DEPARTMENT OF THE 1HTK1UOK

BULLETIN

OF THK

UNITED STATES

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

No-. SO

CORRELATION PAPERS DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS

WAS II I N G T O N

GOVERNMENT FEINTING OFFICE 

1891

- - <* I

LIBRARY CATALOGUE SLIPS,

United States. Department of the interior. (U. S. geological survey.) 

Department of the interior | | Bulletin | of the | Uuited 

States | geological survey | no. 80 | [Seal of the department] | 

Washington | government printing office | 1891

Second title: United States geological survey | J. W. Powell, 

director | | Correlatiou papers | Devonian and Carboniferous | 

by | Henry Shaler Williams | [Vignette] |

Washington | government printing office | 1891

8°. 279pp.

Williams (Henry Shaler).

Uuited States geological survey | J. W. Powell, director | | 

Correlation papers | Devonian and Carboniferous | by | Henry 

Shaler Williams | [Vignette] | 

Washington | government printing office | 1891 

8°. 279pp.

STATES. Department of the interior. (U. S. geological survey.} 

Bulletin 80.]

United States geological survey | J. W. Powell, director | | 

Correlation papers | Devonian and Carboniferous | by | Henry 

Shaler Williams | [Vignette] |

Washington | government printing office f 1891

8°. 279 pp.

[UNITED STATES. Department of the interior. (V. S. geological survey.) 

Bulletin 80.]

[Bulletin No. 80.1

The publications of the United States Geological Survey are issued in accordance with the statute 

approved March 3, 1879, which declares that 

'' The publications of the Geological Survey shall consist of the annual report of operations, geological 

and economic maps illustrating the resources and classification of the lands, and reports upon general 

and economic geology and paleontology. The annual report of operations of the Geological Survey 

shall accompany the annual report of the Secretary of the Interior. All special memoirs and reports 

of said Survey shall be issued in uniform quarto series if deemed necessary by the Director, but otherwise in ordinary octavos. Three thousand copies of each shall be published for scientific 6XChang68 

and for sale at the price of publication; and all literary and cartographic materials received in exchange 

shall be the property of the United States and form a part of the library of the organization; and the 

money resulting from the sale of such publications shall be covered into the Treasury of the United 

States."

On July 7,1882, the following joint resolution, referring to all Government publications, was passed 

by Congress:

" That whenever any document or report shall be ordered printed by Congress, there shall be printed, 

in addition to the number in each case stated, the 'usual number' (1,900) of copies for binding and 

distribution among those entitled to receive them."

Except in those cases in which an extra number of any publication has been supplied to the Survey 

by special resolution of Congress or has been ordered by the Secretary of the Interior, this office has 

no copies for gratuitous distribution.

ANNUAL REPORTS.

I. First Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, by Clarence King. 1880. 8°. 79pp. 

1 map. A preliminary report describing plan of organization and publications.

II. Second Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 1880-'81, by J. "W. Powell. 1882. 

8°. Iv, 688 pp. 62 pi. 1 map.

in. Third Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 1881-'82, by J. W. Powell. 1883. 

8°. xviii, 564 pp. 67 pi. and maps.

IV. Fourth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 1882-'83, by J. W. Powell. 1884. 

8°. xxxii, 473 pp. 85 pi. and maps.

V. Fifth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, l883-'84, by J. W. Powell. 1885. 

8°. xxxvi, 469 pp. 58 pi. and maps.

VI. Sixth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 1884-'85, by J. W. Powell, 1885. 

8°. xxix, 570 pp. 65 pi. and maps.

VII. Seventh Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 1885-'86, by J. W. Powell. 1888. 

8°. xx, 656 pp. 71 pi. and maps.

VIII. Eighth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 1886-'87, by J. W. Powell. 1889. 

8°. 2v. six, 474, xii pp. 53 pi. and maps; 1 p. 1. 475-1063 pp. 54-76 pi. and maps.

I.. Ninth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 1887-'88, by J. W. Powell. 1889. 

8°. xiii, 717 pp. 88 pi. and maps.

.. Tenth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 1888-'89, by J. "W. Powell. 1890. 

8°. 2 v. xv, 774 pp. 98 pi. and maps; viii, 123 pp. 

The Eleventh and Twelfth Annual Reports are in press.

MONOGRAPHS.

I. Lake Bonneville, by Grove Earl Gilbert. 1890. 4°. xx, 438 pp. 51 pi. 1 map. Price $1.50.

II. Tertiary History of the Grand Canon District, with atlas, by Clarence E. Dutton, Capt. U. S. A. 

1882. 4°. xiv, 264pp. 42 pi. and atlas of 24 sheets folio: Price $10.00.

III. Geology of th« Comstook Lode and the Washoe District, with atlas by George F. Becker. 1882. 

4°. xv, 422 pp. 7 pi. and atlas of 21 sheets folio. Price $11.00. 

IY. Comstock Mining and Miners, by Eliot Lord. 1883. 4°. xiv, 451 pp. 3 pi. Price $1.50.
II ADVERTISEMENT.

V. The Copper-Bearing Rocks of Lake Superior, by Roland Duer Irving. 1883. 4°. xvi, 464 pp. 

151. 29 pi. and maps. Price$1.85.

VI. Contributions to the Knowledge of the Older Mesozoic Flora of Virginia, by William Morria 

Fontaine. 1883. 4°. xi, 144 pp. 541. 54 pi. Price $1.05.

VII. Silver-Lead Deposits of Eureka, Nevada, by Joseph Story Curtis. 1884. 4°. xiii, 200pp. 16 

pi. Price $1.20.

VIII. Paleontology of the Eureka District, by Charles Doolittle Walcott. 1884. 4°. xiii, 298 pp. 

241. 24 pi. Price $1.10.

IX. Brachiopoda and Lamellibranchiata of the Raritan Clays and Greensand Marls of New Jersey, 

by Robert P. Whitfield. 1885. 4°. xx, 338pp. 35 pi. 1 map. Price $1.15.,

X. Dinocerata. A Monograph of an Extinct Order of Gigantic Mammals, by Othniel Charles Marsh. 

1886. 4°. xviii, 243pp. 561. 56 pi. Price $2.70.

XI. Geological History of Lake Lahontan, a Quaternary Lake of Northwestern Nevada, by Israel 

Cook Russell. 1885. 4°. xiv,288pp. 46 pi. and maps. Price $1.75.

XII. Geology and Mining Industry of Leadville, Colorado, with atlas, by Samuel Franklin Emmons. 

1886. 4°. xxix, 770 pp. 45 pi. and atlas of 35 sheets folio. Price $8.40.

xm. Geology of the Quicksilver Deposits of the Pacific Slope, with atlas, by George F. Becker. 

1888. 4°. xix, 486 pp. 7 pi. and atlas of 14 sheets folio. Price $2.00.

XIV. Fossil Fishes and Fossil Plants of the Triassio Rocks of New Jersey and the Connecticut Valley, by John S. Newberry. 1888. 4°. xiv,152pp. 26 pi. Price $1.00.

XV. The Potomac or Younger Mesozoio Flora, by William Morris Fontaine. 1889. 4°. xiv, 377 

pp. 180 pi. Text and plates bound separately. Price $2.50.

XVI. The Paleozoic Fr.shes of North America, by John Strong Newberry. 1889. 4°. 340 pp. 53 pi. 

Price $1.00. 

In press:

XVII. The Flora of the Dakota Group, a posthumous work, by Leo Lesquereux. Edited by F. H. 

Knowlton. 4° 400 pp. 66 pi. 

In preparation:

XVIII. Gasteropoda and Cephalopoda of the Raritan Clays and Greensand Marls of New Jersey, 

by Robert P. Whitfleld.

 The Penokee Iron-Bearing Series of Northern Wisconsin and Michigan, by Roland D. Irving and 

C. R. Van Hise.

 Mollusca and Crustacea of the Miocene Formations of New Jersey, by R. P. Whitfleld.

 Geology of the Eureka Mining District, Nevada, with atlas, by Arnold Hague.

 Sanropoda, by O. C. Marsh.

 Stegosauria, by 0. C. Marsh.

 Brontotheridse, by 0. C. Marsh.

 Report on the Denver Coal Basin, by S. F. Emmons.

 Report on Silver Cliif and Ten-Mile Mining Districts, Colorado, by S. F. Emmons.

 The Glacial Lake Agassiz, by Warren Upham.

BULLETINS.

1. On Hypersthene-Andesite and on Triclinio Pyroxene in Augitic Rocks, by Whitman Cross, with a 

Geological Sketch of Buffalo Peaks, Colorado, by S. F. Emmons. 1883. 8°. 42 pp. 2 pi. Price 10 cents.

2. Gold and Silver Conversion Tables, giving the coining values of troy ounces of fine metal, etc., computed by Albert Williams, jr. 1883. 8°. 8 pp. Price 5 cents.

3. On the Fossil Faunas of the Upper Devonian, along the meridian of 76° 30', from Tompkins County, 

New York, to Bradford County, Pennsylvania, by Henry S. Williams. 1884. 8°. 36 pp. Price 5 cents.

4. On Mesozoic Fossils, by Charles A. White. 1884. 8°. 36 pp. 9 pi. Price 5 cents.

5. A Dictionary of Altitudes in the United States, compiled by Henry Gannett. 1884. 8°. 325 pp. 

Price 20 cents.

6. Elevations in the Dominion of Canada, by J. W. Spencer. 1884. 8°. 43 pp. Price 5 cents.

7. Mapoteca Geologica Americana. A Catalogue of Geological Maps of America (North and South), 

1752-1881, in geographic and chronologic order, by Jules Marcou and John Belknap Marcou. 1884. 

8°. 184 pp. Price 10 cents.

8. On Secondary Enlargements of Mineral Fragments in Certain Rocks, by K. D. Irving and C. R. 

Van Hise. 1884. 8°. 56 pp. 6 pi. Price 10 cents.

9. A report of work done in the Washington Laboratory during the fiscal year!883-'84. F. W. Clarke, 

chief chemist. T. M. Chatard, assistant chemist. 1884. 8°. 40 pp. Price 5 cents.

10. On the Cambrian Faunas of North America. Preliminary studies, by Charles Doolittle Walcott. 

1884. 8°. 74 pp. 10 pi. Price 5 cents. *

11. On the Quaternary and Recent Mollusca of the Great Basin; with Descriptions of New Forms, by 

R. Ellsworth Call. Introduced by a sketch of the Quaternary Lakes of the Great Basin, by G. K. 

Gilbert. 1884. 8°. 66pp. 6 pi. Price 5 cents.

12. A Crystallographic Study of the Thinolite of Lake Lahontan, by Edward S. Dana. 1884. 8°. 

34 pp. 3 pi. Price 5 cents.
ADVERTISEMENT. III.

13. Boundaries of the United States and of the several States and Territories, with a Historical 

Sketch of the Territorial Changes, by Henry Gannett. 1885. 8°. 135pp. Price 10 cents.

14. The Electrical and Magnetic Properties of the Iron-Carburets, by Carl Barus and Vincent 

Strouhal. 1885. 8°. 238pp. Price 15 cents.

15. On the Mesozoic and Cenozoio Paleontology of California, by Charles A. White. 1885. 8°. 

33 pp. Price 5 cents.

16. On the Higher Devonian Faunas of Ontario County, Now York, by JohnM. Clarke. 1885. 8°. 

86pp. 3 pi. Price 5 cents.

17. On the Development of Crystallization in the Igneous Kocks of "Washoe, Nevada, with Notes on 

the Geology of the District, by Arnold Hague and Joseph P. Iddings. 1885. 8°. 44 pp. Price 5 

cents.

