sandstone, with a tendency to shaly disintegration on exposure ..................................................... 32 ft.

6. Little Missouri lignites, or ligneous shales, with white sand between layers of

the same character as those seen at the mouth of the Little Missouri...... 20 ft.

5. Butt-colored, micaceous sand and clay shales, changing on exposure to pink

and light yellow ........................................................ 10ft.

4. Bituminous shales, with bituminous masses and asphalt-like concretions. 

This stratum is full of concretions of iron pyrites, which oxidize on exposure, coloring the neighboring strata red ............ .... . .......... 15 ft,

1 Gool. Surv. Arkansas, Ann. Kept, for 1888, vol. 2, pp. 48-65.

2 Ibid., p. 49.
cr,AUK.] ARKANSAS LOUISIANA. 75

3. Light drab, fine, micaceous sanda or sandy clays, n'uely laminated......... 25 ft.

2. Concealed................................................................. 25ft.

1. Repetition of'No. 3 to tue water line ...................................... 10 ft.

In the vicinity of Arkadelphia are deposits " consisting of alternate 

bands of blue clay and white or orange-colored sands" that occupy a 

position below the Camden series as exhibited at Camden. They rest 

nnconformably upon the Cretaceous, and have received the name of 

"Arkadelpliia shales" from Hill.

Hill states that there are many other outcrops within the area that 

afford deposits similar to the Camden section, but that, judging from 

the dip, it is not probable that the strata are identical. .On the contrary, they represent alternating conditions in the deposition of an extensive series of beds. The thickness of the Camden series can not be^ 

accurately given, but it is estimated to be quite 700 feet between Curtis 

and Camden. At the latter point, 300 feet more are exposed from low 

water to the top of the highest hills.

Owen mentions the occurrence in the central and northeastern portions of the State in Jefferson, St. Francis, Green, and other counties 

of liguitic strata that are doubtless the northern continuation of the 

belt represented by the Caraden series of the southwest.

The " Cleveland county red lands" described by Hill, though lithologically similar to the typical Carnden series, are "accompanied by 

extensive deposits of marine shells and greensand which bring into 

these strata an ingredient of lime, an ingredient which is conspicuously 

lacking in the underlying beds." Carditaplanicosta, Eostellaria velata, 

and other forms found.also at Claiborne show the probable position 

that these beds hold in the Eocene series. At White Bluffs, on the 

Arkansas "River, in Jefferson County, Owen mentions a section of 

Eocene shell marl 50 to 60 feet in thickness containing many Claiborne 

types.

From the evidence thus afforded the presence of the Liguitic and 

Claiborne are established, while it is probable that the Buhrstone also 

occurs. The White limestone is undoubtedly lacking.

LOUISIANA.

The reports of Hopldns and Hilgard, that of the former to the general assembly as State geologist, that of the latter to the New Orleans 

Academy of Sciences, afford the chief sources of information upon the 

Eocene geology of Louisiana. As the investigations were hurriedly 

conducted, admitting in neither case of an extended examination of the 

deposits, there is much yet to be desired before approximate limits maybe given to the several formations, or even the horizons themselves definitely determined.

The Eocene strata are found to the north of a line extending from 

the Sabine River near the mouth of Bayou Toneau, through Sabine 

and Natchitochfs Counties, crossing the Red River near Cloutierville,
76 THE EOCENE. fuuLL.83.

thence through Grant and Catahoula Counties to near Stafford Point on 

the west bank of the Ouachita River. To the east of the Ouachita River 

the Eocene is covered by the alluvial deposits of the Mississippi. North 

of this southern boundary line the strata extends to the Arkansas 

border.

All the main divisions of the Eocene are probably represented, although we have definite knowledge of but two, the Vicksburg and 

Jackson. Hilgard describes, under the name of " The Mansfield group," 

a series of beds consisting of lignites, sands, and clays that he states in 

his first report in part at least overlie deposits with characteristic Jackson fossils. In the final report these deposits are shown to be largely 

Jackson. Hopkins, about the same time, suggests the identity of a part 

of the Mansfield group with the "Northern Lignite." Hill, in his Arkansas report, states that similar deposits in Arkansas which he assigns 

to the Lignitic, and calls the Camden series, represent certainly in part 

the Mansfield group of Hilgard. If, upon further examination, such 

proves to be the case, we have in the lignitic strata of northwestern 

Louisiana the Lignitic represented. That lignitic strata occur at different horizons, as in Mississippi, is beyond doubt, and it may be that 

the Mansfield group contains representatives of all the divisions from 

the Liguitic to the Jackson. Too little is known to make positive statements upon this point.

Jackson. The northern limits of the Jackson grou'p, as fin ally established, will depend upon the amount of lignitic strata that will be assigned to earlier horizons. In addition to the lignites, with their interstratified sands and sandy clays, are marine strata, consisting of marls, 

clays, and sands with numerous typical rnollnscan forms, and at two 

localities (Graudview on the Ouachita River, and Montgomery, Grant 

Parish), the remains of Zeuglodon.

Vicksburg. The limits of the Vicksburg group have been more accurately determined. The strata occupy a belt of country 10 to 12 miles 

in width, extending from the Ouachita Eiver to the Sabine, and passing 

through Catahoula, Winn, Grant, Natchitoches, and Sabine Counties. 

The deposits consist chiefly of yellow and red clays, at times sandy and 

often very calcareous from the presence of large numbers of limestone nodules, that are filled with casts of shells. Lignitic strata are 

not altogether absent, though infrequent. Many characteristic Vicksburg fossils have been reported from the different portions of the area, 

including Orbitoides Mantelli and Pecten Poulsoni.

TEXAS.

The first information that is afforded us concerning the occurrence of 

Eocene strata in the State of Texas is presented by Boemer in his work 

entitled "Texas," etc., published in 1849. At Wheelock, Caldwell
CLAHK.] TEXAS. 77

County, he found fossils that he considered identical with those at Olaiborne, Alabama. From this he drew the conclusion that 

II is hardly to be believed that this Tertiary formation is limited only to this point 

on the Brnzos, in Texa,s, but most probably it is pare of a continuous baud, as is the 

case in Mississippi and Alabama, extending alonj? the foot of the Cretaceous, and 

only the detritus of the later alluvial formations prevents its exposure in most 

places. 1

The supposed limits of the formations are given on a map appended 

to the volume. The later geological notes on this region by Schott, 

Hall, Conrad, Slmmard, and Buckley are very meager and unsatisfactory, and give us hardly more than a general idea as to the position of 

the Tertiary.2 Loughridge, in a li Keport on the Cotton Production 

of the State of Texas" 2 of the Tenth Census, gives the general bound-, 

aries of the Eocene, although its westward deflection iti the drainage 

of the Bio Graude, adopted on most recent maps, has been lately shown 

to be erroneous.3 Hill states that the mistake originated because 

Conrad referred a specimen of Cardita planicosta to a locality (Arroyo 

de las Minas) in Zavalla County, which, however, upon examination, 

shows, in the handwriting of the collector, that it came from Mexico.

Heilprin presents an excellent general statement of the stratigraphical relations of the Texas Eocene, so far as they were known up to 

1SS4-, in his " Contributions to the Tertiary Geology and Paleontology 

of the United States." Hill quotes largely from the same work, so far 

as it relates to the Eocene, in his general summary of " The Present 

Conditions of Knowledge of the Geology of Texas."4

A recent publication of Dr. R. A. F. Penrose, jr., entitled "A Preliminary Report on the Geology of the Gulf Tertiary of Texas, from the Red 

River to the Rio Grande," in the First Annual Report of the Geological 

Survey of Texas for 1889, gives us theresults of the first systematic study 

of the Tertiary formations of eastern Texas. The line separating the 

Cretaceous and Eocene, he states, runs in a general northeast aud southwest direction, crossing the Red River west of Texarkana, the Texas 

and Pacific Railroad between Corsicana and the Trinity River, the 

Brazos River in the northeast corner of Milam County, the Colorado 

River 10 miles below Austin, and the Rio Graude River in the northwest corner of Webb County, 3 miles below the Maverick County line 

and half way between Eagle Pass and Laredo.

Concerning the difficulty of definitely establishing the boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary, Penrose says:

The uppermost part of the Cretaceous aud the base of the Tertiary strata are both 

composed of soft clay and sand beds, Avhich succumb readily to the weathering action 

of the atmosphere aud consequently the line of separation is often impossible to locate exactly.

1 Texas, etc., 1849, p. 372, and U. S. Gool. Surv., Bull.45,1887, p. 17.

2 Tench, Census of the IT. S., vol. 5,1884 pp. 653-831. 

8 U. S. Geol. Surv., Bull. 45,1887, p. 85. 

« U. S. Geol. Surv., Bull. 45,1887.
78 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

As regards the composition and origin of the strata he says:

The Tertiary deposits consist of avast thickness of sand, clay, and glauconite beds, 

in some places characterized by great quantities of lignite, and in others by beds of 

littoral fossils. In fact the whole series represents a succession of coastal, subcoastal, 

or brackish water deposits, alternating with marine deposits of a littoral character, 

and between these two extremes we find all gradations. The lagoon or subcoastal 

deposits compose by far the greater part of the series, and the marine strata represent slight and temporary submergencies of the coastal area.

The strike of the strata is northeast to southwest and the dip from 

0° to 5° toward the southeast, although local variations in the latter 

are reported by Penrose by which at times the dip is west or northwest, 

and one instance in the vicinity of San Tgnacio on the Eio Graride, 

where for 21 miles the dip is towards the northeast. The strata have 

been estimated to attain a thickness of 1,000 to 1,300 feet. Penrose 

divides the deposits into two horizons, which are given below in descendiug order.

2. The Timber Belt or Sabine Eiver beds. 

1. The Basal or Wills Point clays.

The lower division, the Basal or Wills Point Clays, are composed of 

Stiff laminated clay, yellow, gray, blue, or bluish green in color, frequently interbedded with seems and laminae of sand, containing many concretionary masses of 

gray non-fossiliferous limestone. * » * No lignitic beds have been seen as yet 

in these clays.

The deposits of this division are estimated to be 250 to 300 feet thick. 

They are considered by Penrose to bo absent on the Rio Grande.

The upper division, the Timber Belt or Sabine River Beds, are composed of 

Siliceous and glauconitic sands, with white, brown, and black clays. The clays, 

however, are greatly in the minority, and the siliceous sands comprise by far the 

greater part of the whole series. Lignite beds are of very frequent occurrence, 

varying from a few inches to 10 and 12 feet thick.

Of the areal distribution of these beds Penrose says that they "occupy an area over 125 miles wide in the northeast part of the State, but 

thin down to less than 40 miles on the Colorado." On the Eio Graude 

the Timber Belt Beds are found, according to Penrose, resting directly 

on the Cretaceous.

Dr. White,1 however, considers that the Laramie.enters into the Eio 

Grande section between the marine beds of the Cretaceous and Eocene. 

He says:

These strata (Laramie) dip gradually to the southeastward or approximately in 

the direction of the river's (Rio Grande) course and disappear beneath the sandy 

strata of the Eocene Tertiary some 10 or 12 miles above Laredo.

The Timber Belt or Sabine Eiver beds are estimated to attain a thickness of 800 to 1,000 feet. Although the discovery of many fossils is 

reported from the Texas Eocene, and the identity of several forms 

with the species recognized iu the Alabama and Mississippi strata

1 Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 35,1888, pp. 432-438.
CLARK.] CORRELATION OF DEPOSITS. 79

claimed, little systematic stndy has been given them, so that no very 

definite conclusions can as yet be drawn. Oardita planicosta. that 

ranges so widely and is so characteristic of the Eocene in the Atlantic 

as well as the Gulf States, has been recognized among other typical 

forms.

CORRELATION OF DEPOSITS.

There is practical uniformity of opinion at the present time as to the 

delimitation of the Eocene of the Atlantic and Gulf coast region. Both 

paleoutologically and strati graphically, the break separating the 

Eocene and Cretaceous is clearly defined, and except where local details of geographical distribution have not been as yet finally established, the line may be drawn with comparative accuracy. Unconformity of contact is generally apparent, and the types of animal remains are so widely different as to afford at once, when present, a ready 

means of discrimination.

The Neocene is also found unconformably overlying the Eocene and 

with fossil forms that at once separate the two horizons, although the 

distinctions are, perhaps, not so strongly marked as between the Cretaceous and Eocene.

On the other hand, any attempt at a wide correlation of the various 

divisions of the Eocene established in the different portions of the Atlantic and Gulf coast region is rendered well-nigh fruitless from our 

incomplete knowledge of their stratigraphy and their fossils. Only in 

one locality (along the Alabama and Tombigbee Eivers, Alabama) have 

we even an approximately accurate section of the Eocene series. The 

literature is filled with incomplete descriptions of local deposits, which, 

for purposes of widespread correlation of the strata must be used with 

the greatest care. Moreover, the collections of fossils made by the many 

authorities cited in the previous pages of this report have been either 

altogether destroyed or so carelessly labeled and preserved as to be 

practically worthless for strati graphical purposes. The collections of 

the Alabama State Survey are an exception, and I have a fragmentary 

series from the Atlantic coast deposits. It will thus be seen that the 

difficulties in the way of any general correlation of deposits are wellnigh insuperable. We are practically ignorant of the fauna, and the 

very foundations upon which we have to build are thus wanting. Long 

lists of fossils, it is true, have appeared in many articles and reports 

upon the region, but the establishment of any complete system of correlation upon such data, is, to say the least, hazardous. Before the 

work can be satisfactorily done, careful and exhaustive collections must 

be made. Until that has been accomplished, a provisional statement 

of the more apparent similarities may not be valueless. Many such attempts have hitherto been made, and it is with some reluctancfc that 

the author employs such insufficient data for widespread correlations 

which require the most accurate information to possess any value, lu
80 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

the introduction to this report a division of the Eocene into I, Lower; 

II, Middle; III, Upper, was suggested. Although such a division of the 

strata can not be definitely established everywhere, it affords a scale to 

which the facts, so far as we know them, may be referred, and by which 

the complete, series in Alabama may be best interpreted. In the succeeding pages the generalized sections recorded in the several States 

will be assigned, so far as possible, to a relative position in this scale, 

although later observations will probably necessitate many changes.

New Jersey. The Eocene of New Jersey belongs entirely to the Lower 

division. Its supposed close relationship to the Cretaceous, from a 

stratigraphical standpoint, was long the cause of associating it with 

that horizon. Its fossils were subsequently found to possess an undoubted Eocene character, and although lacking some of the more 

widely represented species, such as Cardita planicosta, Turritella Mortoni, and Ostrea sellceformis, still afford none of the characteristic Cretaceous forms of the underlying rocks. The character of the vertebrate 

bones and the molluscan remains is a strong indication of its early Eocene age. Conrad 1 stated this position in 1848 and more fully explained the same in 1S65. It has been generally held by subsequent 

writers.

Maryland. There is some difference of opinion as to the correlation 

of the Maryland deposits. The strata exhibited at Piscataway Creek, 

Upper Marlboro, and other points have been generally considered to 

hold a position well down in the Eocene series, but whether they are to 

be correlated with the Claiborne, Buhrstone, or Lignitic of the south 

has not yet been finally determined, so that it is a matter of some doubt 

whether the Maryland deposits should be considered Lower or Middle 

Eocene. It is not at all improbable that both may be represented, 

though we have not sufficient data for establishing a division. That 

the deposits of Maryland and Virginia occupy about the same horizon 

is pretty clearly established, both on stratigraphical and paleontological grounds. In the main the fossils are similar. Ostrea compressirostra, Turritella Mortoni, Gytherea Meelcii, Gardita planicosta, Gucullma 

gigantea, Panopcsa elongata are types frequent in both States, while Turritella Mortoni, Panopcea elongata, and Gardita planicosta have a wide 

geographical range in other portions of the Atlantic and Gulf coast 

region. Unfortunately the few forms that occur have not, so far as is 

known, a narrowly circumscribed range geologically, Gardita planicosta, 

for example, ranging through the entire Eocene series. Lithologically, 

also, the Maryland deposits are, in their widespread green-sand facies, 

to be intimately associated with the Virginia strata.

Virginia. The Virginia Eocene region is, as above stated, the southward extension of the Maryland area. The upper strata may represent a^higher horizon, but of that we bave little to guide us. The fossils

1 Philadelphia Acacl.Nat. Sci. Jour., new ser., vol. 1,1848, p. 129. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proo., 

vol. 17,1865, pp. 71,73.
CLAWC.] CORRELATION OF DEPOSITS. 81

are, in the main, identical, though, so far as investigation has gone, the 

fauna of the Virginia Eocene is more varied than that of Maryland, 

and in the presence of Ostrea sellceformis and other important forms 

shows a closer relationship with the more southern areas. Whether it 

is the representative of the Lower or Middle Eocene can not be stated 

with deti uiteuess, although it seems probable that portions of each are 

represented. Continuous deposition under similar circumstances seems 

to have prevailed, and renders any division of the series difficult.

North Carolina. The fauna of the North Carolina Eocene presents so 

many differences from that of other areas that it is difficult to correlate the strata. The deposits have much less in common with the 

Virginia region than with South Carolina, when viewed either from 

a paleontological or structural standpoint. Ostrea sellceformis and Cardita planicosta occur sparingly together with other forms that are found 

in the Middle Eocene of Alabama. Too little is known of the fossils 

and their range to enter much into details, but there is little doubt that 

the Middle Eocene is here represented, though its lower portions may 

be absent. There are also points of relationship between the limestone 

beds in the eastern portions of the State and the White limestone facies 

farther south. Too little is known of the fauna to pass final judgment. 

It seems probable, however, that the Upper Eocene is here represented.

South Carolina. The Eocene of South Carolina is represented by 

portions, at least, of the Lower, Middle, and Upper members. That 

some of the basal and superior beds sire lacking, and that there may 

have been interruptions in continuous deposition seems probable. The 

irregularly stratified arenaceous beds at the base of the series, classed 

with the Buhrstone in Tuomey's South Carolina report, are beyond much 

doubt to be correlated with the Lignitic of Alabama, and are thus 

Lower Eocene. Although liguitic strata are not wholly lacking, yet the 

conditions under which the' beds were accumulated were very different 

from those existing in the Gulf region. The seas were open, and sands 

and clays were chiefly deposited, while liguitic accumulations were forming in the Mississippi embayment. The overlying argillaceous deposits 

are probably Buhrstone, though they may include also, in part or in 

whole, the Claiborne. They are of Middle Eocene age. Among the 

species found that occur in the Middle Eocene elsewhere, though not 

distinctive in all cases, are TurritellaMortoni, Carditaplanicosta, Cytherea 

ovata, Crassatella alwformis, Pectunculus stamineus, and Ostrea sellceformis. The " calcareous strata of the Charleston Basin," which include 

fche San tee Beds and the Ashley and Cooper Beds of Tuoniey, are to be 

correlated with the White limestone of Alabama, and are thus upper 

Eocene, though the evidence for tlie presence of the upper horizon 

(Vicksburg) is by no means conclusive. The existence of Zeuglodon 

remains in the different members of the calcareous strata (Santee Beds 

and Ashley and Cooper Beds), together with the character of the mollusca, is strong proof of their identity of age with the Jackson group 

of Alabama and Mississippi. Some of the beds ou the left bank of the 

Bull, 83 -6
82 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

Savannah, opposite and below Shell Bluff, have been correlated with 

the Vicksburg, upon evidence previously stated and have been called 

the " Shell Bluff group."

Georgia. Although investigated much less fully than in South Carolina, the Eocene deposits of Georgia include probably the three divisions there represented. The " Buhrstone" is described as peculiarly 

typical for Georgia, though as the term is here used it includes part, if 

not all, of the Lignitic, Buhrstone, and Claiborne of Alabama. A separation of the series into these horizons is as yet impossible from the lack 

of accessible data. In the southern portion of the State the Vicksburg 

group of the White limestone (connecting the Florida and Alabama 

areas) is doubtless represented, though the evidence is rather of geographical possibility than established fact.1

The upper portion.of the section exhibited at Shell Bluff, on the 

Savannah River, was stated by Conrad 3 to represent a horizon underlying the " Orbitolite limestone of the Jackson group."

Bilgard, in a reply to Conrad,3 saysthe statement that the Orbitoides 

occurs in the Jackson group is incorrect, and that the " Shell Bluff 

group" of Conrad is probably the equivalent of his ' Red Bluff group," 

found at the base of the Vicksburg series and overlying the Jackson. 

Of the importance of Ostrea georgiana for purposes of correlation, Hil. 

gard claims that it varies greatly from the Jackson oyster, with which 

Conrad compared it, but may be similar to Ostrea giganteaof the Vicksburg, which, moreover, is not present in the Eed Bluff group. From 

this it appears that the evidence for the correlation of the " Shell Bluff 

group " is insufficient, and beyond the fact that it is included in the 

White limestone series and is thus Upper Eocene, it is impossible to 

go. From the data at hand, it is evident that a decided opinion can not 

be given upon the different horizons represented in Georgia, though it 

can be stated as probable that the Lower, Middle, and Upper Eocene 

are present.

Florida. The Eocene of Florida is confined to the upper division, and 

in its well marked White limestone phase, containing Orbitoides Mantel li, 

Pecten Poulsoni, and other Vicksburg fossils, is readily correlated with 

the upper member (Vicksburg) of the White limestone of Alabama 

and Mississippi. A thin layer of silicified Miocene limestone is often, 

found irregularly overlying both the typical Vicksburg and that later 

phase of it which has been called Nummulitic and which contains 

species of Forainiuifera that are limited to the Florida deposits so far 

as known. Johnson 4 says concerning this latter horizon that " possibly these irregular deposits may be remnants of the Nummulitic limestone, which is really a stratum oveylying the Vicksburg rocks, well

1 Keceiit observations of Mr. Frank Burns show that the Vicksburg limestone with Orbitoides cropa 

out 25 feet thick in Pulaski County.

2 A in. Jour. Sci., 2d aer., vol. 41,1866, p. 90, 

3 Ibid., vol. 42,1866, pp. 68-70. 

4 Ibid., vol. 30,1888, p. 232.
CORRELATION OF DEPOSITS. 83

seen at the old iron works near Levyville, Levy County." As regards 

its taxonomic importance. Johnson further states that " there is no 

sufficient reason as yet observed to regard it as more than an upper 

layer, similar to such superadded layers seen in Alabama at the Lower 

Salt Works on the Toinbigbee River."

Alabama. Tbe extent of the Alabama section, together with the 

detailed manner in which it has been studied, has led to its acceptance 

as the type of the Atlantic and Gulf coast Eocene. The Lignitic has 

been assigned to the Lower, the Buhrstoiie and Olaiborne to the Middle, 

and the White limestone, with its further subdivisions into Jackson 

and Vicksburg, to the Upper division of the series. Such separation 

is locally warranted on both lithological and paleontological grounds, 

and may for the present at least serve an important purpose in the 

comparative study of the Eocene deposits of the Atlantic and Gulf 

Coast region. So far as the stratigraphy of the Eocene is at present 

known, the entire series is represented in Alabama.

Mississippi. The deposits of Mississippi are readily correlated with 

those of Alabama, as most of the members persist with similar facies. 

The lower division, the Liguitic, as previously described, is widely represented. The Buhrstone and Claiborne, defined as siliceous and calcareous Olaiborne by Hilgard, are both present, while the White limestone persists in its two divisions, the Jackson and Vicksburg.

In general the Lignitic increases in importance from Alabama westward, while the members of the Middle Eocene, although represented, 

form a less marked feature structurally and paleontologically. The 

White limestone, on the other hand, is much more prominently developed, and affords a most varied fauna in both its upper and lower 

members. A marked feature of dissimilarity with the eastern representatives of the Upper Eocene, in this respect connecting it with the 

trans-Mississippi type, is the occurrence of liguitic bands throughout the 

series.

Mississippi Emlayment: Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and 

Arkansas. The Eocene strata of the region to the north of the border 

Gulf States, forming the Mississippi Embayinent, are chiefly to be correlated with the lower division (Liguitic). The character of the deposits affords almost the only means of comparison, since few localities 

have been found where fossils are found. In southern Arkansas, from 

the occurrence of Claiborne fossils, there is evidence of the presence of 

the Middle Eocene^ but it is doubtful whether the Upper Eocene is anywhere represented in this area. So little is yet known of the geological range of the .lignitic beds in the Gulf region that the conclusions 

drawn from their presence or absence have little value. In the States 

to the south liguitic strata have been found at every horizon of the 

Eocene; yet from the geographical position of the Mississippi Embayinent, it seems hardly probable that more than the Lower, or at the 

most Middle, Eocene are represented,
84 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

Louisiana. In a previous chapter the evidence for the existence of 

the Liguitic in Louisiana was stated. That evidence was chiefly of a 

lithological character, and the probability that the southern extension 

of the " Camden series," described by Hill in Arkansas and shown to 

be Lower Eocene, would coincide with the deposits of northwestern 

Louisiana. Hilgard has described the lignitic strata of this area under 

the name of the " Mansfield group," and although in part, shown to be 

Upper Eocene, they are considered by Hill to represent likewise the 

" Oamden series" (Lignitic). The evidence for the presence of the 

Middle Eocene is chiefly of a geographical character. On the other 

hand, the Yicksburg and Jackson have a thoroughly characteristic development, the White limestone strata abounding in fossils of species 

identical with those of Mississippi. Intercalated beds of lignitic strata, 

on the other hand, are more numerous than in the White limestone 

series to the east of the Mississippi River.

Texas. Heilprin1 and Hill2 have expressed the opinion that the Tertiary of Texas would be found to afford a tolerably complete section of 

the Eocene when more complete investigations had been made. Heilprin says that "it may safely be assumed that all, or nearly all, of the 

divisions ranging from the Eolignitic [Lignitic] to the Grand Gulf, inclusive, are represented."

Concerning the correlation of the Basal or Wills Point Clays, the 

lower of the two divisions of the Eocene strata established by himself, 

Peurose says: 3 "These clays probably represent the Eolignitic of 

Heilprin's Eocene section, the base of Hilgard's <Northern lignitic' in 

his Mississippi section, and the Arkadelphia shales at the base of Hill's 

1 Camdeu series,' in Arkansas." He states that the upper portion of 

" The Timber Beltor Sabiue River beds," the upper division of theEocene 

as established by that writer, oil the Brazos and Colorado River, " show 

Jackson and Claiborne species with a tendency toward an increase of 

the Jackson over the Claiborue as we ascend the series." The representatives of the Yicksburg suem to be quite or nearly lacking, which 

has been accounted for on the ground that the oscillation that caused 

deep-sea conditions in the Vicksburg period over the central Gulf States 

" may have also raised the Texas region into aland area.'1 When more 

exhaustive study has been made of the Eocene fauna of Texas it may 

then be possible to institute more accurate correlation with the series 

established in Alabama and Mississippi. Until that has been done little more than the statement of the probable presence of representatives of the Lower, Middle, and Upper Eocene may be made.

'Contributions to the Tertiary Geology and Paleontology of the United States, 1881, pp. 37-39,

2U. S. Geol. Surv., Bull. 45,1887, pp. 84-86.

 Gool. Surv. Texas, First Ann. Kept, for 1889, pp. 18,19.
PROVISIONAL PROVINCES.

Tabular representation of the geological raiiyv of the Eocene in the Atlantic and Gulf coast

.region.

1

Virginia ..................................

Worth Carolina. ............................

South Carolina . ...........................

G oorgia ...................................

Florida. ...................................

Alabama ..................................

Mississippi ................................

Tennessee. ................................

Kentucky. ........... .......... ............

Missouri ................................

Arkansas ..................................

Louisiana .................................

Texas............................... ...

Lower.

Jr

 ^ ^"»"

Middle. Upper.

f~' MM*

"*^^MMI-" ~

PROVISIONAL DIVISION INTO PROVINCES.

As stated in an earlier portion of this paper, the Atlantic and Gulf 

Coast Eocene is too imperfectly understood to admit of its direct treatment by provinces though certain indications of a paleontological and 

lithological character render a provisional division possible and necessary.

The Gulf region, due to the fuller representation of the Eocene series 

and the more exhaustive investigations, that have been there recorded, 

may be considered to afford the type development of that horizon, and so 

the standard with which other Eocene areas may be compared. For this 

reason even a provisional division of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast region 

into provinces mast depend largely upon correlative data, based upon 

the Gulf series.

Wider investigations may show that what to-day seem restricted 

characters whether structural or paleontological are to be largely explained on account of our imperfect knowledge. Connecting links now 

wanting may unite all parts into a consistent whole, so that the wide 

faunal differences that now appear may be found much less prominent, 

even if they do not entirely disappear.

Judging from present data four more or less fully defined areas 

dependent upon structural and paleontological differences may be 

established in the Atlantic and Gulf Coast region. They are: 1, New 

Jersey province; 2, Maryland-Virginia province; 3, Carolina-Georgia 

province; 4, Gulf province.

New Jersey province. The Eocene area of New Jersey forms an insignificant portion geographically of the Atlantic and Gulf Coast region. 

In the character of its deposits or its fossils the Eocene of this locality 

affords few points of comparison with its more southern representatives. 

Lithologically there is a marked difference. The " Blue Marl" of which
86 THE EOCENE. luuLt,,83.

the New Jersey series is largely composed presents an individual type 

of sedimentation unlike tbe Eocene strata to the south. This difference, which may be.directly traceable to the underlying deposits from 

which the Eocene has been largely derived is still further shown in the 

character of the fossils which the beds themselves afford. The more 

common Eocene types such as Cardita planicosta, Ostrea sellccformis, 

Ostrea compressirostra, Gucullcea gigantea, Cytherea MeeMi and others so 

characteristic for the deposits in Maryland and Virginia are lacking, 

while with the possible exception of Orassatella alta none of the more 

southern forms appear. . The species most common for the New Jersey 

area are with scarcely an exception confined to that region.

The question naturally presents itself in connection with the study 

of the Eocene deposits of New Jersey, whether the structural and faunal 

differences are due to differences of contemporaneous origin, upon 

which alone the claims to separation as a province rests, or whether the 

horizon of the New Jersey deposits may not be different from that of 

the strata immediately to the south in Maryland and Virginia, with 

which comparison has been chiefly made. That the latter may be the 

case has been by no means disproved. The evidence for or against 

either one of these suppositions is so inconclusive that final decision 

can not be rendered. However, for lack of opposing data, the New 

Jersey deposits may be for the present purpose best treated as a provisional province.

Maryland-Virginia province. Of much wider geographical extent 

than the New Jersey region is the Eocene area of Delaware, Maryland, 

and Virginia, though in its turn much more circumscribed in range 

than the regions farther south. Although showing greater similarity 

in the character of its deposits and fossils with the south Atlantic and 

Gulf Coast Eocene, than the New Jersey province, the Maryland-Virginia province is still sufficiently distinctive in both, to require complete 

separation as a geological unit.

The green-sand marl of which the Eocene deposits of this area are 

almost exclusively composed, although found elsewhere in the Atlantic 

and Gulf Coast region is nowhere so extensively developed as in Maryland and Virginia. It is thoroughly characteristic for the MarylandVirginia province.

The fossils likewise are in the main distinctive and confined to the 

limits assigned to that province. They are quite unlike the fauna of 

New Jersey on the one hand -and that of the Carolinas on the other. 

Several forms it is true are comparable with the types of the more 

southern representatives of the Eocene, especially the common bivalves 

Carditaplanicosta and Ostrea sellaiformis, A sufficient number, however, are limited in their geographical ran^e and thus show that the 

conditions for their existence in Eocene times were such as to confine 

them to the Maryland-Virginia region.1 Similar questions of doubt as

1 Future investigations may show the differences to be much less marked than they now seem. Fuller 

comparisons with southern forms may show a greater number of identical species.
CI-AEK.] PROVISIONAL PROVINCES. 87

to the contemporaneity of the Maryland-Virginia deposits with the 

type series established for the Eocene arise as in the New Jersey area, 

but for the same reasons the provisional separation of the MarylandVirginia region as a geological province is made. The Eocene deposits 

of this area are termed by Darton the Pamuuky formation.

Carolina- Georgia province. The .Carolina-Georgia province affords a 

much more complete series of Eocene strata than the northern areas. 

Possessing more important representatives, however, in the Middle and 

Upper divisions of the Eocene than the Lower, the possibilities of comparison with northern areas are narrowly circumscribed. The earlier 

Eocene presents a very different facies in the Carolinas and Georgia 

from that in Virginia, Maryland, or New Jersey. The coarse, incongruous sands and clays show that the mode of accumulation of the deposits was very different and, moreover, ill adapted for the preservation 

of marine organisms, even if many had found there a congenial habitat. 

The few fossils that occur are mainly different from those in other 

areas, but the fauna is very imperfectly understood. The arenaceous 

character of the beds affords some points of similarity with the Lower 

Eocene in the Gulf States, although the lignitic strata of the latter 

are wanting. The later Eocene deposits, formed in a sea which almost 

no muddy sediment reached, are chiefly limestones and marls and possess a fauna that can have little in common with the northern Eocene, 

though many identical species 1 with the White limestone horizon of 

the Gulf States are found.

Gulf province. The Gulf province, extending from Florida to Texas 

and including the Mississippi embayment, presents certain characteristic features that separate it both lithologically and paleontologically 

from the Atlantic coast provinces. The wide development of lignitic 

strata throughout the Gulf province must have required peculiar conditions for their accumulation that did not exist along the Atlantic 

coast. Moreover, these conditions were not confined exclusively to the 

earlier stages of the Eocene, although there predominating, but frequently recurred throughout the entire period. We find that even the 

Jackson and Vicksburg groups are not without their lignitic beds, 

although in the eastern portion of the region they are much less frequent.

The Lower Eocene of the Gulf province attains great prominence, and 

in the region of the Mississippi embayment reaches its most marked 

development. In its geographical extent it is the leading member of 

the Eocene. It becomes much less lignitic in the eastern portion of 

the region than in the central and western; its fauna! characteristics 

are there more marine and the beds more calcareous.

The Middle Eocene in its two divisions, the Buhrstone and Claiborne, 

presents a characteristic series of deposits that acquire their most 

marked individuality in the State of Alabama, where a varied fauna

1 Tho fact tbat moat of tlie Carolina-Georgia forms occur as casts renders a comparison difficult.
88 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

characterizes the upper of the two horizons. The Buhrstone largely 

loses its aluminous character toward the Georgia line and becomes 

more fossiliferous. The Claiborne, away from the pluce of its typical 

development at Claiborne, Alabama, rapidly changes. The various 

horizons there represented disappear in part, or changes coming in at 

short distances give the beds quite a different appearance.

The Upper 'Eocene, with its widely developed White limestone beds, 

affords a sharp contrast to the other members of the Eocene series. In 

tlie western portion of the area the White limestone, so typically developed in Alabama, is frequently interstratified with beds of arenaceous deposits containing bauds of lignite.

The fauna of the various horizons of the Eocene in the Gulf States 

is vastly richer than on the Atlantic Coast, and affords many species 

that do not exist in the latter region. The similarities to the Carolina-Georgia province, however, are much greater than to the more 

northern areas.

COMPARISON WITH EUROPEAN DEPOSITS.

The attempts of geologists to correlate American Eocene strata with 

European have decreased in about the ratio that real knowledge of the 

deposits has increased. The earlier geologists thought nothing of correlating individual beds with the minuter divisions of European strata. 

At first lithological similarities were thought sufficient, but even after 

the fossils themselves were considered, generic identity still afforded a 

basis for correlation of the most detailed character. Of late there has 

been more of a tendency to study American formations with reference to 

their own individuality rather than that of some fancied resemblance to 

the deposits of other lands. When our knowledge of. the American 

Eocene has not progressed to such a point as to admit of a-correlation of 

the strata of contiguous regions, how is it to be expected that wider comparisons can be successfully made 1?

Some similarities of a general character in deposits and fossils occur, 

however, and it is these which will be briefly examined. When we take 

into consideration the deposits forming along existing coast lines, we 

find how little value for purposes of correlation the similarity or dissimilarity of sediments can possibly have. Both in America and Europe 

we find a great diversity in the character of the strata. Brackish and 

marine facies appear, the latter with both littoral and infralittoral deposits. Moreover, the fresh-water sediments occurringin the geographically more circumscribed "basins" of Europe are lacking in the 

Atlantic and Gulf Coast region of America^ Further, when we observe 

that the geographical range of shallow-water marine species is limited, 

we can hardly expect that many identical forms will be found common 

to the American and European Eocene. A few species, however, among 

which the Gardita planicosta is the most important, are widely repre-
CLARK.] EUROPEAN EQUIVALENTS. 89

sented in the Eocene strata of both continents. Heilprin 1 has made,a 

comparative study of American and European Eocene species, and 

maintains the identity or close relationship of many forms. Conrad,2 

Mortou,3 Lea,4 and Meyer 5 have made similar comparisons, a review of 

whose conclusions are presented in the article by Heilprin. Others, 

on the other hand, do not consider the existence of identical species in 

the Eocene of the two continents probable, with the possible exception 

of Cardita planicosta and one or two other less usual forms.

The general character of the faunas of the two continents is, however, 

sufficiently similar to render it probable that the Eocene series of Europe is represented in the American Eocene series, which latter may 

likewise include the Oligocene of the Old World, though it does not 

seem to the writer that the evidence adduced is as yet sufficient to 

prove either its presence or absence. As stated in the general introduction to this report, the term Eocene, as we have employed it, may or 

may not include both the Eocene and Oligocene as those terms are used 

in Europe.

1 Contributions to the Tertiary Geology and Paleontology of the United States, pp. 83-101. 

In this article Heilprin discusses briefly the points of similarity in the species that follow:

America. Europe.

Ostrea compressirostra,Say. .'...................(?) 0.bellovacina,Lam.

divaricata, Lea (0.1'alciformis,Conr.)........... 0.flabellula,Lam.

Cardita rotunda, Lea ............................ Ci) C.imbricata.

planicoata,Lain ................................ C. plauicosta, Lam.

Cardium Nicolleti, Conr............................ C. semigraimlatnm, Sow.

Corbis lirata, Conr ................................. C. lamollosa, Lam.

Pectnnculus idoueus, Conr..................... 5 ' ' PI ° simnf>i 00(t-

((?) P. polymorphic, Desh.