18. On Marine Eocene, Fresh-water Miocene, and other Fossil Mollnsca of Western North America, 

by Charles A. White. 1885. 8°. 26 pp. 3 pi. Price 5 cents.

19. Notes on the Stratigraphy of California, by George F. Becker. 1885. 8°. 28 pp. Price 5 cents.

20. Contributions to the Mineralogy of the Kooky Mountains, by Whitman Cross and W. F. Hillebrand. 1885. 8°. 114pp. 1 pi. Price 10 cents.

21. The Lignites of the Great Sioux Keservation. A Report on the Eegion between the Grand and Moreau Elvers, Dakota, by Bailey Willis. 1885. 8°. 16pp. 5 pi. Piice 5 cents.

22. On New Cretaceous Fossils from California, by Charles A. White. 1885. 8°. 25pp. 5 pi. Price 

5 cents.

23. Observations on the Junction between the Eastern Sandstone and the Keweenaw Series on 

KeweenawPoint, Lake Superior, by R. D. Irviug and T. C. Chamberlin. 1885. 8°. 124 pp. 17 pi. 

Price 15 cents.

24. List of Marine Mollusca, comprising the Quaternary Fossils and recent forms from American 

Localities between Cape Hatteras and Cape Eoque, including the Bermudas, by William Healey Dall. 

1885. 8°. 336pp. Price 25 cents.

25. The Present Technical Condition of the Steel Industry of the United States, by Phineas Barnes. 

1885. 8°. 85pp. Price 10 cents.

26. Copper Smelting, by Henry M. Ho we. 1885. 8°. 107pp. Price 10 cents.

27. Eeport of work done in the Division of Chemistry and Physics, mainly during the fiscal year 

1884-'85. 1886. 8°. 80pp. Price 10 cents.

28. The Gabbros and Associated Hornblende Eocks occurring in the Neighborhood of Baltimore, Md., 

by George Huntington Williams. 1886. 8°. 78 pp. 4 pi. Price 10 cents.

29. On the Fresh-water Invertebrates of the North American Jurassic, by Charles A. White. 1886. 

8°. 41 pp. 4 pi. Price 5 cents.

30. Second Contribution to the Studies on the Cambrian Faunas of North America, by Charles Doolittle Walcott. 1886. 8°. 369 pp. 33 pi. Price 25 cents.

31. Systematic Eeview of our Present .Knowledge of Fossil Insects, including Myriapods and Arachnids, by Samuel Hubbard Scudder. 1886. 8°. 128pp. Price 15 cents.

32. Lists and Analyses of the Mineral Springs of the United States; a Preliminary Study, by Albert 

C. Peale. 1886. 8°. 235 pp. Price 20 cents.

33. Notes on the Geology of Northern California, by J. S. Diller. 1886. 8°. 23 pp. Price 5 cents.

34. On the relation of the Laramie Molluscan Fauna to that of the succeeding Fresh-water Eocene 

and other groups, by Charles A. White. 1886. 8°. 54 pp. 5 pi. Price 10 cents.

35. Physical Properties of the Iron-Carburets, by Carl Barus and Vincent Strouhal. 1886. 8°. 62 

pp. Price 10 cents.

36. Subsidence of Fine Solid Particles in Liquids, by Carl Barns. 1886. 8°. 58pp. Price 10 cents.

37. Types of the Laramie Flora, by Lester F. Ward. 1887. 8°. 354 pp. 57 pi. Price 25 cents.

38. Peridotite of Elliott County, Kentucky, by J. S. Diller. 1887. 8°. 31pp. 1 pi. Price 5 cents.

39. The Upp'er Beaches and Deltas of the Glacial Lake Agassiz, by Warren Upham. 1887. 8°. 84 

pp. 1 pi. Price 10 cents.

40. Changes in Eiver Courses in Washington Territory due to Glaciation, by Bailey Willis. 1887. 8°. 

10 pp. 4 pi. Price 5 cents.

41. On the Fossil Faunas of the Upper Devonian the Genesee Section, New York, by Henry S. 

Williams. 1887. 8°. 121 pp. 4 pi. Price 15 cents.

42. Eeport of work done in the Division of Chemistry and Physics, mainly during the fiscal year 

1885-'86. F. W. Clarke, chief chemist. 1887. 8°. 152 pp. 1 pi. Price 15 cents.

43. Tertiary and Cretaceous Strata of the Tuscaloosa, Tombigbee, and Alabama Elvers, by Eugene 

A. Smith and Lawrence C. Johnson. 1887. 8°. 189 pp. 21 pi. Price 15 cents.

44. Bibliography of North American Geology for 1886, by Nelson H. Darton. 1887. 8°. 35 pp. 

Price 5 cents.

45. The Present Condition of Knowledge of the Geology of Texas, by Eobert T. HilL 1887. 8°. 94 

pp. Price 10 cents.

46. Nature and Origin of Deposits of Phosphate of Lime, by E. A. F. Penrose, jr., with an Introduction by N. S. Shaler. 1888. 8°. 143pp. Price 15 cents.
IV ADVERTISEMENT.

47. Analyses of Waters of the Zellowstone National Park, with an Account of the Methods of Analysis employed, by Frank Austin Gooch and James Edward "Whitfleld. 1888. 8°. 84 pp. Price 10 

cents.

48. On the Form and Position of the Sea Level, by Kobert Simpson "Woodward. 1888. 8°. 88 pp. 

Price 10 cents.

49. Latitudes and Longitudes of Certain Points in Missouri, Kansas, and New Mexico, by Robert 

Simpson Woodward. 1889. 8°. 133 pp. Price 15 cents.

50. Formulas and Tables to facilitate the Construction and Use of Maps, by Robert Simpson Woodward. 1889. 8°. 124pp. Price 15 cents.

51. On Invertebrate Fossils from the Pacific Coast, by Charles Abiathar White. 1889. 8°. 102 pp. 

14 pi. Price 15 cents.

52. Subaerial Decay of Rocks and Origin of the Red Color of Certain Formations, by Israel Cook 

Russell. 1889. 8°. 65 pp. 5 pi. Price 10 cents.

53. The Geology of Nantucket, by Nathaniel Southgate Shaler. 1889. 8°. 55pp. 10 pi. Price 10 

cents.

54. On the Thermo-Electric Measurement of High Temperatures, by Carl Barus. 1889. 8°. 313 pp. 

incl. 1 pi. 11 pi. Price 25 cents.

55. Report of work done in the' Division of Chemistry and Physics, mainly during the fiscal year 

1886-'87. Frank Wigglesworth Clarke, chief chemist. 1889. 8°. 96 pp. Price 10 cents.

56. Fossil Wood and Lignite of the Potomac Formation, by Frank Hall Knowlton. 1889. 8°. 72pp. 

7 pi. Price 10 cents.

57. A Geological Reconnaissance in South western Kansas, by Robert Hay. 1890. 8°. 49pp. 2 pi. 

Price 5 cents.

58. The Glacial Boundary in Western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois, by George 

Frederick Wright, with an introduction by Thomas Chrowder Chamberlin. 1890. 8°. 112pp. incl. 

1 pi. 8 pi. Price 15 cents.

59. The Gabbros and Associated Rocks in Delaware, by Frederick D. Chester. 1890. 8°. 45pp. 

1 pi. Price 10 cents.

60. Report of work done in the Division of Chemistry and Physics, mainly during the fiscal year 

1887-'88. F. W. Clarke, chief chemist. 1890. 8°. 174 pp. Price 15 cents.

61. Contributions to the Mineralogy of the Pacific Coast, by William Harlow Melville and Waldemar 

Liudgren. 1890. 8°. 40pp. 3 pi. Price 5 cents.

62. The Greenstone Schist Areas of the Menominee and Marquette Regions of Michigan; a contribution to the subject of dynamic metamorphism in eruptive rocks, by George Huntiugton Williams;

 with an introduction by Roland Duer Irving. 1890. 8°. 241 pp. 16 pi. Price 30 cents.

63. A Bibliography of Paleozoic Crustacea from 1698 to 1889, including a list of North American 

species and a systematic arrangement of genera, by Anthony W. Vogdes. 1890. 8°. 177 pp. Price 

15 cents.

64. A Report of work done in the Division of Chemistry and Physics, mainly during the fiscal year 

, 1888-'89. F. W. Clarke, chief chemist. 1890. 8°. 60 pp. Price 10 cents.

65. Stratigraphy of the Bituminous Coal Field of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, by Israel 

C. "White. 1891. 8°. 212pp. 11 pi. Price 20 cents.

66. On a Group of Volcanic Rocks from the Tewan Mountains, New Mexico, and on the occurrence 

of Primary Quartz in certain Basalts, by Joseph Paxson Iddings. 1890. 8°. 34 pp. Price 5 cents.

67. The relations of the Traps of the Newark System in the New Jersey Region, by Nelson Horatio 

Barton. 1890. 8°. 82 pp. Price 10 cents. 

, 68. Earthquakes in California in 1869, by James Edward Keeler. 1890. 8°. 25pp. Price 5 cents.

69. A Classed and Annotated Bibliography of Fossil Insects, by Samuel Hubbard Scudder. 1890.

 8°. 101 pp. Price 15 cents.

70. Report on Astronomical Work of 1889 and 1890, by Robert Simpson Woodward. 1890. 8°. 79 

pp. Price 10 cents. 

V 71. Index to the Known Fossil Insects of the World, including Myriapods and Arachnids, by Samuel

Hubbard Scudder. 1891. 8°. 744-pp. Price 50 cents.

^ 72. Altitudes between Lake Superior and the Rocky Mountains, by Warren Upham. 1891. 8°. 

229 pp. Price 20 cents.

73. The Viscosity of Solids, by Carl Barns. 1891. 8°. xii, 139 pp. 6 pi. Price 15 cents.

74. The Minerals of North Carolina, by Frederick Augustus Genth. 1891. 8°. 119 pp. Price 15 

cents.

75. Record of North American Geology for 1887 to 1889, inclusive, by Nelson Horatio Darton. 1891. 

8°. 173 pp. Price 15 cents.

76. A Dictionary of Altitudes in the United States (second edition), compiled by Henry Gannett, 

«hief topographer. 1891. 8°. 393pp. Price 25 cents.

77. The Texan Permian and its Mesozoic types of Fossils, by Charles A. White. 1891. 8°. 51 pp. 

4 pi. Price JO cents.

78. A report of work done in the Division of Chemistry and Physics, mainly during the fiscal year 

1889-'90. F. W. Clarke, chief chemist. 1891. 8°. 131pp. Price 15 cents.

79. A Late Volcanic Eruption in Northern California and its peculiar lava, by J. S. Diller. 1891. 8°. 

53 pp. 17 pi. Price 10 cents.
ADVERTISEMENT. V

80. Correlation papers. Devonian and Carboniferous, by Henry Shaler "Williams. 1891. 8°. 279pp. 

Price 20 cents.

In press:

81. Correlation papers Cambrian, by Charles Doolittle "Walcott.

82. Correlation papers Cretaceous, by Charles A. "White. 

91. Kecord of North American Geology for 1890, by Nelson Horatio Darton. 

In preparation:

 Correlation papers Neocene, by "W. H. Ball and G. D. Harris.

 Correlation papers Eocene, by "W. B. Clark.

 Correlation papers Jura-Trias, by I. C. Kussell.

 Correlation papers Pleistocene, by T. C. Chamberlin.

 Correlation papers Algonkian and Archean, by C. K. Van Hise. 

' The Compressibility of Liquids, by Carl Barus.

 The Eruptive and Sedimentary Bocks on Pigeon Point, Minnesota, and their contact phenomena, 

by W. S. Bayley.

 A Bibliography of Paleobotany, by David "White.

STATISTICAL PAPEES.

Mineral Eesources of the United States, 1882, by Albert "Williams, jr. 1883. 3°. xvii, 813pp. Price 

50 cents.

Mineral Resources of the United States, 1883 and 1884, by Albert Williams, jr. 1885. 8°. xiv, 1016 

pp. Price 60 cents.

Mineral Resources of the United States, 1885. Division of Mining Statistics and Technology. 1886. 

8°. vii, 576 pp. Price 40 cents.

Mineral Eesources of the United States, 1886, by David T. Day. 1887. 8°. viii, 813 pp. Price 50 

cents.

Mineral Resources of the United States, 1887, by David T. Day. 1888. 8°. vii, 832 pp. Price 50 

cents.

Mineral Resources of the United States, 1888, by David T. Day. 1890. 8°. vii, 652 pp. Price 50 

cents. 

In preparation:

Mineral Resources of the United States, 1889 and 1890.

The money received from the sale of these publications is deposited in the Treasury, and the Secretary of the Treasury declines to receive bank checks, drafts, or postage stamps; all remittances, therefore, must be by POSTAL NOTE or MONEY ORDER, made payable to the Librarian of the U. S. Geological 

Survey, or in CURUKNCY, for the exact amount. Correspondence relating to the publications of the 

Survey should be addressed

To THE DIRECTOR OF THE

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,

WASHINGTON, D. C.

WASHINGTON, D. C., Augutt, 1891.
DBPAETMBNT OF THE INTEEIOE

BULLETIN

OF THE

UNITED STATES

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

No. 80

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1891
UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SUEVEY

J. AV. POWELL, DIKECTOK

CORRELATION PAPERS

DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS

BY

HENRY SHALER WILLIAMS

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1891
CONTENTS.

Page. 

Letter of transmittal by Mr. G. K. Gilbert.................................... 7

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

INTRODUCTION. The state of opinion at the beginning of the present century regarding the classification and naming of geologic formations......... 13

CHAPTBU I. The history and development of opinion regarding the classification of rocks in the United States, from the time of William Maclure to the 

completion of the geological survey of the State of New York (1809-1843).... 22

CHAPTER II. The general application of the nomenclature of the New York 

system as a standard of correlation in other parts of the United States 

(1840-1851)................................................................ 58

CHAPTER III. ^Miscellaneous discussions regarding the correlation of Devo- ' ' -.(. 

,/" nian and Carboniferous formations in the central part of the United States ^ 

/ . (1846-1887) ............................................................... 75

Nf CHAPTER IV. The differentiation of the Carboniferous system................ 83

i v ' CIIAPTKR V. The Coal Measures or Pennsylvanian series: The development of

its nomenclature and classification in the Appalachian Province (1836-1888). 108 

\' CHAPTER VI. The conglomerates and Lower Carboniferous formations of the

Appalachian Province .................................................... 121

Y| CHAPTER VII. The Chemung-Catskill problem : The history of the discussions concerning the correlation of the Chemung-Catskill formations in the 

northern part of the Appalachian Province................................. 135

\ ' CHAPTER VIII. The Lower Carboniferous or Mississippian series: The development of the nomenclature and classification of the Lower Carboniferous 

formations of the Mississippian Province (1821-1874) ...................... 173

, CHAPTER IX. The Waverly problem : The history of the discussion concerning the correlation of the Waverly, Marshall, Goniatite limestone, Kinderhook, and Choteau formations (1838-1888)................................. 193

1*7 CHAPTER X. The Permian problem: Discussions relative to the correlation 

' of the Permian in Kansas and Nebraska and other parts of the United States

(1858-1886) ............................................................... 213

^f" CHAPTER XI. Devonian and Carboniferous correlations in the Western and

Northern Provinces of North America...................................... 226

/ ; CHAPTER XII. The Acadian Province: The correlations and classifications

1 of the Upper Paleozoic formations in the Acadian Province................. 258

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 

DIVISION OF GEOLOGIC CORRELATION,

Washington, D. (7., March 15,1891.

SIR : I have the honor to transmit herewith a memoir by Dr. Henry 

S. Williams on the Devonian and Carboniferous formations of North 

America, prepared for publication as a bulletin.

This memoir is the first of a series, and in order to show its relation 

to those which are to follow, I quote the following passage from the 

report of the Director for the fiscal year ending June 30,1888 : l

In order to develop the geological history of the United States as a' consistent 

 whole, it is necessary to correlate the various local (dements. The events of one district the succession of eruptions, sedimentary deposits, and erosions must be connected with the synchronous events of other regions. It is especially important to 

determine the synchrony of deposits. So far as the outcrops of strata can be continously traced, or can be observed at short intervals, correlation can be effected by the 

study of stratigraphy alone. The correlation of strata separated by wide intervals 

of discontinuity can be effected only through the study of their contained fossils. 

This is not always easy, and it is now generally recognized that it is possible only 

within restricted limits. As distance increases the refinement in detail of correlation diminishes.

Recent discussions in connection with the work of the International Congress of 

Geologists have shown that different students assign different limits to the possibilities of correlation, and give different weights to the various kinds of paleontologic 

evidence employed.

The study of the data and principles of correlation is thus seen to be a necessary 

part of the work of the Geological Survey, and by making the study at the present 

time it can offer a timely contribution to general geologic philosophy. It has therefore been determined to undertake the preparation of a series of essays summarizing 

existing knowledge bearing on the correlation of American strata. It is proposed to 

have a treatise prepared by a competent specialist on each of the following systems: 

The Quaternary, the Newer Tertiary, the Older Tertiary, the Cretaceous, the JuraTrias, the Carboniferous, the Devonian, the Silurian, the Cambrian, the Eparchean, 

and the Archean.

Each essay will consider the several geographic provinces of the system it treats, 

the stratigraphic divisions that have been made in the several provinces, the extent 

to which these divisions can be correlated with one another, the degree of precision 

with which the upper and lower limits of the system can be correlated with the 

limits of the corresponding European system, and the extent to which the American 

subdivisions can be correlated with the European. It is proposed to treat sepa1 Ninth Annual Report of the TJ. S. Geological Survey, p. 16.
8 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

rately the evidence from vertebrate fossils aud the evidence from fossil plants as to 

all the systems in which they are found; and there will he prepared in connection 

with the work a thesaurus of North American stratigraphic terminology.

The work has been placed under the general charge of Mr. G. K. Gilbert, and a 

number of specialists to assist him have already been selected from the various divisions of the Survey.

Each of the systems indicated above was assigned to a paleontologist 

or a geologist for treatment, and several conferences were held for the 

purpose of developing a definite plan of work. Eventually the plan was 

formulated as follows, being incorparated in a circular letter addressed 

the Director to the several specialists chosen for the work in February, 

1888:

PLAN FOB THTS DISCUSSION OF AMERICAN GEOLOGIC SYSTEMS.

(1) It is proposed to prepare an essay on each of the following American geologic 

systems, namely: (1) Quaternary, (2) Plio-Miocene, (3) Oligo-Eocene, (4) Cretaceous, 

(5) Jura-Trias, (6) Permo-Carboniferous, (7) Devonian, (8) Silurian, (9) Cambrian, 

(10) x y z, (11) Archean.

The " Congress" committee of the American Association for the Advancement of 

Science at a recent meeting resolved (in effect) that'' systems are determined primarily 

by fossils, secondarily by structure." This series of essays is planned on the assumption that for purposes of correlation the most important fossils are marine invertebrates. The evidence from vertebrates and that from plants will be discussed each 

by an appropriate specialist, but this arrangement does not preclude their consideration in the essays on individual systems.

(2) Each essay should show how the system of which it treats has been paleontologically and stratigraphically delimited in North America, and should recite and 

discuss the facts and principles on which such delimitation is based.

(3) Each essay should show into what series (major subdivisions) the system has 

been divided in various parts of North America, and on what facts and principles 

the division has been based. If these subdivisions are not uniform in all parts of 

the continent the various areas of exposure should be classified in provinces, and

the essays should show whether and to what extent the series of the several provinces

can be correlated with one another.

(4) Each essay should show whether and to what extent the subdivisions of the 

system jn any or all of its American provinces can be correlated with the subdivisions of the system in Europe.

(5) Each essay should be prepared with the aid of a comprehensive review of the 

pertinent literature, so as to constitute a summary of the material at present available for the major taxonomy of the system.

(6) The names of systems in (1) are provisional. Each essay should consider the 

question of names for system and series.

The number of systems is likewise provisional, and it may eventually appear that 

those enumerated in (1) are not coordinate. It was necessary to»prepare a scheme 

in order to apportion the work of assembling the facts, but after these have been 

assembled, their discussion may lead to an improved scheme. Provision will be 

made for such discussion after the series of essays has been prepared.

(7) The general purpose of the preparation of the series of essays is threefold: 

first, to exhibit in a summary way the present state of knowledge of North American 

geologic systems; second, to formulate the principles of geologic correlation and 

taxonomy; third, to set forth from the American standpoint the possibility, or the
WILLIAMS.] LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. 9

impossibility, of using in all countries the same set of names for stratigraphic divisions smaller than systems. 1

By comparing the list of geologic systems in this " plan " with the 

list in the passages cited from the report of the Director, it will be 

observed that there are slight discrepancies. The unsettled problems 

of nomenclature thus suggested were elaborately discussed by. a conference of the geologists of the Survey held in January, 1889, for the 

purpose of establishing the conventions necessary to uniformity in the 

preparation of the sheets of the Geologic Atlas of the United States. 

By that conference it was determined that the stratigraphic units delineated on the sheets of the geologic atlas should be designated as 

formations, that no stratigraphic unit of a higher order should be recognized in the atlas, and that the only term of classification there employed should be the geologic " period." 2 The time-term " period " thus 

adopted for the geologic atlas has the same taxonomic rank as the stratigraphic term " system " employed in the " plan " for the instruction of 

the essayists and in the passage cited from the report of the Director. It 

was preferred by the geologists of the conference because it was believed 

that the major classification expressed by either term is essentially arbitrary and does not find in nature a universal expression, either physically through lithologic and structural differences, orbiotically through 

the differentiation of faunas and floras. The chronologic term seemed 

to them freer than the stratigraphic from the implication that the 

classific units are natural and general rather than artificial or local.

The conference likewise indicated and defined eleven periods to be 

used in the classification of the formations represented in the atlas, and 

designated them as follows: (1) Pleistocene, (2) Neocene, (3) Eocene, 

(4) Cretaceous, (5) Jura-trias, (6) Carboniferous, (7) Devonian. (8) Silurian, (9) Cambrian, (10) Algonkian, (11) Archean.1 These are the exact 

equivalents of the "systems" enumerated in the preceding quotations, 

but they differ somewhat as to name.

The conventions thus adopted for the work of the Geological Survey 

have modified and controlled the work of the division so far as they 

are applicable, and the substitution of "period" for "system" has 

changed the point of view of the essays in a manner conducive to their 

simplification and to their value as contributions to the subject of correlation.

Although the essayists, working under the same general instructions, 

have had before them the accomplishment of the same purposes with 

respect to the several groups of formations assigned them, no attempt 

has been made to mold their modes of treatment in a common form.

1 This plan was published in the Tenth Annual Keport of the Survey as part of a progress report of 

the work of the Division of Correlation (pp. 108-113). Further report of progress may be found ill the 

Eleventh Annual Report, pp. 59-62.