Limopsis aviculoides, Conr. (Pectuncnlns obliquus,

Lea).......................................(?) Pectuncnlus (Limopsis) minntus, Phillppl.

Trigonocrelia cunens, Conr. (Nucula carinifera,

Lea) ........................................(?) Nucnla (Trigonocoelia) deltoidea, Lam.

Corbulaoniscus, Conr. (C. Mnrchisonii, Lea) ....... C. rugosa, Lam.

Trochita trochitbrmis, Lea ......................... T. (Calyptnca) trochifonnis, Lam.

Tornatella bella, Uonr............................ . Auricula (Acticon) simulata, Sow.

Solarium ornatmn, Lea............................. S.cannliculatnm, Lam.

Niso umbilicata, Lea ............................... N. angusfca, Desh.

Pyrula tricostata, Desh ............................ P. tricostata, Desh.

penita, Conr.(P. tricarinata, Conr.; P. cancellata, 

Lea; P.elegantissima,Lea)................... P.nexilis, Lam.

Cypnedia fenestralis, Conr.......................... Gyp rasa elegans, Defr.

Oliva boinbylis, Conr. (0. coustricta, Lea) .........(1) 0. clavula, Lam.

Volutalimopsis, Conr ............................(1) V. crenulata, Lam.

Cancellaria tortiplica, Conr......................... C. (Bnccinum) evulsa, Brand.

Sigaretns canaliculatus, Sow ....................... S. canaliculatus, Sow.

Tnrbinella (Carioella) Bauaoui,Desh............... Voluta Bnudoni, Desh.

Fusus pachyleurns, Conr.........................(?) IVclavellatus, Lam.

Pleurotoma denticula, Bast......................... P. denticula, Bast.

acnminata, Sow................................. P. acnminata, Sow.

Terebra oonstricta, Lea............................. Corithium trilineutu in, Phil.

Melania claiborneusis, Heilp .....................(?) M. mixta, Desh.

2 Fossil Shells of the Tertiary Formations of North America, 1832, p. 34.

8 Synopsis of the Organic Remains of the Cretaceous Group of the United States, 1834.

 Contributions to Geology, 1833, p. 19.

 Philadelphia Aoad.-Nat. Soi., Proc., vol. 36, 1884, pp. 104-112.
90 THE EOCENE. lBtn,L.83. 

A more detailed correlation of the several divisions of the Eocene of

America seems to the writer impracticable. The Olaiborne sands 

have commonly been considered the equivalent of the "Calcaire Grossier" of the Paris Basin and the Jackson of the " Barton Clay" of England, while the Buhrstone and Lignitic have beeu variously assigned 

to the lower horizons of the Eocene of Europe. It is unnecessary 

here to refer in detail to the extensive literature that has dealt with the 

correlation of the Vicksburg beds, which have been by many held to 

represent the Oligocene. As stated above, the data are not sufficient 

to solve the question for or against their equivalence. In short, until 

we comprehend more fully the complex development of the American 

Eocene, wider comparisons must be made with the greatest reserve.

APPENDIX.

THE BRANDON FORMATION.

Under the name of The Brandon formation the lignitic beds of Vermont, Pennsylvania, and^Geprgia are included, deposits whose taxonomy has not been yet definitely determined, but which from certain 

indications may be provisionally referred to the Eocene. It is by no 

means certain that future observations will establish the contemporaneous formation of the various deposits here described, but with the 

very insufficient data at hand the strata appear at present to be best 

interpreted by referring them to a common horizon.

Prof. Edward Hitchcock was the first to call attention to the stratigraphical importance of the lignitic beds of the eastern portion of 

the United States. In an article 1 in the American Journal of Science 

for 1853 he describes the "Brown Coal deposit" of Brandon, Vermont, 

and employs the data thus afforded "to determine the geological age 

of the principal hematite ore beds of the United States." The association of the lignitic strata with beds of iron ore, kaolin, and clay is 

stated, and from the occurrence of fossil fruit similar to forms described from the "newer Tertiary" strata of Europe the entire series is 

assigned to that horizon. On this and other grounds to be referred to 

later, he states that " the Brandon deposit is the type of a Tertiary 

formation hitherto unrecognized as such, extending from Canada to 

Alabama." The same conclusion is stated in a later publication,2 in 

which he affirms that " no geologist has doubted that these deposits 

were all contemporaneous, but their true age has been a mystery."

Hodge,3 who had examined the iron ore deposits of western New 

England, was of the opinion that " Hitchcock's Tertiary theory of 

these deposits has been too hastily adopted." Whitney 4 nevertheless

1 Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 15,1853, pp. 95-104.

2 Geology of the Globe, 1853, p. 105. 

8 Am. R. B. Jour. ^To. 084, 1853. 

4 Metallic Wealth, 1854, pp. 460,461.
OLASK.I BKAttDON FORMATION. 91

accepted the conclusions of Hitchcock and referred the brown hematites of western Massachusetts to the Tertiary.

The possibility of a wide correlation of the brown hematite deposits 

upon the data afforded by the Braudou lignites was strongly denied by 

Prof. J. P. Lesley, 1 who dissented also from the opinion expressed by 

Hitchcock as to the contemporaneous formation of the deposits thus 

linked together. He says " there is no sufficient evidence upon the 

ground at Braudou, in Vermont, that brown hematite, the lignite, and 

the kaolin are related to each other in any such fixed way as to insure 

the fact that they are, per se, and not as a mere local and exceptional 

deposit, contemporaneous." The author considers in this paper that 

the local occurrence of lignite at Brandou is to be accounted for by 

the accumulation of vegetable debris in a "sink" formed in the limestone.

Prof. Hitchcock 2 presents a more exhaustive discussion of the question in his report on the geology of Vermont, in which he reaffirms his 

previous claim as to the contemporaneity of the Brandon deposits and 

correlates the iron ore beds extending from Canada to Alabama. He 

calls attention to the occurrence of these beds in limestone (Silurian) 

valleys.

In an article in the American Journal of Science for 1861 Prof. Lesquereux 3 describes the fossil fruit of Brandon and compares certain of 

the forms t'here found with species from the Lignitic of the southwest.

In a paper in the proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 

for 1865 Prof. Lesley * announces the discovery of a deposit of lignite 

near Chambersburg, Franklin County, Pennsylvania, that is closely 

analogous to the Brandon bed. He further states that of the many 

localities mentioned by Hitchcock as affording deposits of contemporaneous age this alone admits of comparison. The author quotes 

Hitchcock at length to show that he has included other deposits in 

describing the Brandon lignite formation. He asserts that " the lignite 

and iron ore are neither of the same age, nor. strictly speaking, possessed of any structural attribute common to both." The iron ore beds 

are considered Silurian while the lignite deposit is assigned to the late 

Tertiary.

In 1878 Prof. Prime 5 announced the discovery of lignite at Irouton, 

Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, though he referred it and the associated 

iron ore to the Glacial epoch.

The discovery of lignite in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, was reported by Lewis 6 to the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 

at its meeting on September 22, 1879. A month later a succinct review 

of the opinions that had hitherto been current in regard to the age and

'Iron Manufacturer's Guide, ]859, pp. 514, 518, 539.

2 Geology of Vermont, vol. I, 18C1, pp. 226-240.

s Am. Jour. Sci., 2cl sor., vol. 32, 1801, pp 355-363.

4 Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., vol. 9, 1805, pp. 403-480.

 Report DD., 2d Gool. Survey of Pennsylvania, 1878, p. 76.

6 Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sei., Proc., vol. 32,1880, pp. 281-291.
92 THE EOCENE. |ia-LL,83.

correlative value of the lignite beds was presented by tlie same 

writer who gave a detailed description of the Montgomery County deposits. As a postscript to the published paper a letter is printed from 

Prof. N". A. Bibikov, of Augusta, Georgia, announcing the discovery 

of lignite in Richmond County of that State.

Concerning the association of the iron ore beds with the lignitic strata 

as claimed by Hitchcock and denied by Lesley, Lewis says that the 

iron ores of this region probably belong to four different geological 

ages, and he classes them as (1) Gneissic ore. (2) Primal ore. (3) Tertiary ore. (4) Drift ore. He thus separates the iron ore associated 

with "Hie deposits of lignite, plastic clay, kaolin, fire-sand, etc.," from 

that which has been heretofore confounded either with the primal ore 

or with the drift ore. " The discovery of lignite below it [the tertiary 

ore]," he says "proves its restratification in a later age [Tertiary] than 

the decomposed primal ore that is found in place."

The term Brandou period is proposed by Lewis to designate the age 

of the lignite beds. He says:

Since in the present state of our knowledge it is obviously unsafe to make the 

age of these lignite deposits contemporaneous with any exact geological epoch, and 

as. there is a possibility of their belonging to some period not recognized elsewhere.

Nevertheless, he suggests that they may be most closely correlated 

with the Oligocene of European geologists.

Vermont. Hitchcock. 1 in the American Journal of Science and later 

in the geology of Vermont,2 describes the deposits of the type locnlity Brandon, and also mentions other points in the State where similar deposits are found. At Brandon he states that the beds, which 

dip at a high angle to the northwest, rest upon " yellowish limestone," 

are associated with clay, kaolin, and iron ore, and are overlaid by drift. 

The lignitic strata were found to be 20 feet in thickness at the points 

where they were penetrated.

Lesquereux3 describes in the American Journal of Science the fossil 

fruits found at Braudon, and compares certain of the forms with those 

afforded by the Lignitic of the Southwest. The following species are 

referred to by Lesquereux:

Carpolithes brandoniana Les. Aristolochia Oeuingensis Heer.

fissilis Les. curvata Les.

irregularis Les. obscura Les.

Grayana Les. Sapindus americamis Les.

bursEeformis Les. Illicium lignitnm Les.

venosus (?) Stern. Drupa rhabdosperma (?) Les.

Carya verrucosa Les. Legumiuosites pisiformis (?) Heer.

vermontana Les. Nyssa complanata Les.

Fagus Hitchcockii Les. microcarpa Les.

Apeibopsis Heerii Les. Isevigata Les.

Gauditii Les.

1 Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 15,1853, pp. 99-104. 

8 Geology of Vermont, vol. 1,1801, pp. 220-240. 

8 Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 32,1861, pp. 355-363.
CLAWS..] BEANDON FORMATION. 93 

Concerning the other localities in the State Hitchcock 1 says:

Wherever we Lnve found brown hematite and manganese, or beds of ochre, or pipe 

clay, white, yellow, or red, in connection with beds of coarse sand or gravel, all lying 

beneath the drift and resting on the rocks beneath, we have regarded the deposit as 

an equivalent of that at Brandou just described, even though not more than one or 

two of the substances named be present.

Proceeding upon these grounds he correlates the deposits of 26 localities lying chiefly along the western slope of the Green Mountains.

As stated above, Lesley cast doubt upon the analogous character of 

these different beds. The statements of Lewis afford a partial explanation of the phenomena, biit much more careful investigation is needed 

at the type locality, Bniudon, before the relations of the beds can be 

fully comprehended.-

Pennsylvania. Several localities have been reported in Pennsylvania 

where lignite deposits are found under much the same conditions as in 

Vermont. Lewis 2 described in considerable detail a section which he 

obtained at Marble Hall, Montgomery County, in an excavation sunk 

about 40 feet into the unconsolidated strata.

It is as follows:

Feet. 

" Top dirt" yellow, impure.................................................... 10

Soft white decomposed hydromica slate or impure "kaolin," containing occasional broken seams of sharp quartzite, but no pebbles....................... 13^

Coarse white sand and rounded pebbles; apparently a decomposed sandstone.... 2

Tough mottled red clay.......................................^'................ -J

Blue plastic clay............ .................................................. 7

Lignite in a very tough dark clay ............................................. 3

Coarse yellow sand, with fragments of stony iron ore and with pebbles......... 2

The same locality had been earlier referred to by Lesley,3 but as the 

lignite was supposed to be Triassic, its discovery was considered unimportant. Later, Lesley 4 reported lignite at Pond Bank, near Chambersburg, Franklin County, where it occurs in two beds, the lower 18 

feet, the upper 4 feet in thickness. They are separated from one another by a bed of sand, while clay and sand are found above the upper 

layer.

Prime 5 mentioned in 1878another locality, at Ironton, Lehigh County, 

where the lignite occurs associated with white clay. The parallelism 

of the strata described by Lesley and Prime to those in Montgomery 

County is given on the authority of Lewis. Both Lesley and Lewis assert the analogous nature of the Pennsylvania and Vermont deposits.

1 Geology of Vermont, vol. 1,1861, p. 234.

2 Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Soi., Proo., vol. 32,1880, pp. 282-291. Am. A&aoo. Adv. Soi., vol. 29,1880, pp. 

427, 428.

"Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proe., vol. 13,1861, p. 77. 

4 Am.Phil. Soc., Proo., vol. 9,1865, pp. 463-482. 

* Report DD, 2d Geol Sorv, of Peiiu., 1878. p. 79,
94 THE EOCENE.. [BULL. 83.

Georgia. A locality in Georgia near Berzelia, Kicbmoud County, 16 

railes from Augusta, is described by Lewis 1 from notes by Prof. N. A. 

Bibikov, of Augusta. He says concerning the locality:

It is described as lying back of the outcrops of gneiss and limestone, and is apparently in a very similar geological position to the Pennsylvania locality. Iron ore, 

plastic clay, kaolin, and decomposed sandstone occur with the lignite. * * * The 

fossils appear to be fragments of trees, grasses, and other land plants, none of which, 

however, /were sufficiently perfect to be determined.

The section is given below in detail:

Feet.

Mottled clay................................................................... 4

Decomposed sandstone, with thin layers of clay and nodules of pyrite at base... 24

Lignite...... ................................................................... 2

Shale and clay ................................................................. 1

Lignite.......................................................................... 3

Shale and clay................................................................. 2

Liguite......................................................................... 1

Shale and clay.............o................................................... 3

Lignite................................................. ........................ 5

Light-colored shale with fossil plants..-........................ ................ 6

Dark-colored (bituminous) shale ............................................... 1

White clay with streaks of rose color, etc....................................... 8

Sandy clay ............................... .................................. 1

Ferruginous coarse sand, with nodules of clay-ironstone, clay and quartz pebbles. 9

Light-colored shale ..............................*...........^.^................ 4

Yellowish sand....................................................... .......... 2

Sandy clay ..........°........................................................... 8

White, very fine micaceous sand, with clay..................................... 11

Lewis, following in great measure the opinion of Hitchcock, says 

that the localities previously described in Vermont, Pennsylvania, and 

Georgia " indicate the existence of a great inland fresh-water Tertiary 

formation in eastern America during the Brandon period, once 50 miles 

broad and nearly 1,000 miles long." As stated in the introduction to 

this chapter, we have not as yet sufficient evidence to warrant such 

broad generalizations. Indeed, the few facts accessible are hardly 

indications of the conclusions cited. It seems more probable that the 

deposits were accumulated in a series of detached bogs and swamps 

that bad been occasioned by depression parallel to the existing coast 

line.

The absence of fresh-water shells or remains of other forms of life 

than terrestrial vegetation points to circumscribed areas of deposition.

ftt. Sci.? Proc., vol. 32,1880, pp. 289-29}.
PACIFIC COAST REGION. 

PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

The geology of the Pacific coast presents many unsolved problems. 

By no means the least among them is the interpretation of the Eocene.

By many eminent geologists the very existence of Eocene strata on 

the Pacific border has been doubted, while others have included much 

more of the Coast Eauge series within its limits than is here admitted. 

It will thus be seen that the wide difference of opinion which prevails 

among those who have written upon the geology of the Pacific coast 

must occasion great difficulty when an attempt is made to harmonize 

their statements.

Meager though our knowledge is, certain characteristic features present themselves which render necessary the separation of the Pacific 

coast Eocene into two well defined divisions or provinces. The strata 

of the two divisions, together with their fossil contents, show the diverse 

character of the conditions attending their deposition. In the one case, 

an open sea with marine sediments and fauna prevailed; in the other, 

an estuary where the deposits and life were of brackish-water piigin. 

Stratigraphically the relations of these two divisions to one another are 

not known, and as the conditions attending the accumulation of the 

deposits were so different the fossils are in no case identical. The 

marine deposit has been found in isolated regions from southern California to Washington, and has been named the Tejon group by Prof. 

J. I). Whitney 1 from its type locality, Fort Tejon, California. The 

brackish-water deposit has only been recognized in northern Washington, where it occurs in two distinct areas on the eastern -and western 

flanks of the Cascade Mountains. It has been called the Puget group 

by Dr. C. A. White. 51

The correlation of the Eocene of the Pacific coast with that of .the 

Atlantic border is reiadered difficult, due to the marked difference in 

the specific characteristics of the fauna as a whole, though sufficient 

similarity exists in generic and family types to admit of broad comparison. In the succeeding pages the history, stratigraphy, and correlation of the Pacific coast Eocene will be considered.

1 Geological Survey of California, Paleontology, vol. 2,1869, p. 8.

»Am. Jour. Spi., 34 ser., vol. 36,1888, j>. <U3 f V, S, §00}. Su,rr., Bull 51,1889, p. 40.
96 . THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

HISTORICAL SKETCH.

The earliest investigations of the later geological formations of the 

Pacific coast were conducted by the Wilkes exploring expedition under 

Prof. James D. Dana,1 in the year 1846, when large collections of Tertiary fossils were made near Astoria. Oregon. The fossils were described and referred by Conrad to the Miocene, although later considered 

by the same authority to be Eocene.8

In an article in the American Journal of Science for 1848, Conrad 3 

describes 14 new species from the same locality, while Shnmard,4 in the 

Transactions of the Academy of Science of St. Louis, later adds a few 

more.

An important contribution to the Eocene of California was made by 

Conrad5 in 1855, in the Pacific Eailroad Eeports. He describes a group 

of fossils he considers to be Eocene, which Blake had discovered in a 

bowlder at the mouth of the Canada de las Uvas, in southern California.

The succeeding year Trask6 read before the California Academy of 

Natural Sciences a paper entitled.a "Description of a new species of 

Ammonite and Baculite from the Tertiary Itocks of Chico Creek," in 

which he expresses views that have especial interest on account of the 

opinions subsequently held as to the geological range of those forms in 

the Coast Range series.

The geological survey of California, conducted by Prof. J. D. Whituey, published, in 1864, Paleontology, vol. 1, in which the Cretaceous 

fossils are described by W. M. Gabb.7 In this work Gabb divides the 

Cretaceous into Divisions A and B, the latter (B) including the fauna 

previously referred by Conrad to the Eocene. He also mentions the 

range of species from Division A into Division B.

A review of this work was published by Conrad8 in the American 

Journal of Couchology in which he states that "Mr. Gabb has in 

eluded the rock of Canada de las Uvas, which contains Venericardia 

planicosta and Aturia zic-zac, in the Cretaceous series, but he has failed 

to show one Cretaceous fossil from that rock [B]." In regard to the, 

divisions of the Cretaceous strata (A and B), proposed by Gabb, Conrad says further, "The former [A] is, doubtless Cretaceous, and the 

latter [B], I am sure, will prove to be Older Eocene."

Gabb9 replies to Conrad's criticism in a paper published in the succeeding volume of the same journal, in which he denies that "he has 

failed to show one Cretaceous fossil from that rock [B]." He gives a

i Wilkes Exploring Expedition, vol. 10,3 849, pp. 611-C78. 

» Am. Jour. Conch., vol. 1, 1865, p. 150. 

8 Am. Jour. Sci., 2d sen, vol. 5,1848, pp. 432-433. 

«St. Louis Acad. Sci., Trans., vol. 1, J858, pp. 120-125.

8 Preliminary Report Pacific Railroad Surveys, Paleontology, 8vo, 1855,; Pacific Bailroad Reports, 

4to, TOl. 5,1856, pp. 317-S29.

6 California Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. J, 1850, pp. 92-93. 

i Geol. Survey California, Paleontology, vol. 1,1664, pp. 

 Am. Jour. Conch., vol. 1,1865, pp. 362-3G5,,
CLAHK.] HISTORICAL SKETCH PACIFIC COAST. 97

list of 14 species that are common to the two divisions (A and B), and 

subsequently proceeds to show the Cretaceous character of some 20 

other forms.

A few pages later Conrad 1 defends his earlier position in regard to 

the age of the strata in question and states that Gabb has only succeeded in referring u one exclusively Cretaceous genus to that division." As regards the presence of similar faunal characters in the two 

divisions, he suggests in a .foot note the explanation that " the Lower 

Eocene beds of Jamaica contain masses of Cretaceous limestone, and 

it may be that the California Lower Eocene strata contain similar 

masses." Conrad considers the several forms which are held by Gabb 

to prove the Cretaceous age of the deposits and shows many of them 

to be Tertiary in character.

The year following the appearance of Paleontology, vol. 1, of the 

Geological Survey of California, .Professor Whitney published Geology, vol. 1. In this work the characteristics of the Upper Cretaceous 

(Division B Eocene) are described in detail, and although depending 

upon the conclusions of Gabb for the taxonomy of the deposits, he 

presents an important re'surne' of the stratigraphical features of the 

beds.

In 1866 there appeared in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 

a "Check list of the Invertebrate Fossils of North America Eocene 

and Oligocene by T, A. Conrad." The species placed by Gabb in 

divison B of the Cretaceous together with five common to A and B are 

included in the Eocene.

At a meeting of the California Academy of Natural Sciences in 

November, 1866, a paper by Gabb 2 "On the Subdivisions of the Cretaceous Formation in California" was read, in which omissions in Conrad's Check List from his series of fossils from division B are mentioned. In this article the author restates his previous position in 

greater detail than before and gives a table showing the geological 

range of the different species. He enumerates sixteen forms common 

to the upper and lower divisions.

Two articles appeared in the American Journal of Science for 1867, 

by Gabb 3 and Conrad 4 . In the first, Gabb gives the substance of his 

paper before the California Academy of Natural Sciences; while in the 

second, Conrad defends himself against the charges preferred by Gabb 

in his latest publications, and at the same time claims, as in earlier 

papers, that "any evidence so far is wanting to prove the strata in 

question Cretaceous, and as the group of fossils is so decidedly Tertiary 

in their forms and some species identical, I am forced to the conclusion 

of their Eocene origin."

1 Am. Jour. Couch., vol. 2,1866, pp.'97-100.

* California Aoad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 3,3867, pp. 301-300,

»Am. Jour. Soi., 2d sey., vol. f4, J§07, pp.

«Ibid. ,pp, 376,377,

, 83 7
98 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

In the preface to Paleontology, volume 2 of the Geological Survey 

of California, Professor Whitney proposes the name Tejon Group for 

Division B of Gabb's Cretaceous, from its characteristic occurrence in 

the vicinity of Fort Tejon.1 Other important localities are referred to.

Two short articles by J. G. Cooper on the Eocene of California appeared in the Proceedings of the California Academy of Science2 for 

1874, in which the opinions expressed by Gabb and Conrad are commented on.

A very important contribution to the geology of the Pacific coast 

was published in the Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1876 by Prof. 

Jules Marcou,3 being part of the Annual Eeport of the Geographical 

Surveys West of the One Hundredth Meridian. The writer defends 

the position taken by Conrad, but goes further in that he includes in 

the Eocene the Chico group, upon which the Tejon group conformably 

rests. In regard to the latter he says:

I was not able to find a single Cretaceous fossil, nor even any true Cretaceous 

generic forms in the entire formation; and I am altogether of the opinion expressed 

by Mr. Conrad, many years before Mr. Gabb, in volume 5 of Pacific Eailroad Explorations, pages 318-320 et.seq., who, judging from certain fossils found in an isolated 

block at the entrance of the Canada de la Uvas, has very judiciously referred these 

rocks to the Eocene-Tertiary formation.

- He further considers them upper Eocene.

Prof. Dana,4 in the revised edition of his Manual of Geology likewise asserts the Tertiary age of the Tejon series and refers the same to 

the Liguitic or Lower Eocene.

Heilprin,5 in 1882, in a communication to the Academy of Natural 

Sciences of Philadelphia, " On the occurrence of Ammonites in deposits 

of Tertiary age, " states the results of an investigation of the original 

types described by Gabb in the reports of the Geological Survey of California. He says:

That, with the exception of one solitary fragment of an ammonite, there was, to 

his knowledge, not a single distinctively Cretaceous type of organism to be found in 

all the rock fragments, but, on the contrary, several genera, distinctively Tertiary, 

and not known anywhere to have appeared before that period.

In the same volume of the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural 

Sciences of Philadelphia, Prof. J. S. Newberry6 replies to Prof. Heilprin. He considers the evidence brought forward for the Tertiary age 

of the Tejon group not sufficient to overthrow the conclusions of Gabb 

and Whitney, who had the advantages of exhaustive study in the field. 

Dr. Newberry adds, "but there are many species common to the Tejon 

and Chico groups, and where one goes the other must follow."

^eol.Surv. California, Paleontology, vol 2, 1869, p. xiii. 

'California Acad. Sci. Proo., vol. 5,1874, pp. 419-421,422.

 Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1876, Part HI, pp. 378-392,

 Manual of Geology, revised edition, 1880, pp. 491,508.

 Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 34,1882, p. 94, 

6 Ibid., pp. 194,105.
CLAHK.) HISTORICAL SKETCH PACIFIC. 99

In alater article "On the Age of the Tejon Rocks of California and the 

occurrence of Ainmonitic Eemains in Tertiary Deposits " Heilprin1 reviews very critically the conclusions of Gabb and shows many errors 

in the statements of that writer. In conclusion he says:

We believe it has been satisfactorily shown from what has preceded, that the rocks 

of the Tejon group (Cretaceous, Div. B.,of the California Survey), despite their comprising iu their contained faunas a limited number of forms from the subjacent (Cretaceous) deposits, and a few undoubted representatives of the Ammonitidae are of 

Tertiary (Eocene) age, and for the following reasons:

I. The large percentage (about 80, or possibly considerably more) of specific forms 

that are peculiar to the group, or, at least are not found in the older deposits;

II. The large proportion of generic forms (33 out of 77) that are not represented in 

the underlying or older strata ;

III. The presence of twenty-two more or less distinctively Tertiary genera: Ancillaria, Bulla, Bull sea (Megistomata), Bullia (s. g. Molopophorus), Conns, Crepidula, 

Cassidaria, Cancellaria, Cypraea, Fious (Ficopsis). Gadue, Mitra, Massa, Niso, Olivella, 

(or Oliva), Pseudoliva, Kimella, Sigaretus (or Naticina), Terebra, Triton, Trochita, 

and Typuis.

IV. The marked absence (with the exception of about a half a dozen fragments or 

specimens of Ammonitidae) of distinctively Cretaceous organic types.

V. The identity or close analogy existing between several of the specific forms and 

their representatives from other well determined Tertiary (Eocene) deposits.

In an article entitled "Note sur la Geologic de la Californie"2 Prof. 

Jules Marcou restates his grounds for including the entire Chico-Tejon 

series in the Eocene.

In "Notes on the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Paleontology of California" 

Dr. C. A. White3 reviews the paleontological evidence presented iu the 

Chico-Tejon series and says:

I think the evidence which has been adduced to show the Eocene age of the upper or 

Tejon portion of the Chico-Tejon series is as conclusive as any evidence of that kind 

can be. Now, if we apply the paleontological standard for indicating the age of 

formations which is generally accepted by geologists, we necessarily refer the fossils 

of the lower or Chico portion of that series to the Cretaceous.

The more detailed reasons for these conclusions will be examined in 

the next chapter.

In a later bulletin the same writer4 considers " The Occurrence of 

Cardita planicosta Lamarck in western Oregon." He cites its discovery 

at Albany, Willamette Valley, Oregon, in a well-digging.

In " Notes on the Stratigraphy of California" Dr. Becker5 mentions 

the conformity that is found between all the beds from the Chico to the 

Miocene.

In "A Report of the Coal Fields of Washington Territory" Mr. 

Bailey Willis6 describes deposits in the vicinity of Puget Sound, on the

1 Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proo., vol. 34,1882, pp, 196-214. Kepriiited in " Contributions to the 

Tertiary Geology and Paleontology of the United States," 1884, pp. 102-117. 

» Bulletin de la Soci6t6 gtSolojiique do France, 3" seri6, tome 11,1883, pp. 415, 416. 

8 U. S. Geol. Surv., Bull. 15,1885, p. 16.

*TJ. S. Geol. Surv., Bull 18,1885, pp. 7-9.

5 U. S. Geol. Surv., Bull. 19,1885, pp. 12,16,17.

* Tenth Census of the United States, vol. 15, Mineral Industries, 1885, pp. 709-771.

I
100 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

Green Eiverand at Wilkeson, and also on the east slope of the Cascade 

Mountains, that he considers to be representatives of the Laramie formation. The evidence, chiefly derived from the fossil flora, is given on 

the authority of Prof. J. S. Newberry.

In the American Journal of Science for 1888 Dr. C. A. White1 characterizes the Puget group and indicates its relations to the Laramie 

formation on the one hand and the Chico-Tejon series on the other. 

The estuarine character of the fauna is commented on. The discovery 

of marine Eocene fossils on the Dwamish River is also adverted to.

In a later publication2 " On Invertebrate Fossils from the Pacific 

Coast" Dr. White describes the Puget group in greater detail, and 

gives new localities in Oregon and Washington where the Chico-Tejon 

series is represented.

From this brief outline of the literature upon the Pacific coast Eocene 

it will be observed that, except at a very few isolated points the deposits have not been examined, and that even many of those who have 

written upon the subject have had little opportunity for close observation of the strata. As might be expected, our knowledge of the Pacific 

Coast region is but fragmentary, and much detailed work remains to be 

done before the many diverse opinions expressed will be fully harmonized.

STRATIGRAPHICAL AND PALEONTOLOGIOAL CHARACTERISTICS.

We have but few facts to guide us as to the distribution of the Eocene 

upon the Pacific Coast. That it extends more or less widely along the 

east flank of the Coast Eange is known from several isolated exposures 

that have been examined in central and southern California, and that 

it is not absent even farther north is proved by the discovery of fossils 

in Oregon and Washington. To what extent the strata of these separate districts may be continuous it is difficult to judge on account of 

the lack of data upon which to base conclusions.

As stated in the introduction, two clearly defined divisions have been 

recognized in the Eocene, the one marine, the other brackish water in 

character. The former, called the Tejon group, is found represented 

in California, Oregon, and Washington ; the latter, the Puget group, in 

Washington alone. Strati graphically and paleontologically, no direct 

ground for comparison is afforded, but that the two groups are proba. 

ably wholly or in part synchronous will be later shown.

THE 1EJON GROUP.

The Tejon group, first so called by Prof.Whitney, is typically developed 

in the vicinity of Fort Tejon, Kern County, California. From this point 

the strata extend northward and southward along the eastern flank

1 Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 36,1888, pp. 443-450.. 

9-g, g, §§oj, Surv., Buli, §1, 1889, pp. 11-3?,
CLARK.) TEJON GROUP. 101

of the Coast Eange Mountains. They form a narrow belt, frequently 

interrupted as the result of denudation and volcanic outflows, though 

much of the irregularity is held to be " due to organic irregularity of 

the coast lines of the sea in which these strata were deposited." 1

To the north of Fort Tejon the strata are prominently developed near 

New Idria, where they have been investigated by Dr. White.2 In 

Contra Costa County a continuous belt extends from near Marshes to 

Martinez, while to the north of the Central Pacific Eailroad the Tejon 

group is not known, to appear again within the State of California.3 

In Oregon it has been found at Albany, in the Willamette Valley, and 

in the vicinity of Coos Bay, Cape Arago. Certain strata near Astoria 

are doubtfully referred by Dr. White4 to the same horizon, the presence 

of which later investigations by Dr. W. H. Dall have fully established. 

Strata with marine fossils, many of them identical with-those of the 

Tejou group of California, have been found on the Dwamisli Eiver, in 

Washington, and have been considered to represent that formation in 

the extreme north.

It will thus be seen that the marine Eocene strata have been established at many localities along the Pacific coast, and do not form an unimportant member in the Coast Eange series. The deposits are chiefly 

conglomerates, sandstones, and shales, in which beds of lignite are not 

infrequently intercalated, and which less often contain bands of calcareous rock. The strata of the Tejon group conformably overlie the 

next older or Chico group,5 and are in turn conformably overlain by 

the Miocene, a relationship which was first recognized by the members 

of the California Geological Survey and since substantiated by White 

and Becker.

The strata of the Tejon group in the vicinity of Fort Tejon, at the 

entrance to the Caiiadas de las Uvas and de los Alisos, consist chiefly 

of sandstones and conglomerates.

The conglomerates are very cparse, containing many bowlders from 3 to 6 inches 

in diameter of granite and metamorphic rocks. * " * Portions of the sandstones 

are very fossiliferous and the shells in beautiful preservation. * * * The strata 

are very much disturbed, both dip and strike being very variable, the former varying 

from northwest and southeast to northeast and southwest, while the dip is sometimes 

to the north and again to the south and generally at a high angle.6

It was from this locality that Conrad received the fossils described 

in volume 5 of the Pacific Eailroad reports, and from whence Gabb 

also obtained many of the forms referred by him to Division B of the 

Cretaceous, in the paleontological publications of the California Geological Survey.

' TJ. S. Geol. Surv., Bull. 51, 1889, p. 29. 

2 TJ. S. Geol. Surv., Bull. 15,1885.

8 TJ. S. Geol. Surv., Bull. 51, 1889, p. 29. (Whitney and Gabb, however, mention localities iu Lake and 

Mendocino counties.) 

4 TJ. S. Geol. Surv:, Bull. 51, pp. 31-32.

8 The Mnrtiuoz group of Gabb is considered part of the Chico group. 

0 Geol. Surv. California, Geology, vol. 1, pp. 190,191.
102 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

In regard to the stratigraphical relations of the Tejon group to the 

Chico group on the one hand, and the Miocene on the other, White1 

and Becker2 present some valuable data from the vicinity of New Idria. 

The former says in regard to the Chico-Tejon series of that locality, 

that the strata are mainly sandstones and sandy shales, and adds:

They dip to the northward, the angle.of dip being high near their contact with 

the metamorphic series upon which they rest unconforniablyj but the dip materially 

diminishes to the northward. From the contact with the metamorphic series before 

mentioned the thickness of this whole strata is estimated to be about 10,000 feet.

Dr. White further says:

The whole assemblage of strata, nearly 2 miles in thickness, forms one continuous 

series from top to bottom, and the sedimentation which resulted in the production 

of these strata was uninterrupted from the beginning to the end of the time in which 

it occurred. * * Although this New Idria series is understood to be practically 

an unbroken one, there is, near its middle, a recognizable change in the aspect of 

the strata, so that in appearance, and to some extent in the character of the stratification, the upper half differs from the lower half. So far as can be determined, this 

indistinct line accords with the necessarily artificial division that has been made of 

the series into the Chico and Tejon groups, since the series, is recognized as containing only these two groups, and the line of demarkation between them, as before shown, 

can not be expected to be distinct. * * * still the intimate relation of the Chico 

and Tejon groups for this particular locality is well shown by the unbroken character 

of the series of strata which here constitutes both groups.

Dr. Becker says in this connection that " the Tejon strata of New 

Idria are mostly heavy-bedded sandstones of a peculiarly light color, 

which thus distinguishes them from the tawny Chico sandstones."

At the same time the evidence for the Eocene age of the Tejon group 

is shown by Dr. White from the stratigraphical position of the deposits. 

He says:

The opinion that the Tejon group really represents the Eocene is further supported 

in that no other representative of the strata of that epoch has been discovered in 

California, and also the Miocene strata every where rests conformably upon the Tejon. 

This conformity was recognized by the members of the State Geological Survey of 

California, and it has also been observed in numerous cases by Dr. Becker, as well as 

in several instances by myself. One of these observations I made at the well known 

Tejon and Miocene locality at the head of ValLecitos Canon, near the place mentioned 

as " Griswold" in the California reports, which is only a few miles from the New 

Idria locality just referred to. I then satisfactorily traced the strata from one formation to the other, and found that not only is the conformity of the two formations 

with each other clearly apparent, but no break in the order of stratification could be 

detected between those layers which contain characteristic Tejon fossils on the one 

hand and those which contain equally characteristic Miocene fossils on the other. 

In short, I found no room there for the existence of any Eocene strata other than the 

Tejon.

In regard to the stratigraphical relationship of these beds at New 

Idria,Dr. Becker also says,3 "The Miocene seems as strictly conformable 

with the Tejon as this with the Chico."

 U. 8. Geol. Surv.. Bull. 15. «U. S. Geol. Surv., Bull 19. 

 U. S. Geol. Surv., Bull. 19,1885, p. 17.
CLARK.] TEJON GROUP. 103

In Contra Costa County the Tejon group is prominently exhibited 

as a thick-bedded sandstone, with layers of carbonaceous matter of 

sufficient thickness to afford workable seams of coal. The relationship 

of the beds is similar to that before mentioned for the region of New 

Idria. Prof. Whitney states 1 that "all these strata, from the Cretaceous up to the post-Pliocene, appear to be perfectly conformable to 

each other." Dr. Becker 2 says upon the same point:

The stratigraphical relations * * * show a continuous sedimentation * * * 

between the Chico and Tejon. Between the Tejou and Miocene there is nowhere 

any suggestion of a nonconformity. * * * At Mount Diablo, for example, the 

Miocene seems as strictly conformable with the Tejon as this with the Chico.

In regard to the position of the strata Dr. Becker 3 further says:

Mount Diablo and the surrounding country consist of a core of metamorphic rock, 

inclosed, nearly or quite qiaaquaverSally by rocks of Chico and Tertiary age. * * * 

The overlying Chico, Tejon, and Miocene strata are tilted, but otherwise comparatively undisturbed. Over wide areas these three series seem to be perfectly conformable, nor is there any case known on the Pacific coast where there seems any 

ground for suspecting a nonconformity within these limits.

To the north of Mount Diablo, in the vicinity of Martinez, the Tejon 

group is prominently represented by sandstones that dip southwest at 

an angle of 35° to 60°. This locality furnished a large number of the 

fossils described by Gabb.