J Tenth Annual Report U. S. Geological Survey, pp. 63-65.

»Ibid., pp. 65-66.
10 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL 80.

The present essay employs the historical method alike in the summarization of present knowledge and in the formulation of the principles of 

geologic correlation. It groups facts and opinions as to Carboniferous 

and Devonian formations about certain specific problems of correlation, 

and traces the history of the discussion of each problem. In connection with the historical summaries there is much incidental discussion 

of the principles of correlation, and they are afterward classified in a 

closing chapter. The author concludes, from the American standpoint, 

that in a universal classification of formations it is not practicable to 

employ classific units smaller than periods.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

G. K. GILBERT,

Geologist in Charge. 

Hon. J. "W. POWELL,

Director U. 8. Geological Survey.
OUTLINE OF THIS PAPER.

The following essay is a historical study of the classifications and nomenclatures 

of geological formations in America, made with the purpose of ascertaining how 

satisfactory correlations have been made and upon what principles they have beeii 

hasod. For this purpose the literature upon the whole Paleozoic for the first 40 

years of the century has been reviewed, but for the period following the publication

of the Final Keports on the Geology of the State of Now York (1842-1844), the study

has been confined to the literature of the Devonian and Carboniferous systems.

In the course of the historical development of the science, and as the geological 

surveys have extended over new territory, a number of specific problems have arisen, 

for the solution of which it has been necessary to determine the relations between 

standard formations already named and classified and those newly discovered. In 

this essay the discussion of each of these problems has been followed out in detail, 

the various attempts at correlation have been noted, and the methods employed and 

the final results attained have been traced to the principles involved in their determination.

The following problems have been thus discussed:

(1) The general correlation of the Paleozoic formations of eastern North America 

with the corresponding formations of Europe.

(2) The determination of the parallelism between the upper Paleozoic formations 

of the Appalachian region and the rocks of. the interior of the continent as far West 

as the Mississippi River.

(3) The correlation in the Northern Appalachian region of the various subdivisions of the Coal Measures and formations immediately underlying them.

(4) The problems connected with the correlation of the Chemung and Catskill 

groups, and with the correlation of the Waverly and Marshall groups.

(5) The elaboration of the Mississippian series, or "Subcarboniferous" formations 

of the Mississippi River basin.

(6) The Permian problem of Kansas and Nebraska.

(7) The correlation problems involved in classifying fc) the formations of the Acadian province, and (6) the formations of the Rocky Mountains and Western Plateau 

provinces.

In the discussion of these various problems several definite stages in the development of the principles of correlation have been recognized. At the opening of the 

century the Wernerian system of classification was generally adopted. In this 

classification the mineral characters of the formations were regarded as of fundamental importance, and constituted the chief criteria for their classification and correlation, and the order of deposition -was supposed to be indicated by the actual and 

relative position of the present outcropping of the strata. The theory underlying 

this latter interpretation was, that the older rocks formed the core of the mountains; 

on the higher part and at an inclination were formed the next younger, and as the 

waters dried off the surface of the earth the successive rocks were deposited at lower 

and lower levels. The names " Primary," " Secondary," "Tertiary," and "Quaternary" preserve the memory of this theory, though the theory itself has given way to 

the more rational one of oscillation of the crust of the earth itself, with relative stall
12 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

bility of the mean tide level of the ocean. The correlations of this period were defective, not so much on account of imperfect observation as on account of incorrect 

theories. " Red sandstone," "Mountain limestone," "Saliferous rocks," and " Grauwacke" were truly found in America, but they were not the correlatives of formations so named in Europe, because formations present no regularity in the order of 

sequence of their mineral characters. The perfecting of the New York system of 

Paleozoic rocks (published in 1842) marks practically the abandonment of the Wernerian school of opinion in America.

The second stage of development took definite shape in the New York system. 

Formations were considered aa holding a fixed order of sequence, but differences in 

thickness or even in composition were to some extent allowed as compatible. Still, 

a general "parallelism of strata" was believed in, and in order to make the interpretation fit the facts, " gaps " and " intercalations " were assumed. The application of' 

this principle of correlation is conspicuous in the various attempts at "parallelism" 

made in the period 1840-1860, and the method is most minutely carried out in the 

second Geological Survey of Pennsylvania, where the term "persistent parallelism 

of strata" is named and defined. Fossils were used in these correlations, but rather 

as arbitrary labels which were of value only when exact identity was recognized. 

This being rarely the case, fossils played only a secondary part. This principle did 

 not reach satisfactory results, because stratigraphic order and stratification itself 

offer no intrinsic evidence of the age of the formation, and stratigraphic structure 

was found not to be uniformly persistent even for a few miles' extent.

In the first quarter of the century, an Englishman, William Smith, or "Strata 

Smith," as he was called, advanced the idea that strata could be identified by their 

fossils, and fossils have ever since been used with greater or less success in identifying formations; but when the fossils are not of the same but of kindred species, 

other considerations have been brought forward to establish the correlation. Within 

the last 20 years fossils have begun to be used on the principle that they contain in 

themselves intrinsic evidence of their relative age.

And this brings us to the third stage in the development of the methods of correlation in which fossils assume the chief r61e. Underlying these correlations are the 

following considerations: Geologic formations in their mineral and lithologic composition, their stratigraphic and structural characters, and as to their limitations 

are recognized as strictly local formations; hence the primary principle is that none

of these characters can be relied upon for the correlation of formations of different

localities. Secondly, fossils are recognized as remains of organisms which possess 

genetic relationship ; and the specific and varietal characters of the organisms are 

believed to be indications of these affinities; and with evolution in time arid modification coordinate with changed condition of environment, the organisms are believed 

to be extremely sensitive indicators of time relations. Thus the minute and exhaustive comparative study of fossils in their stratigraphic and geographic relations is 

now proving to be not only the best but the only reliable guide to correlation of 

geologic formations.

The conclusions reached from this historical study confirm the belief that the description and nomenclature of structural formations should be quite independent of 

their correlations, and that precision in correlation must be based upon mature and 

exhaustive paleontologic study, that the time scale must'be made independently of 

the structure scale, and that the time scale of correlation is based fundamentally 

upon biologic data.

The investigation leads to the further conclusions that as nomenclature finds its 

basis in some intrinsic characters of the things named, uniformity of nomenclature for 

formations is impracticable, since the intrinsic characters of formations are local and 

have nothing to do with their geologic position; and that uniformity of classification 

can be looked for only through an exhaustive biologic study of the fossils, and is 

inapplicable to geological structure, stratigraphy, or formation.
THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS FORMATIONS 

OF NORTH AMERICA.

BY HENRY S. WILLIAMS.

INTRODUCTION,

THE STATE OF OPINION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PRESENT 

CENTURY REGARDING THE CLASSIFICATION AND NAMING OF 

GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS.

THE STATE OF GEOLOGICAL OPINION PRIOR TO 1835.

Upon reviewing the works of geologists written in the early part of 

this century, we find a very well marked school of opinion pervading 

all the works of English and American geologists, who published their 

works prior to the year 1835. A gradual change was taking place 10 

years before this, but it was not until after 1835 and about 1840 that 

the new school of opinion, as expressed in modern classification of 

geological deposits, became generally adopted.

The prominent English text-books upon geology which appeared prior 

to that date are those of Maclure, 1817; Maculloch, 1821; Baton's 

"Index," 1820; "Erie Canal Kocks," 1824; Conybeare and Phillips, 

1822; Lyell's "Principles," 1830; De la Beche, first edition, 1831.

All these books are based upon the general principle for the propagation of which, if not for the entire origination of the idea, Werner is 

distinguished. This idea which characterized the Wernerian school 

consisted fundamentally in the attempt to classify geologic deposits by 

the minerals which they contained and their petrographic characters.

Abraham Gottlob Werner (1750-1817), who has been called the father 

of German geology, was undoubtedly the founder of the classification 

of rocks into formations arranged in stratigraphic order.

Although his " theory of formations" has been superseded by other 

theories, the proposition that the crust of the earth is divisible into 

formations and that these formations have a regular order of sequence 

in relation to one another is at the very foundation of modern geology.

Werner was an enthusiastic teacher, but he wrote little, and we are 

obliged to look to the writings of his pupils and their followers for an 

exposition of the views which formed the basis of geological science at

the beginning of the XIX century.

13
14 THE DEVONIAN AND CAKBON1FEROUS. [BULL. 80.

In the Edinburgh Encyclopaedia 1 there is an exposition of his views 

which will serve our present purpose.

The author divided the science of mineralogy into two divisions, 

geognosy and oryctognosy. He said:

Geology, according to Werner, comprehends not only geognosy but also geography, 

hydrography, meteorology, and geogony. Geognosy makes us acquainted with the 

structure, relative position, materials, and mode of formation of the mineral masses 

of which the crust of the earth is composed,

WERNER'S SYSTEM.

In 1740 De Maillet maintained that the globe was composed of strata 

successively deposited one over another, by the sea, which gradually 

retired and uncovered the present continents. This view was adopted 

by Linnaeus. Buffon accepted it also, in part, so far as regarding superficial strata as the deposition from water. It played a conspicuous 

part in Werner's system.

Werner had several pupils, of whom some of the more prominent are 

Mohs, Oharpentier, Buch, Eaumer, Freisleben, Humboldt, Steppen, 

Engelhart, Esmarck, D'Andrada, Brocchi, De la Rio. In the article 

before us we find Werner's system discussed under the following heads: 

" Werner on the structure of the crust of the globe." Then follow the 

subdivisions:

1. Original extent of the formations.

2. Their present extent and continuity.

3. Position and direction of strata in relation to fundamental rocks.

4. Position and direction of strata themselves.

5. Eolation of the outgoings [outcrop] of the strata to the exterior of mountains.

Under the first head, "the original extent of formation," Werner distinguished as "universal formations" those that extend around the

whole globe (not, however, without interruption), and constitute by far 

the greater mass of the crust of the earth. Almost all tlie Primitive, 

Transition, and Secondary formations are "universal depositions." Of 

these the following are named: "Granite, Gneiss, Porphyry, Limestone." "Partial formations," of which sandstones, limestones, shales, 

etc., are examples, were deposited only in particular places, and were 

due to lake or flood sediments. The author wrote:

The spheroidal figure of the earth, its crystalline and stratified structure, and its 

numerous petrifactions are proofs of its original fluidity. The fluidity, according to 

Werner, was aqueous, and he conjectures that the various rocks were originally suspended or dissolved in water, and gradually deposited from it12

Two grand epochs are recognized in his system, first, " the Primitive, 

containing no fossils or organic remains, always below the other rocks, 

and wholly of chemical origin." " Second, the Secondary: these rocks 

were formed posterior to the creation of organized beings." The rocks

'The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, conducted by David Brewster, LL. D., F.R.S. 1812-1831. Article 

'' Mineralogy," prepared by Prof. Robert Jameson, D. D., F. s. B., L., and B., professor of natural history. 

Edinburgh. First American edition, 1832, vol. £111.

2 0p.cit.,p. 437.
WILLIAMS.] WEKNER'S SYSTEM. * 15

of this group which resemble the first group, but contain fossils, are 

called "Transition" by Werner, and "Intermediate" by other geologists. The Secondary are called "Floetz."

In addition to these two grand epochs, there were recognized by some 

geologists,

(3) The Tertiary, including the upper part of the Secondary class of 

Werner, which is distinguished as containing the remains of quadrupeds j

(4) An Alluvial class, consisting of gravel, sand, clay, marls, recognized by its resting upon the previously mentioned class; and

(5) The Volcanic class, the rocks of which were undoubtedly produced 

by fire.