The Tejon strata of Oregon have been found in a few widely separated localities in the central and northern portions of the State. The 

most southern yet observed is on Coos Bay. In the Willamette Valley, 

at Albany, the Tejon occurs as an "indurated dark colored shale which 

was found a few feet beneath the surface of the ground in digging a 

cistern." Inregard to the age of the deposits at Astoria Dr. White entertains doubts, though he considers it probable that the Eocene is represented. Dr. Dall has more recently established the presence of the 

Eocene at this point. He has found it overlain by Miocene and states 

that a misunderstanding as to the stratigraphical relations of the beds 

has hitherto existed. The Eocene is found to consist of a thin band 

of argilla-ceous material, through which numerous calcareous nodules 

are scattered, at the center of which fragments of shells are generally 

found.

The stratigraphy of the beds on the Dwamish Eiver, in Washington, 

have been studied by Bailey Willis in reference to their relationship to 

the Puget group and found to afford no data for connection with the 

strata of that formation. As in the Oregon localities, a comparison 

of the deposits with those of other areas is based on the similarities 

afforded by the fossils rather than on stratigraphical grounds.

Having thus briefly reviewed the more striking stratigraphical fea1 Geol. Surv. California, Geology, vol. 2,1864, p. 32. 

a U. S. Geol. Surv.. Bull. 19,1886, pp. 16, 17. 

 Ibid., p. 15.
104 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

tures of the Tejon group, an examination of the fossils is imperative, 

as upon the evidence from that source the taxoiiomic interpretation of 

the widely scattered deposits above described must depend.

Conrad first and Gabb and White subsequently have described the 

"fauna of that period and drawn conclusions as to the proper position 

to be assigned to the Tejon group in the geological column.

The fossils referred by Gabb l to the Tejon group are:

Callianassa Stimpsonii Gabb.

Aturia Mathewsonii Gabb.

Ammonites jugalis Gabb.

Typhis antiquus Gabb.

Fusus Martmezensis Gabb.

F. Mathewsonii Gabb.

F. diaboli Gabb.

F. californicus Con., sp.

? Neptunea snpraplicata Gabb.

Neptunea cretacea Gabb.

Perissolax Blake Con., sp.

Surcula praeattenuata Gabb.

8. sincnata Gabb.

S. claytonensie Gabb.

S. raricostata Gabb.

Bel a clathrata Gabb.

Cordiera microptygma Gabb.

Tritoninm diegoensis Gabb.

T. tejonensis Gabb.

T. fusiforme Gabb.

T. Hornii Gabb.

T. paucivaricatum Gabb.

T. Whitneyi Gabb.

T. californicum Gabb.

Brachysphingus liratus Gabb;

B. sinuatus Gabb.

Bnllia striata Gabb.

Nassa cretacea Gabb.

N. antiquata Gabb.

Pseudoliva lineata Gabb.

P. volntseformis Gabb.

Olivella Mathewsonii Gabb.

Ancillaria elongata Gabb.

? Fasciolaria laeviuscula Gabb.

F. sinuata Gabb.

F. io Gabb.

Mi tra cretacea Gabb.

Whitneyi ficus Gabb.

Ficus mamillatns Gabb.

FicopsisEemondii Gabb.

F. Hornii Gabb.

F. Cooperii Gabb.

Natica uvasana Gabb.

Lunatia Hornii Gabb. 

L. nucifbrmis Gabb. 

Neverita secta Gabb. 

N. globosa Gabb. 

Naticina obliqua Gabb. 

Euspira alveata Con., sp. 

Morio tuberculatus Gabb. 

Scalttria Matbewsonii Gabb. 

Terebra californica Gabb.

Niso polita Gabb.

Ceritbiopsis alternata Gabb.

Archltectonica cognata Gabb.

A. Hornii Gabb.

Conus Eemondii Gabb.

C. Hornii Gabb.

Eimella canalifera Gabb.

E. simplex Gabb.

Cyprsea Bayerqnei Gabb.

C. Mathewsonii Gabb.

Loxotrema turrita Gabb.

Turritella uvasana Con.

T. martinezensis Gabb.

Galerns escentricus Gabb.

Spirocrypta pilenm Gabb.

Nerita triangulata Gabb.

Margaritella crenulata Gabb.

Dentalinnni Cooperii Gabb.

D. stramineum Gabb.

Gadus pusillus Gabb.

Bulla Horuii Gabb.

Cylichna costata Gabb.

Megistostoma striatum Gabb.

Martesia clausa Gabb.

S6len parallelus Gabb.

S. diegoensis Gabb.

? Corbula primorsa Gabb.

C. Hornii Gabb.

C. parilis Gabb.

Nesera dolabrseformis Gabb.

Cymbophora Ashburnerii Gabb.

Gari texta Gabb.

Tellina longa Gabb.

T. Kemondii Gabb.

1 Geol. Surv. California, Palaeontology, vol. 2, pp. 207-254. The localities in Lake and Mendocino 

Counties are not considered. The " intermediate beds " at Clay ton are included in the Tejon group.
CLABK.] TEJON GROUP. 105

Tellina Hoffmanniana Gabb. Crassatella grandis Gabb.

T. Hornii Gabb. C. uvasana Con.

T. californica Gabb. Unio penultimus Gabb.

Donax latus Gabb. Mytilns asciaGabb.

Venus sequilateralis Gabb, M. humerus Con.

Meretrix uvasana Conn. Modiola ornata Gabb.

M. Hornii Gabb. Septifer dichotomus Gabb.

M. ovalis Gabb. Stalagmium coucentricum Gabb. sp.

M. califoruica Con. Avioula pellucida Gabb.

Dosinia elevata Gabb. Area HorniL Gabb.

D. gyrata Gabb. Cucullsea Mathewsonii Gabb.

Tapes Conradiana Ga,bb. Barbatia Morsel Gabb.

T. qnadrata Gabb. Axinsea sagittata Gabb.

T. cretacea Gabb. A. cor Gabb.

Diodns tennis Gabb. . Nucula truncata Gabb.

Cardium Cooperii Gabb. Leda Gabbii Con.,sp.

C. Brewerii Gabb. Pecten interradiatus Gabb.

C. lintenm COH. Placunanomia inomata Gabb.

Cardita Hornii1 Gabb. Ostrea idriaensis Gabb.

Lucina cumulata Gabb. Flabellum Rernondianum Gabb.

? L. cretacea Gabb. . Trochosmilia striata Gabb.

Mysia polita Gabb.

To this list Dr. White 2 has added 

Zirphsea plana White. Cancellaria Turner! White.

The presence of a sufficient number of the fossils above enumerated 

at each of the leading localities on the east flank of the Cascade Mountains renders their correlation probable. Although the number of forms 

found in the more northern and widely separated Oregon and Washington areas is not so great, yet the identification of the few forms discovered leaves little doubt as to the Eocene age of the deposits.

In the Willamette Valley at Albany Cardita, planicosta Lamarck has 

been identified, while from Cape Arago Dr. White has recognized 

Nncnla trnncata Gabb. Tnrritella uvasana Conrad. 

Cardita planicosta Lamarck. Fnsus californicus Gabb. 

Meretrix uvasana Conrad. Perissolax Blakei (Conrad) Gabb. 

Naticiiia obliqua Gabb.

Concerning the deposits at Astoria, although considering them in part 

Miocene, Dr. White is of the opinion that the Chico-Tejon series may be 

also represented. He says in regard to the similarity of their fossils:

The Nucula divaricata of Conrad differs, if at all, from N. truncata Gabb only in the 

asserted ronncling instead of the truncation of the posterior ("anterior") extrernity; 

and yet one of Mr. Conrad's figures shows such a truncation. The Mactra albaria of 

Conrad is exceedingly like M. ^s/i/ZrarneniGabb. The Loripes paralis of Conrad recalls 

L. dulia Gabb. The Pyrula modesta or Conrad is possibly identical with Ficus (?) 

cyprceoides Gabb, and the Survey collections contain specimens of Solen from the 

Tejon group of California, which closely resemble Conrad's figure of S. curtus. Besides this the Aturia angustalus of Conrad from Astoria is much like A. mathewsoni 

Gabb of the Tejou group of California ; and the presence of that genus in the Miocene 

strata seems out of place.

1 Probably Cardita plunicosta Lamarck. 2 U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 51, 1889, pp. 15,25.
106 THE EOCENE. [BULL.83.

The more recent investigations of Dr. Dall, above referred to, establish the truth of these conclusions. He finds that the earlier collections 

of fossils were made indiscriminately from the Eocene and Miocene horizons, and this accounts for the confusion that has hitherto existed.

The locality upon the Dwamish Eiver, Washington, is the most 

northerly one yet known that affords fossils of Tejon age. In a collection made at that point the following species have been recognized:

Cylichna costata Gabb. Euspira alveata (Conrad) Gabb.

Conns Hornii Gabb. Fnsus diaboli Gabb.

Lunatia nuciformis Gabb. Turritella uvasana Gabb.

Leda protexta Gabb. Tellina sp. (?)

The above forms establish beyond much doubt the presence of Tejon 

strata in western Washington.1

The faunal relationship of the Tejon group to the Ohico on the one 

hand and the Miocene on the other is deserving of particular attention. It has already been shown that the stratigraphical individuality 

of the Chico and Tejon groups is not clearly defined, but that the latter rests conformably upon the former and presents but a slight lithological change in its deposits. At the same time several forms are 

found common to the two groups, and Gabb 2 gives in the second volume 

of the Paleontology of California, 15 species.

Callianassa Stimpsoni Gabb. Martesia clausa Gabb.

Aturta MathewsoniL Gabb. Mactra (Cymbophora) Ashburnerii Gabb.

Ammonites jugalis Gabb. Tellina HoffmannianaGabb.

Fusus Mathewsonii Gabb. Aricula pellucida Gabb.

Euspira alveata Conrad, sp. Cucnllsea Mathewsonii Gabb.

Dentaliam Cooperii Gabb. Nucula truncata Gabb.

D. stramineum Gabb. Leda Gabbii Conrad, sp.

Cylicbna costata Gabb.

Upon the forms here enumerated as common to the two groups 

Heilprin3 has thrown some doubt as to the validity of three, Mactra 

Ashburnerii Gabb, Tellina Hoffmanniana Gabb, and Leda Gabbii Con., 

sp. That a commingling of species occurs in the Chico-Tejon series 

seems to be established. Dr. White4 says in this connection : " I am 

satisfied that such a commingling does-exist, as before indicated, and 

that an alternate commingling of species exists throughout the whole 

of the Chico-Tejon series."

On the other hand, although the Miocene conformably overlies the 

Tejon group, the faunal relations are not so clearly shown. No species 

have hitherto been considered identical, though Dr. White says that 

"a few of the species of each of the two formations are closely related, 

and it is possible that some of them may yet prove to be specifically 

identical."

' U. S. GeoL Surv., Bull. 51,1889, pp. 30-31.

1 In California Aoad. Soi., Proo., vol. 3, pp. 301-305, he gives 16 species. Nautilus texanut ia omitted, 

however, in the State Report and Ammonites n. s. is determined aa Am.jugalit. 

'Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Soi., Proo., vol. , pp. 18. 

 U.S.GeoL Surv.,Bull. 15,1885, p. 13.
CLARK.] PUGET GROUP. 107

THE PUGET GROUP.

The term Puget group has been applied by Dr. White to a series of 

brackish-water deposits in Washington. They are found along the 

eastern side of the Puget Sound Basin on the western flank of the Cascade Range, as well as upon the eastern side of the same mountains, 

although the identity of the strata in the two regions has not yet been 

fully determined.

In the Puget Sound region the best sections have been obtained by 

Bailey Willis in the Wilkeson and Green River coal fields, while to the 

east of the Cascade Eange the strata have been identified by the same 

observer in several localities, which are enumerated as follows:

Near the head of the Yakima River and on the Wenatchie River, * * * near 

Lake Kitchelas, Lake Klealim, and on Schwak Creek, a small tributary of the 

Yakima from the north * * * south of the Wenatchie, on the spur of the Cascades called the Pesha&ten Range, which divides that river from the Yakima, and at 

the head of the Mniiastash Creek, 25 miles, west of Ellensburg, at an elevation of 

5,500 feet on the main Cascade Range. 1

The strata in the Puget Sound Basin consist of alternating beds of yellow and gray 

fine-grained sandstones and very fine gray arenaceous shales interstratified with 

many beds of carboniferous shale and coal; the individual strata of sandstone and 

shale, from 20 to 200 feet thick, maintain the same general character wherever observed, and no well defined horizon has yet been found which might serve as an index 

to correlate the widely separated exposures.8

Mr. Willis, whose description of the deposits has just been quoted, 

estimates the maximum thickness of the strata at over 10,000 feet. In 

the Wilkeson field he states that there "are 127 carbonaceous beds, of 

which 17 are workable coal veins, 3 to 15 feet thick." To the east of the 

Cascade Range a similar development of carbonaceous strata has an approximate thickness of 1,000 feet, and rests on coarse sandstone and 

conglomerate.

The character of the deposits and their entombed fossils show that 

brackish-water conditions certainly prevailed over the area in which, 

the strata are now exposed, and doubtless over a much wider region. If 

the coal-bearing strata upon the eastern and western flanks of the Cascade Range prove to be of the same age the topography of the period 

must have been very different from the present, and since the carbonaceous strata have been found absent from the higher portions of the 

Olympic and Nortlhern Cascade Mountains, it has been supposed that 

those ranges may have constituted an island and a peninsula respectively, Acting as barriers against the open sea the estuariue conditions necessary'for the formation of the carbonaceous strata may have 

been developed.

> Tenth Census Report, voLIS,p.761. *Ibid.,p.759.
108 THE EOCENE.

The following invertebrate fossils have been obtained from the Puget 

group :l

Cardium (Adacna?) sp. Psammobia obscura White. 

Cyrena brevidens White. Sanguinolaria ? caudata White. 

Corbicula pugetensis White. Teredo pugeteiisis White. 

Corbicula Willisi White. Neritina sp. 

Batissa Newberryi White. Cerithium ? sp. 

Batissa dubia.

Among the plant remains examined by Prof. Newberry2 are Sphenopteris (Asplenium) elongata Newberry, which, according to that distinguished paleontologist, is the same as Gymnogramma-Haydeni Lesq., 

Asplenium subcretaceum Saporta,.and Anemia subcretacea Gardner, an 

important and widespread species. Calamosis DanceLesq., Onodeasensibilis Lmn.,Lygodium Kaulfussi Herr,the latter probably identical with 

L. neuropteroides Lesq., are mentioned by the same investigator as represented in the Puget group.

GROUNDS FOE THE REFERENCE OF THE TEJON AND PUGET GROUPS

TO THE EOCENE.

In the preceding remarks on the Pacific Coast region the assumption has been made that the Tejon and Puget groups are the equivalents 

of the Eocene of other areas. As this position has been much discussed 

in the past, particularly as regards the Tejon group, and is not admitted 

by all geologists to-day, the evidence for their reference to the Eocene 

will be briefly outlined.

In the Historical Sketch it was stated that Whitney and Gabb considered the entire Chico Tejon series as Cretaceous, while Marcou as 

zealously advocated its Tertiary age. In the present paper the Chico 

is referred to the Cretaceous, the Tejon to the Eocene.

Before considering the grounds for this division of a conformable 

series of deposits that at the same time possess in common several identical species, let us first examine the evidence for referring the entire 

formation to the same horizon, in the one case to the Cretaceous and in 

the other to the Eocene.

The lower division, the Chico, contains a large number of ammonitic 

forms, which have been hitherto considered by paleontologists to denote 

the Mesozoic age of the strata in which they are found, among which 

species of Hamites, Turrilites, Ancyloceras, Crioceras, and Baculites 

are included, while the lamellibranchiate genera, Trigonia, Inoceramus, 

Gryphsea, and Exogyra, likewise considered Mesozoic in character, are 

not uncommon. In the upper division, the Tejon, Ammonites jugalis 

Gabb is found, while several genera of gasteropoda are also cited by Gabb 

as characteristically Cretaceous, though their determination is shown 

by Conrad and Heilprin to be founded on error as to the generic relations of the specimens or the localities from which they were derived.

>TT.S.Geol.Surv.,Ball.51,p.58. *Ibid.,p.5L
CLARK.] AGE OF THE DEPOSITS. . 109

Concerning the reference of the entire Chico-Tejon series to the Tertiary, on the other hand, Marcou states that the Ammonites are degenerate types, and further that there is " no law which makes it necessary 

for Ammonites * * * to disappear entirely from the surface of the 

terrestrial globe with the rocks of the secondary epochs." From the 

Chico he cites the presence of the following genera that collectively he 

considers indisputable evidence for the Tertiary age of the fauna: Fusus, 

LsBvifusus, Neptunea, Sycodes, Gyrodes, Natica, Architectouica, Straparollus, Pugnellus, Anchura, Littorina, Turritella, Nerita, Lysis, Calliostoma, Angaria, Margaritella, Dentalium, Patella, Helcion, Kingicula, Cinulia, Oylichua, Martesia, Siliqua, Corbula, Anatina, Cymbophora, Lutraria, Asaphis, Tellina, Venus, Chione, Meretrix, Caryatis, 

Dosinia, Trapeziuna, Cardium, Olisocolus, Lucina, Astarte, Anthonya, 

Mytilus, Modiola, Meleagrina, Meekia, Area, Cucullsea, Nucula, Leda, 

Pecten, Lima, Anomia, and Ostrea.

For the Tejon he states that the Tertiary genera, Fusus, Tritonium, 

Trachytriton, Olivella, Fasciolaria, Lunatia, Turritella, etc., are numerous, svnd that Eocene species identical with those in Alabama and the 

London and Paris basins are found.

It seems to rue, as already stated by Dana, White, and Heilprin, that 

the writers above quoted are in part right, in part wrong. The presence of so large a number of ammonitic forms in the Chico, together 

with such types as Inoceramus, Trigonia, Gryphsea, and Exogyra, is 

sufficient indication of the Cretaceous age of the Chico group. On the 

other hand, the presence in the Tejon of LuuatiajCrepidula, Turritella, 

Tritouium, Nassa, Mitra, Pseudoliva, Oliva, Conus, Cyprsea, Eimella, 

and Donax, together with Cardita planlcosta Lam. and other species 

identical or closely related to characteristic Eocene forms of other regions, although associated with a few ammonitic remains of a single 

species, is sufficiently strong evidence of its Tertiary age.

That no marked break occurred in the continuity of life in the ChicoTejon series is proved by the fact that several species are found common to the upper and lower divisions. Deposition, from the structure 

of the beds and the absence of unconformity, was probably continuous. 

Forms that were numerous in the early part of the period gradually 

disappeared, and their place was taken by others that increased in importance toward its close.

To what horizon of the Eocene the Tejon should be referred can not 

be definitely stated. Conrad considered it Lower Eocene, while Marcou 

has stated that it belongs to the upper division. The presence of 

Cardita planicosta Lam. serves only for general comparison since it 

has been found ranging from the lower to the upper members of the 

Eocene in the Atlantic and Gulf Coast region. Heilprin and Marcou 

have shown the close relationship if not identity of several other species, Cardita Hornii Gabb is held to be identical with C, planicosta 

Dgmio, ekvat® Oafel) is thought; to be tUe game
110 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

Meekii Conrad, so common in the Maryland and Virginia Eocene. Mcopsis (Hemifusus) Remondii Gabb is considered to be very closely 

related to if not identical with Pyrula penita Conrad from Claiborne, 

Alabama. Other comparisons are made, some with forms from the 

Paris Basin and the English Eocene. From the fact that the Tejon 

conformably overlies the Chico and is in turn conformably overlain by 

the Miocene it is not improbable that the Tejon represents the entire 

Eocene series as elsewhere developed, but upon this point we have as 

yet too few data to draw conclusions. Further investigation may 

show that some important points have been hitherto overlooked.

The Puget group has been referred to the Eocene, though there is 

some doubt as to whether the entire formation can be properly considered such. In its flora Prof. Fewberry has shown that the Puget group 

is to be closely compared to the Laramie, though the conditions under 

which the deposits of the former were accumulated were, in many particulars, unlike that of the latter. If the Puget group is to be correlated with the Laramie, it is not improbable that we have in the former 

the representatives of both the Chico and Tejon groups, and thus, as 

in both the Laramie and Chico-Tejon series, the break between the Cretaceous and the Eocene is, in part at least, bridged over. If such proves 

to be the case, the Puget group must be referred in part to the one 

horizon, in part to the other.

Prof. Newberry has compared Sphenopteris'(Asplenium) elongata Newberry from the Puget group with Gymnogramma Haydeni Lesq. from 

the Laramie. He also has little doubt of the presence of Onoclea sensibilis Linn., which occurs in abundance at Fort Union. In regard to the 

faunal similarities of the Puget group and the Laramie Dr. White 

says:

Such a comparison is especially suggested by the known floral relations of the two 

groups of strata, their presumble contemporaneity of origin, and the nonmarine 

character of the molluscan faunas of both. Upon making a comparison, however, 

important zoological differences appear. It is true there are two species of Corbicula in the Puget fauna that are so closely like Laramie forms as to suggest specific 

identity upon casual examination, but the differences between the two faunas are 

strikingly shown by the family and generic characters of the other members of the 

Puget fauna as compared with the Laramie fauna.

Teredo, Tellina, and Batissa occur in the Puget group, but are absent 

in the Laramie. The later genus has particular interest from the fact 

that it has not been found in North America before. It is confined to 

the Pacific Islands and Asiatic Continent.

At the same time the Puget group shows some points of similarity to 

the Lignitic of the Gulf border. Galamopsis Danes Lesq. of Mississippi 

has been identified by Prof. Newberry.
INTERIOR REGION. 

PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

The Eocene of the Interior region covers an extensive area on the 

eastern and western flanks of the Kocky Mountains. Though largely 

developed in broad continuous tracts, it not infrequently occurs in 

narrowly circumscribed basins that are found scattered from Colorado 

on the east to Nevada on the west, and from Montana on the north to 

Texas on the south. Within the limits designated similar conditions 

largely prevailed. From, an open sea of Cretaceous age, in which the 

life was marine, a gradual change took place to great fresh-water lakes 

in which the typical Tertiary deposits of the Interior were accumulated. 

Although the marine and fresh-water divisions present marked paleontological differences, they are still linked together by a series of 

brackish-water deposits that afford many points for comparison with 

both the older and younger horizons. Whether these intervening beds 

should be referred to the Cretaceous or to the Eocene or considered to 

represent portions of each has been widely discussed, and no problem 

in American geology has perhaps furnished so extensive a literature. 

It seems not improbable that continuous deposition prevailed throughout the Interior region,.so that the reference of each member of the 

series to the more or less fragmentary geological column elsewhere established is attended with great uncertainty.

The opinions of those who have studied the deposits from different 

points of view differ widely, though the present tendency is to disparage a narrow interpretation of any particular series of facts and to 

judge the evidence in its entirety.

It will be observed that the Laramie and Puerco formations, regarded 

by many as Cretaceous, and the Fort Union beds, which by others have 

been separated from the Laramie and held to be Neocene, are here discussed. The evidence for the Eocene age of all or part of the strata of 

these several formations will be presented in subsequent pages; and 

the history, stratigraphy, taxonomy, and correlation of the Eocene of 

the Interior, in its general and local characters, will be briefly outlined.

HISTORICAL SKETCH,

The reports of the expeditions that entered or crossed the Interior 

region during the first half of the century present almost nothing of 

importance upon the Eocene. Certain observations in areas now known

ill
112 THE EOCENE. [BULL 83.

to be of Tertiary age are recorded, but neither the stratigraphical relationship of the deposits nor their taxonomy were in any degree comprehended.

The investigations of Meek and Hayden in Nebraska and the Upper 

Missouri Kiver country, in 1854, afford the first scientific data upon the 

geology of the region that it is our province to discuss. The publication of these results appeared in a series of articles in the Proceedings 

of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia for 1856, aud from 

the fossils collected upon that expedition the authors concluded:

It is worthy of note that some of the species contained in the collection from the 

most recent Cretaceous beds of the Upper Missouri country appear referable to genera 

which, according to high European authority, date no farther back than the true 

chalk, while many of them are closely analogous to Tertiary forms ; so close, indeed, 

that had they not been found associated in the same beds with Ammonites, Scaphites, 

and other genera everywhere regarded as having become extinct at the close of the 

Cretaceous epoch we would have considered them Tertiary species. 1

Already, at this early period, the peculiarities of the organic remains 

in the beds intermediate between undoubted Cretaceous and undoubted 

Eocene were recognized.

In a subsequent paper 2 the same authors refer the lignite deposits of 

the Upper Missouri River to the Tertiary. They say:

Although there can be no donbt that these deposits hold a rather low position in 

the Tertiary system, we have as yet been able to arrive at no very definite conclusions as to their exact synchronism with any particular minor subdivision of Tertiary, not having been able to identify any of the mollusca found in them with those 

of any well marked geological horizon in other countries. Their general resemblance 

to the fossils of the Woolwich and Reading series of English geologists, as well as to 

those of the great lignite formations of the southeast of France, would seem to point 

ta the lower Eocene as their position.

In regard to the Judith Eiver deposits, which Dr. Leidy 3 had already 

compared to the Wealden of Europe, the same writers add:

Inasmuch, v owever, as there certainly are some outliers of fresh-water Tertiary 

in these Bad Lands, we would suggest that it is barely possible these remains may 

belong to that epoch, though the shells appear to be all distinct species from those 

found in the Tertiary at all the other localities in this region.

Notwithstanding these statements, the same authors, in a section given 

in later article,4 following the conclusions of those who had examined 

the vertebrate and vegetable remains, refer the Judith Eiver deposits 

to the lowest horizon of the Cretaceous, while the Fort Union beds are 

considered Miocene.

A geological map, prepared by Dr. Hayden, of the region bordering 

the Missouri Eiver3 appears in the next volume of the Proceedings of 

Philadelphia Academy,5 on which the limits of the " Great Lignitic TerJ Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc.( V9l, 8,1856, p. o?«

2 Ibid., pp. 111-128. 

3 Ibid., pp. 72,73, 

«Ibid., p. 209.

9l.0, W57, p, UK},
CLAHK.] HISTORICAL SKETCH INTERIOR. 113

tiary Basiu " are recorded. In regard to the Great Lignitic deposit he 

states that " the collection of fossils now obtained show most conclusively * * * that it can not be older than the Miocene period." 

Small areas in Wyoming, on the Sweetwater, and to the west of South 

Pass are designated as Tertiary.

Similar conclusions are given in a longer paper by Meek and Hayden,1 

that immediately follows that presented by Dr. Haydeu.

In the proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences for 1860 Meek 

and Engelmann refer the Bear Eiver Estuary Beds2 to the Tertiary.

In the same journal for 18G13 Meek andHayderi published a complete 

section of the Tertiary formations of the northwest. A fourfold division is made: (1) Fort Union, or Great Lignite group; (2) Wind Eiver 

deposits; (3) White River group ; (4) Loup Eiver beds.

The first two alone claim our attention. The Fort Union or Great 

Lignite group is described as characterized by 

, Beds of clay and sand, with round ferruginous concretions and numerous beds, seams, 

and local deposits of lignite; great jminbers of dicotyledonous leaves, stems, etc., of 

the genera Platanus, Acer, Ulmus, Populus, etc., with very large leaves of true fan 

palms. Also, Helix, Melania, Vivipara, Corbicula, Unio, Ostrea, Potamomya, and 

scales of Lepidotus, with bones of Trionyx, Emys, Compsemys, Crocodilus, etc. 

Thickness: 2,000 feet or more. Localities: Occupies the whole country around Fort 

Union, extending north into the British possessions to unknown distances; also 

southward to Fort Clark. Seen under the White River group on North Platte River 

above Fort Laramie, also on west side Wind River Mountains.

The Wind Eiver deposits are described as 

Light-gray and ash-colored sandstones, with more or less argillaceous layers. Fossils: fragments of Trionyx, Testudo, with large Helix, Vivipara, petrified wood, 

etc. No marine or brackish-water types. Thickness: 1,500 to 2,000 feet. Localities: Wind River Valley; also, west of Wind River Mountains.

Concerning the position of the Wind Eiver group in the Tertiary 

series they, say:

As the Wind River deposits have not yet been seen in contact with any well marked 

beds of the other Tertiary formations of this region, and few fossils have yet been 

found in them, their position in the series remains doubtful. It is therefore, only 

provisionally tha'b we have placed this formation between the Fort Union and White 

River groups in the foregoing section.

Concerning the Judith Eiver deposits, a foot-note to page 417 contains the following:

At the time we published these facts we were led by the discovery here of freshwater shells, in such a position, to think that some estuary deposits of doubtful age, 

near the mouth of the Judith River, on the Missouri, from which Dr. Leidy had 

'^escribed-some Saurian remains resembling Wealden types, might be older than 

Tertiary. Later examinations, howover, have demonstrated that the Judith beds 

contain an entirely different group of fossils from those found in the rock under consideration, and that they are really of Tertiary age, and hold a position at the base 

of the Great Lignite series of the Northwest.

 Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 9,1857, pp. 117-148. 

8 Ibid., vol. 12, 1860, p. 130. 

3 Ibid., vol. 13, 1861, p. 433.

Bull. 83 8
114 THE EOCENE. lnuLL.83.

The same section of the Tertiary strata of the Northwest is repeated 

in the First Annual Report of the Geological Survey of the Territories 

for 1867. In the discussions that follow, the Judith Eiver deposits are 

placed with the Fort Union beds as part of the same great series. The 

more southern extension of the liguitic formation is now for the first 

time clearly recorded from Wyoming and Colorado and southward as 

far as Eaton Pass in New Mexico. Capt. B. L. Berthoud, whose letter 

upon this point is included in this first official report of Dr. Hayden, 

says concerning the age of the lignitic series: "Everything that I 

have so far seen points out that the coal is either Cretaceous or Tertiary, 

but I believe it to be Tertiary or of the same age as the coal near 

Cologne, on the Rhine." Concerning the Wind Eiver deposits he states 

further on that " they occupy an area about 100 miles in length and 40 

to 50 in breadth."

Jii an article entitled " Notes on the Lignite Deposits of the West," 

in the American Journal of Science l for March, 1868, Dr. Hayden reiterates his previous views.

The same year Dr.J. S. Newberry2 published "Notes on the Later 

Extinct Flora of North America, with descriptions of some new species 

of fossil plants from the Cretaceous and Tertiary Strata," in the Annals 

of the Lyceum of Natural History of New York. In this paper the flora 

of the Fort Union beds is described.

Up to this time there had apparently been complete unanimity on the 

subject of the Tertiary age of the lignitic series, the only varying evidence being found in what Dr. Leidy considered the Wealden type of 

the Judith Eiver vertebrates.

From the discovery of specimens of Inoceramus in the coal strata at 

Eaton Pass, New Mexico, Dr. J. D. Le Conte3 claimed that the lignitic 

deposits of that region were accordingly Cretaceous, though still admitting the Miocene age of the Fort Union beds.

Prof. E. D. Cope 4 raises a doubt concerning the Tertiary age of the 

entire lignitic series in an article in the transactions of the American 

Philosophical Society by mentioning Isohyrosaurus antiquus Leidy from 

the " Great Lignitic " of Nebraska as " perhaps of the Cretaceous age," 

and Hadrosaurus $ occidentalis Leidy from the " Cretaceous beds " of 

Nebraska, while Palceoscincus costatus Leidy is referred to the " upper 

Jurassic Bad Lands of Judith Eiver."

In the Third Annual Eeport of the Geological Survey of the Territories, Dr. Hayden describes the Tertiary strata under provisional 

" groups." The lignitic strata are thus locally divided into the Fort 

Union group, Canon City group, Eaton Hills group, etc., while separated from the true coal-bearing series in the vicinity of Bitter Creek

1 Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 45,1868, pp. 198-208.

2 Annals. Lyceum If at. Hist., New York, vol. 9,1867, pp. 1-76.

3Notes on the Geology of the Survey for the extension of the Union Pacific Hallway, E. D., from 

the Smoky Hill Eiver, Kansas, to the Kio Grande. Philadelphia, 1868. 

«Am.Phil.Soc., Trans., vol.14,1868-'69, pp.1-252.
CLARK.] HISTORICAL SKETCH INTERIOR. 115

is the Washakie group. The Green Eiver shales, Bridger group, and 

Wasatch group are characterized, though their relations are not fully, 

understood. The Washakie group and Green Eiver shales are held to 

be Middle Tertiary, the Bridger group Upper Tertiary, while the Wasatch group Is simply designated as of Tertiary age.

The volume upon mining industry, of the quarto publications of the 

U. S. Geological Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel, appeared in 1870, 

and includes a chapter upon the Green Eiver coal basin, in which the 

author, Mr. Clarence King, states that the coal-bearing strata are 

mainly Cretaceous and are u neon form ably overlain by fresh-water deposits of. Tertiary age. In this connection he says:

The fossil life, which clearly indicates a Cretaceous age for the deepest members 

up to and including the first two*or three important coal beds, from that point gradually changes with a corresponding alteration of the sediments, indicating a transition to a fresh-vrater period. The coal continued to be deposited some time after the 

marine fauna hud been succeeded by fresh-water types. The species of fossils are 

in no case identical with the California Cretaceous beds, which occupy a similar geological position on the west of the Sierra Nevada. Their affinities decidedly approach those of the Atlantic slopes, while the fresh-water species which are found in 

connection with the uppermost coal beds seem to belong to the early Tertiary 

period. 1

He states furthur concerning the unconformity of the Tertiary beds 

and the underlying coal-bearing strata:

Whatever may be the relations of these beds in other places, it is absolutely certain 

that within the region lying between .the Green River and the Wasatch, and 

bouuded on the south by the Uinta Range, there is no single instance of conformity 

between the coal beds and the horizontal fresh-water strata above them.2

In a letter from Mr. Meek, published in the same chapter, that writer 

concludes from the presence of Inoceramus and Anchura and the unconformity that exists between the coal-bearing strata and the freshwater beds that "from all the facts now known I can, therefore, scarcely 

doubt that you are right in referring these beds to the Cretaceous." 3 

He states further that " these beds belong to one of the very latest 

members of the Cretaceous; or, in other words, that they were probably deposited when the physical conditions favorable to the existence 

of those forms of molluscan life, peculiarly characteristic of the Cretaceous period, were drawing to a close, or had in part ceased to exist." 4 

Concerning the Bear Eiver beds which Meek and Engelmann had referred in 1860 to the Tertiary, the former now admits that they may be 

Cretaceous, and suggests ''the inquiry whether we ought not to carry 

up the line between the Cretaceous and Tertiary here, so as to include 

these estuary beds also in the Cretaceous." 5 The similarity of the Judith Eiver deposits is stated in support of this position, " from the fact 

that there is a formation on the Upper Missouri, near the mouth of the 

Judith Eiver, the exact age of which has long been regarded as somewhat doubtful, though Dr. Haydeu and the writer have generally placed

1 Op. cit., p. 453. 2 P.455. 3 P.461. 4 P.462. 6 P.464,
116 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

it in the Tertiary, that contains an exactly similar brackish-water group 

of fossils, some of which are identical with those found in these Bear 

Eiver estuary beds."

Nevertheless, in summing up, at the close of the letter, the changes 

that took place during and subsequent to the formation of the coalbearing strata Meek still clings to his previously expressed idea. He 

says:

Whether or not this change from marine to estuary conditions was exactly contemporaneous with the close of the Crebaceous and the commencement of the Tertiary of 

Europe we may perhaps never know, but that it corresponded in the sequence of 

geological changes here with the change of physical conditions that closed the Cretaceous epoch and ushered in the Tertiary of Europe, especially in France, seems to 

me scarcely to admit of any well grounded doubt."1

Although he thinks grounds may be found for including portions of 

the lignitic strata in the Cretaceous, yet he says that all the molluscan 

remains " seem to point to a later origin."

In an article in the American Journal of Science for 1871,2 entitled 

" On the Geology of the Eastern Uintah Mountains," Prof. Marsh 

gives the results of an expedition of the " Tale College Scientific Party " 

the previous summer into the Green River Valley. The topographical 

and stratigraphical characteristics of the early Tertiary deposits of the 

region are given, together with some general remarks on the character 

of the vertebrate fauna. In regard to the lignitic deposits Prof. Marsh 

says: °

As the age of the coal deposits of the Rocky Mountain region has of late been much 

discussed, a careful examination was made of the series of strata containing the present bed, and their Cretaceous uge established beyond a doubt. In a stratum of yellow calcareous shale which overlies the coat series conformably, a thin layer was 

foqnd full oiiOstrea congesta Conrad, a typical Cretaceous fossil; and just above, a new 

and very interesting crinoid, allied apparently to the Marsupites of the English 

chalk. In the shales directly below the coal bed, cyclodial fish scales and coprolites 

were abundaut, and lower down remains of turtles of Cretaceous types, and teeth of 

a Dinosaurian reptile resembling those of Megalosanrns, were also discovered.

In the Fourth Annual Report of the Geological Survey of the Territories for 1870 (published in 1872), Dr. Newberry maintains the Tertiary age of the Fort Union beds, a position that had been generally 

accepted for the northern lignitic strata. Concerning the age of the 

lignitic deposits of Wyoming, Dr. Hayden states in the same report 

that " so far as we can determine the coal beds of the Laramie plains 

are of Eocene age, although the plants are more closely allied to those 

of the Miocene period in the Old World." 3 Further he says:

That there is a connection between all the coal beds of the West I firmly believe, 

and I am convinced that in due time that relation will be worked out and the links 

in the chain of evidence joined together. That some of the older beds may be of 

Upper Cretaceous age I am prepared to believe, yet until much clearer light is thrown 

upon their origin than any we have yet secured I shall regard them as belonging to 

my transition series or beds of passage between the true Cretaceous and the Tertiary.4

'Op. cit., p. 466. 3 Op. cit, p. 164. 

»Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser.. vol. 1,1871, pp. 191-198. * Op. cit, p. 165.
CLABK.] HISTORICAL SKETCH INTERIOR. 117

The Tertiary age of the liguitic strata is claimed iu the same report 

by Lesquereux, Who bad studied the fossil plants collected in both 

Wyoming and New Mexico.

The same volume contains an extended description by Dr. Hayden of 

the Tertiary basin of Southern Wyoming. The following terms: (I) 

Washakie group, (II) Wasatch group, (III) Green Eiver group, (IV) 

Bridger group, are used. The strata are considered Miocene in age and 

unconformable to the underlying deposits. The lithological and topographical characteristics of the several groups in their local developments are given and the occurrence of fossils noted.

A letter from Dr. Newberry, published in Hayden's report, assigns the 

Green Eiver shales to an earlier period than that stated by Hayden and 

presents plant evidence for their Eocene age. Concerning the Washakie group Hayden says:

Although I have hitherto regarded the group of beds which I have denominated 

the "Washakie group" as separated from those of Green River and to the westward, 

yet I am now inclined to bulieve that the upper series is either an extension eastward 

of the BridgQr group, or synchronous with it. 1

The Wasatch group is shown to be below the Bridger group and probably synchronous with the Green River shales. The position of the 

Bridger giroup above the Green Eiver group is established.

The Fifth Annual Eeport of the Geological Survey of the Territories 

for 1871 (published in 1872) contains an attempt by Lesquereux to correlate the lignitic deposits of the numerous localities hitherto described 

with the different horizons of the Tertiary recognized in Europe.

Strong evidence for the Cretaceous age of the lignitic deposits had 

been up to this time brought forward by King, Marsh, and Cope, and, as 

we have seen, reluctantly accepted by Meek, so that the evidence from 

plant remains was alone left to establish the Tertiary age of the strata.

The discovery, during the summer of 1872, of the remains of a Dinosaurian reptile at Black Butte station, on the Union Pacific Eailroad, in 

Wyoming, tended more completely to establish the Cretaceous age of 

the lignitic deposits. Prof. Cope, who examined the fossils collected 

from this locality, says:

From the above description it is evident that the animal of Black Buttes is a Dinosaurian reptile. * * * It is thus conclusively proved that the coal strata of the 

Bitter Creek Basin of Wyoming Territory, which embraces the greater area yet discovered, were deposited daring the Cretaceous period, and not during the Tertiary, 

though not long preceding the latter.2

In another article3 he says: " this discovery places this group without doubt within the limits of the Cretaceous period." The separation 

of the " Bitter Creek series " as a distinct group had been already recorded by Prof. Cope in the previous paper.

In the Sixth Annual Eeport of the Geological Survey of the Territories 

for 1872 (published in 1873) Lesquereux reasserts his former conclusions

1 Op. cit., p. 73. * Am. Phil. Soc., Proc., vol. 12,1872, p. 483. »Am. Nat., vol. 6,1872, pp. 009-871.
118 THE EOCENE. [Bih.L.83.

as to the Tertiary age of the entire coal bearing series which he denominates the "American Eocene." The Washakie group he assigns to 

the Upper Eocene, while the Green River group is considered Miocene. 

In the same report Meek considers the " Bitter Creek series" to be of 

Cretaceous age, and describes many fossiis therefrom. The Bear River 

deposits he thinks may still be Tertiary. In regard to the lignite deposits of Wyoming he says:

But the most surprising fact to me, supposing this to be a Cretaceous formation, 

is that we found directly associated with the reptilian remains at Black Butte a 

shell I can not distinguish from Viviparus trovhiformis, originally described from the 

lignitic formation at Forfc Clark, on the Upper Missouri, a formation that has always 

beenregardedasTertiarybyallwhohavestudied its fossils, both animal and vegetable. 

* * * The occurrence of this last mentioned species here, along with a Cretaceous 

type of reptile and a Corbicula apparently identical with C. cytheriformis of the Judith 

River brackish-water beds, together with the presence of Corbulas very closely 

allied to Judith River species, at lower horizons in this series, and the occurrence of 

some vertebrates of Cretaceous affinities at the Judith River localities, would certainly strongly favor the conclusions not only that this Judith formation, the age of 

which has so long been in doubt, is also Cretaceous, but also that even the higher 

fresh-water lignite formation at Fort Clark and other Upper Missouri localities may 

also be Upper Cretaceous instead of Lower Tertiary. 1

In the same report Cope has an article "On the Extinct Vertebrata 

of the Eocene of Wyoming," The genus Amyzon is described from 

Osino, Nevada.

Dr. Newberry2 presents a paper in the April number of the American 

Journal of Science of the same year, in which he asserts that much of 

the flora that Lesquereux had described from New Mexico as Eocene 

he is certain is Cretaceous, while other forms from the Port Union beds, 

referred to the same horizon, he is confident are Miocene. Lesquereux 3 

defends his position in a later number.

Prof. Cope states iu the Bulletin of the U, S. Geological and Geographical Survey of the territories. No. 1, that 

Believing, as I do, that the evidence derived from the vertebrate remains requires 

the reference of the Bitter Creek coal series to the Cretaceous period, and having 

pointed out, on similar grounds, that the horizon of the Great Lignite from which 

vertebrate remains have been procured on the Missouri River is undoubtedly Mesozoic, although usually regarded as Tertiary, I suspect that the corresponding strata 

in Colorado will be found to pertain to the same section of geologic time.*

In Bulletin No. 2 the same writer has an extended discussion " On 

the mutual relations of the Cretaceous and Tertiary formations of the 

West." In a second paper the Tertiary fishes from Middle and South 

Parks, Colorado, are described. The first article is reproduced in 

much the same form in the Seventh Annual Report of the U. S. Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories for 1873 (published 

in 1874). In this paper the author, considering the Fort Union and

1 Op. cit., p. 460. 3 Ibid., pp. 546-557. 

* Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 7,1874, pp. 399-404. «0p. cit., p. 10.
CLARK.] HISTORICAL SKETCH INTERIOR. 119

Bitter Creek series of like age. but at the same time accepting the evidence oflered on the side of paleobotany, says:

There is, then, no alternative but to accept the result that a Tertiary flora was contemporaneous with a Cretaceous fauna, establishing an uninterrupted succession of life across 

 what is generally regarded as oue of the greatest breaks iu geologic time. 1

The same volume contains reports by Marvine and by Lesquereux, 

in which the latter still defends his position of the Eocene age of the 

greater part of the liguitic strata, though the Evanston beds are considered younger and are placed in the upper portion of the series. To 

the Miocene (middle) he refers the coal basin of Carbon, the Washakie 

group, and other deposits. To the Miocene (upper) the Green River 

group; the coal of Elko, Nevada; the Florissant, Colorado, beds; and 

the deposits of Middle Park. Cope, iu the same volume, maintains that 

from the evidence of vertebrate paleontology the deposits of the Wasatch group are synchronous with the Green River. The same writer . 

speaks of the " Bridger Eocene."

Dr. George M. Dawson 2 published in 1874-'75 several articles bearing on the age of the Fort Union beds, and is decidedly of the opinion 

that they are Eocene.

Two important contributions from the pen of Prof. Cope appeared 

in 1875. In the first,3 which included an account of the vertebrates 

collected by Dawson on the British boundary, the author finds that 

" the list of species, short as it is, indicates the future discovery of a 

complete transition from Cretaceous to Eocene life."

The second contribution is the final report on Cretaceous vertebrates, published as Vol. 11 of the U. S. Geological Survey of the Territories. It contains the paper already twice-referred to. Concerning 

the occurrence of identical forms in the Fort Union and Judith River 

deposits, he says:

The presence of gar fishes of the genus Clastes in this formation is as yet peculiar 

to this and the Judith River localities. As these gars have not heretofore been found 

in North America below the Eocene, they constitute the first case of apparent commingling of Tertiary and Cretaceous animal life yet clearly determined.

Prof. J. J. Stevenson published about this time, in several articles, 

evidence of a stratigraphical character to show the Cretaceous age of 

the lignitic deposits.4

In the annual report for 1875 of the U. S. Geographical Surveys west of 

the One Hundredth Meridian, Prof. Cope characterizes the Puerco group 

and refers it without qualification to the Eocene. He estimates the 

thickness of the strata at 1,200 feet.

The published results of Maj. J. W. Powell's explorations of the Colo-

'Op. cit., p. 442.

2Canadian Naturalist, vol. 7,1874, p. 241. British Worth American Boundary Commission, Montreal, 

1874. Ibid., 1875.

8 Philadelphia Acad. Nat Soi., Proc., vol. 27,1876, pp. 9,10.

4 New York Lyceum Nat. Hist., Proc., 2d scr., No.4,1874, p. 93; TJ. S. Geog. Survs. west 100th Mer., 

vol. 3, 1875, pp. 404-410; Am. Phil. Soc., Proc., vol. 14,1875, pp. 447-475.
120 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

rado Kiver of the West appeared in 1875. In this report, the section 

of Eocene strata exposed on the Green Eiver south of Green Eiver 

Station, on the Union Pacific Eailroad, is described in the itinerary of 

the journey. '

The Eighth Annual Eeport of the Geological and Geographical Survey 

of the Territories for 1874 (published in 1876) contains far more than 

any previous publication concerning the lignitic strata. In that portion contributed by Dr. Hayden 4< the coal-bearing beds of the Laramie 

Plains and Colorado " are correlated with " the vast group in the Northwest," though exception is made of "the Bear Eiver and Coalville 

group," which is considered Cretaceous.

Dr. A. C. Peale published in this volume a comparative table setting 

forth the various opinions that had prevailed as to the several " groups" 

under consideration. Concerning the Green Eiver and Bridger groups 

he says that " Profs. Cope, Leidy, and Marsh consider them Eocene, 

basing their conclusions on the discovery of vertebrate organic remains, 

while Lesquereux refers them to the Miocene, from his investigations of 

their fossil flora, calling the ' Lignitic' group Eocene." J He considers 

that " the lignite-bearing beds east of the mountains in Colorado are the 

equivalent of the Fort Union group of the Upper Missouri, and are 

Eocene Tertiary; also that the lower part of the group, at least of the 

locality 200 miles east of the mountains, is the equivalent of a part of 

the liguitic strata of Wyoming," while " the Judith Eiver beds have 

their equivalent along the eastern edge of the mountains below the 

Lignite or Fort Union group, and also in Wyoming, and are Cretaceous, 

although of a higher horizon than the coal-bearing strata of Coalville 

and Bear Eiver, Utah." 2 Lesquereux gives an extended argument for 

the Tertiary age of the lignitic deposits.

In his final report on Invertebrate Paleontology Meek states that it 

"is certainly highly probable "that the Judith Eiver beds are Cretaceous, 

although he still maintains that the Fort Union beds are lower Eocene. 

Further, he says, "the presence or absence of lignite proves nothing 

of itself, as lignite undoubtedly occurs in both Cretaceous and Tertiary 

rocks in the far West." The Wind Eiver group he considers to be 

Miocene, and "probably wholly or in part equivalent to that since 

called the Bridger group."8

The geological report by J. S. Newberry of the exploring expedition 

under Capt. J. N. Macomb in 1859 appeared in 1876. In this report 

the deposits that had been given the name of Puerco group by Cope 

are described and referred to the upper portion of the Cretaceous.

The geology of the Uinta Mountains, by Maj. J. W. Powell, was 

published in 1876. In this report the Bitter Creek series is fully discussed by Maj. Powell and Dr. White. At a point between Black 

Buttes and Point of Eocks a "physical break" is announced that

1 Op. oit., p. 140. 3 U. S. Geological Survey of the Territories, vol. 9,1876. 2 Op. cit., p. 155.
CLABK.] HISTORICAL SKETCH INTERIOR. 121

affords grounds for drawing there the line of separation between the 

Mesozoic and Cenozoic formations. The Point of Kecks group below 

the break is referred to the Cretaceous, the Bitter Creek group, above 

the same, to the Tertiary. Maj. Powell says:

All of the plants described by Prof. Lesquereux and collected by himself and 

others within this province have been referred by him to divisions in the Tertiary 

and are found in strata above the physical break, and hence I agree with him in considering them Tertiary. * » * The conclusions reached from a study of the vertebrate paleontology by Profs. Leidy, Marsh, and Cope entirely harmonize with this 

division of the Cenozoic and Mesozoic. 1

A single exception is cited.

Dr. White arrived at conclusions similar to those of Maj. Powell. 

He says:

There is no physical break in the Cretaceous strata from the base of the series to 

the top of the upper, or Point of Rocks group, at which horizon there is at all observed points, extending over a large region, considerable unconformability by 

erosion of the lower strata of the Bitter Creek group upon the upper strata of the 

Point of Rocks group. 3

Overlying the Point of Eocks group, considered the top of the Mesozoic, are the following groups, that were held by Powell and White to 

represent the Eocene: (I) Bitter Creek, (II) Lower Green River, (III) 

Upper Green River, (IV) Bridger, (V) Browns Park. Each group is 

fully characterized.

The Report on Descriptive Geology, by Messrs. Arnold Hague and 

S. F. Emmons, of the U. S. Geological Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel, appeared in 1877. In this work the term Lignitic is replaced by 

that of Laramie, which, however, was first used on advance sheets of the 

atlas, map 1, that appeared in 1875. The deposits of that formation are 

referred to the Cretaceous. The terms (I) Vermilion Creek, (II) Green 

River, (III) Bridger, (IV) Uinta are employed for the overlying horizons, which are considered Eocene. Localities in Utah, Wyoming, and 

Nevada are mentioned and described.

Concerning the taxonomy of the lignitic deposits of the interior, 

Prof. Marsh says, in his vice-presidential address delivered before the 

American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1877 :

The boundary line between the Cretaceous and Tertiary in the region of the Rocky 

Mountains has been much in dispute during the last few years, mainly in consequence - 

of the uncertain geological bearings of the fossil plants found near this horizon. The 

accompanying invertebrate fossils have thrown little lighten the question, which is 

essentially whether the great lignite series of the west is uppermost Cretaceous or 

lowest Eocene. The evidence of the numerous vertebrate remains is, in my judgment, decisive and in favor of the former view.

The higher vertebrate life of the Tertiary is discussed at length and 

in the table appended the Eocene is separated into four divisions. (I) 

Coryphodon beds. (II) " Green River beds." (Ill) Dinoceras beds. 

(IV) Diplacodon beds.

1 Op. cit., pp. 71, 72. * Op. cit., p. 87.
122 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

In the Ninth Annual Eeport of the U. S. Geological and Geographical 

Survey of the Territories for 1875 (published in 1877), Mr. F. M. Endlich describes the Puerco marls, together with the " Post-Cretaceous " 

beds of the Trinidad region.

The volume upon Paleontology of the final reports of the TL. S. Geographical Surveys West of the One hundredth Meridian contains descriptions of Eocene invertebrate fossils by Dr. White, and vertebrate 

fossils by Prof. Cope. The latter characterizes the Puerco marls at considerable length, which he states are overlain by sandstones and marls 

ot the Wasatch Group. He says :

The Puerco marls may belong to the Eocene series, in view of their strict conformability with the superincumbent rocks of that age. But they may rep resent the Fort 

Uniou or lignite beds of the Upper Missouri, some of whose strata they resemble iu 

color and consistence. 1

The same year Dr. C. A. White published the first of his " Paleontological Papers" in the Bulletin of the TJ. S. Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories. The late Mesozoic and Cenozoic fauna 

are chiefly described in these contributions. In No. 3 a table of the diferent groups is given, iu which the term post-Cretaceous is suggested to 

include the Laramie of King, together with the lower portion of the 

Wasatch. In this table the Judith River beds are correlated with the 

Laramie and the Fort Union with the Wasatch. After showing that a 

few forms of Inoceramus at a doubtful horizon of the Laramie and a 

single species of Odontobasis, considered by Meek a genus characteristic of the Cretaceous, afford the only invertebrate evidence for the 

Mesozoic age of the lignitic deposits, he maintains that many forms show 

a marked similarity to Wasatch species. In this connection he says:

It is in view of the facts here stated, and also because I believe that a proper interpretation of them shows the strata of the Laramie group and the baae of the Wasatch to be of later date than any others that have hitherto been referred to the Cretaceous period, and also earlier than the Eocene epoch, that I have decided to designate those strata as post-Cretaceous, at least provisionally. 2

In the Tenth Annual Report of the TJ. S. Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories for 1876 (published in 1878) Dr. White 

presents a "table of correlated general sections," in which the Laramie 

group3 is made equivalent to the Lignitic group of Meek and Hayden, 

and the Laramie group of King, while it includes all of the Point of 

Eocks group of Powell, together with the lower portions of the Bitter" 

Creek group of the last-named author. The remainder of the Bitter 

Creek series is shown to be commensurate with the Wasatch group established by Hayden, and later termed the Vermilion Creek group by King. 

The Green River and Bridger groups are exhibited as similarly delimited 

by the several authorities quoted, while the Uinta group equals the 

Plioceneof Hayden and Brown's Park group of Powell. The charac1 Op. cit., p. 18. ) 2 VoL 3, p. 629. 8 The more general term, post-Cretaceous, is still retained.
CIAIK.J . HISTORICAL SKETCH INTERIOR. 123

teristics of each group are given at considerable length, together with 

type localities.

Abandoning the position as to general unconformity between the 

Point of Kocks and Bitter Greek groups, as earlier maintained by 

Powell and himself, he says:

The fact that this series (Laramie) passes insensibly into the Fox Hills group and 

into the Wasatch group above renders it difficult to fix upon a stratigraphical plane 

of demarkatiou either for its base or summit. I have therefore decided to regard 

this group as essentially a brackish-water one, referring all strata below that contain any marine Cretaceous invertebrate forms to the Fox Hills group, beginning 

this series with those strata that contain brackish and fresh water forms, aud endingit above with those strata in which the brackish-water forms finally cease. Thus 

defined, the whole series seems to form one natural paleontological group, as well as 

to be a sufficiently distinct stratigraphical one, for which I have adopted the name 

of Laramie group of King. * * * I believe that, upon the evidence of invertebrate paleontology, the Fox Hills group is later than the latest Cretaceous strata of 

Europe, and I therefore regard the Laramie group as occupying transitional ground 

between the well marked Cretaceous aud Tertiary groups ; but the opinion is only 

tentatively held until further facts are obtained. 1

In the fourth volume of the Bulletin of the U. S. Geological and 

Geographical Survey'of the Territories, published in 1878, Dr. White 

contributes three more " Paleontological Papers " (6; 7 and 8), in which 

the invertebrate fauna of the Laramie is discussed. In the second of 

these papers the Laramie group is given a much wider significance than 

hitherto. He says:

The term Laramie group is here used to include all the strata between the Fox Hills 

group of the Cretaceous period beneath, aud the Wasatch group (= Vermilion Creek 

group of King) of the Tertiary period above. That is, it includes, as either subordinate groups or regional divisions, both the Judith River and Fort Union series of the 

Upper Missouri River, the Lignite series east of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado, 

the Bitter Creek series of southern Wyoming and the adjacent parts of Colorado, 

aud also the Bear River Estuary beds, together witji the Evauston coal series of the 

valley of Bear River and adjacent parts of Utah. Strata of this great Laramie group 

are known to exist in other large and widely separated districts of the western portion of the national domain.2

Concerning the stratigraphical relations of the series of deposits overlying the Laramie in the Green Biver Basin, he says:

la the great region now drained by theGreen River there are three well marked groups 

of strata that come in their order above the Laramie group, and which all agree in referring to the Tertiary period. These are the Wasatch, Green River, and Bridger groups, 

named in ascending order. The Wasatch group is the lowest of a series of three freshwater Tertiary groups, all of which are intimately connected, not only by an evident 

continuity of sedimenta'tion throughout, but also by the passage of a portion of the" 

molluscan species from one group up into the next above. Not only were the three 

groups, aggregating more than a mile in thickness, evidently produced by a continuous sedimentation, but it seems equally evident that it was likewise uninterrupted 

between the Laramie and Wasatch epochs, although there was then a change from 

brackish to fresh waters and a'consequeut change of all the species of iuvetebrates 

inhabiting those waters.

'Op. cit., p. 33. S 0p. cit., p.721.
124 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

The seventh volume of the Final Eeports of the U. S. Geological 

Survey of the Territories is by Mr. Leo Lesquereux on " Tertiary Flora." 

In this exhaustive treatise the author gives a full expression of his 

views upon the Laramie group, which he still holds to be Tertiary.

The same year Mr. Clarence King published volume I (Systematic 

Geology) of the U. S. Geological Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel. 

In this ueport the views expressed by Messrs. Hague and Emmons in 

volume ii (Descriptive Geology) are more fully presented. The Laramie is held to be Cretaceous and the Eocene Tertiary is divided into 

(I) Vermilion Creek group, (II) Green River group, (III) Bridger group, 

(IV) Uinta group. These different divisions are individually characterized at considerable length. The Fort Union beds are held to be 

Miocene, and the northward extension of the White Eiver group of 

Nebraska. He states that unconformities separate the Laramie and 

Vermilion Creek deposits as well as the members of the Eocene series 

themselves.

Vol. 5 of the Bulletin of the U. S. Geological Survey of the Territories contains an important article by Cope on " The Relations of the 

Horizons of Extinct Vertebrata of Europe and iforth America." In 

this paper the various groups of the American Eocene are compared 

with those of Europe upon the evidence afforded by the vertebrates. 

Concerning the Laramie he says that " its necessary position is between 

the Tertiary and Cretaceous, but on the Cretaceous side of the boundary," 1 though later than the latest horizon of the French Cretaceous. 

According to Cope the post Cretaceous embraces both Laramie and 

Puerco, the former commensurate with the Judith Uiver and Fort Union 

deposits. The same volume contains an article by Peale on " The 

Laramie Group of Western Wyoming and Adjacent Regions."

The Eleventh Annual Report of the U. S. Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories for 1877 (published in 1879) contains an 

article by Endlich upon, the geology of the Sweetwater region. The 

Laramie group is assigned to the post-Cretaceous. The Sweetwater 

group is placed above the Bridger group, which, with the Green River 

group, are considered Miocene. The Wasatch group is alone referred 

to the Eocene.

Dr. White presents a most valuable contribution in the same volume, 

based upon much enlarged collections of invertebrate fossils that had 

been made by him from the Laramie aud later groups during the previous field season. He believes in " the unity of all the principal 

brackish-water deposits hitherto known in the western Territories, 

and * * * their recognition as a comprehensive group of strata 

under the name of the Laramie group, which represents a great period 

in geological time, and especially such in the geological history of 

North America." 2 After admitting the Cretaceous asp'ect of the ver1 Op. cit., pp. 38, 39. * Op. cit, p. 252.
CLAKK.) HISTORICAL SKETCH INTERIOR. 125

tebrate fauna of the Larainie on the one hand aud the Tertiary aspect 

of the flora on the other, he states that the invertebrate fauna is "silent 

on the subject*' of the taxonomy of the deposits.

Referring to the appearance of mammalia in great variety of forms 

in the beds immediately overlying the Laramie, he says:

Such suddenness of introduction makes it almost certain that it was caused by the 

removal of some physical barrier, so that ground which was before potentially Tertiary becacae so by actual fauna! occupancy. In other words, it seems certain that 

these Tertiary mammalian types were evolved in some other region before the close 

of the Laramie period, where they existed contemporaneously with at least the later 

Laramie Dinosaurians of Cretaceous types, and that the barrier which separated the 

faunae was removed by some one of the various movements connected with the evolution of the continent. The climate aud other physical conditions which were 

essential to the existence of the Dinosaurians of the Larainie period having evidently 

been continued into the Tertiary enochs that are represented by the Wasatch, Green 

River, and Bridger groups, they might doubtless have continued their existence 

through those epochs as well as through the Laramie period but for the irruption of 

the mammalian horde, to which they probably soon succumbed in an unequal struggle for existence. 1

The same volume contains a « Eeport on the Geology of the Green 

River District," by Dr. A. C. Peale, in which the Laramie is referred to 

the post-Cretaceous, the Wasatch, Green River, and Bridger groups to 

the Tertiary, the two latter to the Miocene. Detailed descriptions are 

given of these various groups in the area investigated.

In the American Naturalist for 1879 Prof Cope 2 describes " The 

Amyzon Tertiary Beds" of Osino and Elko, Nevada.

The following year the same writer,3 in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, again refers to the Amyzon beds, and also 

describes the " Manti" beds of Utah. The latter deposits are further 

characterized in the American Naturalist 4 of that year.

The sixth volume of the Bulletin of the U. S. Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories, published in 1882, has two important contributions upon the Eocene; the first by Prof. Cope, " On the 

Vertebrata of the Wind River Eocene Beds of Wyoming," the second 

by Prof. Scudder on " The Tertiary Lake Basin of Florissaut, Colorado, 

between South and Hayden Parks."

The Twelfth Annual Report of the U. S. Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories for 1878 (published in 1883) contains 

further contributions by Dr. White on the Laramie and later groups, 

with descriptions of many new species.

In the same volume is a report by St. John on the geology of the 

Wind River district. The character of the Wind River Eocene and 

its relations to the other deposits are stated.

A paper upon the u Tertiary Lake Basin at Florissant, Colorado," by 

Dr. Scudder, appears in the same report, reprinted with additions and 

alterations from the Bulletin.

1 Op. cit., p. 265. ^ Am. Phil. Soc., Proc., vol. 19,1880, p. 60-62. 

* Am. Nat., vol. 13,1879, p. 332. « Am. Nat., vol. 14,1880, pp. 303,304.
126 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

In the Second Annual Eeport of the U. S. Geological Survey, Oapt. 

C. E. Button contributes a paper upon u The Physical Geology of the 

Grand Canon District," in which he states that the Lower Eocene only 

is represented in that region. To the north, first the Middle Eocene, 

and then the Upper Eocene appear, while the entire series becomes 

represented as the Uiuta Mountains are approached. He thinks the 

Middle and Upper Eocene were never deposited in the Grand Canon 

country. Similar conclusions are maintained by the same writer in 

Monograph II of the U. S. Geological Survey, entitled " The Tertiary 

History of the Grand Canon District."

In the'American Naturalist for 1882 Prof. Cope 1 contributed an important paper on <s The Tertiary Formations of the Central Eegion of 

the United States." In this article the leading characteristics of the 

Puerco, Wasatch, Bridger, and Uiuta groups are presented.

In an article in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, a "Synopsis of the Veitebrata of the Puerco Eocene Epoch" 2 

is given by the same writer. Some points of difference shown in the 

Puerco deposits from true Eocene strata are stated.

The Third Annual Eeport of the U. S. Geological Survey, published 

iu 1883, contains "A Eeview of the Nonmarine Fossil Mollusca of 

North America," by Dr. , White. In this paper Dr. White reiterates his 

former statements as to the transitional position of the Laramie group. 

He says:

Geologists are not agreed as to whether this great group should be referred to the 

Tertiary or Cretaceous period, some conteuding for the former and some for the latter reference. The truth appears to lie between the two opinions, and I have elsewhere presented reasons for regardiug this group as occupying a transitional position 

between the Cretaceous and Tertiary, * * * and therefore as representing a 

period partaking of both the Mesozoic and Cenozoic ages. 3

Concerning the extent of the Laramie he says:

The "Judith River group," "Fort Union group," " Lignitic group," "Bitter Creek 

Coal series," " Point of Eocks group," and " Bear Kiver Estuary beds " are all parts 

of the great Laramie group. 4

The position to be assigned to the overlying deposits is thus stated 

by Dr. White:

The "Wasatch group," "Vermilion Creek group," and "Bitter Creek group" are 

regarded as at least approximately equivalent strata, constituting the oldest member 

of the purely fresh-water Eoceue Tertiary series of deposits in the West. The Green 

Eiver and Bridger groups are respectively the second and third members of that 

fresh-water Eocene series. The Wind River group of Wyoming is regarded as of 

Eocene age. 6

The same year there appeared in the American Journal of Science a 

paper by Dr. White,6 entitled " Late Observations concerning the Mol1 Am. Nat., vol. 16,1882, pp. 177-195. " Op. cit., pp. 415,416.

2 Am. Phil. Soc.,Proc., vol. 20,1882, pp. 461-470. 8 Op. cit., p. 416.

s Op. cit., pp. 414-416, 6 Am, Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 25,1883, pp. 207-209,
CLARK.J HISTORICAL SKETCH INTERIOR. 127

luscan Fauna and Geographical Extent of the Laramie Group," in which 

he says:

That any true La,ramie strata ever alternate with those of the Fox Hills group or 

any other marine Cretaceous group, or that any true marine fossils were ever collected 

from any strata of the Laramie group, I can not admit. I regard all such statements 

as a result of a misunderstanding of the stratigraphical geology of the region in 

which such observations are said to have been made.

In volume vm of the Final Eeports of the U. S. Geological Survey of 

the Territories upon u Cretaceous and Tertiary Flora," published in 

1883, the author, Mr. Leo Lesquereux, still maintains the Eocene age of 

the Laramie group.

In an article in the Neues Jahrbuch fur Mineralogie, Geologic, and 

Palaeontologie for 1884, M. Neumayr places the Laramie group in a 

parallel position with the Intertrappean beds of the Deccaii in Hiudostan, and between the Cretaceous and the Eocene. Lists of similar 

fossil plants from the two areas are given.

"A Eeview of the Fossil Ostreidse of North America," by Dr. White, 

appears in the Fourth Annual Eeport of the U. S. Geological Survey, 

published in 1884. In this article the author compares the conditions of 

the Laramie Sea to the Caspian, in which the waters are fresher than 

those of the ocean.

Prof. Cope 1 presents a short paper on "The Eolations of the Puerco 

and Laramie Deposits " in the American Naturalist for 1885, in which 

he says:

Some writers having suspected the identy of the formations above named and the 

consequences which follow that the Puerco mammalian fauna was contemporary 

with the dinosaurian fauna of the Laramie age, the following observations on their 

stratigraphic relations are now given. At the locality where best developed the 

Puerco beds have a thickness of about 850 feet and contain mammalia to the base. 

The Laramie beds succeed downward conformably, it is thought by Mr. Baldwin, 

and have a thickness of 2,000 feet at Auimas City, New Mexico. They rest on Fox 

Hills marine Cretaceous of less thickness.

Concerning the taxonomy of the Puerco group, Prof. Cope now recedes from his formerly expressed opinion that the beds are Eocene, 

and maintains their Cretaceous affinity on account of '; the absence of 

Perisspdactyla and Eodentia, and of course of mammalian orders not 

found below the. Miocene. * * * and in the constitution of the 

mammalian fauna by Condylarthra, Bunotheria, and Marsupialia." The 

Puerco group is placed in the post Cretaceous, which " as a whole may 

be ultimately distinguished from the Tertiary by these peculiarities 

[given above], together with the reptilian genus Champsosaurus."

In a presidential address upon "The Application of Biology to Geological History," delivered by Dr. White2 at the Fifth Anniversary Meeting of the Biological Society of Washington, January 24,1885, the 

author reviews briefly the conflicting nature of the evidence afforded

' Am. Nat., vol. 19, 1885, p. 985.

8 "Washington Biol. Soc., Proc., vol. 3,1886, pp. 1-20,
128 THE EOCENE.

by the vertebrate and invertebrate faunas and the flora of the Laraniie 

group. " .

In the Fifth Annual Eeport of the U. S. Geological Survey, and 

later in Monograph X of the same, Prof. Marsh divides the Eocene 

into four groups, basing his divisions upon the vertebrate fossils: (I) 

Coryphodon [Wasatch] beds, (II) Heliobatis [Green EiverJ beds, (III) 

Dinoceras [BridgerJ beds, (IV) Diplacodon [TJinta] beds.

The most exhaustive treatise upon the literature of the Laramie is to 

be found in a " Synopsis of the Flora of the Laramie Group," by Prof. 

L. F. Ward, that appeared in the Sixth Annual Eeport of the U. S. 

Geological Survey, published in 1885. It has afforded an outline for 

the present chapter, so far as the history of opinion upon the Laramie 

is concerned. This important paper presents us with the latest views 

that paleobotany has to offer upon the interesting problems presented 

by the Laramie formation.

The writer says:

The discussions with regard to the age of the Laramie group, which have been 

rapidly passed in review, have perhaps sufficiently shown that it is impossible to 

refer that group either to the Cretaceous or the Tertiary, and in so doing harmonize 

all the facts that the group presents with those in conformity with which other deposits in other countries of the world have been so referred; but they have also sufficiently shown that this is not the fault of the investigators, but, so to speak, of 

the facts, and that the real disagreement is in the organic forms and the nature of 

the deposits, so that omniscience itself could never harmonize them with all kinds 

of forms and deposits in all parts of the world. It is, therefore futile, and indeed 

puerile, longer to discuss this question, and we may well afford to dismiss it altogether and settle down to the more serious study of the real problems which still lie 

before us. 1

In this report Prof. Ward shows that over 20 species of plants are 

common to the Laramie and Green River groups.

The "EelatioQ of the Laramie Molluscan and Fresh-water Eocene 

Faunas" is discussed by Dr. White in Bulletin 34 of the U. S. Geological Survey, published in 1886. In this report Dr. White states that 

there is no known case of a marine Cretaceous form having lived on 

into Laramie time, though it is probable that some estuarine species 

may have done so. He mentions the persistence, however, of Laramie 

fresh-water forms into the Wasatch. The Bear Eiver Estuary beds 

are placed intermediate between the Cretaceous and Eocene, and probably synchronous with the Laramie, though possessing a wholly different fauna. The Puerco beds are shown to possess an entirely different vertebrate fauna from the Laramie below and the Wasatch above, 

with both of which they are conformable. The author thinks they 

may represent the lower portion of the Wasatch of Utah. The upper 

portion of the Fort Union beds is provisionally correlated with the base 

of the Wasatch.

In Bulletin 37 of the U. S. Geological Survey, published in 1887, Mr.

'Op. cit., p. 435.
CLAHK.] HISTORICAL SKETCH INTEEIOR. 129

L. F. Ward discusses the " Types of the Laramie Flora," in which new 

data are added to the earlier " Synopsis " that appeared in the Sixth 

Annual Eeport.

The same year Dr. White published in the American Journal of Science an important paper 1 entitled " On the Inter-Kelation of Contemporaneous Fossil Faunas and Floras." In this article he says : " That 

faunas and floras of Cretaceous and Tertiary types should have existed 

contemporaneously is not strange, for a similar diversity now exists as 

regards the living faunas and floras of different parts of the world." 

The sudden appearance of so many various mammalian types he maintains was due to " the removal from time to time of certain physical 

barriers which previously restricted the dispersion of those faunas." 

He considers that sedimentation from u the Laramie to the Bridger 

groups inclusive was at no time everywhere interrupted," and thus there 

is an u unbroken continuity of invertebrate and plant life."

A year later an article by the same writer " On the Eelatiou of the 

Laramie Group to Earlierand Later Formations V2 contains reference to 

the Laramie of Texas and its position as regards 1>he marine Eocene of 

the Gulf States. The author inclines to the view that the coal-bearing 

strata of the Laramie are the equivalent in part at least of the u Northern Lignitic" of Hilgard.

In the American Naturalist for 1887 3 and American Geologist for 

1888 4 Prof. Cope presents reports upon the " Mesozoic and Cenozoic 

Kealms of the Interior of North America." In each of these papers 

the Laramie and Puerco are referred to the " Post-Cretacic system," 

while the Eocene is divided into the (I) Wasatch, (II) Wind Eiver, (III) 

Bridger, (IV) Diplacodou beds, or Uinta. Two other formations that 

he considers " contemporary with one or more of these " are the Amyzon beds and the Green Eiver shales.

The strati graphical relations of certain deposits in the vicinity of 

Denver that had hitherto been considered Laramie are discussed by 

Mr. George H. Eldridge5 and Dr. Whitman Cross6 in the Proceedings 

of the Colorado Scientific Society for 1888. These beds are readily 

divided on both lithological and stratigraphical grounds into two 

groups ; the lower called the Arapaho,7 uuconformable to the Laramie; 

the upper, the Denver, unconformable to the Arapaho. The more 

detailed evidence for their separation from the Laramie will be given 

later.

In the Eighth Annual Eeport of the U. S. Geological Survey, published in 1889, Prof. Ward contributes a paper on " The Geographical

1 Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 33,1887, pp. 364-374. 

»Ibid., vol. 35, 1888, pp. 432-438.

3 Am. Nat., vol. 21, 1887, pp. 445-462.

4 Am. Geologist, vol. 2, 18P8, pp. 265-267, 285-29!).

* The Mining Industry, vol. 3,1888, No. 3, pp. 24,25 ; No. 4, pp. 33-35; No. 5, pp. 44-45, and Colorado 

Sci. Soc., Proo., vol. 3,1888, pp. 86-118.

6 Colorado Sci. Soc., Proo., vol. 3,1888, pp. 119-133. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 37, 1889, pp. 261-282.

7 In earlier articles called the "Willow Creek beds."

Bull. 83 9
130 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

Distribution of Fossil Plants." The Eocene localities throughout the 

Interior region where fossil leaves have been found are cited and the 

literature of the subject freely quoted. A map showing the distribution of fossil plants in the United States is added.

The vice-presidential address of Dr. White 1 at the Toronto meeting 

of the American Association for the Advancement of Science is a most 

valuable contribution to the present discussion of the application of 

the European scheme of classification to the strata of the North American continent. That minute correlation is impracticable is clearly 

shown. The Laramie group is discussed in the light of recently acquired data.

In the Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, volume I, published in 1890, is an abstract of a paper upon " The Laramie Group," 

presented by Prof. J. S. Newberry, In this article Dr. Newberry declares u that the floras of the Laramie and Fort Union groups are 

totally distinct, and that these formations should be referred to different geological systems the Fort Union to the Tertiary, the Laramie to 

the Cretaceous." 2 In the discussion that follows he says: "In my 

judgment the Laramie is the top of the Cretaceous system. I do not 

know why it should be called post-Cretaceous. It is true there must 

be somewhere connecting links between the Cretaceous and the Tertiary, * * * but I know of no evidence that the Laramie is such a 

passage-bed." Dr. Newberry maintains " the interlocking of tlie Laramie and Fox Hills formations from several localities." In the discussion Prof. Ward admits that the floras of the Fort Union beds and the 

Laramie of Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico "are not identical 

they are very different," yet he maintains that there are eight or ten 

identical species; not one, as stated by Dr. Newberry. Further he 

says: " Whatever may be true in regard to a difference of age and it 

seems to me that the two must go together I am quite satisfied that 

a warmer climate prevailed during the period of the deposition of the 

Wyoming and Colorado beds than that which prevailed during the deposition of the Fort Union beds."

An important contribution to the structural relations of the Interior 

Eocene was presented at the same meeting by S. F. Emmons3 in a 

paper on the " Orographic Movements in the Kocky Mountains."