In general, Werner believed all rocks were formed from one and the 

same solution by deposition, either chemical or mechanical, These 

" depositions " were made at various heights determined by the gradual 

departure of the water as it evaporated or sank away into cavities in 

the earth. But, to account for the formation of the " Secondary trap " 

and certain " Primitive porphyries," new inundations were assumed to 

have taken place.1 In his system there were series of formations, and 

each series was denominated a " suite;" thus, there were eight of these 

suites, called 

1. Limestone formation suite.

2. Slate formation suite.

3. Trap formation suite.

4. Porphyry formation suite.

5. Gypsum formation suite.

6. Salt formation suite.

7. Coal formation suite.

8. Serpentine formation suite.

Thus, "the limestone formation suite" consists of 

1. White granular limestone in the Primitive class (with large, granular, distinct 

concretions).

2. Variegated limestone in the Transition rocks, having " less translucidity, n and 

containing the first traces of petrifactions.

3. The gray Floetz limestone, scarcely translucent on edges, and full of petrifactions, 

and found in the Floetz or Secondary rocks.

4. Chalk.

5. Limestones and marls of the Paris Basin.

6. Calcareous tuff.

In these series, extending from the earliest to the latest period, there 

is a gradual disappearance of the crystalline, and a gradual increase 

of the earthy aspect, " corresponding with the relative age of the different members of the series, and the state of the solvent from which 

they were precipitated, and all serving as proofs of the immensely 

great but gradual alteration of the state of the universal waters." 

"Quietness of the water" was the characteristic at first, and as the

'Op. cit.,p.436.
16 THE DEVONIAN AND CAEBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

waters shallowed they were more disturbed, and the resulting rocks 

were less crystalline and more earthy; and, lastly, the earthy limestones 

as a result of exposure of the rocks to erosion by withdrawal of the 

waters.

Another point conspicuous in his theory is that regarding the actual 

position of the rocks as indicative of the age when they were formed. 

In describing each of these formation series we find the following sentence, " with sinking levels of the outgoings of the newer and newer 

strata."

The following exhibits Jameson's idea of the classification, which is

apparently an amplification of the scheme taught by Werner. i

CLASSES OF ROCKS. I

CLASS I. Primitive Rocks. Urgebirge of Werner j Terrains primitifs 

of Daubuisson.

Those formed antecedent to that of the creation of organic beings. 

Chemical formation, no fossils, under the Floetz or Transition.

The rocks of this class are -

1. Granite, with syenite, protogene topaz rock.

2. Gneiss, and varieties of white stone.

3. Mica slate, and varieties of talc slate.

4. Clay slate, Thonschiefer, with alum slate, flinty slate, etc.

5. Granular limestone, and primitive gypsum.

6. Primitive trap.

7. Serpentine and euphotide.

8. Porphyry.

9. Quartz rock.

CLASS II. Transition Bocks. Ueberganggebirge of Werner. 

Contains fossils, is less crystalline than the Primitive, and interposed 

between the Primitive and Secondary,

The rocks are 

1. Grauwacke, Werner; Psammite of Brongniart.

2. Transition limestone.

3. Granite and porphyry.

4. Gneiss, mica slate, etc.

5. Serpentine,

6. Quartz rock.

7. Red sandstone.

8. Transition trap.

9. Gypsum.

Class III. Secondary or Floetz rocks. Moetzgebirge of Weruer; 

Secondary or Floetz rock of Jameson ; Terrain secondaire of Daubuissou. It rests on Transition or Primitive, is less crystalline, has many 

fossils.

The principal Secondary rocks are 

1. Sandstone.

2. Limestone.

3. Gypsum.

4. Trap rook.
WILUAMB.J CLASSIFICATION OF ROCKS. 17

1. Sandstone: Conglomerate, Breccia, including 

First or Red sandstone, with tbe coal formation, or 

Old Red sandstone of Jameson, 

Aelter rother Sandstein of Werner. 

Rotlie-todte-liegende of German miners, 

Gres ancien of Daubuisson.

The coal formation is the " coal measures " or "coal fields " of the English miners, the "Steiukohlengebirge" of Werner, "Terrain houiller" 

of Daubuisson, " Terrain a charbon de terre " of older French writers.

It includes coal, slate, sandstone, quartz rock, clay, trap, graphite. 

Coal is either black coal or " glance " or " blind." The coal formation 

rests on the Mountain limestone or Bed sandstone, and underlies the 

Magnesian limestone.

The second sandstone is the New Bed or Variegated sandstone, the 

" bunter Sandstein " of Werner, " Eed Ground " of English geologists, 

"New Bed" of Buckland, "New Bed or Variegated sandstone "of 

Jameson. The second formation of " gres " and " gres avec argil," and 

"gres bigarre." It rests upon the second or Maguesiau limestone.

The third sandstone formation, u Green Sand" of English geologists, 

" third sandstone formation " of Jameson and Daubuisson, " Quadersandsteiu" of Werner. It rests upon the upper Oolite, and is covered 

by the chalk.

The fourth sandstone formation is associated with the rocks that rest 

upon the chalk.

2. Secondary or FJoetz limestone: There are five of these, called first, 

second, third, fourth, and fifth secondary limestones.

The first secondary limestone of Jameson is the " Alpine and Jura 

liinestoue" of the Germans and some French authors, and the " Mountain limestone" of English geologists. In regular succession it comes 

after the Old Bed sandstone.

The second secondary limestone of Jameson is probably the " Erster 

Floetz Kalkstein" of Werner, the "Magnesian limestone" of English 

authors, and rests upon the coal formation.

The third secondary limestone of Jameson is the "Muschel Kalkstein" 

of Weruer, " Oolite," of Buckland, " Lias and Oolite," of others.

The fourth secondary limestone is the "Chalk," the "Kreidegebirge" 

of Weruer, and rests upon the third sandstone.

The fifth secondary limestone. (See the " Paris formation.")

3. The Secondary Gypsum of Jameson, the " Floetz Gyps" of Werner. 

This included the first and second gypsum, also the "Steinsalzgebirge," 

of Weraer. In this second class were also included the formations 

above chalk, or the Paris formation, the " Terrain Tertiare " of Daubuisson, which includes seven different beds.

CLASS IV. Alluvial rocks.

Up to the end of the first quarter of the century very little knowledge 

was possessed of the characteristic fossils contained in geological deBull. 80 2
18 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

posits. William Smith, as all geologists know, early in the century 

recognized the importance of fossils in identifying geological deposits, 

and as early as 1812 a map of England and Wales was prepared by him 

with the order of the geological deposits marked upon it, and it was 

known, by William Smith, at least, that the several strata were characterized by different organisms. The order of these deposits was 

known by him, and a table was drawn up in 1799, some improvements 

were made in his map and in his table in 1815 and 1816, and in 1815 a 

small treatise was published by Smith, entitled "A Geological Table of 

British Organized Fossils," which identified the course and continuity 

of the strata.

It will thus be seen that in the earliest decade of the century there 

was one man, at least, who recognized the importance of fossils in determining and correlating geological strata. The methods of Smith 

were applied, however, no lower than the Carboniferous system, and it 

was not until later that they were adopted as a general principle for the 

classification and systematization of the whole geologic column.

Although fossils were recognized as important, they were so poorly 

understood, arid so few individuals studying geology had any accurate 

knowledge even of their generic characters, that they were of very slight 

service in correlating strata.

Mineral characters, therefore, played the principal part in all the 

classifications, correlations, and even nomenclatures of the geologists of 

the first quarter of this century.

Much confusion is found, also, in the attempts to generalize, on account of ignorance of the true means of correlating the strata that 

cropped out in different regions. The early names used indicate the 

principles of these classifications, such as " Granular limestones," " Argillite," "Grauwacke," "Old Ked sandstone," "Oolite^" "Cretaceous," 

" Magnesian limestones "; and a great many others could be enumerated. These, it will be seen, are all names indicating the usage of mineral characters for the distinction of the strata, independent of their 

locality and independent of their order of sequence or position in a vertical scale.

In order to change this system, it was necessary that a careful study 

of fossils be made, that their biological relations be clearly understood, 

and that their characters be geographically and geologically known. 

The classification of the geological deposits for England was fairly well 

understood for the Mesozoic and higher strata as early as 1822, but the 

lower strata, the Paleozoic series, as we now understand it, were not 

well understood prior to the works of Murchison and Sedgwick and 

their associates. Murchison's "Silurian system" was not published 

till 1839, and the classification of the Paleozoic series, although studied 

by English and Americans between 1830 and 1840, can not be regarded 

as having been fully understood by geologists until about the year 1840.

A glance at the general system of classification in the early text books
WILLIAMS.] EABLY CLASSIFICATIONS OF ROCKS. . 19

will give the best idea of the state of opinion in this first period of geological science. The rocks were classified at the beginning of the century by the Wernerian school into Primary and Secondary rocks; the 

idea contained in this distinction was, for the first, those rocks which 

were originally deposited from chemical solution and by evaporation 

from the ocean waters, and the Secondary were those which were produced by water erosion and reshaping of the Primary rocks, and deposition of the sediments above them. In the Secondary series fossils 

were observed, but the Primary series was supposed to have been laid 

down before the existence of organisms upon the earth. As observations accumulated, the rocks called Primary were found to include some 

which are now placed in the Paleozoic series. The name Transition 

came into use as a designation for the rocks, which were known to be 

stratified and occasionally to contain fossils, occupying a position between the.original Primary and Secondary formations. The Germans 

applied the name " Grauwacke " to this Transition series, and we find 

in Baton's classification, as presented in his " Index to the Geology of 

the Northern States," his "Erie Canal rocks," and His other papers, the 

use of the term " Grauwacke " in a sense which is different from that 

originally applied, but one necessitated by the discovery of the same 

kind of rocks at undoubtedly different horizons. The "Grauwacke" 

of Eaton was spoken of as " First," " Second," and "Third Grauwacke," 

etc., and we find him identifying the great mass of the rocks of western 

New York as belonging to the "Third Grauwacke," which he placed in 

the Secondary class. This " Third Grauwacke " is placed above the 

Carboniferous, and also above the " Saliferous rocks," a name which he 

used to represent the English Saliferous group, but which he identified 

with the Onondaga Salt group or Salina of the New York systefn. This 

was placed above the Conglomerates in the order of sequence because 

the " Millstone Grit," which they were supposed to represent in the 

English series, was below the New Bed sandstone.

The imperfection in the methods of correlation of this time is well 

illustrated by Baton's identification of the "Old Eed sandstone "in 

New York.

In "Erie Canal rocks," 1824, "Old Eed sandstone" is placed at the 

top of the "Transition class." It included the "Eed sandstone of the 

Connecticut Eiver,"and the "Eed sandstone of the Catskill Mountains," and in 1820 he reported the " Old Eed sandstone " as outcropping in the Niagara gorge.

This example shows that the color and composition were the basis of 

correlation, and that the belief that the order or sequence of formations 

must be the same in New York as in Great Britain led to the erroneous 

classification.

This confusion is due not so much to poor observation, which Eaton 

can not be charged with, as to erroneous theories which were common 

to geologists in his time. The recognition of the position of the Car-
20 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

boniferous in the Paleozoic, and its relation to " Old Bed sandstone " 

and " New Bed sandstone," are two distinct issues. Stratigraphically, 

the relation of the Coal Measures and its associated Carboniferous 

limestones and Millstone Grit with the Old Eed sandstone below and 

the New Eed sandstone above, was well established, but the division 

line, which separates our Paleozoic from Mesozoic, was not drawn until 

the fossils had been carefully studied.