The reader has doubtless observed that in the present chapter much 

more attention has been devoted to the Laramie and Puerco groups 

than to the later horizons. This has been rendered necessary on account of the wide difference of opinion that has existed among those 

*who have studied these groups and the much more extensive literature 

that has resulted therefrom. Where, there has been practical agreement as to the interpretation of facts simple reference to the articles of 

importance has been deemed sufficient. For the reasons cited the lit1 Am. Assoc. A*d. Sci., Proc., vol. 38,1889, pp. 205-226. » Op cit., p. 525. 

3 Geol. Soc. America, Bull. vol. 1,1890, pp. 245-286.
CLAiiK.1 HISTORY OF EOCENE DEPOSITION. 131

erature of the Interior region has thus required fuller treatment than 

that of either the Atlantic aud Gulf Coast or Pacific Coast regions.

STRATIGRAPHICAL AND PALEONTOLOG-ICAL CHARACTERISTICS.

GENERAL REMARKS.

From what has been stated in the previous pages, it is obvious that 

very diverse opinions have existed as to the delimitation of the Eocene of the Interior. Quite general unanimity prevails at the present 

time as to the position to be assigned to the boundary between the 

Eocene and the Neocene, while hardly two writers agree as to the line 

of demarcation between the Eocene and Cretaceous.

This wide divergence of opinion among those who have had opportunities for extensive observation may be found in the use of different classes 

of facts and in the investigation of different areas. In the case of many 

writers stratigraphical data alone have been employed iu the consideration of the Eocene, while paleontological evidence has been for the 

most part ignored. Others, holding the stratigraphical relationship of 

the beds to be less important, essayed by the use of paleontological 

data to interpret the taxonomy of the deposits. Of the latter, two 

classes of investigators have been prominent, the one judging the evidence entirely from the standpoint of paleobotany, the other from that 

of vertebrate paleontology. As the development of the plants and 

animals in the Interior region has not been along the same parallel lines 

as in other areas, much confusion has resulted from an attempted correlation of the strata. By the vertebrate paleontologist much has been 

included within the Cretaceous that the paleobotanist has referred to 

the Eocene. Fortunately there appears, at the present time, a tendency to view the evidence in its entirety rather than to employ any 

single class of facts in determining the age of the various deposits.

The physical changes that took place during and subsequent to the 

formation of the Eocene deposits have so fully determined the character of the strata that a brief statement of the more important is imperative. For the elucidation of these points geology is indebted to Dr. 

White, and in the succeeding statement his ideas are largely followed.

Previous to the opening of the Eocene period an open sea had long 

prevailed over the western Interior region, in which a series of argillaceous and arenaceous sediments of great thickness had accumulated.

Throughout these deposits are found widely represented the typical 

marine forms of the Cretaceous.

With the elevation of physical barriers to the south the salt waters 

become brackish, the previous types of marine life could no longer maintain themselves within the area, and gave place to other forms better 

adapted to the changed habitat. Although the influence of these altered 

conditions is manifested iu the aqueous fauna, the continental animal 

life of the previous age was able to maintain itself for a longer time.
132 THE EOCENE. I BULL. 83

dinosaurian types, characteristic of the Cretaceous, persisted till the 

close of the brackish-water period.

With the still further increase of the physical barriers the brackishwater conditions were changed to fresh water; in some cases the invertebrate forms continued their existence, but on account of unknown 

causes a marked change occurred in the vertebrate life. There was a 

sudden appearance of highly developed mammalian types that must 

have existed for a long time without the Interior region, and contemporaneously with the dinosaurian fauna within the area. Whether, as has 

been suggested, the disappearance of certain barriers to their migration 

suddenly admitted the mammalia that in the struggle for existence soon 

overcame the reptilian fauna that had continued here to a later date 

than elsewhere will probably never be solved, but the explanation given 

affords a good working hypothesis.

The great fresh-water lakes continued with successively diminished 

areas during the remainder of the Eocene period. With the advent of 

the Neocene an extensive region was again covered with fresh-water 

lakes which finally became drained in the orographic movements accompanying the elevation of the Rocky Mountains. A few salt lakes alone 

remain to mark their former extension.

During late Tertiary and post-Tertiary times the great elevation 

that the Interior region received has admitted of extensive denudation 

throughout the area covered by Eocene strata. This, added to the arid 

climatic conditions prevailing widely throughout the territory, hns 

afforded advantages for geological investigations not to be found in 

either the Atlantic and Gulf Coast or Pacific Coast regions. Largely 

on account of these facts the stratigraphy of the Interior Eocene has 

been more accurately determined than that of either of the regions 

previously described. Accordingly, a consideration of the Eocene of 

the Interior under geographical limitations may be dispensed with and 

the formation discussed under its various subdivisions.

LARAMIE GROUP.

The strata of the Interior region, described under the name of the 

Laramie group, have been, for reasons already briefly cited, referred by 

some writers to the Cretaceous, by others to the Eocene. In the face 

of this conflicting evidence, and for reasons stated later, I have considered that the Laramie strata are to be referred partly to the one horizon, partly to the other.1 As the investigation of the deposits has thus 

far failed to reveal any satisfactory evidence as to the exact position of 

the dividing line, the entire series will be briefly outlined.

The term Laramie was first employed by members of the U. S. Geological Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel, and finds expression in 

Yol. I, Systematic Geology (1878), and Vol. II, Descriptive Geology 

(1877) of the reports of that organization. It had already appeared on

1 This position has already been taken by Dr. C. A. White in several of his published writings.
CLARK.1 LAEAMIE. 133

map 1 of the atlas, which was distributed in 1875. Hitherto the name 

Lignitic group, early proposed by Dr. Hay den, had been the generally 

accepted taxonomic term, though certain lignitic deposits, not correlated with that formation, had, at the same time, received local names 

from the place of their occurrence. The Judith Eiver beds, the Fort 

Union beds, the Bear Eiver Estuary beds, etc., had been thus designated by different writers and referred to various horizons in the geologic column. The term post-Cretaceous, suggested by Dr. White, 1 

found acceptance for a time, but has been now for the most part abandoned, as it soon was by himself.

The territory in which the Larainie group is represented covers a 

wide area along the eastern flank of the Rocky Mountains, extending 

from the region of its typical development in Wyoming and Colorado 

northward across Montana into Canada, and southward across New 

Mexico and Texas into Mexico. From the Eocky Mountains it extends 

eastward to the Great Plains. To the west of the Eocky Mountains it 

is found somewhat less widely represented, occuringiu Wyoming, Utah, 

Colorado, and New Mexico.

The deposits are chiefly sandstones, shales, and lignites. King has 

estimated the thickness of the strata on the eastern flank of the Eocky 

Mountains in Colorado at 1,500 feet, while in southwestern Wyoming 

the same observer has placed the thickness at 5,000 feet.

Over wide areas the strata lie approximately horizontal, though due 

to the great orographic movements that have taken place in the Inte: 

rior region the beds are often highly tilted. The Laramie is found resting conformably upon the next older or Fox Hill group, of whose Cretaceous age no doubts have been expressed. Overlying the Laramie conformably at some points, though uncouformably at others, is the Wasatch 

group, of whose Eocene age similar unanimity of opinion is found. The 

question that presents itself then is whether the Laramie is to be placed 

with the Cretaceous on the one side or with the Eocene on the other of 

the Mesozoic-Cenozoic dividing line.

We have found that the evidence presented by vertebrate paleontology unhesitatingly points to the Cretaceous, from the presence of 

Diuosauria, which elsewhere are not found later than the closing epoch 

of the Mesozoic. In fact the uppermost beds of the lignitic series have 

afforded dinosaurian remains. Cope, however, holds to the term " postCretacic" for the Laramie and Puerco groups, thus conceding a later 

age to the lignitic series of the West than many vertebrate paleontologists.

The weight of authority of the paleobotauists has afforded the chief 

support to the Eocene position. The types of plant life are decidedly 

late and several are identical or closely allied to living forms. Moreover, the Tertiary floras of other parts of the world are closely parallel 

to that of the Laramie. So late is the general aspect of the flora that

1 U. S. Geol. Surv. of the Territories, Bull., vol. 3,1877, p. (
134 THE EOCENE. [BULL.83.

many, including so distinguished a paleobotanist as Heer, have held 

the deposits to be Miocene.

The evidence afforded by invertebrate paleontology, upon which so 

great confidence is usually placed for purposes of correlation, is of little 

value. The conditions that obtained during the accumulation of the 

brackish-water Laramie deposits were such as to greatly change the 

invertebrate fauna that had hitherto found a peculiarly favorable 

habitat in the marine waters of pre-Laramie time. It seems not improbable that outside the barriers of the Laramie sea the marine forms 

still continued for a time their existence contemporaneously with the 

brackish-water species. The latter, on the other hand, ceased to exist 

as the waters became fresh, though in certain areas brackish and fresh 

water conditions prevailed at the same time, so that the fresh-water 

species of the Laramie continued their existence into the Wasatch 

period. The brackish-water types of the Laramie are not distinctive of 

the ago of the deposits. The Cretaceous character of the marine,invertebrates of the previous period has never been doubted, while the 

fresh-water forms of the succeeding period have been for the most 

part considered Tertiary. The brackish-water species might be either 

Cretaceous or Eocene, and are doubtless both.

As to the supposed incongruity of evidence afforded by the vertebrates and plants, it seems most fully to coincide .with the present 

method of geological reasoning to suppose that the conditions were 

favorable for the continued existence of the Mesozoic dinosaurian forms 

to a later period here than in other areas. The supposition that has 

been advanced that physical barriers precluded the entrance into the 

area of the mammalian fauna, that from its highly developed state in 

the succeeding period must have, before the close of the Laramie, commenced its existence outside, seems fully to accord with the facts. That 

the plants may have here presented forms that have elsewhere not 

been known till a later epoch is not improbable when we consider 

that the development of fossil faunas and floras have not been in many 

other portions of the globe always along identical lines.

From the evidence above presented there seems no incongruity in 

supposing that in the Laramie group we have represented the closing 

events of Cretaceous and the opening epoch of the E cene.

Concerning the approximately synchronous age of most of the lignitic 

strata of the Interior region, there is a rather general agreement of 

opinion. However, the lignitic strata of certain local areas, although 

held by many geologists to be identical with the typical Laramie, are 

by others thought to be of widely different age. Among these local 

deposits, in regard to which considerable discussion has hitherto taken 

place, may be mentioned the Fort Union beds of Montana, the Bear 

RlVftr Estuary beds of Utah, the Arapaho and Denver beds of Colorado.
CLABK.] FORT UNION ARAPAHO. 135

FORT UNION BEDS.

The deposits in the vicinity of Fort Union, on the Missouri River, 

were the first lignitic strata to be scientifically examined, having been, 

before 1860, explored by Dr. Hayden. During the progress of the U. 

S. Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories frequent investigations of the region were made and the results published in the 

various reports of that organization.

Although the same discussions as to the Cretaceous or Tertiary age 

of the deposits have been maintained here as in the more southern representatives of the Laramie, there has been a much more general will- 

'iugness to concede the Tertiary age of the former than of the latter. 

Prof. Ward,1 it is true, states that there would be " no inconsistency in 

assigning to the Fort Union an age as ancient as the closing period of 

the Cretaceous system." Prof. Newberry,2 who has for many years 

studied the Laramie and Fort Union floras, thinks that the two formations should be referred to different horizons, the former to the Cretaceous, the latter to the Tertiary. He says:

The Fort Union flora may be distinguished from that of the Laramie at a glance 

by its abundant species of Viburnum, Popnlus, Platanus, and Corylns, and it includes several species now living, such as Onoclea sensibilis, Taxodium distichum, and 

two hazels which can not be distinguished by their leaves from Corylus rostrata and 

C. Americana,

Prof. Ward, discussing these statements of Dr. Newberry, says 

" that although the difference in flora exists," yet the Laramie and Fort 

Union u most go together," and offers in explanation " that possibly 

the latitude, taken in connection with a different topography, such as 

may have existed in the two regions, might account for the great difference in the floras." Prof. Ward further gives a list of 8 identical species 

from the Laxamie and Fort Union groups. Dr. White, from a study of 

the molluscan fauna, likewise asserts the identity of the Fort Union 

beds with the Laramie group.

BEAK RIVER ESTUARY BEDS.

The liguitic strata upon the Bear River in western Wyoming and 

northwestern Utah have greatly puzzled the stratigraphical geologist 

and paleontologist. The deposits are unconformably overlain by the 

strata of the Wasatch group, while the fossils show little similarity with 

those of the typical Laramie from other regions. From what is known 

of the beds, their position, if they are to be assigned to the Laramie at 

all, is undoubtedly low down in the series. They will probably be 

found to be of earlier "age.

ARAPAHO BEDS.

The stratigraphical relations of the Arapaho beds, so named from 

Arapaho County in eastern-central Colorado, where the formation is

1 Geol. Soc. America, Bull., vol. 1,1890, p. 530. 2 Ibid., pp. 524-527.
THE EOCENE. . [BULL. 83.

best exhibited, have been investigated by Mr. George H. Eldridge, 1 of 

the U. S. Geological Survey.

The strata of this horizon are confined to a comparatively small area 

on the eastern flanks of the Rocky Mountains in the vicinity of Denver. 

The formation "is composed of- a basal member of conglomerate, or 

gritty sandstone, according to its distance from the foot-hills, with an 

overlying zone of gray argillaceous or arenaceous shales containing lenticular masses of hard quartzose sandstone with an occasional ironstone; 

where confined between under and overlying groups, it has a thickness 

varying between 600 and 1,200 feet. The conglomerate at its base has 

a thickness over a greater portion of the field of about 200 feet, though 

this may become the bulk of the formation, as in its type locality, or 

may decrease to the merest edge, as at its northern limit. It is extremely characteristic, containing as it does pebbles derived from every 

formation that lies below it in the Denver field, but also from others 

lying far beyond, especially the Carboniferous." Although the angle of 

dip is not materially different from the Laramie in some localities, " it 

is not uncommon to meet with the younger formation resting in the 

eroding hollows of the older, and containing rolled clays, ironstones, 

and pieces of sandstone evidently derived from the underlying beds."

The Arapaho beds have afforded dinosaurian remains that show 

their paleontological affinity to the true Laramie, with which they have 

generally been confounded.

The marked strati graphical separation above cited, together with the 

fact that the fossils, hitherto relied upon to associate this and the succeeding group with the Laramie, have been collected without reference 

to the horizons represented, afford us no definite evidence that the Arapho formation should be allied directly with the Laramie. When careful collections are made from the different horizons of what in the past 

has been termed Laramie, wider differences in fauna aud flora may be 

shown to exist than have hitherto been recognized,

Whether the Arapaho group then should be considered as representing a later epoch in the Laramie proper or separated entirely from it 

is a matter of considerable doubt.

DENVER BEDS.

The Denver beds, so called by Dr. Whitman Cross,2 are confined to 

a limited area in the vicinity of Denver, Colorado, where they are 

found to occupy a basin within the Arapaho formation.

The strata are composed very largely of audesitic materials in which 

both basic and acid types appear. In general the lower beds of the 

group are fine grained though very variable in texture, while the upper 

are represented by coarse conglomerates in which a considerable admixture of materials derived from the Archean and sedimentary rocks 

is found.

1 Colorado Sci. Soc., Proc., vol. 3, pt. 1, pp. 97, 08,100-102,1888. 

3 Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 37,1889, pp. 261-282.
CLARK.] DENVER PUERCO. 137

In explaining the origin of these audesitic materials Dr. Cross1 says:

There is no kuovvu source which can be assigned with plausibility for any one of 

the many audeaitic types represented in the Denver strata. * * * The andesitic 

masses which furnished the materials for the lower part of the Denver sediments 

were so situated as to effectually prevent the access of all Archean and sedimentary 

ddbristotho lake of that epoch. That is to say, in the interval between the Arapaho and Denver epochs there was an outpouring of andesitic lavas completely covering the Archean and sedimentary rocks of the area afterward contiguous to the 

Denver lake. When sedimentation began again ouly eruptive debris could appear 

in the deposits until erosion and general degradation had laid bare, here and there, 

small areas of granite, of gneiss or of sandstone.

Within these deposits is found an extensive fossil flora the true character of which is but imperfectly known. Hitherto the specimens collected from this formation have not been separated from those obtained 

from the underlying Laramie deposits, so that great confusion prevails. 

So far as they can be distinguished, many forms not found elsewhere 

occur.

In the vertebrate fauna the presence of Dinosaurs is interesting, showing that they were able to " survive the changes of condition attending 

a period of folding and another period of great volcanic activity."

The same difficulty in an attempted correlation of the Denver beds is 

found as in that of the Arapaho beds.

MIDDLE PARK BEDS.

O

An occurrence in many particulars similar to the Denver formation 

is to be found in Middle Park, Colorado, where a series of andesitic 

breccias and conglomerates, with intefstratified sands bearing plant 

remains, rests unconformably upon the Cretaceous. This series is estimated by Marvine 2 to reach 800 or 900 feet in maximum thickness. 

Overlying the andesitic beds are sandy shales, sandstones, and grits, 

chiefly of granitic origin, that in places are found unconformably resting upon the Cretaceous. Seams of lignitic material and numerous 

fossil leaves are found scattered through the series.

PUERCO BEDS.

The Puerco beds, first described by Cope 3 in the Annual Eeport of 

the U. S. Geographical Surveys west of the One Hundredth Meridian for 

1875, were long considered by that writer to belong to the Tertiary, although later referred to the "" post-Cretaceous." Eudlich 4 regarded the 

beds as a subdivision of the Wasatch.

The geographical extent of the Puerco is limited to northwestern 

New Mexico and southwestern Colorado, where it is found resting upon 

the Laramie and in turn overlain by the Wasatch.

1 Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 37,1889, p. 271.

2 U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, Ann. Eep. for 1873, p. 156. 

3 Ann. Eep. of the Chief of Engineers for 1875, appendix.44, p. 89. 

«¥. S. Geol. Surv. of the Territories, Ann. Eep. for 1875, p. 189.
138 THE EOCENE.

Lithologically it is characterized by sandstones and gray and green 

marls, the latter soapy in texture and giving a highly characteristic 

appearance to the country. At the point of its typical development, 

at the headwaters of the Puerco Eiver, west of the Jemez and Nadmiento Mountains, in New Mexico, it reaches a thickness of outcrop of 

about 850 feet.1

Cope 2 thus characterizes the faunal relations of the beds:

The fauna of this horizon is well distinguished from that of the Laramie in the 

absence of the numerous Diuosauria of the latter, and the presence of numerous 

Placental Mammalia in the former. On these grounds I at first referred the formation to the Cenozoic series, but further reflection induced me to place it as now 

arrauged. The reason is as follows: Although Placental Mammalia are not known 

otherwise from the Mesozoic beds, the other forms of the Puerco are especially 

Mesozoic in character. Such are the Choristodere Eeptilia and the Multfitubereulate 

Marsupialia, neither of which occur above, while both occur below the Puerco, the 

Multituberculata down to the Trias, inclusive. Then the Placentialia are entirely 

peculiar in the absence of the Diplarthra and of the Eodentia, orders always found 

*n the Cenozoic beds. Then the characters of the Condylarthra and Amblypoda and 

many of the Creodonta, which represent Tertiary types, are so peculiar that we are 

led to suspect that where tbe Cretacic Mammalia are fully known they can not differ 

widely from those of the Pnerco.

Concerning the stratigraphical position of this unique formation Dr. 

"White3 says:

The lowest strata in which the remains of this fauna have yet been found closely 

coincide in position with the top of the Laramie group; and they disappear suddenly upon a certain higher horizon which seems to come within the basal portion of 

the Wasatch group. Moreover, the known area within which this Puerco fauna has 

been found is only a small part of that within which the Laramie and the Wasatch 

groups occur. That is, the Puerco fauna has not been recognized at the majority of 

the localities where the Wasatch has been found overlying the Laramie. In some of 

the latter cases the two formations have been found to be clearly connected, not only 

by strict conformity of the strata, but also by an intermingling of their molluscan 

faunas; and in none of them has any indications of a missing formation been observed.

It will thus be observed that the relations of the Puerco beds to the 

Laramie and Wasatch in the area where represented is peculiar and 

" appears to mark an epoch in the history of vertebrate life of North 

America of which the invertebrate and plant remains, and the stratigraphical conditions of the series of deposits in which they occur, give 

no indication."

Whether the Puerco beds should be considered Cretaceous or Tertiary the evidence is as yet inconclusive, though it seems probable that 

they should be referred to the latter. If the upper portion of the Laramie may be considered such, the Puerco beds would necessarily be so 

interpreted, unless, perchance, they do not rest upon the latest horizon 

of the Laramie.

1 Am. Nat., vol. 19,1885, p. 985. 

2 Ibid., vol. 21,1887. pp. 450,451. 

3 Am. Jour. Sci., 3d sor., vol. 33,1887, p. 368.
CLARK.] WASATCH. 139

WASATCH GROUP.

The Wasatch group, so called from the Wasatch Mountains of Utah, 

upon the flanks of which deposits of this age are extensively developed, 

is fully characterized by Dr. Hayden in the various Annual Reports of 

the Geological Survey of the Territories. It is described by the members of the U. S. Geological Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel under 

the name of the Yermilion Creek group. The former term is, however, 

generally employed and is here retained by the writer.

The strata are found in four chief areas.

The region of southwestern Wyoming and northwestern Utah has 

been most extensively explored and consists of reddish sandstones and 

marls that according to King reach 5,000 to 5,500 feet in thickness.

In northwestern New Mexico a considerable tract of similar strata 

has been described by Cope, who estimates the thickness of the beds 

at 2,500 feet.

Intermediate between these two areas in the San Pete Valley of 

central Utah Dr. White has further determined the presence of Wasatch strata with a varied fresh-water inolluscan fauna.

In northwestern Wyoming, also, the Wasatch group has been identified and the beds estimated to reach 4,000 feet in thickness.

The Wasatch strata throughout much of their extent are conformable to the Laramie, but in western Wyoming and eastern Utah a marked 

unconformity is exhibited. As previously mentioned, the taxonomic 

position of the lignitic beds of the Bear Kiver area is doubtful, so the 

existing unconformity may possess less interest when the deposits are 

more fully comprehended. The strati graphical relations of the Wasatch 

and Laramie have been differently interpreted by White 1 and King,2 

the former considering that deposition was in part continuous during 

the Laramie and Wasatch periods, the latter that it was wholly interrupted.

The fauna of the Wasatch presents a varied series of invertebrate 

forms, chiefly molluscan in character, and of a typical fresh-water habitus. Some few are identical with species found in the fresh-water 

strata of the Laramie and others are found to persist into the later horizons of the Eocene. The vertebrate fauna is chiefly mammalian, and 

from the prevalence of the genus Coryphodon, Marsh has designated 

the Wasatch group the Coryphodou beds.

Cope 3 in characterizing the vertebrate life of the Wasatch states that 

it is marked by the u presence of Tseniodonta, Condylarthra, and Pantodon ta. Absence of Tillodonta, Diuocerata, Palieosyops, Hyrachyus, 

Amynodou, Achsenodon, Trilpopus, and suilline and selenodout Artiodactyla."

1 U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, Tenth Ann. Kept, for 1870, p. 35.

2 U. S. Geol. Exp]., 40th Parallel, vol. 1, Systematic Geology, 1878, p. 353 et seq.. 

8 Am. Geologist, vol. 2,1888, p. 287.
140 . THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

GREEN RIVER GROUP.

The Green Eiver shales have a much more contracted range than 

the deposits of the previous group and are confined in their typical development to the basin of the Green Eiver in southwestern Wyoming 

and western Colorado. Here they reach a thickness of about 2,000 

feet, and consist "of calcareous sands and slightly siliceous limestones 

which are overlaid by remarkable fissile calcareous shales."1 The lower 

member is about 800 feet in thickness, the upper 1,200 feet. The coarse 

materials of the preceding period are not present, and in general the 

sedimentation denotes deep and quiet water. According to King the 

deposits rest unconformably upon the Wasatch.2

The fauna of the Green Eiver group has quite a different character 

from that of the preceding or succeeding horizons, and consists chiefly 

of fishes, insects, and mollusks. The molluscan forms predominate in 

the lower division, while the fishes and insects are confined to the upper 

member of the series. A common molluscaii genus is the Goniobasis 

that ranges widely throughout the Eocene. The vertebrate fauna, 

represented by vast numbers of very perfectly preserved individuals of 

a few species of fishes is, according to Marsh, characterized by the 

genus Heliobatis, and for that reason the Green Eiver shales are designated in his classification as the Heliobatis beds. The fish-bearing 

strata contain numerous remains of insects. The types of fish are 

characteristically Eocene, and in the case of several genera begin to 

appear in the Wasatch. while two genera range from the latter into the 

Bridger.

WIND RIVER GROUP.

Although the beds occupying the upper basin of the Wind Eiver and 

described by Hayden as the Wind Eiver group in the various publications of the U. S. Geological Survey of the Territories do not afford, 

upon strati graphical grounds, a basis for a satisfactory correlation with 

any of the divisions of the southwestern Wyoming area, yet for reasons 

to be presently mentioned it is generally conceded that the Wind Eiver 

group represents the Green Eiver group, although Scott3 would consider it Lower Bridger in age.

Hayden states that the deposits consist of " light gray and ash-colored sandstones, with more or less argillaceous layers," and that " the 

strata are most beautifully variegated with various shades of pink or 

brick-red color, so that they sometimes remind one of the Jura-Trias 

red beds." The deposits extend along the Wind Eiver basin about 100 

miles, and are from 1 to 5 miles in width. The aggregate thickness of 

the strata is estimated at 1,000 feet or more.

Cope4 states that " the vertebrate fauna consists of the mammalian

1 II. S. Geol. Expl. 40th Parallel, vol. 1, Systematic Geology, 1878, p. 380.

* Ibid., p. 377.

1 Am. Phil. Soc., Trans., vol. 16,1889, p. 465.

«Am. Geologist, vol. 2,1888, p. 287.
CLABK.J WIND RIVER BRIDGES. 141

types Condylarthra, Tseniodonta, Pantodonta, Dinocerata, Palseosyops, 

and Hyrachyus." He further says:

This fauna indicates the transition between the Wasatch and Bridget, since types 

are here associated which are elsewhere peculiar to the two horizons uamed. Thus 

of the above zoological divisions the following are exclusively Wasatch, Taeuiodouta 

and Pautodonta. The remaining ones are Bridger, excepting the Condylarthra, 

which probably occur in both Bridger and Wasatch.

Upon paleoutological grounds, then, the Wind River group occupies a 

position intermediate between the Wasatch and Bridger groups of the 

southwestern Wyoming section, and may be considered the representative of the Green Eiver group.

MANTI BEDS.

In Sevier and San Pete Counties, in eastern Utah, calcareous shales 

somewhat similar to the Green Eiver strata in lithological character, 

and known as the Manti beds, are found. The vertebrate fauna is different, although Crocodilus and Clastes occur, forms which are represented in deposits that are found both above and'below the Green Eiver 

group. The Manti beds are 1 generally considered of Green Eiver age. 

They have been described at length by Prof. Cope.1

AMYZON BEDS.

Under the name of the Amyzon beds Cope2 includes deposits at Osino 

and Elko, Nevada, South Park, Colorado, and in central Oregon. As 

to the taxonomic posftion of the beds he expresses doubt, though he 

considers that they are probably late Eocene or early Miocene.

King 3 considers the Nevada strata of identical age with the Green 

Eiver group and has so described and mapped them.

There are no species identical with Green Eiver forms, although Trichophanes is reported by Cope to be closely allied to Amphiplaga of 

the Green Eiver group. On the other hand Amyzou and Trichophanes, 

which occur in Nevada, are also found at South Park, Colorado, together 

with Ehincaster and Atnia, neither of which appear in the Green Eiver 

group.

The beds at Florissant, Colorado, have been investigated by Peale 

and Scndder,4 the latter of whom has described the remarkable insect 

fauna that the beds contain. The strata consist of shales and sandstones and were deposited in a lake basin of limited area.

BRIDGEK GROUP.

The deposits of the Bridger group are found chiefly in southwestern 

Wyoming, on the northern flanks of the Uinta Mountains, and on both

'Am. Phil. Soc., Proc., 1880, vol. 19, p. 6 ; Am. Nat., vol. 14, 18SO, pp. 303, 304 ; Am. Nat., vol. 21, 

1887, p. 453.

2 Am. Nat., vol. 13, 1879; p. 332, Am. Phil. Soc., Proc., vol. 19, 1880, p. 61.

3 U. S. Geol. Expl. 40th Parallel, vol. 1, Systematic Geology, 1878, p. 393.

4 U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, Bull., vol. C, pp. 279-300, and Twelfth Ann. Kept, 

for 1878, 1883, pp. 271-293.
142 THE EOCENE. |Butt.83.

the east and west banks of the Green Eive'r. To the east of this region 

the strata appear also in portions of western Colorado. The larger 

area, to the west of the Green River, has been termed the Bridger Basin; 

the smaller, to the east, the Washakie Basin. Both by Hayden and Scott 

the deposits of these two "basins" are considered to represent different 

horizons of the Bridger proper, and Hayden not infrequently speaks of 

the Bridger and Washakie as separate formations. Scott1 says that 

but few vertebrate forms are common to the two areas. He considers 

the types of the Washakie Basin younger than those of the Bridger 

Basin, since the former area affords forms more closely allied to the 

Uinta fauna.

King states that the stratigraphical relations of the Bridger and 

Green River are with difficulty made out, though he thinks the " evidence is in favor of a true nonconformity."1*

The deposits consist largely of sands and clays, with frequent layers 

of chert and limestone. King estimates the thickness of the formation 

in the Bridger Basin at 2,500 feet and Cope that in the Washakie Basin 

at 1,200 feet. A very rich vertebrate fauna is found in which the mammalian genus Dinoceras is held by Marsh to be the most characteristic. 

He has designated the Bridger group as the Dinoceras beds on that 

account.

Of the molluscan types Uuio, Planorbis, Goniobasis, and Viviparus 

are the most common, and according to Dr. White " correspond closely 

with those of the Green River, some of the species being common to 

both, all indicating a purely fresh-water condition of the waters in which 

the strata of both groups were deposited." Remains of birds, reptiles, 

and fish in considerable numbers are also found in the deposits.3 Cope 

states that the Bridger is characterized by the " presence of Tillodonta, 

Condylarthra and Dinocerata, Hyrachyus, Pala3osyops, Amyiiodon, 

Triplopus, and Achranodon, absence of Tseniodonta, Pantodonta, and 

selenodent Artiodactyla."

HUERFANO BEDS.

On the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains, in Huerfano and Las 

Auimas Counties, Colorado, an extensive series of Eocene deposits have 

been found resting uuconforuiably upon strata of the Laramie and 

Colorado groups and containing vertebrate fossils (Tillotherium, Hyrachyus, Glyptosaurus, Palseosyops) that point to the equivalence of the 

beds with the Bridger group of southwestern Wyoming. The strata 

attain great thickness and their character is shown in the following 

section by Hills :4

1 Am. Phil. Soc., Trans., vol. 16,1889, pp. 464,465.

8 U. S. Geol. Expl. 40th Parallel, vol. 1, Systematic Geology, 1878, p. 395..

3 Am. Geologist, vol. 2,1888, p. 288.

'Colorado Sci. Soc., Proo.,vol.3, pt. 2,1889, p. 218.
CLARK.] HUERFANO UINTA. 143

Feet. 

Marls, clays, soft shales, and sands, of red, gray, yellow, green and purple colors,

red predominating .......... ........................................... 3,300

Pink and white massive sandstone ........................................... 300

Soft sandstones and fine conglomerates of a yellowish tint, with occasional

bands of yellow clay or marl............ .................. .............. 3,500

The discovery of fossils has hitlierto been limited to the upper division of the series.1 The beds have been folded and in the vicinity of 

Spanish Peaks extensively altered " by proximity to the laccolithic 

mass of the mountains and by the numerous radiating dikes."

UINTA GROUP.

The Uinta group, so named by King,2 is known only from the northern and southern flanks of the Uinta Mountains, in northern Utah and 

southern Wyoming. It has been called the Brown's Park group by 

Powell.3

According to Dr. White the strata are unconformable to the other 

Tertiary beds, and 

it is possible that this group was deposited continuously, at least in part, with the 

Bridger group, but at the places where the junction between the two .groups has been 

seen in this region there is an evident unconformity, both of displacement and 

erosion. The group consists of fine and .coarse sandstones, with frequent layers of 

gravel, and occasionally both cherty and calcareous layers occur. The sandstones 

are sometimes flrtn and regularly bedded, and sometimes soft and partaking of the 

character of bad-laud material. The color varies from gray to dull reddish brown, 

the former prevailing north of the Uinta Mountains and the latter south of them. 

The only invertebrate fossils that have been known to be discovered in the strata 

of this group are some specimens of Physa very like a recent species. Therefore, 

invertebrate paleontology has furnished no evidence of its assumed Tertiary age and 

lacustiine condition of its deposition. Its iresh-water origin, however, seems unquestionable, because of its intracontinenfcal position, its limited extent, and the fact 

that none but fresh-water deposits are known in this part of the continent that are 

of later date than the close of the Larauiie period. 4

From the presence of the characteristic mammalian genus Diplacodon 

the strata have been called by Marsh the Diplacodon beds.

According to Cope its vertebrate fauna is characterized by the 

" presence of Amy nodon and selenodont Artiodactyla; absence of Pantodouta and Diriocerata (Scott)."

Scott 5 says that the mammalian types of the Uinta are closely related to those of the Washakie Basin of the Bridger group. 

 * _________

1 Iii a more recent publication Hills (A bstract Colorado Sci. Soc., Proc., Feb. 17,1891) reclassifies the 

Huerfano beds as follows:

f Huerfano beds. = Bridger group. 

Huorfauo series (Eoceiio).................................. < Cuchara beds. t T ) Poison Canon beds, j ' Lower ^cene.

2 TJ. S. G-eol. Expl. 40th parallel, vol. 1, Systematic Geology, 1878, pp. 405-407.

3 U. S. Geol. and G-eog. Surv. of the Territories, II Div., G-eology of the TJiiita Mts., 1876, pp. 62,63.

4 U. S. Geol. and Geog. Sure, of tlio Territoriea, Tenth Ann. Kept., for 1876, pp. 37, 38. 

8 Am. Phil. Soc., Trans., vol. 16,1889, pp. 466-40?.
144 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83. 

SUMMARY OF CORRELATIVE EVIDENCE.

Thec liinits assigned to the Eocene of the Interior and the different 

divisions that have been established for it have been presented in the 

previous pages.

When the attempt is made, however, to correlate the various horizons of the Interior Eocene with the divisions of that series elsewhere recognized, we have but little to guide us. The conditions under 

which the deposits were here accumulated afford no parallel in any portion of the earth's surface investigated up to this time. Great inland 

basins that changed from brackish water to fresh water during this 

epoch supported an aqueous fauna that presents almost no points of 

comparison with the fauna of other regions. The vertebrate animal 

and plant life, although affording unequivocal proof of the Eocene age 

of the strata from the Wasatch on, does not give grounds for more detailed correlation.

The Larainie has afforded a few plant forms that by dewberry, 

Lesquereux, and Ward have been shown to be identical or closely related to types recognized in the Puget group of the Pacific Coast and 

the Lignitic of the Q-ulf border; but when so little is known of the 

plant remains of the American Eocene, or even with certainty of the 

geological range of plant species in general, correlations based upon 

Such evidence can have but little value. That the upper portions of 

the Laramie may represent a part at least of the Lignitic of the Gulf 

border and thus the Lower Eocene, as established for the Atlantic and 

Gulf Coast region, has been advanced by Dr. White, and, as it seems 

to the writer, upon good grounds. Further correlation of the various 

members of the Interior Eocene with divisions elsewhere established is 

at present impossible.

From a stratigraphical standpoint it has been customary to place 

the Wasatch group in the Lower Eocene; the Green Eiver and Wind 

Eiver groups, which are considered equivalent to one another, in the 

Middle Eocene, and the Bridger and Uinta groups, which occur in 

stratigraphical sequence, in the Upper Eocene. There is no evidence, 

however, that these divisions are equivalent to those similarly named 

in the Atlantic and Gulf Coast region.

The Wasatch, Gre§n Eiver, Bridger, and Uiuta groups, which occur 

in stratigraphical sequence in the Green Eiver Basin, may be said to 

afford the typical Eocene series of the Interior, though it is doubtful 

whether deposition was continuous throughout the time of their accumulation. The isolated occurrences of fresh-water Eocene elsewhere are 

interpreted generally by comparison with the southern Wyoming section ; still direct parallelism can not always be established.

The evidence for referring the upper portions of the Laramie to the

Eocene has been already mentioned. What proportion of Eocene time 

this horizon of the Laramie should be held to represent can not be
CLABK.J SUMMAEY OF CORRELATIVE EVIDENCE. 145

definitely stated, but that an appreciable amount should be so included 

seems probable.

Overlying the Laramie, in northern New Mexico, are the Puerco beds, 

that, both from their stratigraphical position and fossil remains, since 

they lie above the Laramie and below the Wasatch and contain types of 

life that point to their Tertiary affinity, have been placed in the Lower 

Eocene. Whether they rest upon the latest horizon of the Laramie or 

reach to or beyond the base of the Wasatch in other areas is an open 

question. The supposed break between the two is represented in the 

accompanying table as bridged over by the Puerco beds.

The Arapaho beds are found resting uuoonformably upon the Laramie, but there is no evidence that it is the top of that formation elsewhere exposed. In fact the Arapaho itself has been hitherto called 

Laramie. Certainly the faunal relations of the Arapaho and the overlying Denver beds point to their close affinity with the Laramie, though 

the structural relations of the deposits of these several horizons show 

a wide hiatus between them in the area of their occurrence. It seems 

probable that the Arapaho and Denver beds should be placed in the 

Lower Eocene, and doubtless below the base of the Wasatch group, 

since the life indicates an earlier period.

A large part of the Lower Eocene is supposed to be represented in 

the Wasatch group. The fauna was in a marked degree different from 

that of the preceding period and the conditions must have altogether 

changed to have admitted of its existence.

The Green River group is placed as the representative of the Middle 

Eocene. Correlated with this is the Wind River group, whose contemporaneity it is impossible to show, since the strati graphical relations of 

the deposits to the Wasatch and Bridger of the Green River Basin are 

unknown. The fauna, however, affords forms which show the intermediate position of the Wind River group between the Wasatch and 

Bridger, and thus in part, at least, its place as the representative of the 

Green River group. The limits of the two horizons may not be identical.

The Amyzon and Manti beds each afford a fauna that points to their 

dentity with the Green River group. The evidence presented admits, 

however, of only the most general comparisons, since but few identical 

forms have been recognized.

The Bridger and Dmta groups, which are found in superposition, 

have been referred to the Upper EDcene.

East of the Rocky Mountains a small area in southern Colorado presents a series of deposits that have been called the Huerfano beds, in 

which vertebrate types similar to "those afforded by the Bridger group 

of the Green River Basin have been found.

Many isolated occurrences of fresh water deposits throughout the 

Rocky Mountain area have been referred to the Tertiary, but as eviBull. 83 10 '
146 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

dence is lacking to prove their Eocene age? reference to them is omitted 

here.

A table is given below in which the approximate position of the deposits just mentioned in the Eocene series is presented. The lines do 

not indicate the relative thickness of the beds, but rather the proportionate part of Eocene time that may be tentatively assigned for their 

accumulation.

Table showing the relative position of the Interior deposits in the Eocene series.

Cretaceous.

Upper. Lower.

' """" " '

 '

~ 

 »=

Eocene.

Middle. Upper.
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 83.PL..1

SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION

EOCENE STRATA

Copiedfrom Plate XT Bulletin 43 

U. S. Geol. Si irvey.

ty 

EUGENE A.SMITH.

Scale I :2,535,000 = 40 M : I ir
EXPLANATION OF THE MAP.

The Eocene area designated upon the map embraces the extreme limits of outcrop 

of the deposits of that horizon and not necessarily continuouH exposure. More recent deposits frequently cover much of the surface, the Eocene outcropping only 

along the deeper river channels.

In the Interior region the Laramie is omitted on account of the difficulty of separating that portion to be referred to the Cretaceous, which in extent probably greatly 

exceeds that belonging to the Eocene.

Any adequate representation of the Eocene of the Pacific coast is wholly out of 

the question on account of the lack of available information. The limits of the 

areas designated are unknown.

147
BIBLIOGRAPHY.^ 

ATLANTIC AND GULF-COAST REGION.

AGASSIZ, L. [Age of Millstone Grit of Georgia.] Boston Soo. Nat. Hist., Proc., vol. 

2, 1846, p. 193.

AKERLY, S. An Essay on tlie Geology of the Hudson River and the Adjacent Regions ; 

Illustrated by a Geological Section of the Country, from the Neighborhood 

of Saudy Hook, in New Jersey, northward through the Highlands in New 

York, toward the Catskill Mountains. New York, 1820, 12 mo. 69 pp. and 

one plate.

ALDRICH, T. H. Observations upon the Tertiary of Alabama. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d 

ser., vol. 30, 1885, pp. 300-308.

 Notes on the TorMary of Alabama and Mississippi, with Descriptions of New 

Species. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., Jour., vol. 8, 1885, pp. 145-153.

 Notes on r,he Distribution of Tertiary Fossils in Alabama and Mississippi. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., Jour., vol 8, 1886, pp. 256,257.

 and MEYER, O. The Tertiary fauna of Newton and Wautubbee, Miss. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., Jour., 18fe6, vol. 9, No. 2,pp. 40-50.

BOOTH, J. C. Memoir of the Geological Survey of the State of Delaware; including the application of the geological observations to Agriculture. Dover, 

1841, 8vo, xi and 188 pp.

BUCKLEY, S. B. Notice of the Discovery of a nearly complete Skeleton of the Zygodon of Owen (Basilosaurus of Harlan) in Alabama. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 

44, 1843, pp. 409-412.

 On the Zeuglodon Remains of Alabama. Am. Jour. Sci., 1846, 2d ser., vol. 2, pp.

125-131. 

CAMPBELL, J. L. and H. D. William B. Rogers's Geology of the Virginias. A Review.

Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 30,188o, pp. 357-374; vol. 31,1886, pp. 193-202. 

CLARK, W. B. On the Tertiary Deposits of the Cape Fear River Region. Geol. Soo.

America, Bull., vol. 1, 1890, pp. 537-540.

 Third Annual Geological Expedition into southern Maryland and Virginia. 

Johns Hopkius University Circulars, vol. 9, 1890, pp. 69-71.

 Report of the Scientific Expedition into Southern Maryland. Johns Hopkins

University Circulars, vol. 10, 1891, pp. 105-108. 

CONRAD, T. A. On the Geology and Organic Remains of a part of the Peninsula of

Maryland. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Jour., vol. 6,1830, pp. 205-217.

 Fossil Shells of the Tertiary Formations of North America. Philadelphia, 1832, 

8vo, vol. 1,56 pp. 16 pis.

 Observations on the Tertiary and more recent formations of a portion of the 

Southern States. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Jour., vol. 47, 1834, pp. 

116-129.

 Observations on a portion of the Atlantic Tertiary Region. Pennsylvania Geol. 

Soc., Trane., vol. 1,1835, pp. 335-341, pi. 13.

 Observations on the Tertiary Strata of the Atlantic Coast. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 

28,1835, pp. 104-111.

 Fossils of the Tertiary Formations of the United States. Philadelphia, 1838, 8vo, 

89 pp. and 49 plates.

 Notes on American Geology. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 35,1839, p. 237-251.

 On the Silurian System, with a Table of the Strata and Characteristic Fossils. 

Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 38,1840, pp. 86-93.

 On the geoguostic position of the Zeuglodou, or Basilosaurus of Harlan. Am. 

Jour. Sci., vol. 38,1840, pp. 381-382.

 Observations on a portion of the Atlantic Tertiary Region, with a Description

of New Species of Organic Remains. Nat. Inst. Prom. Sci., Proc., Second

____Bull., 1842, pp. 171-194.____________________________

1 The works included in the bibliographic list are but a small portion of those examined in the preparation of the essay. Articles of a strictly paleontological character when unaccompanied by stratigraphical references, as well as those which have only a historical value, are for the most part omitted.

148
CLABK.I BIBLIOGRAPHY ATLANTIC AND GULF COAST. 149

CONRAD, T. A. Observations on the Eocene formation of the United States, with descriptions of species of shells, etc., occurring in it. Am. Jour. Sci.,2d ser., 

vol. 1,1846, pp. 209-220,395-405, pis. 1-4.

 Observations on the Geology of a part of East Florida, etc. Am. Jour. Sci.,2d 

ser., vol. 2,1846, pp. 36-48.

 Tertiary of Warren County, Mississippi. Am. Jonr. Sci., 2(1 ser., vol. 2,1846, pp. 

124,125.

 Eocene Formation of the Walnut Hills, etc., Mississippi. Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., 

vol. 2,1846, pp. 210-215.

 Observations on the Eocene formation, and descriptions of one hundred and five 

new fossils of that period, from the vicinity of Vicksburg, Mississippi, with 

an appendix. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci. Jour., new ser., vol. 1, 1848, pp. 

111-134. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 3,1847, pp. 280-299.

 Remarks on the Tertiary Strata of St. Domingo and Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 6,1852, pp. 198,199.

 Observations on the Eocene deposit of Jackson, Mississippi, with descriptions 

of thirty-four new species of shells and corals. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. 

Sci., Proc., vol. 7, 1855, pp. 257-263.

 Observations on the Eocene Lignite Formation of the United States. Am. Jour. 

Sci., 2d ser., vol. 40, 1865, pp. 265-268.

 Catalogue of the Eocene and Oligocene Testacea of the United States. Am. 

Jonr. Couch., vol. t, 1865, pp. 1-35.

 Observation on the EoceneLignite Formation of the United States. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Pioc., vol. 17, 1865, pp. 70-73.

 Notice of a new group of Eocene shells. Am. Jour. Sci., 2d eer., vol. 41", 1866, 

p. 96.-

 Check List of the Invertebrate Fossils of North America (Eocene and Oligoceue.; Smithsoniau Misc. Coll., vol.. 7, 1866, art. 6, pp. 1-41.

 Notes on American Fossiliferous Strata. Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 47, 1869, 

pp. 358-364.

 Descriptions of new genera and species of fossil shells of North Carolina in the 

State Cabinet at Raleigh. Geol. Sur. North Carolina, vol. 1, 1875, Appendix 

A., pp. 1-28.

COOK, G. H. Report of Prof. Geo. H, Cook upon the Geological Survey of New Jersey, 

and its progress during the year 1863. Trenton, 1864, 8vo, 13 pp.

 The Annual Report of Geo. H. Cook, State Geologist, to his excellency Joel 

Parker, President of the Board of Managers of the Geological Survey of New 

Jersey, for the year 1864. Trenton, 1865, 8vo, 24 pp.

 Geology of New Jersey. Newark, 1868, roy. 8vo, xxiv and 900 pp. and 5 maps. 

Atlas of 8 maps.

 Geological Survey of New Jersey. Annual Report of the State Geologist for the 

year 1883. Camden, 1883, 8 vo, 188 pp.

CORNELIUS, E. On the Geology, Mineralogy, Scenery, and Curiosities of Parts of 

Virginia, Tennessee, and of the Alabama and Mississippi Territories, etc., with 

Miscellaneous Remarks, in a letter to the Editor. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 1, 

1319, pp. 214-226, 317-3:51.

COTTING, J. R.' Report of a Geological and Agricultural Survey, of Burke and Richmond Counties, Georgia. Augusta, 1836, 12 mo. 198 pp.

COUPER, J. H. [The Burr Millstone and its Fossils at Bainbridge, Georgia.] Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., Proc., vol. 2, 1816, pp. 123-124.

CROOM, H. B. Some account of the Organic Remains found in the Marl Pits of 

Lucas Benuers, Esq., in Craven County, North Carolina. Am. Jour. Sci., 

vol.27,1835, pp. 168-171.

DALL, W. H. Notes on the Geology of Florida. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 34,1887, 

pp. 161-170.

DANA, J. D. [Eocene.] Manual of Geology (Revised Edition), 1880, pp. 489-527.

DARTON, N. H. Mesozoic and Cenozoic formations of eastern Virginia and Maryland. 

Geol. Soc. America, Hull., vol. 2,1891, pp. 431-450.

DESOR, E. [Eqnivaleucy of American and European Tertiary.] Boston Soc. Nat. 

Hist., Proc., vol. 3, 1850, p. 247.

DICKSON, J. Notices <)f the Mineralogy and Geology of parts of South and North 

Carolina. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. ;i, 1821, pp. 1-5.

EMMONS, E. Fossils of the Sandstones and Slates of North Carolina. Am. Assoc. 

Adv. Sci., Proc., vol. 11, part 2, 1857, pp. 76-80.

 Report of Prof. Emmons on his Geological Survey of North Carolina. Raleigh, 

1852, 12mo, 18 L pp.

 Report of the North Carolina Geological Survey, Agriculture of tbo Eastern 

Counties, together with Descriptions of the Fossils of the Marl Beds. Raleigh, 1858, 8vo, xvi and 314 pp.
150 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

FINCH, J. Geological Essay on the Tertiary Formations in America. Am. Jour.

Sci., vol.7, 1824, pp. 31-43. 

FONTAINE, W. M. Notes on the Mesozoic Strata of Virginia. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser.,

vol. 17, 1879, pp. 25-39, 151-157, 229-239.

 The Artesian Well at Fort Monroe, Virginia. The Virginias, vol. 3, 1882, pp.

18-19. 

GABB, W. M. and HORN, G. H. Monograph of the Fossil Polyzoa of the Secondary

and Tertiary Formations of North America. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci.,

Jour., new ser., vol. 5, 1862, pp. 111-179. 

GARDNER, J. S. On the relative ages of the American and English Cretaceous and

Eocene Series. Geol. Mag., new ser., decade m,-vol. 1, 1884, pp. 492-506.

 On the Relative Ages of the American and the English Cretaceous and Eocene 

Series. Brit. As-soc. Kept., 54th. Meet., 1884, pp. 739-741.

GEIKIE, A. [Eocene of America.] Text book of Geology, 1882, pp. 832-834, 853.

GIBBES, R. W. On the Fossil genus Basilosaurus, Harlan (Zeuglodon, Owen), with 

a notice of specimens from the Eocene Green Sand of South Carolina. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Jour., new. ser., vol. 1, 1847 pp. 5-15.

 Monograph of the Fossil Squalidaa of the United States. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. 

Sci., Jour., new. ser. vol.1, 1848-'49, pp. 139-147, 191-206.

HALE, C. S. Geology of South Alabama. Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser. vol. 6, 1848, pp. 

354-363.

HAMMOND, H. South Carolina. Resources aud Population; Institutions and Industries. Charleston, 1883, roy. 8vo, 726 pp.

HARLAN, R. Description of the Remains of the "Basilosaurus," a large Fossil Marine 

Animal, recently discovered in the Horizontal Limestone of Alabama. Pennsylvania Geol. Soc., Trans., vol. 1, 1835, pp. 348-357.

HARPER, L. Preliminary Report on the Geology and Agriculture of the State of 

Mississipi. Jackson, 1857, 8vo, 350 pp., 7 plates and map.

HAYDEN, H. H. Geological Essays; or an inquiry into some of the geological phenomena to be found in various parts of America, and elsewhere. Baltimore, 

1820. 8vo, vin, 412 pp.

HEILPRIN, A. A comparison of the Eocene Mollusca of the Southeastern United 

States and Western Europe in relation to the determination of identical 

forms. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 31, 1879, pp. 217-225.

 On the Stratigraphical Evidence afforded by the Tertiary Fossils of the Peninsula of Maryland. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 32, 1880, pp. 

20-33.

 On some new Lower Eocene Mollusca from Clarke County, Alabama, with some 

points as to the Stratigraphical Position of the Beds containing them. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 32, 1880, pp. 364-375, pi. 20.

 Notes on the Tertiary Geology of the Southern United States. Philadelphia 

Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 33,1881, pp. 151-159.

 Note on the Approximate Position of the Eocene Deposits of Maryland. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 33,1881, pp. 444-447.

 On the Relative Ages and Classification of the post-Eocene Tertiary Deposits of 

the Atlantic Slope. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 34,1882, pp. 150- 

186. .

 On the Occurrence of Nummulitic Deposits in Florida and the Association of 

Nummulites with a Fresh-water Fauna. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., 

vol. 34,1882, pp. 189-193.

 Contributions to the Tertiary Geology and Paleontology of the United States. 

Philadelphia. 1884,4to, 117 pp. and map.

 The classification and palaeontology of the U. S. Tertiary deposits. Science, vol. 

5,1885, pp. 475-476.

 Notes on the Tertiary Geology and Paleontology of the Southern United States. 

Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 38', 1886, pp. 57,58.

 The classification of post-Cretaceous deposits. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci.,

Proc., vol. 39,1887, pp. 314-322. 

HEINKICH, O. J. TheMesozoic Formation in Virginia. Am. Inst. Minin^ Eng., Trans.,

vol. (5,1878, pp. 227-274. 

HILGARD, E. W. Report on the Geology and Agriculture of thfe State of Mississippi.

Jackson, Ifi60,8vo, xxiv and 391 pp., map and 2 plates.

 Remarks on the new division of the Eocene, or Shell Bluff Group, proposed by Mr. 

Conrad. Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol.42, 1866. pp. 68-70.

 On the Tertiary Formations of Mississippi and Alabama. Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., 

vol. 43,1867, pp. 29-41.

 PieliminaTy Report Of a Geological ReeoimoiaBauce of Louisiana. New Orleans, 

1869, 8vo, 15 pp.

 - On the Geological History of the Gulf of Mexico. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 2, 

18/1, pp. -01-404. Annual Report of D. F. Boyd, Superintendent Louisiana 

State University, for the year 1871, pp.-207-2^3.
CLARK.] BIBLIOGRAPHY ATLANTIC AND GULF COAST. 151

HILGARD, E. W. On the Geological History of the Gulf of Mexico. (AVith a map). 

Am. As8oc. Adv. Sci., Proc., vol. 20, 1871, pp. 222-286.

 Supplementary and Final Report of a Geological Recounoissauce of the State of 

Louisiana. New Orleans, 1873, 8vo, 44 pp.

 The Later Tertiary of the Gulf of Mexico. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 22, 1881, 

pp. 58-65.

 The classitication and paleontology of the U. S. tertiary deposits. Science, vol. 

6,1H85, p. 44.

 The Old Tertiary of the Southwest. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 30, 1885, pp. 

266-269.

 Dr. Otto Meyer and the southwestern tertiary. Science, vol. 7,1886, p. 11.

HILL, R. T. The present Condition of Knowledge of the Geology of Texas. U. S. 

Geol. Surv., Bull. No. 45, 1887, 95 pp.

HITCHCOCK, E. First Anniversary Address before the Association of American Geologists, attlieir second annual meeting at Philadelphia, April 5, 1841. Am. Jour. 

Sci. vol. 41, 1841, pp. 232-275.

 Description of a Brown Coal Deposit in Brandon, Vermont, with an attempt to 

determine the Geological Age of the principal Hematite Ore Beds in the 

United States. Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 15, 1853, pp. 95-104.

 [Brandou Lignite Deposits.] Report on the Geology of Vermont, vol. 1, 1861,

pp. 226-240. 

HITCHCOCK, C. H. Note on the Cretaceous Strata of Long Island. Am. Assoc. Adv.

Sci., Proc., vol. 22, pt. 2, 1873, pp. 131,132.

 The Geological Map of the United States. Am. lust. Mining Eng., Trans., vol. 

15, 1887, pp. 465-488, map.

HODGE, J. T. Observations on the Secondary and Tertiary Formations of the southern Atlantic States. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 41,1841, pp. 332-348. Also in Assoc. 

Am. Geol., Trans. [Reports], pp. 94-107.

HOLMES, F. S. Notes on the Geology of Charleston, S C. Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., 

vol. 7, 1849, pp. 187-201.

 Observations on the Geology ofAshley River, South Carolina. Am. Assoc. Adv. 

Sci., Proc., vol. 3, 1850, pp. 201-204.

 Phosphate Rocks of South Carolina and the "Great Carolina Marl Bed." Charleston, 1870, 8vo, 87 pp.

HOPKINS.F. V. First Annual Report of the Louisiana State Geological Survey. In 

Annual Report of the Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana State Seminary 

of Learning and Military Academy for the year ending Dec. 31, 18(59. New 

Orleans, 1870, 8vo, pp. 77-109.

 Second Annual Report of the Geological Survey of Louisiana. In Annual Report of the Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana State University for the 

year ending Dec. 31, 1870. New Orleans, 1871, 8vo, pp. 1-35, with map.

 Third Annual Report of the Geological Survey of Louisiana. In Annual Report of D. F. Boyd, Superintendent Louisaua State University, for the year 

1871. 8vo, New Orleans, 1872, pp. 163-206, with map.

HOTCHKISS, J. Virginia: a Geographical and Political Summary, embracing a Description of the State, its Geology, Soils, Minerals, Climate, etc. Richmond, 

1876, 8vo, pp. iv, 319. and 4 maps.

JOHNSON, L. C. [On the Geology of Alabama.] Science, vol. 2, 1883, p. 777.

 The Structure-of Florida. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 36, 1888, pp. 2:50-236. 

KERR, W. C. Report of the Geological Survey of North Carolina. Vol. i, Phsicaly

Geography, Re"sum6, Economical Geology. Raleigh, 1875, 8vo, xvin, 325 and

120 pp., 8 plates, and map.

 Distribution and Character of the Eocene Deposits in Eastern North Carolina. 

Elisha Mitchell Sci. Soc., Proc., vol.2,1884-'85, pp.79-'64.

 Notes on the Geology of the Region about Tampa, Florida. Elisha Mitchell Sci. 

Soc., Proc., vol. 2, 1884-'85, pp. 86-90.

 The Eocene of North Carolina. " Am. Naturalist, vol. 19,1885, p. 69. 

KITCHELL, W. First Annual Report of the Geological Survey of the State of New

Jersoy for the year 1854. New Brunswick, 1855, 100 pp. and 4 plates. 

LANGDON, D. W., Jr. Observations on the Tertiary of Mississippi and Alabama, with

descriptions of new species. Am. Jour. Sci..3d ser, vol. 31, 1886, pp. 202-

209.

 Notes on Variations in the Cretaceous and Tertiary Strata of Alabama. Geol.

Soc. America Bull., vol.2,1891,pp. 587-606, pi. 23.

LEA, I. Contributions to Geology! Philadelphia. 1833, 8vo, 227 pp. and 6 plates. 

LKCONTE.J. [Eoceue] Elements of Geology. 1882, pp. 499-535. 

LEIDY, J. Description of Vertebrate Remains, chielly from the Phosphate Beds of

South Carolina. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci.,Jour., new ser., vol. 8,1874-1881,

pp.209-262. 

LESLEY, J. P. [Brandon, Vt., Lignites.] Iron Manufacturer's Guide, 1859, pp. 514,

518,539.
152 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

LESLEY, J. P. [Lignite Deposit at Pond Bank, Franklin County, Pa., and the postPaleozoic History of the Appalachian Region.] Am. Phil. Soc. Proc., vol. 

9, 1864, pp. 463-482.

LESQUEREUX, L. Ou some Fossil Plants of Recent Formations. Am. Jour. Sci., 2d 

ser., vol. 27,1859, pp. 359-3G6.

 On the Fossil Fruits found in connection with the Lignites of Braudon,Vt. 

Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 32,1861, pp. 355-363.

 On Species of Fossil Plants from the Tertiary of *;he State of Mississippi. Am.

Phil. Soc., Trans., new ser., vol. 13, 1870, pp. 411-433, pis. 14-23. 

LEWIS, H. C. A new Locality for Lignite. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol.

32, 18-10, p. 281.

 The Iron Ores and Lignite of the Montgomery County Valley. Philadelphia 

Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 32, 1880, pp. 282-291.

 The Iron Ores of the Brandon Period. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Proc., vol. 29,1880, 

pp. 427-4-28.

LISTER G. [Vertebrate remains from Washington County, Alabama.] Boston Soc. 

Nat. Hist., Proc., vol.2, 1846, pp. 94-96.

LOUGHRIDGE, R. H. Report on the Cot!on Production of the State of Texas, with a 

discussion of the General Agricultural Features of the Stale. Tenth Census 

of the U. S., vol. 5, 1884, pp. (553-831.

LYELL, C. On the Tertiary Formations and their connexion with the Chalk in Virginia and other parts of the United States. Geol. Soc. London, Proc., vol. 3, 

1842, pp. 735-742.

 Notes on the Cretaceous Strata of New Jersey and other parts of the United 

States bordering the Atlantic. Geol. Soc. London, Proc., vol. 4, 1844, pp. 

301-306.

 Notes on the Cretaceous Strata of New Jersey and parts of the United States 

bordering the Atlantic. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 47, 1844, pp. 213-214.

 On the Miocene Tertiary Strata of Maryland, Virgiuia, and North and South 

Carolina. Geol. Soc., London, Proc., vol. 4, 1845, pp. 547-563; Geol. Soc., 

London, Quart. Jour., vol. 1, 1845, pp. 413-429.

 Observations on the White Limestone and other Eocene or Older Tertiary Formations of Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia. Geol. Soc. London, Proc., 

vol. 4, 1845, pp. 563-576. Geol. Soc. London, Quart. Jour., vol. 1, 1845, pp. 

429-442.

 On the Newer Deposits of the Southern States of North America. Geol. Soc., 

London, Quart. Jour., vol. 2, 1842, pp. 405-410.

 [Letter on the Tertiary of Georgia and Alabama.] Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 

1, 1846, pp. 313-315.

 On the Delta and Alluvial Deposits of the Mississippi, and other points in the 

Geology of North America, observed in the years 1845, 1846. Am. Jour. Sci., 

2d ser., vol. 3, 1847, pp. 34-39.

 On the relative Age and Position of the so-called Nummulite Limestone of Alabama. Geol. Soc., London, Quart. Jour., vol. 4, 1847, pp. 10-16.

 On the relative Age and Position of the so-called Numtriulite Limestone of Alabama. Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 4, 1847, pp. 186-191.

MACFARLANE, J. AnAmerican Geological Railway Guide, etc. New York, 1879, 8vo., 

2l6 pp.; second edition, 1890, 8vb, 426 pp.

MACLURE, W. Observation on the Geology of the United States, explantory of a Geological Map. Am. Phil. Soc., Trans., vol. 6, 1809, pp. 411-428.

 Observations on the Geology of the United States of North America, etc. Am. 

Phil. Soc., Trans., new ser., vol. 1, 1817, pp. 1-92.

 Observations on the Geology of the United States of America. Philadelphia,

1817, 8vo, 130 pp. 

MARSH, 0. C. Address. [The Introduction and Succession of Vertebrate Life in

America.] (With a plate). Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Proc., vol. 26, 1877, pp.

211-258. 

MATHER, W. W. On the Physical Geology of the United States east of the Rocky

Mountains, and on some of the Causes affecting the Sedimentary Formations

.of the Earth. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 49, 1845, pp. 284-301. 

MAURY, M. F. Physical Survey of Virginia. (Prelimiuary Report.) Richmond, i,

1868, 8vo, 90 pp. n, 1878,8vo, 142 pp. 

McCRADY, J. Remarks on the Eocene formation in the neighborhood of Alligator,

Florida. Elliot, Soc. Nat. Hist., Proc., vol. 1, 1859, pp. 282-233. 

McGEE, W. J. Three Formations of the Middle Atlantic Slope. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d

Ser,, VOl. 35, 1888, pp, 120-143, 328-330,367-388, 448-466.

 The Appomattox Formation in the Mississippi Efflbajmenfc. Gr60l, SOC, America,

Bull., vol. 2, 1891, pp. 2-6. 

McGuiRE, W. W. On the Prairies of Alabama. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 26,1834, pp.

93-98.
CLARK.] BIBLIOGRAPHY ATLANTIC AND GULP COAST. 153

MELL, P. H. The Claiborne Group and its Remarkable Fossils. Am. Inst. Min. Eng.»

Trans., vol. 8, 1880, pp. 304-313. 

MEYER, O. The Genealogy and the Age of the Species in the Southern Old Tertiary.

Am. Jonr. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 29, 1885, pp. 457-468; vol. 30, pp. 60-72, 421-435.

 Successioual Relations of the Species in the French Old Tertiary. Am. Jour. 

Sci., 3d ser., vol. 30, 1885, pp. 151-153.

 The classification and paleontology of the U. S. Tertiary deposits. Science, vol. 

6, 1885, p. 143,144.

 Observations on the Tertiary and Grand Gulf of Mississippi. Am. Jour. Sci.,3d 

ser., vol. 32, 1886, pp. '40-25.

 Beitrag.znr Kenntniss der Fauna des Al ttertiiirs von Mississippi nnd Alabama. 

Bericht liber die benckenbergische naturforschende Gesellschaft in Frankfurt a. M. 1887, pp. 1-20.

 Some remarks on the present state of our knowledge of the North American 

eastern Tertiary. Am. Geologist, vol. 2,1888. pp. 88-94.

MILLER, S. A. North American Mesozoic and Cenozoic Geology and Paleontology. 

Cincinnati, 1881, 8vo., 338 pp.

MITCHELL, E. On the Character and Origin of the Low Country of North Carolina. 

Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 13, 1828, pp. 336-347.

MOUTON, S. G. Geological Observations on the Secondary, Tertiary, and Alluvial Formations of the Atlantic Coast of the United States of America. Arranged 

from the Notes of Lardner Vanuxem. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Jour., 

vol. 6,1829, pp. 59-71.

 Synopsis of the Organic Remains of the Ferruginous Sand Formation of the 

United States; with geological remarks. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 17,1830, pp. 

274-295; vol. 18, 1S30, pp. 243-250; vol. 23, 1833, pp. 288-294; vol.24, 1833, 

pp. 128-132. (With 3 pis. in vol. 18, 2 pis. in vol. 23, and 2 pis. in volt 24.)

 Tabular View of the Organic Remains hitherto discovered in the Cretaceous 

strata of the United States. Philadelphia Acad. Sci., Jour., vol. 8,1842, pp. 

216-227.

MURCHISON, R. I. Secondary and Tertiary Rocks and superficial deposits of North 

America. Geol. Soc., London, Proc., vol. 4,1843, pp. 127-133.

NEUMAYR, M. [Eocene of America.] Erdgeshichte. Vol. 2,1887, pp. 388-392,493- 

494,497-499.

OLMSTEAD, D. Report on the Geology of North Carolina, conducted under the direction of the Board of Agriculture. 1824, part I, 12mo.,44 pp. 1825, part n, 

12 mo.,58 pp.

 Notice of the Report on the Geology of North Carolina, conducted under the

direction of the Board of Agriculture. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 14, 1828, pp.

230-251. 

OWEN, D. D. First Report of a Geological Reconnoissance of the Northern Counties

of Arkansas, made during the years 1857 and 1858. Little Rock, 1858, 8vo.,

256, pp. ami 7 plates.

 Second Report of a Geological Reconnoissance of the Middle and Southern 

Counties of Arkansas, made during the years 1859 and 1860. Philadelphia, 

1860, 8vo.. 433 pp., 14 plates, and map.

PENROSE, R. A. F., Jr. A Preliminary Report on the Geology of the Gulf Tertiary of 

Texas. Geol. Surv. Texas, First Ann. Rept., for 18d9-'90, pp. 3-101.

PIERCE, J. Notice of the Alluvial District of New Jersey, with remarks on the application of the rich marl of that region to agriculture. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 6, 

1823, pp.237-242.

 Practical remarks on the shell marl region of the eastern parts of Virginia and 

Maryland, and upon the bituminous coal formation in Virginia and the contiguous region. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 11,1826, pp. 54-59.

PORTER, W. S. Sketches of the Geology, etc., of Alabama. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 13, 

1828, pp. 77-79. 

PRIME, F., Jr. A Catalogue of Official Reports upon Geological Surveys of the United 

States and Territories and of British North America. Am. lust. Min. Eng., 

Traus., vol. 7, 1879, pp. 455-525.

ROGERS, H. D. Report on the Geological Survey of the State of New Jersey. Philadelphia, 1836, 174 pp. and plate.

 Description of the Geology ot the State of New Jersey, being a final report. 

Philadelphia, 1840, 8vo, 301 pp., map, and plate.

 Address Delivered at the Meeting of the Association of American Geologists and 

Naturalists, held in Washington, May, 1844. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 47, 1844, 

pp. 137-160, 247-278.

ROGERS, W. B. On the Discovery of Green-sand in the Calcareous Deposit of Eastern 

Virginia, and on the Probable Existence of this Substance in Extensive Beds 

near the Western Limits of our Ordinary Marl. Farmers' Register, vol. 2, 

1834. Eeprinted in Geology of the Virginias, 1884, pp. 3-9.
154 THE EOCENE. [uuLL.83.

ROGERS, W. B. Further Observations on the Green sand and Calcareous Marl 

of Virginia. Farmers' Register, May, 1835. Reprinted iu Geology of the 

Virginias, 1884, pp. 11-20.

 Report of the Geological Reconnoissauce of the State of Virginia, made under 

the appointment of the Board of Public Works, 1835. Richmond, 18.56, 4to, 

f>2 pp., and plate. Reprinted, Philadelphia, 1836, 8vo, 143 pp. and plate, 

and in Geology of the Virginias, 1884, pp. 21-122.

 Report of the Progress of the Geological Survey of the State of Virginia, for 

1830. Richmond, 1837, 4to, 14 pp. Reprinted, Philadelphia, 1838, 8vo, and 

in Geology of the Virginias, 1884, pp. 123-145. 

 Report of the Progress of the Geological Survey of the State of Virginia for 1837. 

Richmond, 1838, 4to, 24 pp. Reprinted, Philadelphia, 1*338, 8vo, and Geology 

of the Virginias, 1884, pp. 147-188.

 Report of the Progress of the Geological Survey of the State of Virginia for 1839. 

Richmond, 1840, 8vo, 161 pp. Reprinted in Geology of the Virginias, 1884, 

pp. 245-410.

 Report of the Progress of the GeologicalSnrvey of the State of Virginia for 1840. 

Richmond, 1841, 8vo, 132 pp. Reprinted in Geology of the Virginias, 1884, 

pp. 411-535.

 Infusorial Deposit of Virginia in the Fort Monroe Artesian Well. The Virginias, vol. 3, 1882, pp. 151,152. Reprinted in Geology of the Virginias, 1884, 

pp. 733-736.

ROGERS, W. B. and H. D. Contributions to the Geology of the Tertiary Formations 

of Virginia. Am. Phil. Soc., Trans., new ser., vol. 5, 1835, pp. 319-341; vol. 

6, 1837-'39, pp. 347-370, 371-377, pis. 26-30.

 Contributions to the Geology of the Tertiary Formations of Virginia. (Abstract.)

Am. Phil. Soc.,Proc., vol. 1, 1839, pp. 88-90. 

RUFFIN, E. Report of the Commencement and Progress of the Agricultural Survey

of South Carolina for 1843. Columbia, 1843, 8vo, 120 and 55 pp. 

SAFFORD, J. M. Species of Fossil Plants collected near Sommerville, Fayette County,

Tennessee. Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 27, 1859, pp. 363,364.

 On the Cretaceous and Superior Formations of West Tennessee. Am. Jour. Sci., 

2d ser., vol. 37, 1864, pp. 360-372.

 Geology of Tennessee. Nashville, 1869, 8vo., xi, 550 pp., 8 plates, and map. 

SHALER, N. S. On the Phosphate Beds of South Carolina. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist.,

Proc., vol. 13, 1870, pp. 222-236. 

SHEPARD, C. U. Geological Observations upon Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. Am.

Jour. Sci., vol. 25, 1634, pp. 162-173.

 Note upon the origin of the Phosphatic Formation. Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 

47, 1869, pp. 338-340.

 Notes on the occurrence and composition of the Nodular Phosphates of South 

Carolina. Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 47, 1669, pp. 354-357.

SMITH, E. A. On the Geology of Florida. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 21, 1881, pp. 

292-309.

 Remarks on a paper of Dr. Otto Meyer on "Species iu the Southern Old Tertiary." 

Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 30, 1885, pp. 270-275.

 Tertiary phosphates in Alabama. Science, vol. 5, 1885, p. 376.

 Phosphalic Rocks of Florida. Science, vol. 5, 1885, pp. 395, 396.

 Report of the Subcommittee on Cenozoic (Marine). Am. Geologist, vol. 2,1888, 

pp. 269-284.

 and JOHNSON, L. C. Tertiary and Cretaceous Strata of the Tuscaloosa, Tombigbee, 

and Alabama Rivers. U. S. Geol. Surv., Bull. 43,1887,189 pp. and 21 plates.

TUOMEY, M. Discovery of a Chambered Univalve Fossil iu the Eocene Tertiary of 

the James River, Virginia. Am. Jour. Sci., vol 43, 1842, p. 187.

 [Correlation of South Carolina Eocene]. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 47,1844, p. 117.

 [Eocene of North and South Carolina.] Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Proc., vol. 1,1848, 

pp. 32,33.

 Report on the Geology of South Carolina. Columbia, 1848, 4to, VI, 293, and 

LVI. pp., plate, and two maps.

 First Biennial Report on the Geology of Alabama. Tuscaloosa, 1850, 8vo, 

xxxn, and 176 pp. and map.

 Description of some Fossil Shells from the Tertiary of the Southern States. 

Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 6, 1852, pp. 192-194.

TYSON, PHILIP T. First Report of Philip T. Tyson, State Agricultural Chemist, to 

the House of Delegates of Maryland, Jan., 1860. Annapolis, 1860, 8vo, xi, 

145, and 20 pp. and two maps. .

P. R. Observations ou the Eocene Tertiary and its Cretaceous Associates 

in the State of Maryland. Maryland Acad.'Sci., Trans., vol. 1, 1888, pp. 10- 

32.

Additions to observations on the Cretaceous and Eocene Formations of Maryland. Maryland Acad. Sci., Trans., vol. 1,1889-'90, pp. 45-72.
CLARK.] BIBLIOGRAPHY PACIFIC COAST. 155

UHLER, P. R. Notes and illustrations to "Observations on the Cretaceous and 

Eocene Formations of Maryland." Maryland Acad. Sci., Traus., vol. 1, 1690, 

pp. 97-1.04.

VAN RENSSELAEH, J. Lectures on geology. New York, 1825, 8vo, 358 pp.

VANUXEM, LARDNER. Remarks on the characters and classification of certain 

American Rock Formations. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 16, 1829, pp. '254-256.

VOGDES, A. W. Cretaceous and Tertiary of Charleston, S. C. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d 

ser., vol. 16, 1878, pp. 69,70.

WAILES, B. L. C. Report on the Agriculture and Geology -of Mississippi. Embraci ng 

a Sketch of the Social and Natwal History of the State. Jackson, 1854, 8vo., 

xx and 371 pp., 17 plates and map.

WHITE, C. A. The Application of Biology to Geological History. A Presidential 

Address Delivered at the Fifth Anniversary Meeting of the Biological Society of Washington, January 24,1885. Washington Biol. Soc., Proc., vol. 3, 

1886, pp. 1-20.

 On the relation of the Laramie Group to earlier and later Formations. Am.

Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 35,1888, pp. 432-438. 

WHITING, H. Cursory Remarks upon East Florida, in 1838. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 35,

1839, pp. 47-64. 

WINCHKLL, A. Notes on the Geology of Middle and Southern Alabama. Am. Assoc.

Adv. Sci., Proc., vol. 10, 1856, pt.2, pp. 82-93.

 Statistics of some Artesian Wells of Alabama. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Proc., vol.

10, pt. 2,1856, pp. 94-103. 

[ ] Limits of tertiary in Alabama. Science, vol. 3,1884, p. 32.

PACIFIC COAST REGION.

BECKER, G. F. Notes on the Stratigraphy of California. U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. No.

19, 1885, 28 pp. 

CONRAD, T. A. Fossil Shells from Tertiary Deposits on the Columbia River, near

Astoria. Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 5,1848, pp. 432, 433, pis. 2-9.

 Report of, on the fossil shells collected in California by W. P. Blake, geologist of 

the expedition under command of Lieut. R. S. Williamson. Pacific Railroad 

Preliminary Reports, 8vo, 1855. Appendix to Geological Report, pis. 2-9.