Originally, and beginning with the works of Bakewell and De la 

Beche, and Conybeare and Phillips, above mentioned, the Carboniferous Coal Measures were associated with the Secondary rocks of Werner, and we find in the latter work,1 which, it will be noticed, was published in 1822, that the " Old Eed sandstone 1' in part is also included in 

what is called the " Medial or Carboniferous order." This was the first 

step toward the modern classification into Paleozoic and Mesozoic. 

By the majority of geologists for several years later than 1822, the Old 

Eed sandstone and the Carboniferous were included in the Secondary, 

and the rocks below2 were placed in the Transition or Grauwacke of 

the older classifications.

It was John Phillips3 who first clearly conceived the importance of 

associating the Carboniferous, the Devonian, and the Magnesian limestones together, and separating them from the rest of the New Eed 

formation, to form the upper part of the Paleozoic strata. This brought 

the demarkation between the ancient (Paleozoic) fauna and the middle 

(Mesozoic) fauna at the top of the Permian, or, in England, at the top 

of the Magnesian limestones; and the distinction was based purely 

upon the study of the contained fossils. This was first suggested in the 

articles in the Penny Encyclopedia, in 1810 and 1841, entitled "Paleozoic Eocks" and "Saliferous system," and the statement that Phillips 

is responsible for so extending the Paleozoic is given in his " Paleozoic 

Fossils." 4 The term "Paleozoic" was suggested by Sedgwick to take 

the place of " Protozoic," the term which Murchisou applied to the 

rocks described in his " Silurian system," and which were regarded as 

belonging to the Transition strata of the Wernerians.

Thus it will be seen that the grand distinction between Mesozoic and 

Paleozoic, as now understood, was entirely determined by the fossils.

The study of the Devonian rocks, and the determination of their 

position by Lonsdale in 1837, furnish another example of the application of paleontology in perfecting classification. The rocks themselves, 

their stratigraphy, their relations to other rocks, had been carefully 

studied by Murchison and De la Beche, and by numerous others in a 

more irregular way, prior to 1838, but the identification of their fossil 

contents by Lonsdale, and their comparison with the fossils of other 

formations, made it possible for him to assert positively that the posi1 Conybeare and Phillipa's Geology, etc.

 The Silurian, Cambrian, and, as we see in De la Beche, the Devonian systems.

8 Author of "Paleozoic Fossils of Cornwall, Devon,-and West Somerset," published in 1841.

* Page 160.
WILLIAMS.) PALEONTOLOGY AND GEOLOGY. 21

tion ot the Devonian rocks chronologically, in the geological series, is 

between the Silurian system of Murchisou, and the Carboniferous system of Conybeare, heretofore regarded as of the Secondary strata of 

Werner.

The demarkation of the Paleozoic by its fossils which we owe to 

Phillips and the determination of the intermediate position of the Devonian system by Lonsdale were two conspicuous examples of the inestimable value of fossils for geologic correlation. Heretofore the 

methods of the Wernerian school were dominant in all geologic classifications and correlations. Afterward in English and American geology 

paleontology became the indispensible ally of stratigraphic geology.
OHAPTEE I.

THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF OPINIONS REGARDING 

THE CLASSIFICATION OF ROCKS IN THE UNITED STATES FROM 

THE TIME OF WILLIAM MACLURE TO THE COMPLETION OF 

THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, 

1809-1843.

An article appeared in the Trans. Am. Phil. Soc., in the year 1809,1 

which is among the earliest careful expositions of the systematic 

arrangement of the rocks of North America, if not the very earliest.2

The classification adopted by Maclure is the Wernerian, and he defeuds the usage of this system by the following arguments 3 : "First, 

because it is the most perfect and extensive iu its general outlines; 

and secondly, the nature and relative situation of the minerals in the 

United States, whilst they are certainly the most extensive of any field 

yet examined, may perhaps be found to be the most correct elucidation 

of the general exactitude of that theory as respects the relative position 

of the different series of rocks."

The following is the nomenclature adopted: l

CLASS 1. Primitive rocks. (1) Granite, (2) Gneiss, (3) Mica slate, (4) Clay slate, (5) 

Primitive limestone, (6) Primitive trap, (7) Serpentine, (8) Porphyry (9) Syenite, 

(10) Topaz rock, (11) Quartz rock, (12) Primitive flinty slate, (13) Primitive gypsum, 

(14) White stone.

CLASS 2. Transition rocks. (1) Transition limestone, (2) Transition trap, (3) Grey- 

 yracke, (4) Transition flinty slate, (5) Transition gypsum.

CLASS 3. Floetz or Secondary rocks, (1) Old Red sandstone or first sandstone formation, (2) First or oldest Floetz limestone, (3) First or oldest Floetz Gypsum, (4) 

Second or Variegated sandstone, (5) Second Floetz gypsum, (6) Second Floetz 

limestone, (7) Third Floetz sandstone, (8) Eock Salt formation, (9) Chalk formation, 

(10) Floetz Trap formation, (11) Independent Coal formation, (12) Newest Floetz 

Trap formation.

CLASS 4. Alluvial rocks. (1) Peat, (2) Sand and gravel, (3) Loam, (4) Bog iron ore, 

(5) Nagel fluh, (6) Calc tuff, (7) Calc sinter.

It is. singular to notice how persistently this original error of placing 

the " Coal formation " high up in the " Secondary " was perpetuated by 

later geologists. So, too, the position of the u Eock Salt formation," 

which was in the Mesozoic in England, was erroneously regarded, when

1 Vol. 6, pp. 411-428.

s The article ia entitled "Observations on the geology of the United States, explanatory of a 

geological map, by William Maclute, read January 20,1809." For students of early maps, it is well 

to remember this map of Maclure's in the Tranasctiona.

8 Op. cit., pp. 411,412.

«Ibid., p. 412. 

22
WILLIAMS.] MACLURE, CORNELIUS, DRA.KE. 23

discovered in New York and other places, as a central one in the 

" Floetz rocks."

The position of the "Independent Coal formation" is defined by 

Maclure as extending " from the head waters of the Ohio, with some 

interruption, all the way to the waters of the Tombigbee." 1

This " Coal formation," as mentioned above, is placed in the upper 

part of the " Floetz," and is said to lie on " immense beds of Secondary 

limestone, intercepted in some places by extensive tracts of sandstone 

and other Secondary aggregates."

Maclure was familiar with the theoretical classification of Werner, and 

it is instructive to us, seeking a universal classification for the rock 

formations of the earth, to observe that the first geologist of America, 

in 1809, found the formations of America " the most correct elucidation 

of the general exactitude " of this German system. Perhaps American 

geologists are not at present in danger of imitating any foreign system 

 with such reverence, but the attempt to harmonize or coordinate the 

classifications across the ocean leads to the same imperfect science, unless 

strict and even severe adherence to the facts be insisted upon.

In 1818 Elias Cornelius, in a paper on the geology, mineralogy, etc., 

of parts of Tennessee, Virginia, and Alabama and Mississippi Territories, defined two limestones which he distinguished as the "inclined 

strata" and the " horizontal strata," reminding us here of the Weruerian "Floetz" formation. His " inclined strata" were observed along 

the route of his travels over the Blue Ridge and the Cumberland Mountains, and all of the five ranges of the Alleghany Mountains. They 

were usually called gray limestones, sometimes reddish, as at Knoxville. The second, or " horizontal strata," of bluish color, he observed 

from the Cumberland Mountains for 200 miles south westward. The 

editor explains in a note that the " highly inclined limestone" is the 

Transition of Werner; the "flat strata" belong to the Secondary.

John Grammar, jr., gave an account of coal mines in the vicinity of 

Richmond, in Chesterfield County, and noticed that the coal rests upon 

granite, is inclined 45° to the horizon, and has a thickness from 25 to 

60 feet, thinning out southward; but he did not describe its geological 

horizon.2

In an article by John H. Kain, we find a reference to coal worked at 

Kuoxville, Tennessee.

Daniel Drake published "A geological account of the valley of the 

Ohio." 3

This is in a letter to Joseph Correa de Serra, and it presents his 

views in regard to the surface rocks and conditions, and some of the 

basement rocks are also referred to in the article, but the nomenclature 

for these is entirely Wernerian, as "Floetz," "Secondary," "Geest," 

etc.

1 Trans. Am. Phil. Soc., vol. 6, p. 425.

2 This is the first notice wo see of the Mesozole coal formations of this region. 

*Trans. of the Am. Phil. Soo., vol. 2, new series, pp. 124-139.
24 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

In 1819 the American Geological Society was formed.1 It was incorporated by the State of Connecticut and provisionally located in New 

Haven, and the first meeting was held in the philosophical room of 

Tale College, New Haven.

The Geological Society continued in existence for several years and 

gradually came to an end.3

It is evident from the honor bestowed upon William Maclure that in 

the first quarter of the century he was regarded as the most learned 

American geologist. In 181.9, when the American Geological Society 

was started in New Haven, he was elected its first president. In a 

note at the foot of page 360, volume II, of the Sillimau Journal, where 

a donation from him to the American Geological Society is referred to, 

he is described as a gentlemen who " has, in person, examined the 

geology of almost every portion of Europe as well as of the civilized 

portions of America. He has visited several countries repeatedly, and 

has inspected most of the interesting localities of minerals in Europe 

and America."

When we remember how few of the present facilities for travel and 

communication with foreign lands were existent in 1820, when this was 

written, some idea can be formed of the great influence such a man 

must have exerted over the opinions of American geologists.

W. B. Stilson, in a sketch of the geology and mineralogy of a part of 

the State of Indiana, briefly described the geological formations of the 

State, and referred them to the " secondary rocks." This was a correct correlation following Maclure's classification j the mistake, as before noted, was in the standard scale.

In 1820 Prof. Amos Eaton published "An Index to the Geology of 

the Northeri*; States." 3 The observations recorded in his book are 

almost entirely the result of his own personal experience. He writes 

in the preface, page vi: u With respect to the theoretical part, as far as 

I have given in to any theory it is to that of Werner, with the improvements of Cuvier and Bakewell."

He recognized eighteen strata in order from the bottom upward, 

which he grouped into five classes. These were as follows:

Strata.

1. Granite.

2. Gneiss.

T Primitive rlass <* 3> Hornblende rock. 1. Primitive class ..........< 4 Mica slate

5. Talcose rock.

6. Granular limestone.

1 Am. Jonr. Soi., vol. 2, page 139.

2 Prof. Dana informs me by letter, October 30, 1888, tliat by consultation of the records of the society 

in Yale College library he ascertained that the last meeting of the society was held in 1826, and the 

last member, E. Leffingwell, died in New Haven during the year 1888. Isaac Lea was a member of 

the society, and when he died there was but one member of the society still living. In the early numbers of the American Journal of Science frequent references are made to the reception of books and 

specimens by the society.

* Second edition, 286 pages, 12mo, Troy, New York.
wiLLUMs.1 EATON, BRONGNIART, NUTTALL. 25

f 7. Argillite.

I 8. Metalliferous limestone.

II. Transition class .......... <j 1Q; Red.y Sandstone (including those of " Catskill

I Mountains, Oswego River, Niagara River, and 

t Connecticut River").

{

11. Breccia. 

12. Compact limestone. 

13. Gypsum (Manlius, Onondaga, Madison, etc.). 

14. Secondary sandstone.

IV. Superincumbent class .... { J

V. Alluvial class............ {

- This follows the general system of Bakewell, who was a disciple of 

Werner; but the individual strata are partly peculiar to his own system, although distributed in the several classes of the Wernerian classification.

In 1821 we find a notice of the occurrence of "blind coal" on the 

bank of the Arkansas, 500 miles from its mouth, "equal to the best 

Kilkenny coal f this by L. Bringier.

In a letter to Sillirnan (the editor of the American Journal), dated 

1820, Brongniart writes about fossils in a way to show how they were 

then used, and to what a slight extent they were of value in the interpretation of geologic strata. He says1 in regard to Trilobites: " I 

learned from these specimens, and from some others which I received 

in different ways, that Trilobifces existed in America as well as in Europe; 

that the animals differed very little (if, indeed, they constantly differed 

at all) from those of Europe, and that they are, in both cases, found in 

the Schists phyllades, or in the transition limestone, or, at least, in those 

which are very ancient."

Ebenezer Granger noticed some vegetable impressions from the coal 

formation of Zanesville, Ohio, and recognized them as Lepidodendra&nd. 

Galamites, but did not further identify them.

Thomas Nuttall2, of Philadelphia, records some " Observations on 

the Geological Structure of the Valley of the Mississippi." He gives 

an account of the probable limits and character of the "secondary 

formations" in the Mississippi Valley. He compares the calcareous 

platform of the Mississippi (as seen in the plains of Ohio, Michigan, 

Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, western Tennessee, and Missouri) to the 

plains of the Tartarian district, traversed by the Kuban, as described 

by Pallas and Clarke, and he states that he thinks he meets in these 

calcareous deposits " almost every fossil described and figured in Martin's Petrifacta Derbieusia."

Although he makes no allusion to specific identification, this is a 

clear recognition of the " Carboniferous rocks n in these limestones of 

the interior.

In 1822 Zachariah Cist gave an account of the Lehigh and Schuyl1 Am. Jonr. Sci.. vol. 3, p. 226.

2 Jour, of the Acad. of Sci. of Philadelphia, 1821, vol. 2, pp. 14-65.
26 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

kill coal mines in the neighborhood of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, 

 which were then being worked to the extent of 1,500 tons annually sent 

to market.

In 1823 1 Ami Bone" discussed "European Geology, with remarks on 

the prevailing geological arrangements." The nomenclature is mainly 

Wernerian; such terms as "Encrinal limestone," "Old Bed sandstone," and "Coal Formation" are associated with " Grauwacke," 

" Ploetz," and " Eed Ground," and in the next volume,2 Conybeare and 

Phillips's Geology is reviewed.2 In the review the supposition is made 

that our salt and gypsum beds may belong to the "original marl" of 

the authors, and doubt is expressed as to the Connecticut Old Bed 

sandstone being really the equivalent of the " red marl." 4

The"Bhode Island anthracite" is referred to " transition slates," 

graywacke slate. 5 It is distinctly stated 6 that in this country no 

distinction had theretofore been made between " rothe todte liegeude 7> 

and the English " Old Bed sandstone," and the argument is set forth 

that since the red sandstone in Connecticut lies below the coal measures 

therefore the "rothe todte" is not uniformly above the coal, as it is 

claimed to be by the authors, the Connecticut sandstone having been 

recognized by its fossils as equivalent to the " rothe todte."

Again, in this same year, Prof. Edward Hitchcock gave a considerable 

account of " the Geology, Mineralogy, and Scenery of the Connecticut 

Biver." He recognized the sandstone along the Connecticut Biver as 

unmistakably the "Old Bed sandstone" of the English authors.7

Also, he referred to the occurrence of the " coal formations " along the 

river, at Chatham, at Middletown, and at Berlin. 8 The occurrence of 

fish in these coal beds at Westfield and Sunderland is mentioned on 

page 76, where one of them is referred to the genus Palethrissum. In 

the next volume 9 the " Bhode Island coal formation" is said to be 

older than that of Connecticut, and the supposition is made that they 

are both " transition." Hitchcock in his classification evidently followed Conybeare and Phillips's Geology, and from a foot-note 10 it is 

evident that he regarded the red sandstone to be the same with the 

" rothe todte liegende," " which," he says, "lies immediately below the 

bituminous marl formation of Germany, and below the coal formation 

in England." He quoted Conybeare as considering them distinct, and 

ventured the supposition that the " red sandstones of the Connecticut 

Valley" are not " Old Bed" but " rothe todte," although he still considered the sandstones west of the Connecticut Biver as true Old Bed 

sandstone.

This confusion in regard to the determination of our red sands was 

not altogether due to faulty stratigraphic observation on the part of

1 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 6, pp. 188-192. «Ibid.,p. 230. 

z lbid., vol. 7, pp. 203-240. 7 Ibid., vol. 6, p. 39. 

8 This was published in 1882. 8 See ibid., pp. 41,44. 

4 Eed marl of Conybeare and Phillips is in the 9 Ibid., vol. 7, p. 28. 

Triassic. 10 Ibid., p. 27. 

* Am. Jour. Sci. vol. 7, p. 224.
WILLIAMS.] AMOS EATON. 27

our geologists, but to confusion in their identification of them with the 

red sandstones described in the English books. The English geologists 

themselves were not yet united in distinguishing the red sandstones in 

their own country, and here, too, the trouble was more due to an attempt 

at correlating them with the red sandstones of the European Triassic 

than a failure to understand their difference in England. It was not 

until considerably later that our geologists clearly distinguished and 

placed in their proper geological horizon the Triassic sandstones of the 

Connecticut Valley and southward along the Atlantic border, and the 

several Paleozoic red sandstones now known as Potsdam, Medina, and 

Catsldll red sandstones.

The year 1824 is noticeable in the progress of American Geology by 

the publication of Amos Baton's work on the Erie Oanal rocks. 1

Part 1 contains a description of the rock formations, together with 

a geological profile extending from the Atlantic to Lake Erie. The 

classification is substantially that adopted in his text-book, though somewhat modified. In the place of the sixteen strata he has twenty-five, 

distributed in the four classes, Primitive, Transition, Secondary, and 

Superincumbent. His favorite system in naming rocks is recognized 

in the new names which he proposes in his classification. These are 

after the pattern of " the metalliferous lime rock," that is, the Latin 

termination meaning " to bear," added to the name of the mineral, and 

applied to the rock. Such terms are " saliferous rock," " ferriferous 

slate," " geodiferous slate," " lime rock," etc. A few of these terms are 

still preserved in our nomenclature, but where they are used they are 

confusing, and the objection to them is the objection to all of the names 

of'the Wernerian school, that they are attempts to define rock strata 

by their mineral and physical characters, under the supposition that 

these characters were traceable in other than the locality where the 

original stratum was described. Stratigraphic geology was impeded 

by the attempts to perpetuate this method of classification, and we are 

scarcely yet entirely free from the influence of this Wernerian school.

A review of this book is given in the eighth volume of the American 

Journal of Science.2

Objection is there taken to the " unnecessary innovations in geological nomenclature," or to " any deviation from the present highly improved state of the science on the eastern continent, unless it is where 

new facts and discoveries imperiously demand such a course." This is 

evidently a rap at Prof. Baton's criticism of Phillips and Conybeare's 

Geology, published in the same volume of the American Journal of Science 3 a few months before.

1 A Geological and Agricultural Survey of the District adjoining the Erie Canal, by Amos Eaton, 

163 pages and a plate, Albany, New York, taken under the direction of the Hon. Stephen Van Kensselaer.

2 Pp. 358-362.

» Pp. 201-263.
28 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. . (BULL. 80.

Baton's article is entitled " Ought American geologists to adopt the 

changes in the science proposed by Phillips and Conybeare ?" He 

protests against accepting such a radical change in classification as 

Phillips and Conybeare propose, which is practically a defense of the 

older Wernerian classification, while Conybeare and Phillips, conceding the importance of defining the various formations by their chemical 

and external characters and mineral contents, distinctly recognized 

also the importance of the organic remains as a means of determining 

and characterizing each individual geological formation, thus following 

directly in the steps of William Smith and Cuvier.

In 1824, in volume 1 of the second series of Transactions of the Geological Society, is an article by J. L. Bigsby, entitled "Notes on the Geography and Geology of Lake Huron." This, one of the earliest descriptions of a geological section in that part of the country, recognizes 

(p. 196) the following formations: "Primitive rocks, Secondary, limestone with Orthoceratites on High Cliff Island, Eed sandstone equivalent to the Old Eed of Werner, underlying Lake George, and the Straits 

of St. Mary, and limestones at St. Joseph, and on Drummond Island, 

with Orthoceratites, Milliporse, Madreporse, Bncrini, shells," etc. Some 

of the fossils are described and figured; they are all referred to the 

"Secondary." A Trilobite is also figured1 and described by Charles 

Stokes.2 This is plainly a Lower Silurian fossil, and its identification 

indicates the use of the term "'Secondary" in 1824 as including part 

of what we now call Silurian rocks.

In 1825 Chester,Dewey spoke of Baton's survey of the Erie Canal 3 

and recognized its value, but mildly protested against the " needless 

novelties in technical language."

In 1825 a letter 4 William Maclure urges "perhaps the most useful 

classification in the present state of the science would be to retain 

Werner's five classes as being well defined, that is, as well as the graded 

variety of nature will permit, and to make some subdivisions in each 

class without deranging the system already best known, or the ideas of 

those who follow it."

Thus it will be seen that, at this date, the ablest geologists of America adhered to the old Wernerian system of classification, and when we 

remember that this system was based upon a study of the primitive 

rocks, and that the classification which was applicable to them was 

applied to the whole series as well, we need not be surprised at the 

retarding influence exerted upon all true progress in geological science.

During the year 1826, and for several years after, frequent papers 

were published descriptive of coal mines, and dealing particularly with 

the properties of coal considered as a fuel and in its economical aspects. 

The regions discussed in these several papers were principally three,

1 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 8, p. 2o.

* It is called by him Asaphus platycephalus, and.figured on Plate 27, Figs. 1, a-b-c, and 2.

8 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 9, p. 355.

4 Ibid., p. 254, dated Paris, January 14, to the editor.
WILLIAMS.] PIERCE, SILLIMAN, MEADE, EATON. 29

those of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ehode Island, but in nonfc of these 

papers was there expressed any very clear appreciation of the stratigraphic relations of the coal.

Two such papers were by James Pierce. 1

In the first paper the author gave no opinion as to the geological age 

of the coal in Virginia, but in the second paper he referred the coal of 

Lehigh, Mauch Chunk, Eastou, and Pottsville to the " Grauwacke formation," and regarded the Grauwacke as in the Transition group. This 

was a recognition of a lower horizon for the coal than had been accepted 

by the geologists in America. The coal heretofore discovered' was regarded as belonging to the "Secondary formation" of the prevailing 

classification. The author also noticed that the coal in the eastern part 

of Pennsylvania is anthracite and the coal of the western deposits in 

Pennsylvania is bituminous,

Prof. Silliman, the editor of the American Journal of Science, also 

published several papers, about this time, on the coals of Ehode Island, 

Pennsylvania, and other regions.2 But in his discussions on the coal, 

it is its properties and economical uses rather than its geological position which he considered.