 Descriptions of the Fossil Shells. Appendix, Article n, to Geological Report by 

W. P. Blake. Pacific Railroad Reports, 4to, vol. 5, 1856, pp. 317-329.

 Catalogue of the Older Eocene Shells of Oregon. Am. Jour. Conch., vol. 1, 1865, 

pp.150-154.

 Observations on certain Eocene Fossils described as Cretaceous by Mr. W. M. 

Gabb, in his Report, published in the " Palaeontology of California." Am. 

Jour. Couch., vol. 1, 1865, pp. 3G2-365.

 Further Observations on Mr. Gabb's Palaeontology of California. Am. Jour. 

Couch., vol. 2,1886, pp. 97-100.

 Reply to Mr. Gabb on the Cretaceous rocks of California Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser.,

vol. 44,1867, pp. 376,377. 

COOPER, J. G. The Eocene Epoch in California. Are there really no Eocene strata?

California Acad. Sci., Proc., vol. 5, 1874, pp. 419-421.

 Note on Tertiary Formation of California. California Acad. Sci., Proc., vol. 5,

1874, p. 422. 

DANA, J. D. Geological observations on Oregon and Northern California. Wilkea

Exploring Expedition, vol. 10, 1849, pp. 611-678.

 [Pacific Coast Tertiary.] Manual of Geology .(Revised Edition). 1880, pp. 491- 

493,508.

DILLER, J. S. Notes on the Geology of Northern California. U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull., 

No. 33. 1886, 23 pp.

GABB, W. M. Reply to Mr. Conrad's criticism on Mr. Gabb's " Report on the Palaeontology of California." Am. Jour. Conch., vol. 2, 1866, pp. 87-92.

 On the Subdivisions of the Cretaceous Formation in California. California Acad. 

Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 3, 1867, pp. 301-306.

 On the subdivisions of the Cretaceous rocks of California. Am. Jour. Sci., 2d 

ser., vol. 44, 1867, pp. 226-229.

 Cretaceous and Tertiary fossils. California Geol. Surv., Paleontology, vol. 2, 

1869, pp. 1-299, and 36 plates.

HEILPRIN, A. On the Occurrence of Ammonites in Deposits of Tertiary Age. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 34, 1882, p. 94.

 On the Age of the Tejou Rocks of California, and the occurrence of Ammoiiitic 

Remains in Tertiary Deposits. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci.. Proc., vol. 34, 

1882, pp. 196-214. '

MARCOTT, J. Report on- the Geology of a Portion of Southern California in Annual 

Report of the U. S. Geographical Surveys west of the 100th meridian. Annual 

Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1876, pt. in, pp. 378-392.
156 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

NEWBERRY, J. S. On supposed Tertiary Ammonites. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci.,

Proc., vol. 34, 1882, pp. 194, 195. 

TRASK, J. B. Description of a new species of.Amtnouite and Baculite, from the Tertiary Rocks of Chico Creek. California Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 1, 1856,

pp. 92, 93. 

WHITE,C. A. Notes on the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Paleontology of California. U. S.

Geol. Snrv. Bull. No. 15, 1885, 33 pp.

 On the Marine Eocene, fresh-water Miocene, and other fossil Mollnsca of western North America. U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. No. .18, 1885, 26 pp., 3 pis.

 On new Cretaceous Fossils from California. U. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. No. 22, 

1885, 2F> pp., 5 pis.

 The Application of Biology to Geological History. A Presidential Address Delivered at the Fifth Anniversary Meeting of the Biological Society of Washington, January 24, 1885. Washington Biol. Soc., Proc., vol. 3, 1886, pp. 1-20.

 On the Puget Group of Washington Territory. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 36, 

188H, pp. 443-450.

 The North American Mesozoic. A Vice-Presidential Address Delivered at the 

Toronto Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, August, 1889. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., Proc., vol. 38, 1889, pp. 205-226.

 On Invertebrate Fossils from the Pacific Coast. [I. S. Geol. Surv. Bull. No. 51,

1889, 102 pp., 14 pis. 

WHITNEY, J. D. [Cretaceous (Eocene) of California]. California Geol. Surv.,

Geology, vol. 1, 1865, pp. 31, 35, 57, 190-192.

 [Tejon Group.] California Geol. Surv., Paleontology, vol. 2, 1869. Preface, p.

XIII.

WILLIS, B. Report on the Coal Fields of Washington - Territory. Tenth Census of 

the U. S., vol. 15, 1885, pp. 759-771.

<* 

INTERIOR REGION.

COPE, E. D. Synopsis of the Extinct Bacrachia, Reptilia, and Aves of North 

America. Am. Phil. Soc., Traus., vol. 14, 1868-'69, pp. 1-252.

 The Geological Age of the Coal of Wyoming. Am. Naturalist, vol. 6, 1872, pp. 

669-671.

 On the Tertiary Coal and Fossils of Osino, Nevada. Am. Phil. Soc., Proc., vol. 

12, 1872, pp. 478-481.

 Report on the Vertebrate Paleontology of Colorado. U. S. Geol. and Geog. 

Surv. of the Territories, (Seventh) Ann. Kept, for 1873, pp. 427-533.

 Review of the Vertebrata of the Cretaceous Period Found West of the Mississippi River. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, Bull., vol. 1, 

No. 2, 1874, pp. 5-48.

 The Vertebrata of the Cretacebus Formations of the West. U. S. Geol. and 

Geog. Snrv. of the Territories. Monograph, vol.2, 4to., 1875, iv and 302 pp.,. 

57 plates.

 Report of the Geology of that Part of Northwestern New Mexico examined 

during the field season of 1874. Ann. Rept. of the Chief of Engineers, 

1875, pt. 2, pp. 981-1017.

 Report unon the Extinct Vertebrata obtained in New Mexico by Parties of the 

Expedition of 1874. U. S. Geog. Surveys West of the 100th Meridian, vol. 4, 

Paleontology, pt. 2, 1877, 4to, iv and 370 pp., 83 plates.

 The Relations of the Horizons of Extinct Vertebrata of Europe and North 

America. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, Bull., vol. 5, 1879, 

pp. 33-54.

 The Auiyzon Tertiary Beds. Am. Naturalist, vol. 13, 1879, p. 332.

 On certain Tertiary Strata of the Great Basin. Am. Phil. Soc., Proc., vjol. 19, 

1880, pp. 60-62.

 The Manti Beds of Utah. Am. Naturalist, vol. 14, 1880, pp. 303, 304.

 The Tertiary Formations of the Central Region of the United States. Am. Naturalist, vol. 16, 1882, pp. 177-195.

 Synopsis of the Vertebrata of the Puerco Eocene epoch. Am. Phil. Soc., Proc. 

vol. 20, 1882, pp. 461-470.

 The Relations of the Puerco and Laramie Deposits. Am. Naturalist, vol. 19, 1885, 

pp. 985,986.

 The Mesozoic and Ceuozoic Realms of the Interior of North America. Am. Naturalist, vol. 21, 1887, pp. 445-462.

 Mesozoic Realm. Post-Cretacic System. Am. Geologist, vol. 2, 1888, pp. 265-

267.

 Report of the Sub-Committee on the Cenozoic (Interior). Am. Geologist, vol. 

2, 1888, pp. 285-299.
CLAKK.) BIBLIOGRAPHY INTERIOR. 157

COPE, E. D. Synopsis of the Vertebrate Fauna of the Puerco Series. Am. Phil. Soc.,

Trans., vol. 16, 1888, pp. -298-367. 

CROSS, W. The Denver Tertiary Formation. -Colorado Sci. Soc., Proc., vol. 3, part

1, 1888, pp. 119-133.

 The Denver Tertiary Formation. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 37, 1889, pp. 261-

282. 

DUTTON, C. E. The Physical Geology of the Grand Cafion District. U. S. Geol.

Surv., Second Ann. Rept. for 1880-'81, pp. 47-166.

 The Tertiary History of the Grand CaDou District. U. S. Geol. Surv., Monograph 

vol. 2, 1882, xiv and 264 pp.

ELDRIDGE, G. II. Ou some stratigraphical and structural Relations of the Country 

about Denver, Colorado. The Mining Industry, vol. 3, July 13,1888, No. 3, 

pp. 24, 25; July 20, No. 4, pp. 33-35; July 27, No. 5, pp. 44, 45.

 On some stratigraphical and structural Features of the Country about Denver, 

Colorado. Colorado Sci. Soc., Proc., vol 3,1888, part 1, pp. 86-118.

EMMONS, S. F. Orographic Movements in the Rocky Mountains. Geol. Soc. America, Bull., vol. 1, 1890, pp. 245-286.

ENDLICH, F. M. The San Juan Region. U. S..Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the Territo- 

' ries, Ninth Ann. Rept. for 1875, pp. 176-191.

 Report on the Geology of the Sweetwater District. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. 

of the Territories, Eleventh Ann. Rept. for 1877, pp. 5-158.

HAGUE, A., AND EMMONS. S. F. Descriptive Geology, U. S. Geol. Expl. of the Fortieth 

Parallel, vol. 2, 1877,4to., xn and 890 pp., 25 plates.

HARDEN, F. V. Notes Explanatory of a Map and Section Illustrating the Geological 

structure of the country bordering on the Missouri River from the mouth of 

the Platte River to Fort Benton, in lat. 47° 30' N., long. 110° 30' W. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci.,Proc., vol. 9,1857, pp. 109-116.

 [Remarks and observations in regard to the lignite beds of the country on the 

upper tributaries of the Missouri.] Am. Phil. Soc., Proc., vol. 10,1867, pp. 

300-307.

 Notes on the Lignite Deposits of the West. Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 45, 

1868, pp. 198-208.

 Formations of Nebraska. U. S.Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, First Ann. 

Rept. for 1867 (Reprint. Washington, 1873, pp. 55-64).

 Review of Leading Groups, etc. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, 

Third Ann. Rept. for 1869 (Reprint, Washington, 1873, pp. 189-192).

 U. S. Geol. Surv. of Wyoming and portions of contiguous Territories. U. S. Geol. 

and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, Fourth Ann. Rept., for 1870.

 Brief History of the Lignitic Group. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, Eighth Ann. Rept., for 1874, pp. 19-27.

HILLS, R. C. The recently discovered Tertiary beds of the Huerfano River Basin, 

Colorado. Colorado Sci. Soc.,Proc., vol. 3,pt. 1, 1888, pp. 148-164.

 Additional notes on the Huerfauo Beds. Colorado Sci. Soc., Proo.,vol. 3, pt. 2,

1889, pp. 217-223. 

KING, CLAUENCE. The Green River Coal Basin. U. S. Geol. Expl. of the Fortieth

Parallel,, vol. 3, Mining Industry, 1870, pp. 451-473.

 Systematic Geology. U. S. Geol. Expl. of the Fortieth Parallel, vol. 1, Washington, 1878, 4to, xii and 803 pp.

LECONTE, J. L. Notes on the Geology of the Survey for the Extension of the Union 

Pacific Railway, E. D. from the Smoky Hill River, Kansas, to the Rio Grande. 

Philadelphia, 18fi8, 8vo, 76 pp. and map.

LESQUEREUX, L. Fossil Flora. U. S. Geol. Surv. of Montana and portions of adjacent Territories. U. S. Geol. Surv. of the Territories, Fifth Ann. Rept., for 

1871, pp. 282-318.

 Lignitic Formation and Fossil Flora. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, Sixth Ann. Rept., for 1872, pp. 317-4<i7.

 The Lignitic Formation and its Fossil Flora. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the 

Territories, Seventh Ann. Rept., for 1873, pp. 365-425.

 On the Age of the Lignitic formations of the Rocky Mountains. Am. Jour. Sci., 

3d ser., vol. 7, 1874, pp. 546-557.

 On the Tertiary Flora of the North A merican Lignitic, considered an evidence of 

the Age of the Formation. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, 

Eighth Ann. Rept., for 1874, pp. 275-315.

 Contributions to the Fossil Flora of the Western Territories. Part u: The Tertiary Flora. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, Monograph, vol. 

7, 1878, xviii and 366 pp. 65 plates.

 Contributions to the Fossil Flora of the Western Territories. Part in : The 

Cretaceous and Tertiary Floras. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the J'erritories. Monograph, vol. 8, 1883, xii and 283 pp., 59 plates.
158 THE EOCENE. [BULL. 83.

MARSH, O. C.' On the Geology of the Eastern Uintah Mountains. Am. Jour. Sci., 

3d ser., vol. 1, 1871, pp. 191-198.

 Introduction and Succession of Vertebrate Life in America. A Vice-Presidential 

Address delivered at the Nashville Meeting of the American Association for 

the Advancement of Science, August, 1877. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci.,Proc., vol. 

26,1878, pp. 211-258.

 The Gigantic Mammals of the order Dinocerata. II. S. Geol. Surv., Fifth Ann. 

Kept., for 1883-'84, pp. 243-302.

 ..Dinocerata, a monograph of an extinct order of gigantic mammals. U. S. Geol. 

Survey Monograph, vol. 10,1886, pp. i-xviii, 1-243, pis. I-LVI.

MARVINE, A. R. Middle Park Deposits. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, 

Seventh Ann. Kept.,for 1873, pp. 83-192.

MEEK, F. B. Preliminary Paleontological Eeport, consisting of Lists and Descriptions of Fossils, with Remarks on the Ages of the Rocks in which they were 

found, etc. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, Sixth Ann. Rept., 

for 1872, pp. 431-518.

 A Report on the Invertebrate Cretaceous and Tertiary Fossils of the Upper Missouri country. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, Monograph 

vol. 9, 1876, LXIV, and 629 pp. 45 plates.

MEEK, F. B., and ENGELMANN, H. Notice of Geological Discoveries made by Capt. 

J. H. Simpson, Topographical Engineers, U. S. Army, in his recent Explorations across the Continent. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 12, 

1860, pp. 126-131.

MEEK, F. B., and HAYDEN, F. V. Descriptions of new species ef Gasteropoda from the 

Cretaceous formations of Nebraska Territory. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., 

Proc., vol. 8, 1856, pp. 63-69.

 Description of New Species of Acephala and Gasteropoda, from the Tertiary 

formations of Nebraska Territory, with some general remarks on the Geology 

of the country about the sources of the Missouri River. Philadelphia Acad. 

Nat. Sci., vol. 8, 18c6, pp. 111-126.

 Descriptions of new fossil species of Mollusca collected by Dr. F. V. Hayden in 

Nebraska Territory ; together with a complete catalogue of all the remains 

of Invertebrata hitherto described and identified from the Cretaceous and 

Tertiary Formations of that region. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., 

vol. 8, 1856, pp. 265-286.

 Descriptions of new Genera and Species of Fossils collected by Dr. F. V. Hayden in Nebraska Territory, under the direction of Lieut. G. K. Warren, U.

 S. Topographical Engineer; with so-ue remarks on the Tertiary and Cretaceous formations of the Northwest, and the parallelism of the latter with 

those of other portions of the United States and Territories. Philadelphia 

Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 9,1857, pp. 117-148.

 Descriptions of new Lower Silurian (Primordial), Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary Fossils, collected in Nebraska, by the Exploring Expedition under the 

command of Capt. William F. Raynolds, U. S. Topographical Engineers; 

with some remarks on the rocks from which they were obtained. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci., Proc., vol. 13,1861, pp. 415,447.

NEWBERRY, J. S. Notes on the Later Extinct Floras of North America, with Descriptions of some New Species of Fossil Plants from the Cretaceous and Tertiary 

Strata. New York Lyceum Nat. Hist., Annals, vol. 9,1867, pp. 1-76.

 [Report on Fossil Plants.] U. S. Geol. Surv. of Wyoming and portions of contiguous Territories. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, Fourth 

Ann. Rept.,for 1870,pp. 89,94,97,143,144.

 On the Lignites and Plant Beds of Western America. Am. Jour. Sci.,3d ser., 

vol. 7,1874, pp. 399-404.

 Geological Report of the Exploring Expedition from Santa F6, New Mexico, to 

the Junction of the Grand and Green Rivers of the Great Colorado of the 

West in 1859, under command of Capt. J. N. Macomb. Washington, 1876, 

4to, vn and 148 pp.; 8 plates and a map.

 The Laramie Group. Geol. Soc. America; Bull., vol. 1,1890, pp. 524-528. 

PEALE, A. C. Stratigraphy, Cenozoic Formations. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of 

the Territories, Eighth Ann. Rept., for 1874, pp. 140-162.

 The Laramie Group of Western Wyoming and Adjacent Regions. U. S. Geol. 

and Geog-. Surv. of the Territories, Bull, vol, 5,1879, pp. 195-200.

 Report on the Geology of the Green River District. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv.

of the Territories, Eleventh Ann. Rept., for 1877,pp. 511-646. 

POWELL, J. W. Exploration of the Colorado River of the West and its Tributaries.

Explored in 1869, 1870,1871, 1872. Washington, 1875, 4to, xi and 291 pp.

 JReport on the Geology of the Eastern Portion of the Uiuta Mountains, with a

- Region of Country Adjacent thereto. Washington, 1876, 4to, vii and 218 

pp., and atlas.
CLAKK.1 BIBLIOGRAPHY INTEKIOR. 159

SCOTT, WM. B. and OSBOUN, H. F. The Mammalia of the Uinta Formation. Am.

Phil. ,Soc.,Trans., vol. 1(5, 1889, pp. 461-572. 

SCUDDER, S. H. The Tertiary Lake Basin of Florissant, Colorado, between South

and Hayden Parks. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, Bull., vol.

6, 1862, pp.279-300; and U. S. Geol. and Geog. Snrv. of the Territories,Twelfth

Ann. Kept., for 1878, pp. 271-293. 

STEVENSON, J. J. The Geological Relations of the Lignitic Groups. Am. Phil. Soc.,

Proc., vol.14, 1875, pp. 447-475.

 Age of the Colorado Lignites. U. S. Geog. Snrvs. West of the 100th Meridian,

vol. 3, 1875, pp. 404-410. 

ST. JOHN, O. Report on the Geology of the Wind River District. U. S. Geol. and

Geog. Surv. of the Territories, Twelfth Ann. Rept.,for 1878, pp. 175-269. 

WARD, LKSTKR F. Synopsis of the flora of the Laramie group. U. S. Geol. Surv.,

Sixth Ann. Rept., for 18«4-'85, pp. 399-557, pis. 31-65.

 The Geographical Distribution of Fossil Plants. Q, S. Geol. Surv., Eighth Ann. 

Rept. for 1886-'87, pp, 663-960.

 Types of the Laramie Flora. U. S. Geol. Surv., Bull. 37, 1889, 354 pp., 57 plates.

 [Discussions.] Geol. Soc. of America, Bull., vol. 1, 1890, pp. 529-532.

WHITE, C. A. Paleontological Papers No. 3. Catalogue of the invertebrate fossils 

hitherto published from the fresh and brackish-water deposits of the western 

portion of North America. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, 

Bull., vol. 3, 1877, pp. 607-614.

 Paleontological Papers No. 5. Remarks on the paleontological characteristics 

of the Cenozoic and Mesozoic groups as developed in the Green River region. 

U. S. Geol. and Geog. Survey of the Territories, Bull., vol. 3,1877, pp. 625-629.

 Report on the Geology of a portion of Northwestern Colorado. U. S. Geol. and 

Geog. Snrv. of the Territories, Tenth Ann. Rept., for 1876, pp. 5-60.

 Paleontological Papers No. 6. Descriptions of new species of invertebrate fossils from the Laramie group. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, 

Bull., vol. 4, 1878, pp. 707-720.

 Paleontological Papers No. 7. On the distribution of Molluscan species in the 

Laramiegroup. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, Bull., vol. 4, 

1878, pp. 721-724.

 Report on the Paleoutoldgical Field Work for the Season of 1877. U. S. Geol. 

and Geog. Surv. of the Territories, Eleventh Ann. Rept., for 1877, pp. 161-319.

 Contributions to Invertebrate Paleontology. U. S. Geol. and Geog. Surv. of the 

Territories, Twelfth Ann. Rept. for 1878, pp. 5-171.

 A Review of the Non-marine Fossil Mollnscaof North America. U. S. Geol. Surv., 

Third Ann. Rept., for 18Sl-'82, pp. 403-550.

 Late Observations concerning the Mollnscau Fauna and the geographical extent of the Laramie group. Am. Jour. Sci.,3d ser., vol.25,1883, pp.207-209.

 A Review of the Fossil Ostreidaj of North America. U. S. Geol. Surv., Fourth 

Ann. Root., for 1882-'83, pp. 272-432.

 The Application of Biology to Geological History. A Presidential Address delivered at the Fifth Anniversary Meeting of the Biological Society of Washington, January 24, 1885. Washington Biol. Soc., Proc., vol. 3,1886, pp. 1-20.

 Relation of the Laramie Molluscan and Fresh-water Eocene Faunas. U. S. 

Geol. Surv., Bull. No. 34,1886,54 pp., 5 plates.

 On the Inter-relation of Contemporaneous Fossil Faunas and Floras. Am. Jour. 

Sci., 3d ser., vol. 33,1887, pp. 364-374.

 On the relation of the Laramie group to earlier and later Formations. Am. 

Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 35,1888, pp. 432-438.

 The North American Mesozoic; a Vice-Presidential Address delivered at the 

Toronto Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of 

Science, August, 1889. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci.,Proc., vol.38,1889,pp. 205-226.

 On the Geology and Physiography of a Portion of Northwestern Colorado and 

Adjacent Parts of Utah and Wyoming. U. S. Geol. Surv., Ninth Ann. Rept., 

for 1887-'88, pp. 677-712.

INDBX.

A.

Page. 

Agassiz, L,, on the stratigraphy of local

areas ................ .............. 28

on the formation of the peninsula of 

Florida......................... 56

Akerly, Samuel, on the "alluvial formation" of northern NOAV Jersey.... 19

Alabama, John Finch on deposits in .... 19

S. Porter on the shell deposits of.... 20

I. Lea on fossil shells from .......... 21,24

T. A. Conrad on the section at Claiborne .................-.--..----..- 21

T. A. Conrad on fossil shells from.... 21

Withers on the geology of St.

Stephen's Bluff in ................ 21

Chas. U. Shepard on the Eocene localities of ................... ...... 22

Henry C. Lea on the Eocene fossils

from ....... ............ ............ 24

connection of the "White limestone" 

of, with the " Greensand " of New 

Jersey, reported by Conrad ...... 25

Lyell on the section at Claiborne... 26 

Tuomey on the extent', structure, and 

stratigraphy of the early Tertiary 

of .................-- .- .- 31

presence of lignite horizon between 

Cretaceous and Eocene in, claimed 

byConrad......................... 32

divisions of .the Eocene in, proposed

byE. A. Smith .................... 35

reports of the State geological survey of, by E. A. Smith ............ 37

limits of the Eocene formations in.. 38 

character and extent of the Eocene

deposits of ........................ 57-66

theLigniticin........................ 58-61

Smith and Johnson's divisions of deposits of ._.._................ 58,59

theBuhrstone in ..................... 61,62

the Claiborne in....................... 62-64

the White limestone in ................ 64-66

correlation of the Eocene deposits of. 83 

character of the Gulf province in.... 87,88

Aldrich, T. H., contributions to Eocene

geology by......................... 36

Alien, , on Eocene stratigraphy.... 28

"Alluvial formation," extent of......_ 18,19

American and European Eocene, correlation of..........................16,88-89

Bull. 83 11

Amyzon beds, character of the........... 141

Cope on the age of..................... 141

localities of....................._.... 141

position of ............................ 145

Arapahobeds, character of.....:......... 136

dinosaurian remains from ...........: 136

limits of ............................... 136

position of......................_.... 145

Arkansas, D. D. Owen on the Eocene of... 31,75 

R. T. Hill's report on the Neozoic

formations of...................... 37

character of the Camden series (Lignitic) in.......:.................... 74,75

extent of the Eocene deposits in..... 74

character of the deposits of the

"Cleveland County red lands "of 75 

position of the deposits at Arkadelphia................................ 75

divisions of the Eocene in............ 83

Ashley and Cooper beds, character and

fossils of.._................._ 53

Atlantic and Gulf coast region, historical

review of the literature of ........ 17-37

boundaries of Eocene of.............. 38

origin of E ocene deposits of.......... 39

character of the outcrops in.......... 40

dip of Eocene strata in .._......... 40

difficulty in accurate correlation of the

deposits of.._.._...._...... 79

division of the deposits in._. ...... 79,80

four provinces of Eocene of _.._ 85 

table showing geological range of the

deposits..............'.............. 85

B.

Bailey, J. W., on orbitolite limestone in

Florida ............................ 29

Basilosaurus (Zeuglodon) described by R.

Harlan............................. 27

Bear River beds, age of..............115,116,135

Becker, G. F., on conformity between the

beds from Chico to Miocene .._ 99 

on the age of the Tejon group........ 102

on the position of the strata at Mount

Diablo.............................. 103

stratigraphical relations of the Tejon

group...... ...... ................. 103

Berthoud, E. L., on the age of the lignitic series of the Northwest. _.. 114 

161
162 INDEX.

Pago. 

Bibikov, N. A., on the discovery of lignite

in Richmond County, G a ......... 92

Bitter Creek series, Cope on the age of.. 118,119 

Booth, J. C., on the geology of Delaware. 23 

on the occurrence of Tertiary fossils

at Old Duck Creek, Del............ 43

Bouve", T. T., on Eocene fossils.........28,29,50

Brandon, Vt., Hitchcock on the age of the

brown coal deposit at............. 90

fossil fruit from, described by Lesquereux...................._..... 91,92

Lesley on the age of the lignites at.. 91 

Hitchcock on the deposits at......... 91,92

Brandon formation, character and extent

of................................... 90-94

Bridger group, Hayden on the position

of the............................... 117

White on the stratigraphical relations

of thel.............................. 123

Cope on the character of the.......... 126

character, thickness, fauna, and position of........................ 141,142,145

Bridger and Green River groups, King on

the relations of the................ 142

Buckley, S. B., on Eocene fossils......... 27,28

reports on the geological and agricultural survey of Texas by...... 35

Buhrstone, area and character of, in

South Carolina.................... 51,52

section of, atAiken, S. C .............. 52

character and extent of the deposits

in Alabama........................ 61,62

in Mississippi ................_....... 68

in Arkansas..... --.-.................. 75

in the Gulf province ...... ............ 87,88

C.

California, controversy between Gabb 

and Conrad on the age of the formations in................_...__ 96,97

description of a new group of fossils

from, by Conrad .................. 96

Whitney on the characteristics of the

Eocene in...__.'._............._..._ 98

name "Tejori group" proposed by

Whitney for Gabb's Cretaceous in 98

Dana on the age of the Tejon group.. 98

Heilprin on the age of the Tejon

group.............................. 98,99

Newberry on the age of the Tejon

group.............................. 98

Marcou on the age of theChico-Tejon

series.............................. 98,99

character of the deposits at Fort Tejon ............ -.-..... .... ........ 101

Becker on the character of the strata

at Mount Diablo .... .............. 103

character of the Tejon series in Contra Costa County.................. 103

character of the deposits at New Idria 102 

Camden series, Arkansas, character and

section of the .........._..._.. 74,75

Campbell, J. L. and H. D., on Eocene

geology ....._.__.........._ 36

Page. 

Carolina-Georgia province, character of

the deposits in .................... 87

Chattahoochee River, buhrstone on ...... 61

Chester, F. D., on the Cretaceous near

Appoquiuimink Creek, Delaware. 43 

Chico beds, Becker on conformity of, with

later deposits............._...... 99

ammonitic forms from ........._.. 108

Cretaceous age of .. _............ _. 108

fossils cited by Marcou as evidence

of Tertiary age of ................. 109

Chico-Tejon series, Marcou on the age of.99,10g 

White on the age of.._............. 99

White on the commingling of species

in the..................__..._... 106

fossils common to both divisions of.. 109 

Claiborne, Ala., I. Lea on fossil shells

from............................... 21

Conrad on the section at._.......... 21

equivalence of the beds at Fort Washington, Md., with those at........ 21

Lyell on the section at.... ........... 26

Claiborne Bluff, Ala., sections of ......... 62-64

Claiborne group, character of............ 62

detailed sections in Alabama......... 62-64

in Mississippi ..._................... 68

inArkansas .......--...--...-.-..--... 75

in the Gulf province .................. 87,88

Clark, W. B., cited on Eocene of Maryland................................ 44,45

on the section at Acquia Creek, Virginia..._........-....-.-...--...- 47

on intermingling of Eocene and cretaceous fossils in North Carolina. 49 

on section at Shell Bluff, Georgia.... 55

Cleveland, Parker, on the limits of the

"alluvial formation" . ......... 18

Coastal plain, position of the Eocene in.. 38 

Colorado, Cope on Tertiary fishes from.. 118 

Hayden on the correlation of the coalbearing beds of the Laramie plains 

and.......................-...-. 120

Scudder on the Tertiary lake basin at

Florissant.._... .. . ----- 125

Eldridge and Cross on deposits near

Denver..................... 129,135-137

the Puerco beds of southwestern..... 137

occurrence of Green River group in.. 140 

Amyzon beds in.-........-..----..-..-- 141

section of the Huerfano beds of .... .142,143

position of the Arapaho beds of.. 145 

position of the Denver beds of ........ 145

Conrad, T. A., on the geology and fossils

of Maryland ~-.-~ -- ~- 21,44 

on the Eocene formations of the

Southern States ..........-..-..-- 21

on the fossil shells of the North

American Tertiary................ 21

on the Atlantic Tertiary region...... 22

on the position of the Zeuglodon or 

Basilosaurus of Harlau........... 23

on Tertiary shells ......-..-....-..--.. 23

on Eocene fossils ..............'.27,28,29,31

on the Atlantic Tertiary and its fossils ............ .................... 24,25
INDEX. 163

Page. 

Conrad, T. A., on Aturia ziczac from the

upper marl bed of New Jersey.... 28

on the correlation of the "limestone"

of Florida.......:.................. 28

on the strata at San Domingo and

Vicksburg (Miss)....'.............. 29

table of the order of succession of

the Eocene groups by ............ 29

correlation of the upper marl bed of 

New Jersey with southern lignites by............................ 32

proposes name "Shell Bluff group" 

for certain southern Eocene 

strata characterized by Oslrea 

georgiana .......................... 32

on the Eocene lignitic formations of

the United States.................. 32

on the section at Shark River, New 

Jersey.............................. 32

contributions to the history of the

life of the Eocene by .............. 34

classiflcatory list of fossils published

by .................................. 34

new Eocene fossils from North Carolina described by ................ 35

marls of the upper marl bed of New

Jersey, referred to the Eocene by 40

Eocene organic remains from South

Carolina descri bed by........... _ 50

recognition of Eocene strata in Florida by...... ...... ................. 55

on the age of the Zeugodon and Orbitoides............................... 65

description of fossils from Jackson,

Miss, by ................. r .......... 68

on the stratigruphical position of the

Vicksburg group.................. 69

on the Eocene in New Jersey........ 80

comparison of American and European fossils by.................... t9

description of fossils from Southern

California by ...................... 96

controversy with Gabb on the age of

'the formations in California...... 96,97

fossils from Astoria, Oregon, described by.... ............ .......... 96

Cook, George H., on the Eocene marls of

New Jersey........................ 30-33

annual reports of the New Jersey

State Survey by .................. 37

blue marl of New Jersey described by 44

on the unconformity of the upper

marl bed to the Cretaceous........ 41

on the stratigraphical sequence of

the deposits of the upper marl bed 41 

Cooper, J. G., on the Eocene in California.... ........ ........ ........ .... 98

Cope, E. D., contributions to the history

of the life of the Eocene by........ 34

vertebrate fossils from the blue marl 

of the Upper Marl bed, New Jersey 

described by........................ 43

on the age of the Lignitic deposits 114,

117,118

Page. 

Cope, E. D., description of Tertiary fishes

from Colorado by.................. 118

on fossil vertebrates from the Eocene

of Wyoming.... ............ ...... 118

on the age of the Fort Union and

Bitter Creek series.... ..........118,119

on the character and age of the Puerco

group.. .... ......119,122.127,129,137,138

on the occurrence of forms common 

to the Fort Union and Judith 

River deposits........ ........ .... 119

on the vertebrates collected by Dawson on the Canadian boundary .. 119

on the geological position of the Laramie group .............._.......124,127

on the Amyzon Tertiary beds of Nevada ........ ........ .............. 125

on the Mantibedsof Utah...........125,141

on the character of the Puerco, Wasatch, Bridger, and Uinta groups 126

on the relations and age of the Puerco and Laramie deposits ........127.129

on the age of the Puerco group.. 127.137,138

division of the Eocene into four

groups by.......................... 129

on the vertebrate life of the Wasatch

group .............................. 139

on the vertebrate fauna of the Wind

River group ..................125,140,141

on the age of the Amyzon beds ...... 141

on the vertebrate life of the Bridger

group.............................. 142

on the vertebrate fauna of the Uinta

group....-.........--......--....-. 143

Cornelius, Ellas, on the limits of the "alluvial formation" of the Mississippi.... .......... .......... ...... 19

Correlation of Eocene deposits, difficulties of.............................. 16

in Atlantic and Gulf coast region.... 79-85

in Pacific coast region..._........ 108-110

in Interior region ....................144-146

Getting, J. R., on the Tertiary deposits of 

Burke and Richmond Counties, 

Georgia............................ 23,24

Couper, J. H., on the stratigraphy of

local areas ........ ........ ........ 28

Groom, H. B., on the Tertiary fossils of

Craven County, N. C.............. 22

Cross, C. Whitman, acknowledgment to 13

the deposits in the vicinity of Denver, Colo .......... ................ 129

on the Denver beds ..................136,137

Cucullaea gigantea. horizon of.......... 45

D.

Dall, W. H., ackuowledgment to ......... 13

contributions to Eocene geology by. 36 

on the limits of the.Eocene deposits

in Florida.......................... 56

Dana, J. D., on the age of the Tejon group 98 

Wilkes exploring expedition conducted by .......................... 96

Darton, N. H., contributions to Eocene

geology by ........................ 36
164 INDEX.

Page. 

Darton, N. H., discovery of Cardila planicosta in Delaware by .................. 43

on the existence of ttie Eocene in Delaware ._..__..-..- -.--.-----------.- 43

on the horizon of Cucullcea gigantea.. 45 

on the extent and character of the 

Eocene deposits in Virginia ...... 46,47

Dawson, G. M., on the age of the Port

Union beds ....................... 119

Delaware, J. C. Booth on the geology of 23,43 

Chester on the Cretaceous of.......... 43

Darton on the Eocene of.............. 43

Heilprin on the Eocene of............ 43

Denver beds, area and character of the.. 136 

Cross on the origin of the............. 137

fossil flora from the .................. 137

position of the .............-...--...-- 145

Desor, E., on the equivalence of the American and European Tertiary...... 29

Dickson, John, on the geology of parts of

North and South Carolina........ 19

Dinosaurian remains from Arapaho beds 136 

Ducatel, J., on the Tertiary area of Maryland........--..---..-.--..--..-...- 23

Dutton, C. E., on the Eocene, in the

Grand Canyon district........ 126

E.

Eldridge, G. H., on the deposits in the vicinity of Denver, Colo............ 129

on the Arapaho beds. ................135,136

Emmons, E., on the Eocene of North

Carolina .................. ........ 30

Emmons, S. F., on the structural relations of the interior Eocene...... 130

Emmons, S. F., and Hague, Arnold, on - 

the age of the Laramie formation ................................ 121

Eocene groups of the Northwest 

characterized by..................121,124

Endlich, F. M.,on the Puerco beds...... 122,137

on the geology of the Sweetwater

region.............................. 124

Eocene, limitations and divisions of .... 15,16 

first application of term to American

deposits by I. Lea.................. 21

European and American Eocene, correlation of............................16,88,89

F.

Featherstonhaugh, G. W, on the early

Tertiary strata in Arkansas ...... 24

Finch, John, on the correlation of the

American Tertiary formations... 19,20 

reference to Maryland Tertiary by... 44 

Florida, Charles U. Shepard on the Eocene localities of....--...---.._ 22

Maj. Henry Whiting on the geology

of............ .......... ............ 24

Conrad on the correlation of the

"limestone" in.................... 28

Conrad on the Eocene of.............. 28

J. W. Bailey on silicifled Poly thalamia 

 in................................... 29

Tuomey on the age of the Tampa Bay

limestone of ...................... 29

Page. 

Florida, limits of the Eocene deposits

in................................50,57,82

. fossils of the Eocene deposits of .... 57

Johnson on the Nummulitic in.... .57,82,83:

Florissant, Colo., Amyzon beds at.._.. 141 

Fontaine, W. M.,on early Tertiary stratigraphy ........................... 34,35

Fort Union beds, character and fossils

of ............ ...................... 11$

flora of. described by Newberry ...... 114

Newberry on the age of..............116,135>

G. M. Dawson on the age of.......... 119

Meek on the age of .................... 12ft

Ward on the age of............._.... 135-

correlated with the Wasatch by

White.............................. 122

Cope on the age of....................118,1191

Fort Union and Judith River deposits, 

Cope on the occurrence of identical forms in........................ 1191

Fort Union and Laramie group, White

on the identity of the.... _..._ 135-

Fort Washington, Maryland, section at.. 45

Fossils, early recognition of importance

of .............. .................... 17,18

from Eocene of New Jersey, Florida, 

and Mississippi, described by Conrad ................................. 28

(Zeuglodon) described by Harlan..... 27,28

from Shark River, New Jersey, described by Conrad.................. 32

from the blue marl of the Upper Marl 

bed, New Jersey, described by 

Whitfleld (list) .................... 46

(vertebrate species) from the Blue 

marl of the Upper Marl bed, New 

Jersey, described by Marsh and 

Cope (list) ........................ 43

from the Eocene of Maryland (list).. 45 

from the Eocene of the eastern shore

of the Chesapeake (list) .......... 45

from the Eocene of Virginia (list) .. 48 

from the Santee beds, South Carolina, described by M. Tuomey 

(list) ............................... 53

from the Ashley and Cooper beds, described by Tuomey................ 53

from the Bells Landing group of the

Lignitic in Alabama.... .......... 60

from the Claiboriie beds, Mississippi 68 

(Zeuglodon) in the Jackson group,

Mississippi..................... . 69

from the Vicksburg group........... 70,76

(plants) from Columbus and Wickliffe. Ky..described by Lesquereux 72 

(molluscan forms) from the Lignitic 

of Kentucky, described by Heilprin............ .. ..-.-.. 72,73

from the Eocene of South Carolina 81,82 

comparison of American and European Eocene...................... 89

from Branclon, Vt.... ............... 92

from the Eocene of California, described by Conrad ....... 96

from the Eocene of Oregon, described by Conrad.... ........_ 96
INDEX. 165

Page.

Fossils from the Eocene of Oregon, described by Shumard .............. 96

(Cardita planicosta) from Oregon, described by White.................. 99

referred to the Tejon group ........104,105

common to the Chico and Te j on groups 100 

from thePuget group ................ 108

(vertebrates) from Wyoming, described by Cope.................... 118

{plants) of the Interior region.cited by

Ward..............................129,130

from the Wasatch group ............ 139

(vertebrates) from the Wind River

group............................ 140,141

{insects) from the Amyzon beds at 

Florissant, Colo ........ .......... 141

(vertebrates) from the Uinta group 143

G.

'Gabb, W.M., on Eocene fossils ........ 31

controversy with Conrad on the age

of the* formations in California.. 96,97 

list of fossils referred to the Tejon

group by.......................... 104,105

list of fossils common to the Chico

and Tejon groups ................. 106

 Gardner, J. S., contributions to Eocene

geology by .... .................... 36

Georgia, John Finch on deposits at Shell

Bluff and Savannah Ewer, in .... 19 

T.A.Conrad on the section at Shell

Bluff, Savannah River, in ......... 21

ChaAes U. Shepard on the Eocene

localities of........................ 22

J. R. Getting on the Tertiary deposits

of Burke and Richmond counties. 23,24 

James T. Hodge on the Secondary and

Tertiary formations in ........... 24

correlation of the limestone of the

Savannah River, with that of

Florida, by Conrad................ 28

Joseph Jones on the Tertiary lime

formations of...................... 33

M.F.Stevenson on the geology and

mineralogy of...................... 35

reports of Geoi'ge Little, State geologist of.............................. 35

outline of the main features of the

Eocene of, by T. P. Janes ._._...>... 35 

J. T. Henderson on the boundaries and

general character of the Eocene

belt in.............................. 37

character and extent of the Eocene

deposits in......................... 54,55

D. W. Langdon, jr., on the section on

theChattahoochee River.in.._. 55 

Dr. Jones on the shell marl of Washington and Jefferson counties.... 55 

section at Shell Bluff, Savannah

River, in........................... 55

divisions of the Eocene in............ 82

the Braudonformation in............ 90

Bibikov on the discovery of lignite in

Richmond County................. 92

section near Berzelia, Richmond

County............................ 94

Gibbes, R. W., description of new fossils

by .................................. 28

on the character and geological horizon of the Zeuglodon...._....... 28

Gilbert, G. K., letter of transmittal by.. 9,10 

Grand Canyon district, Button on the

Eocene in the...................... 126

Great Carolina bed, M. Tuomey on ...... 27

designated by Ruffln.................. 27,51

Great Lignite group, Hayden and Meek

and Hayden on.the age of...... 112,113

southern extension of ................ 114

Green River, section of the Eocene at, by

Powell.......................... 119,120

Green River coal basin, age of............ 115

Green River district, Peale on the....... 125

Green River group, White on the stratigraphical relations of............ 123

extent, character, fauna, and age of

the................................. 140

position of the ...... ................ 144,145

Green River and Wind River groups,

equivalence of the............ .... 144

Gulf Province, geographical extent of.. 87 

Lower Eocene in ...................... 87

Middle Eocene in...................... 87,88

Upper Eocene in...................... 88

H.

Hague, Arnold, and Emmons. S. F., localities of Eocene groups in Utah, 

Nevada, and Wyoming mentioned 

by.................................. 121

on the age of the Lararnie formation. 121 

Eocene groups of the Northwest characterized by........................ 124

Hale, C. L., on the stratigraphy of local

areas............ .......... ........ 28

on the position of the Zeuglodon'.... 65

Hammond, H., onresources, etc., of South

Carolina.... ........ .... .... ...... 37

Harlan, R., Zeuglodon described as a saurian (Basilosaurus) by............ 27

Harper, L., on the geology of Mississippi. 31 

Hayden, F. V., map of the limits of the 

"Great Lignitic Tertiary Basin" 

prepared by......................112,113

on the great lignitic deposit....112,113,114

on the age of the Washakie group and

Green River shales................ 115

on the coal beds of the Laramie

plains................ ............116,120

on the Tertiary b-isin of southern

Wyoming............_........... 117

on the Washakie group.............. 117

on the character of the Wind River

group.............................. 140

on the Bridger group ................ 14?.

Hayden, H. H., on the geology of the

Coastal plain...................... 18

Heilprin, Angelo, acknowledgment to.... 13

contributions to Eocene geology by. 34,36 

on the general features of Eocene

stratigraphy.......... ...... ...... 37

on the existence of the Eocene in Delaware..._ f....................... 43
166 INDEX.

Page.

Heilprin, Angelo, correlation of the Ashley and Cooper beds with the Jackson group by...................... 53

on the limits of the Eocene deposits

in Florida.__.................... 56

molluscan forms from the lignitic of

Kentucky described by ........... 72,73

on the stratigraphical relations of the

.deposits in Texas.....-....-.-..-.. 77

on the Eocene in Texas.............. 84

on American and European Eocene

fossils......-.....------.......------ 89

on the age of the Tejon group, California.-.-...----...--.--------.--.- 98,99

Heinrich, O. J., on early Tertiary stratigraphy .............................. 34,35

Hematite ore beds, age of................ 90

Henderson, J. T., on the boundaries and 

general character of the Eocene 

belt in Georgia.................... 37

Hickman group, in Kentucky........_. 71,72

Hilgard, E. W., on the position of Shell

Bluff group ........................ 32

on the Orbitoides limestone and the

Vicksburg group of fossils........ 32

detailed observations on the geology

of Mississippi by .....-...---..- 33

reports on the geology of Louisiana

by....-.......-..------..-..:-...-. 33,34

on the age of the lignite deposits of

the Gulf States.................... 34

contributions to Eocene geology by 36 

on the position of the Zeuglodon.... 65

on the geology of Mississippi........ 66,67

generalized section of the deposits in

, Mississippi by...................... 67

on the character of the lignitic strata 

west of the "Flatwoods," Mississippi................................ 67,68

on the Claiborne bed in Mississippi 

and its fossils...................... 68

on the stratigraphical position of the

Vicksburg group .........._.... 69

section at Vicksburg Bluff, Mississippi, given by.................... 70

on the Mansfield group in Louisiana 76

on the importance of Ostrea georgiana 82

on the presence of orbitoides in the

Jackson group.__...._..._ 82 

Hill, R. T., contributions to Eocene geology by.............................. 36

report on the Neozoic formations of

Arkansas by.__._.................. 37

on the Lignitic formation (Camden

series) in Arkansas..._.._.... 74

on the character of the deposits of 

the "Cleveland County red lands,'' 

Arkansas .......................... 75

on the Eocene in Texas............... 84

Hills, R. C., section of the Huerfano beds,

Colorado..........................142,143

Hitchcock, C. H., on early Tertiary stratigraphy ........................... 34,35

Hitchcock, Edward, on the presence of 

 plastic clay formation" on 

Marthas Vineyard and the Elizabeth Islands ...........J........... 20

Page. 

Hitchcock, Edward, on the Tertiary strata

of Marthas Vineyard....._...... 25

on the lignitic strata of the eastern

United States ..................... 90

on the deposits at Brandon, Vt., ...91,92,93.' 

Hodge, James T., on the secondary and 

Tertiary formations of the southern Atlantic States....._._.... 24:

on the iron-ore deposits of western

New England...................... 90

Holmes, F. S., on the stratigraphy of local areas........................... 28

on Eocene fossils ............_.._. 29-

Hotchkiss, Jed.. on the Tertiary geology

of Virginia ........................ 35-

Hopkins, F. V., annual reports on the

geology of Louisiana by.......... 35

Huerfano beds, character, extent, fauna

and position of...............142,143,145>

I.

Illinois, the Eocene in .................... 75,8$

Interior region, historical review of the

literature of ......................111-131

conditions of deposition of the Eocene

in........ ..................131,132,144-145

table showing relative position of

Eocene groups in.................. 146

Jackson group, table showing geological

position of, by Conrad ............ 2$

Hilgard on the or bitolite limestone of. 32 

in Alabama.character, extent, and fossils of .............................. 64-66

named by Conrad ........ ............ 68

in Mississippi, character, extent, and

fossils of the ...................... 69

limits of the d eposits in Louisiana.. 76 

Hilgard on the presence of orbitoides

in the .............................. 82

Janes, T. P., outline of the main features

of the Eocene in Georgia by.. _. 35 

Johnson, L. C., contributions to Eocene

geology by ........ ................ 36-

on the limits of the Eocene in Florida. 56 

on the nummulitic formation in

Florida ............................ 57,82

Johnson, L. C., and Smith,-E. A., on the 

character of the lignite beds in 

Alabama .......... ................ 58

detailed section of Claiborne group,

Alabama .......... ................ 63,64

detailed description of subdivisions 

of the White limestone in Alabama ............ .................. 65,66

Jones, Joseph,on the Tertiary lime formations of Georgia and their fossils. 3$ 

on the shell marl of Washington

and Jefferson Counties, Ga..._. 55 

Judith River deposits, Leidy on the age

of the.............................. in

Meek and Meek & Hayden on the age

of the .........................112,113,120

correlated with the Laramie by

White..................... ...... 122-
INDEX. 167

Judith River and Fort Union deposits, 

Cope on the occurrence of identical forms in........................

Page.

119

Kentucky, reports of the geological survey of ...._....................... 31

reports by N S. Shaler on the geology of. .......--.... .--- 35,36

extent of the Eocene exposures in. .28,71,83

division of the series by Loughridge................ -------- 71

character of the Hickman deposits in- 72

extent of the Lignitic in.............. 72

fossil leaves from Columbus and

Wickliffe described by Lesquereux 72

Loughridge on the age of the deposits at Hickman ..........~.~-~~ 72

Loughridge on the character of the

Lignitic in (section)............-- 72

Molluscan forms from the Lignitic of,

described by Heilprin.......--. 72,73

Kerr. W. C., on theEocene inNorthCaroolina .....................------ 35,49

contributions to Eocene geology by.. 35,36 

King, Clarence, on the age and relations 

of the coal-bearing strata of the 

Green River coal basin......... 115

on the stratigraphical relations of the

Wasatch and Laramie groups.... 139

on the position of the Green River

groups ............--..---- ..--.--- 142

on the Amyzon beds....... - - 141

on the relations of the Bridger and

Green River groups.._...... 142

on the Uinta group (Browns Park

group of Powell).................. 143

Kitchell, William, reports o£ the State

geological survey of New Jersey by 30

L.

La Grange group, Tennessee, correlation 

of with the Appomattox formation ..._..................-------- 71

Langdon, D. W., jr., contributions to Eocene geology by.................... 36

on the section at the Chattahoochee

River ............. .............. 55

on the continuation of the Lignitic

into the Chattahoochee drainage . 60 

occurrence of the buhrstone in the

Chattahoochee notsd by .......... 61

on the Claiborne gi'oup on the Chattahoochee River................... 64

Laramie formation, Hague and Emmons

on ttis age of ......._............ 121

Laramie group, correlated with the Judith River beds by White ......... 122

Cope on the position of..._.......... 124

Lesquereux on the ags of ............124,127

White on the .........123,121,125,126,127,128

Neiimayr on the position of.._.... 127

Ward on the age of the................ 128

Cope on the age of............ ..... 129

Ward on the types of the flora of the. 129

Page. 

Laramie group, White on its relations to

earlier and later formations...... 129

discusssion of Newberry's paper on

the, by Ward ...................... 130

Newberry on the ...................... 130

character, extent, and age of the....132-135

position of the......................_ 144

Laramie and Port Union groups, White

on the identity of the..........._ 135

Laramie Plains, Hayden on the age of the

coal beds of....................... 116-120

Lea, Henry C., on Eocene fossils from

. Alabama........................... 21,24

Lea, L, on the Tertiary of the Atlantic

and Gulf coast ......._......._ 21

description of new fossils by ........ 28

comparison of American and Euro- 

'pean fossils by..................... 89

Le Conte, J. D., on the age of the lignitic 

deposits of Raton Pass, New Mexico.................................. 114

Le Conte, Joseph, on the formation of

Florida............................. 30,56

Leidy, J,, on vertebrate remains from

South Carolina ................... 34

on the age of the Judith River deposits .............................. 112

Lesley, J. P., on the age of the lignites at 

Brand on, Vt., and Chambersburg, 

Pa .1............................... 91

Lesquereux, L., contributions to the history of the life of the Eocene, by. 34 

description of fossil leaves from Columbus, and Wickliffe, Ky., by... 72 

fossil fruit at Brandon,Vt., described

by.................................. 91,92

on the age of the lignitic strata .....117,119

on the age of the coal-bearing series.. 117,118 

on the lignite deposits of Wyoming.. 118 

on the age of the Laramie group ....124,127

Lewis, H. C., on the discovery of lignite

in Montgomery County, Pa ...... 91

on the age of the lignite iron ores ..... 92

section of the lignite deposits at Marble Hall, Montgomery County, 

Pa., by............................. 93

description of Ecoene deposits near 

Berzelia, Richmond County, Ga., 

by.................................. 94

Lieber, Oscar M., descriptions of the stratigraphy of Soiith Carolina, by... 30,50 

Lignitic deposits, Tennessee ........32,34,71,83

Gulf States............................ 34

Alabama........................ . 58-61,83

Arkansas.........................34,74,75,83

Mississippi......................... 67,08,83

Kentucky............................71-73,83

Illinois ................................. 73,83

Missouri.............................73,74,83

Louisiana.............................. 76-89

Texas .................................. 78,84

correlation of Atlantic coast deposits

with..__.......................... 80-82

Gulf province.......................... 87,88

Vermont, Pensylvania and Georgia

(the Brand on formation)......... 90-94
168 INDEX.

Page.

Lister, G., on the character and geological position of the Zeuglodon..... 28 

Little, George, on the Eocene of Georgia. 35,54 

Loughridge, R. H., Nanafalia marl con- .

sidered Claiborne by.............. 60

on the character and subdivisions of

the Eocene in Kentucky.......... 71,72

on the character of the Tertiary in

Illinois............ ................ 73

on the general boundaries of Eocene

in Texas............................ 77

Louisiana, annual reports on the geology

of, by F. V. Hopkins .............. 35

Eocene boundaries in................ 38,39

localities and character of the Eocene deposits in..__....____.____.75,76,84 

Lyell, Charles, on American Tertiary

stratigraphy._ .................. 25

on the lithological similarity of the 

New Jersey Cretaceous to the Eocene and Miocene farther south.. 25

on the Tertiary strata of Marthas

Vineyard........................... 25

on the character of the Eocene in the

southern Atlantic States.......... 26

on the Miocene Tertiary strata of 

Maryland, Virginia, North and 

South Carolina.................... 26

on the geologic position of the Zeuglodon.................... .:_.__._. 26,65

on the section at Claiborne, Ala ...... 26

M.

Macfarlane, M., geological railway guide 35 

Maclure, William, classification adopted

by.................................. 18

Manti, beds, description of ................ 141

Marcou, Jules, Conrad's position on the 

age of the California formations 

sustained by ...................... 98

on the age and fauna of the ChicoTejon series .... _ ..............99,109

Marl, analysis of, by Cook................ 33

Marsh, O. C., on Eocene fossils .......... 31

contributions to the history of the 

life of the Eocene by........_... 34

vertebrate fossils from the Blue marl 

, of the Upper Marl bed of New Jersey described by................... 43

on the age of the lignitic deposits of

the Rocky Mountains............ 116,121

separation of the Eocene into four

divisions by ......................121,128

Marthas Vineyard, Edward Hitchcock

on the Tertiary strata of........... 20,25

Lyell on the Tertiary strata of........ 25

Marvine, A. R., on the thickness of the

Middle Park beds, Colorado ...... 137

Maryland, G. Troost on the stratigraphy 

of the region about Magothy 

River, Anne Arundel County in.. 20 

James Pierce on the marls of ........ 20

I. Lea on the equivalence of the Claiborne beds to those at Fort Washington in .... ...................... 21

Conrad on the geology and fossils of. 21

Page. 

Maryland, Conrad on the section at Fort,

Washington in .... ................ 21

J. T. Ducatel on the Tertiary area of. 23

Lyell on the Miocene Tertiary strata

of................................... 26

notice of Tertiary in reports of Higgins, State agricultural chemist.. 30

presence of lignite horizon in, between Cretaceous and Eocene 

claimed by Conrad ................ 32

reports of the State geological survey of, by Philip Tyson .......... 33

distance from the coast line and

width of the Eocene exposures in. 38

character and fossils of Eocene deposits in..........................43,45,80

section at Fort Washington.......... 45

correlation of Eocene deposits in..... 80

Maryland-Virginia province, character of

deposits in........."............... 86

Massachusetts, Whitneyontheageof the

hematite ore in .................. 90,91

Mather, W. W., on the geological reconnoissaiice of Kentucky, in 1838.... 24

Maury, M. F.. reference to Eocene stratigraphy of Virginia by........... 33

McCrady, J., results of observations on

the Eocene by.....--.---.....------ 30

McGee, W. J., contributions to Eocene

geology by ........................ 36

on the occurrence of the Eocene on

the Nottoway River, Virginia.... 46

the LaGrange group of S afford correlated with theApponaattoxformationby .......-----------------------.--71

Meek, F. B., on the age of the Fort Union

beds............-..--.-----.----.-- 120

on the age of the Green River coal 

basin.. -.. -----.------ 115,116

on the age of the Bear River beds...115,116

on the age of the Judith River beds.. 120

on the age of the Wind River group.. 120 

Meek & Hayden, on the age of the lignite deposits of the Upper Missouri River........................ 112

on the age of the Judith River deposits .-......-....---.......----112,113

fourfold division of the Tertiary formations of the Northwest by -.... 113

on the age and character of the Fort

Union (Great Lignite) group..... 113

on the character of the Wind River

deposits ....................... 113

section of the Tertiary formations of

the Northwest....................113,114

Mell, P. H., contributions to Eocene geology by-..-..-...-..-..........- 36

Meyer, Otto, on the order of succession 

of the Tertiary formations of the 

.Gulf States................... .. 36

comparison of American and European fossilsby........-......-_.. 89

Middle Park beds, Colorado, description

of.............................. 137
INDEX. 169

Pago. 

Miller, S. A., contributions to Eocene

geology by........................ 36

Mills's statistics, the geology of South

Carolina in......................... 20

Mississippi, contributions to the Tertiary

geology of, by Conrad ........... 28,29

table showing the geological position of the Jackson group in .... 29,30

Harper on the geology of ........ 31

Walles's report on the geology of., 31 

presence of lignite horizon between 

Cretaceous and Eocene in,claimed 

by Conrad.......................... 32

division of the early Tertiary into

four groups in .._.............. 33

observations on the geology of, by 

Hilgard............................ 33

extent of Eocene exposures in ...... 38

area, character, fossils, and subdivisions of the Eocene of............. 66-70

generalized section of the deposits in 67 

correlation of Eocene' deposits in.... 83

Mississippi River, Elias Cornelius on 

the limits of the " alluvial, formation" on......_ ................ 19

Missouri, area and character of the Eocene deposits in..................73,74,83

Missouri River region, Meek and Hayden on the age of the deposits in 

the................................ 112

Mitchell, Elisha, on the shell deposits of

South Carolina.................... 20

Morton, S. G., description of new fossils

by ............................'....22,26,28

comparison of American and Europeanfossils by.................... 89

Mount Diablo, California, character of

strata at.._ ......_ ........... 103

Murchison, R. I., on the older Tertiary

strata of America_............. 26

N.

Nanaf alia or Coal Bluff section of the Lignitic in Alabama......_..._.. 59,60

Neocene, character of ..........._....... 39,40

Neumayr, M., on the position of the Laramie group .._.___............ 127

Nevada, Hague and Enunons on the

Eocene formations in..._........ 121

Amyzon beds in......................125,141

Newberry, J. S., on the age of the Tejon

group of California .. _ ........ 98

plant remains from the Puget group

described by ...................... 108

on the flora and age of the Fort

Union beds....................114,116,135

on the age of the Green River shales 117 

Puerco group referred to the Cretaceousby................_......... 120

on the Laraniie group................ 130

New Jersey, James Pierce on the marl

deposits of ........_.__.__..._ 19

John Finch on the Tertiary deposits

of .................................. 19

Samuel Akerly on the " alluvial formation" of ........................ 19

Page.

New Jersey, similarity of the greensand 

beds of, to those of Virginia, mentioned by W. B. Rogers ........... 22,23

H. D. Rogers on the marls of Monmouth County, in..._............ 23

Correlation by Conrad of the Eocene 

deposits of, with the deposits of 

the Southern States .............. 25,32

Lyell on the lithological similarity of 

the Cretaceous of, to the Eocene 

and Miocene farther south....... 25

Conrad on Aturia ziczac from the

Upper Marl bed of ................ 28

Cook on the marl beds of..._........ 30,33

Conrad on fossil remains in ..._.... 32

Conrad on the section at Shark River 32 

Cook on the character and areal distribiition of the Eocene in ..... _ 33

Whitfleld on the Brachiopoda and 

Lamellibranchiata from Monmoiith County.._.............. 37

localities, character, and fossils of

the Eocene in ..........38,40,41,80,85,86

lists of Eocene fossils from .......... 42,43

Conrad on the Eocene in..........._ 80

New Mexico, Le Conte on the age of the

ligniticdeposits of ................ 114

the Laraniie group in.............._ 133

the Puerco beds in....................138,145

North Carolina, John Dickson on the

geology of.._................._ 19

Dennison Olmsted on the geology of. 20 

H. B. Groom on the Tertiary fossils

of................................... 22

James T. Hodge on the Secondary

and Tertiary formations in..._ 24 

Lyell on the Miocene Tertiary strata

of.....-.......-........-.-.--... 26

M. Tuomey on the character and age

of the marl in..................._ 27

Emrno'ns on the Eocene of............ 30

Conrad on the Tertiary in ............ 35

Kerr on the limits of the Eocene in.. 35,49 

chapters on geology in the Handbook

of................................... 37

extent and character of the Eocene

deposits in ................35,38,48-50,81

commingling of Cretaceous and Eocene fossilsiu........... ........ 50

O.

Olmsted, Dennison, on the geology of

North Carolina.................... 20

Orbitoides limestone of Florida.......... 29

Oregon, description by Conrad and Shuniard, Tertiary fossils from.....: 96

White on the occurrence of Cardita

2>lanicosta in ............._...... 99

localities of the Tejon strata in ...... 103

White on the age of the deposits at

Astoria in......._................ 105

Amyzoii beds in ....._............... 141

Ostrea georgiana, occurrence of, at Shell

Bluff, Savannah River ............ 32

Horizon of............................. 54

Owen, D. D., on the Eocene of Arkansas. 31,75
170 INDEX.

Page.

Owen, R., on the mammalian character 

of the Zeuglodon (Basilosaurus of 

Harlan)............................ 27,28

P.

Pacific coast region, two divisions of Eocene of............................. 95

historical review of the literature of .96-100 

Peale, A. C., on the age of the lignitic 

strata of Colorado and of the Judith River beds.... ................ 120

on the age of the Laramie, Wasatch,

Green River, and Bridger groups. 125 

on the Amyzon beds at Florissant,

Colo................................ 141

Pennsylvania, lignite deposits in ......91,92,93

section of the lignite deposits at Marble Hall, Montgomery County, in. 93 

Penrose, R. A. F., jr., on the Gulf Tertiary area.._....-..--__........_ 37

on the Tertiary deposits of Texas..77,78,84 

Pierce, James, on the marls of New Jersey, Maryland,and Virginia...... 19,20

"Plastic clay formation" on Martha's 

Vineyard and the Elizabeth Islands, reported by Edward Hitchcock................................ 20

Porter, S., on the shell deposits of Alabama..._.._..._.._....... 20

Prime, P., jr., on the lignite of Lehigh

County, Pa..._ .................. 91

Powell, J. W., section of the Eocene at

Green River, described by....... 119,120

on the Brown's Park group (Uinta

group of King).................... 143

Powell, J. W., and White, C. A., discussion of the Bitter Creek series by. 120,121 

Puercobeds, Cope on the. _119,122,126,127,129,

« 137,138 

Endlich on the........................122,137

area, age. character, thickness, and

fauna of the......119,120,126,137,138,145

referred to the Cretaceous by Newberry............................... 120

Pugetgrotip, White on the............... 100

Willis on the.......................... 107

area, character, and fauna of.... _.._107,108

section at Puget Sound of........... 107

plant remains from, examined by

Prof. Newberry ................... 108

ageof the.............................. no

R.

Ravenel, Edmund, on Eocene fossils from

South Carolina...............24,27,29,50

Roemer, Ferd. on the Eocene of Texas..29,31,

76,77 

Rogers, H. D., on the marls of Monmouth

County, N. J....................... 23

outline of opinions regarding American Tertiary formations by...... 27

on the character and geological position of the Zeuglodon........... 28

.Rogers, William B., on the. Eocene of

Virginia......................22,30,46-48

Page. 

Rogers, W. B. and H. D.,on the Tertiary

formations of Virginia............ 23

Ruffln, Edmund, on the "Great Carolina 

bed" and the Eocene of South 

Carolina............ .... ........27,50,51

on the character and fossils of the

Eocene marls......_............. 29

S.

Safford, J. M., on the Eocene of Tennessee ......................30,31-32,34,70,71

St. John, O., on the Wind River Eocene . 125 

St. Stephens Bluff, Ala., Withers on the

geology of ......................... 21

Santee beds, character of.................. 52,53

Say, Thomas, on fossil shells..... 21 

reference to Maryland Tertiary by.. M 

Scudder, Samuel, on the Tertiary lake

basin of Florissant, Colo ........125,141

Scott, William B., on the Bridger group. 142 

on the mammalian types of the Uinta

group.............................. 143'

Shaler, N. S., on early Tertiary stratigraphy ............................. 34,35

reports on the geology of Kentucky by 35,36 

Shell Bluff, Ga., character of the deposits

at ----.......---.-.................. 54,55

section at........_.................. 55

Shell Bluff group, Hilgard on the position

of ........ .......................... 32

name proposed by Conrad............ 32,54

characteristic fossil of................ 54

Shepard, Charles U., on the Eocene of

Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.. 22 

Shumard, Dr., on the lignite brown coal

of eastern and middle Texas...... 31

on fossils from Astoria, Oregon...... 96

Smith, E. A., divisions of the Eocene in

Alabama, by....................... 35

continued contributions to Eocene

geology, by........................ 36

reports of the Geological Survey of

Alabama, by..............:........ 37

on the limits of the Eocene deposits

in Florida.......................... 56

on the separation of the Lignitic

group from the Buhrstone ...... 58,59

section of Claiborne Bluff, Alabama,

by.................................. 62,63

Smith, E. A., and Johnson. L. C., divisions of the Alabama deposits, established by....................... 58

on the character and divisions of the

Lignitic in Alabama.............. 58,59

on the separation of the buhrstone of

Alabama from the Lignitic group. 61 

detailed section of the Claiborne

group, Alabama....__...-.-.-. 63,64

on the general features of the White

limestone in Alabama..._...... 65

detailed description of svibdivisions 

of the White limestone in Alabama............................... 65,66

South Carolina, John Dickson on the geology of............................ 19
INDEX. 171

Page. 

South Carolina, John Finch on Tertiary

deposits of......................... 19

the geology of, in Mills's statistics... 20 

Elisha Mitchell on the shell deposits 

of .................................. 20

Conrad on the section at Eutaw

Springs in ........................ 21

Dr. Morton on the fossils from the

"White limestone" of............. 22

Edmund Ravenel on Eocene fossils

from .... ................... .... 24

James T. Hodge on the Secondary

and Tertiary, formations in ...... 24

Lyell on the Miocene Tertiary strata

of ..__........_...........-.....-.. 26

Edmund Ruffln on the "Great Carolina bed" of ...................... 27

Tuomey on the age.of the Eocene formations in.._........ .......... 27

three divisions of the Eocene formations of, proposed by Tuomey... 28,51

annual reports of the State Geologist

of, Oscar M. Lieber................ 30

presence of lignite horizon between 

the Cretaceous and Eocene, ' 

claimed by Conrad................ 32

H. Hammond on the geology of ...... 37

area of Eocene exposures in.... .... 38

description of fpssils from .......... 50

area, character, subdivisions, and

fossils of the Eocene in ......50,54,81,82

Stevenson, M. F., on the geology and mineralogy of Georgia................ 35

on inland boundary of the Eocene

deposits in Georgia ..........._ 54

Stevenson, J. J., on the age of the lignitic

deposits of the Northwest........ 119

Sweetwater region, Endlich on the geology of the.......................... 124

T.

Tejon group, California, name proposed

by Whitney........................ 98

age of......_...j......_.......... 98,99

localities, character, extent, and age

of the strata of the..100,101,108,109,110 

character of the deposits in Contra

CostaCounty, Cal........_...... 103

localities of, in Oregon .........._. 103

fossils referred to, by Gabb and

White ............................104,105

fossils from the Dwamish River,

Washington,referred to_...... 106

Marcou on fossil genera from the.... 109

Tennessee, G. Troost on the geology of.. 24 

Safford on the lignite beds of........ 31,34

extent of the Eocene deposits in.... 38,70

area and character of Eocene in..70,71,83 

Safford's subdivisions of the Eocene

in........ ^......................... 70,71

Tertiai-y, twofold character of.......... 16

Texas, Roemer on the Eocene of..._.... 29,31

Shumard on the lignite brown coal of

eastern and middle ..........._ 31

reports of the Geological and Agricultural Survey of, by S. B. Buckley 35

Page.

Texas, Penrose on stratigraphical relations of the Eocene in Frst Annual Report of the Geological Survey...... ...... ............ ........ 37

area, character, extent, and fossils of

the Eocene of...................... 76-79

correlation of Eocene deposits of.... 84

Trask, J. B., description of new species

from Chico Creek, Cal., by ....... 96

Troost, G., on the stratigraphy of the region about Magothy River, Anne 

Arundel County, Md.............. 10

on the geology of eastern Tennessee. 24 

Tuomey, M., on the Eocene stratigraphy

of Virginia ........................ 24

on the character and divisions of the

Eocene in North Carolina... .27,28,50,51

on the character and geological horizon of theZeuglodon......_.... 28

on the Tampa Bay limestone........ 2ft

onEocene fossils...................... 29-

on the extent, structure, and stratigraphy of the early Tertiary of Alabama .................. -.:-__.... 31

on localities and fossils of the Buhrstone in South Carolina.......... 52

list of fossils from the Santee beds

by .................................. 55

list of fossils from the Ashley and

Cooper beds, by.._......._.... 53-

on the Eocene of Florida..._...... 55

Turritella Mortoni, horizon of ........... 45

Tyson, Philip T., on the Tertiary geology

of Maryland ...... ................ 33,44

U.

Uhler, P. R., contributions to Eocene geology by.............................. 36

characteristic fossils from the eastern 

shore of the Chesapeake reported 

by ........................!.......... 45

on the horizon of Gucullasa gigantea.. 45- 

Uinta group, Cope on the character of

the ................................ 126

named by King... ........ ....... 143-

White on the character and fossils of

the................................. 143"

Scott on the mammalian types of the. 143 

position of the ........_...........144,145-

Upper Marl bed of New Jersey, stratigraphical sequence of the deposits 

of -. - --. -- - 41 

Upper Missouri River, Meek and Hayden 

on the age of the lignite deposits 

of .................................. 112.

Utah, Hague and Emmons on Eocene

groups in ..........._............ 121

Laramie group in ......._........... 133

Bear River estuary in ......._..._ 135-

Uintagroupin ........................ 143:

Cope on the Manti beds of........... 125,141 , Wasatch group in.._..........._. 13*

V.

Van Rensselaer., Jer., on northern Tertiary series .................. _ .... 20
172 INDEX.

Page. 

Vanuxem, Lardner, on the limits of the

Tertiary ........................... 20

Vermont, the Brandon formation in _. 90-93 

"Vicksburg group, position of the Orbitolite limestone in................... 30

in Florida............................ 55,57,82

in Alabama..................... .-64,66,83

in Mississippi..................... 69,70,76,83

section at Vicksburg Bluff, Mississippi...........-.-... ---. - 70

in Louisiana................... 76,84

Virginia, John Finch on the deposits of

the James River in.._... 19 

James Pierce on the marls of .... . 20

W. B. Rogers on the Tertiary geology

of................................... 22,23

Lyell on the Miocene Tertiary strata of 26 

Maury's physical survey of .. 33 

Jed. Hotchkiss on the Tertiary geology of...................- ..-- 35

area of Eocene exposures in. . 38 

area, localities, character, and fossils

of the Eocene in..............46-48,80,81

section at-AcquiaCreek.. ........ 47

list of Eocene fossils from .._..... 48

Vogdes,A.W.,on early Tertiary stratigraphy ............. .... .... 34,35

W.

"Wailes,B.L.C., report on the geology of

Mississippi........................ 31

"Ward, Lester F., on the flora and age of

the Laramie group _.....__128,129 

localities of fossil leaves from the

Eocene of the interior region cited

by................................129,130

discussion of Newberry's paper on

the Laramie group by .. _.. _ 130 

list of identical species from the Laramie and Fort Union groups by 135 

on the age of theFort Union beds.... 135 

"Wasatch group, position of the..117,139,144,145 

correlated with the Fort Union by

White.............................. 122

White on the stratigraphical relations

of the.............................. 123

Cope on the character of the.......... 126

areas, relations, and fauna of the_. 139 

positionof the........................144,145

"Washakie group, Hayden on the........ 117

Washington,local!ties of the Puget group

in.... .............................. 100

White on the age of the Puget group

in .................................. 100

Tejon species from Dwamish River

in ...... ............................ 106

'the Puget group in ..................107,108

White, C. A., contributions to Eocene

geologyby......................... 36

on the presence of the Laramie in

Texas.............................. 78

on the Puget group.._........_ 95,100

on the occurrence of Cardita planicostain Oregon.................... 99

-on the ageoftheChico-Tejonseries.. 99

White,C. A., on the Chico-Tejon series, in

the vicinity of New Idria...... _ 102

fossils referred to the Tej on group by 105

on the age of the deposits at Astoria,

Oregon.._......_..._..__ 105

on the commingling of species in the

Chico-Tejon series ............._ 106

on the f aunal similarities of the Puget

and Laramie groups......____ 110

Fort Union group correlated with the

Wasatch by........................ 122

Judith River beds correlated with the

Laramie by .........^._......__ 122

table of porrelated general sections

of the western formations by.... 122, 123

on the conflicting evidence afforded 

by the fauna and flora of the Laramie group ........................127-128

comparison of the Laramie Sea to the

Caspian by ................_.... 127

on the relation of the molluscan and 

fresh water Eocene faunas of the 

Laramie group......_........... 128

on the contemporaneous existence of 

Cretaceous and Tertiary faunas 

and floras_...................... 129

on the relations of the Laramie to

earlier and later formations..._ 129

on the Laramie group.. 123,124,125,126,127, 

128, 129, 135, 139

on the stratigraphical relations of 

the Wasatch, Green River, and 

Bridger groups................_ 123

on the appearance of mammalia in the

beds overlying the Laramie..__ 125

on the position of the deposits overlying the Laramie_.__...._ 126

on the identity of the Laramie and

Fort Union groups................ 135

on the stratigraphical position of the 

Puerco beds........................ 138

on the stratigraphical relations of

the Wasatch and Laramie groups. 139

on the character of the Uinta group. 143 

White, C. A., and Powell, J. W., discussion of the Bitter Creek series by. 120,121 

White limestone in Alabama, detailed

description of...................... 64-66

Whitfleld, R. P., on Eocene fossils.... __ 31

on theBrachiopodaand Lamellibranchiata from Monmouth County, 

New Jersey........................ 37

list of fossils from the Blue marl of

the Upper Marl bed, New Jersey. 42 

Whiting, Maj. Henry, on the geology of

eastern Florida........_..._.. 24

Whitney, J. D., on the age of the hematite 

ore beds in western Massachusetts .............................. 90,91

on the Tejon group................... 95,98

on the characteristics of the Eocene

in California....................... 97

on the strata in Contra Costa Coiinty, 

California......................... 103
INDEX. 173

Page.

Willis, Bailey, on the deposits in the vicinity of Puget Sound and on the 

east slope of the Cascade Mountains...........................99,100,107

Winchell, Alex., on the' Eocene of Alabama............................... 30,36

Wind River beds0 of Wyoming, Cope on the 125 

character of the....................... 115

Meek oil the age of the............-.-. 120

St. John on the character of the ..... 125

age, character, and fauna of the....140,141,

144,145 

Wind River and Green River groups,

equivalence of the..._.....'..... 144

Withers, R. W., on the geology <jf St.

Stephens Bluff, Alabama......... 21

Worthen, A. H., on the extent of the

Eocene strata in Illinois.....-...- 73

Wyman, Jeffries, on the character and 

geological horizon of the Zeuglodon.............................. 28

Wyoming, Hayden on the Tertiary basin

Of...................- .-..... . H7

Cope on fossil vertebrates from ...... 118

Lesquereux on the lignite deposits of. 118 

Hague>nd Emmons on Eocene groups

in................................... 121

Cope on the Wind River bedsof...... 125

Page. 

Wyoming, Laramie group in............. 133-

Wasatch group in..................... 139-

Green River group in_......_.... 1401

Bridger group in .....................141,142.

Uinta group in ........................ 143.

Zeuglodon, Conrad on the geologic position of.............................. 23

Lyell on the geologic position of..... 26,65-'

described as a saurian (Basilosaurus)

by Harlan.......................... 27

mammalian character of............. 27,28

Buckley on the character and horizon

of .................................. 28.

Gibbes on the character and horizon

of ....I.............................. 28.

Rogers on the character and horizon

Of .................................. 28

Tuomey on the character and horizon

Of .................................. 28

Wyman on the character and horizon

of........ .......................... 28

Hale on the position of..._.......... 65

Hilgard on the position of............ 65

from the Jackson group ............. 69,76