In 1827, William Meade3 considered the anthracite in the region from 

the Susqueh«inna to thePenobscot as decidedly belonging in the Transition. Reference was made by him to the coal lately discovered near 

the Tioga Eiver, Pennsylvania.4

In 1828, Amos Eaton published in Albany a small treatise of some 

thirty-one pages, entitled "A Geological Nomenclature for North America."5

This publication is a revision of the "Nomenclature" published in 

the first part of the Erie Canal Survey of 1824, after suggestions received from Prof. Parker Cleaveland, Dr. Steele, and others. There are 

also some corrections based upon his own observations. Among the 

latter are to be noticed the statement that " there is no mica slate in 

Berkshire County on the western slope of the Green Mountain Eange,"6 

and " no Primitive Argillite in our district;" " neither do 1 believe there 

is such a rock as Primitive Argillite on this globe," in which he follows 

Bakewell's opinion. Another modification is his statement that the 

"Old Eed sandstone of Werneris not a general stratum," but is found 

in the third Graywacke, and also, in the second Graywacke. In this 

view he follows Conybeare's opinion, as found in the Introduction of 

Phillips's and Conybeare's Geology.7

1 The marl regions of Virginia and Maryland, and on the bituminous coal formation in Virginia; 

Am. Jour.Sci.,vol.ll,182C, pp 54-59. The mountain districts of Pennsylvania, and the mineral resources 

of that State, including its bituminous coal; ibid., vol. 12,1827, pp. 54-74.

2 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 11, p. 78 ; ibid., 1830, vol. 18, p. 308; ibid., 1831, vol. 19, p. 1-21. 

 Remarks on the Anthracites of Europe and America, Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 12, p. 76. 

4 Ibid., vol. 14, pp. 32-35.

6 In the Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 13, pp. 145-159 and 359-368, is found substantially the same article 

under the title of Geological Nomenclature, Classes of Rocks, etc., by Prof. Amos Eaton., 

6 See op. cit. foot-note, p. 146. 

'Ibid., pp. 147 and 155.
30 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

In the American Journal article, four pages, entitled " Geological Nomenclature Exhibited in a Synopsis of North American Eocks and Detritus," are inserted between the regular pp. 144 and 145, which appear 

to be a reprint of pages of the work as printed in Albany. This " Nomenclature" gives the following list of the classes of rocks:

CLASS 1. Primitive rocks ; being those which contain no organic relics nor coal (including. Granite, Mica slate, Hornblende rock, Talcose slate, Granular Quartz, Granular limerock).

CLASS 2. Transition rocks; being those which contain marine organic relics only, 

and in some localities Anthracite coal (including Argillite, First Graywacke, Sparry 

limerock, Calciferous sandrock, Metalliferous limerock, Second Graywacke).

CLASS 3. Secondary rocks ; being those which contain, in some localities, dry-land 

or fresh-water organic relics, as well as marine, or bituminous coal (including Millstone grit, Saliferous rock, Ferriferous rock, Lias, Geodiferous limerock, Cornetiferous limerock, Third Graywacke).

CLASS 4. Suiierlncumbent rocks ; being those Hornblende rocks which overlay others 

without any regular order of superposition, and supposed to be of volcanic origin 

(including Basalt).

CLASSES OF DETRITUS.

CLASS 5. Alluvial detritus ; being those masses of detritus which have been washed 

into their present situation (including Auti-Diluviou, Diluvion, Ultimate Diluvion, 

Post-Diluviou).

CLASS 6. Analluvial detritti8; being those masses of detritus which have not been 

washed from places, showing they were first formed by the disintegration of rocks 

(including Stratified Analluviou and superficial analluvion).

The localities are given for each of the above mentioned kinds of 

rocks, and we find them in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York, 

in the latter State mainly along the line of the Erie Canal.

A few of the names used in this " Nomenclature" are still retained, 

with no, or but slight, modification. " Calciferous saudrock," and 

under " Metalliferous limerock," " Birdseye marble" is mentioned as 

a variety of it j under the term " Third Graywacke," with the subdivision " Pyritiferous rock," is described what we now know as the Devonian rocks of the State of New York, including the Catskill, or what 

were known as the Old Eed sandstone of Werner, but not including 

the Lower limestones. Baton's " Cornetiferous limerock" appears to 

be a name covering both Lower Helderberg and Upper Helderberg 

rocks of our present classification, and his " Third Graywacke " rested 

upon the " Cornetiferous limerock." In this paper Eaton pointed out 

the distinction between " general strata," which he finds in America 

" can be traced for an extent of 100 or 300 miles," and " beds or varieties " of the former. 1

According to this proposed nomenclature, " the Lias, Geodiferous 

limerock, Cornetiferous limerock, and the Third Graywacke occupied 

as uppermost rocks more than half of the great States of New York, 

Pennsylvania, Virginia, and nearly all the States of Ohio, Indiana, 

Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan Territory," and he says

'Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 13, p. 361.
WILLIAMS.] EATON, DOORNJK, VANUXEM. 31

"If we adopt the European nomenclature, one must treat of this vast 

territory under the Oolitic Formation."*

Prof. Eaton regarded this synopsis as expressing accurately " the 

order of superposition," as well as the definition and geographical locating of the strata named.2 In the same article he stated that " No one 

is qualified for examining geological facts, nor for reading essays or 

systematic treatises on geology, until he has fixed in his mind a systematic arrangement of general strata." 3 And he informed us that Van 

Eeusselaer spent more than $18,000 on the investigations and researches which were carried on in connection with his survey of the 

Erie Canal rocks.4

In 1829 there appeared 5 an interesting article by J. E. Doornik on 

u Observations concerning fossil organic remains," communicated by 

the author in French, and translated by Charles U. Shepard. The 

author made some remarks upon M. Cuvier's method of explaining the 

importance of organic remains for geology. (Cuvier's " Osseinens fossiles" had been published in 1825.)

Doornik combats the proposition of Cuvier that " to fossil remains 

alone is due the origin of the theory of the earth, and that there had 

been in the formation of the globe successive epochs and a series of 

different operations," and while combating this proposition he defends 

Werner as having laid the foundation of geology.

This article is interesting particularly as showing the progress of 

science caused by the opposition of the conservatives. Fossils were 

rapidly taking the place of mineral characters in .the correlation of 

stratified rocks, and the old school (such men as Doornik and Prof. 

Eaton) strenuously advocated the system of Werner. A quotation is 

found in this article from Brongniart, which shows how thoroughly he, 

as a student of fossil botany, appreciated the value of fossils. Ho 

wrote as follows:

I consider, then, those characters relating to the epochs'of formations which are 

taken from organic remains as of the first value in geology and as superior to all 

others, however valuable they may appear.

Lardner Yanuxem wrote a letter to Prof. Cleveland the same year.6 

Among other remarks the following are worthy of quotation: He said 

that the ''Alluvial" of Maclure includes both Tertiary .and Secondary, 

and the different deposits are characterized by their fossils, which are 

not confused or mixed, but are found at different levels, and this is 

noticeable in the Southern States' particularly. He pointed out an error, 

which was a generally accepted one, and is traceable to the identifica1 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 13, p. 361. 0 

2 Ibid.,p.362. 

"Ibid., p. 359. 

'Ibid., note to p. 360.

5 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 25, p. 90, etseq.

6 On the characters and classification of certain American rock formations. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 16, 

18211, p. 254.
32 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

tion of Amos Eaton, viz, the covering " of the western country and the 

back and upper parts of New York with Secondary rocks." Vanuxem 

found them, by their fossils, to belong to the Transition, and remarked: 

"The analogy or identity of rocks I determine by their fossils in the 

first instance and by their position and miueralogical characters in the 

second or last instance." He mentioned instances of such determinations in regard to certain rocks of Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, 

which he identified with the " limestones of Treutou Falls by the genera of the fossils," and recognized that they are different from the rocks 

lying above the Coal Measures. This appears to be the first, or at 

least one of the very earliest, expressions in American literature of the 

principle underlying the new school of geologic correlation which soon 

after took the place of the Wernerian school.

To show how the errors of the system of Werner led to mistakes of 

identity, it may be noticed that Baton's determination of the rocks of 

western New York, etc., as belonging to the " secondary rocks " of his 

classification, appears to be influenced by the term "floetz" of the 

Wemerian nomenclature, which applied to these rocks.

In 1830 James O. Morse published an article 1 in which is an illustration of the arguments used for defending the Werneriau system. The 

author referred to the doubt which had been expressed as to the identification of certain rocks with the Greywacke, and argued as follows:

Prof. Jameson describes Greywacke as composed of sand connected together by a 

basis of clay slate, and minute inspection of the rock of these regions will convince 

any one that our Greywacke has these component parts.

Prof. Amos Eaton made some " Observations on the coal formations 

in the State of New York in connection with the great coal beds of 

Pennsylvania." 2 In this article he recognized four distinct coal formations in the United States: First, " the genuine Anthracite or Glance 

coal," in the Transition Argillite, Newport, Rhode Island, and Worcester, Massachusetts; second, "coal destitute of bituminous matter," not 

true anthracite, but what he calls "Anasphaltic coal," occurring in slate 

rock, lowest of the second series, which he identifies with the greatest 

Coal Measures of Europe, Pennsylvania, Carbondale, Lehigh, Lackawaxan. and WilkesBarre; third, the "bituminous coal" proper, in slate 

rock of the lowest of the upper Secondary rocks, Tioga, Lycoming, etc., 

Pennsylvania; fourth, "Lignite coal," as seen at the south shore of the 

Bay of Amboy, in New Jersey. The first or "Anthracite coals" are 

represented by slates which he traced from Canada to Orange County, 

New York, but the coal never occurs in seams thicker than an inch. 

The third, "bituminous coal," Eaton traced from Pennsylvania to 

Seneca and Cayuga Lakes, and the coal seams, he said, were not over 

2 inches in thickness. It is said to "rest on what the English call Carboniferous limestone." This "Carboniferous limestone" is plainly the 

Tully limestone, and the " Coal Measures" above are the Genesee shale.

1 Observations on the Greywacke region of the State of New York; Albany Institute Trans., vol. 1, 

pp. 84, 85. 

»Trans. of the Albany Institute, vol. 1., pp. 126-13Q,
WILLIAMS.] AMOS EATON. . 33

Eatori identified the Onondaga Salt group and the Medina sandstone 

and shales, and Clinton rocks, probably, with the English " Saliferous" 

and underlying " Millstone grit," and in accordance with the English 

precedent coal was supposed to lie below these. He believed that 

boring at Gasport, 6 miles east of Lockport, which at the surface was 

274 feet higher than the surface of Lake Ontario, would reveal the Coal 

Measures at 600 feet below the surface, and he was so confident that he 

even suggested that legislative aid be furnished for boring down to this 

coal. And again he says : l "And it may be stated that if coal is not 

found beneath the Saliferous rock, which is more than 200 miles in extent, it will be truly a geological curiosity which has no parallel on the 

Eastern continent; but we find many deviations in America from the 

geological maxims which seem to be established in Europe."

This mistake of the first of American teachers of geology of that time 

in supposing that coal would be found below the Middle Silurian rocks 

is the legitimate outgrowth of the imperfection of the Wernerian system. The supposition that Saliferous rocks occupy a particular place 

in a scale of strata was not Prof. Baton's fault; he followed the English 

and they the German school in this, and it was not due to the ignorance 

of the uneducated that attempts were made to find coal in New York 

State for years after this, but it was due to the ignorance of the best 

geologists of the time as to the right means of correlating rock equivalents across the Atlantic.

In 1830 Amos Eaton wrote a short article3 entitled " Geological Prodroinus." He announced that he intended to demonstrate that " all geological strata are arranged in five analagous series, and that each series 

consists of three formations, viz: the Carboniferous, Quartzose, and 

Calcareous." He referred to Bakewell's classification, and this idea is 

evidently a modification of the notion that strata were arranged in 

recurring suites of formations, a notion which was brought out in the 

later development of geology, in the theory of " circles of sedimentation," of which Dr. J. S. Newberry is the most conspicuous exponent.

Eaton particularizes in the article referred to, saying that he intends 

to show that "the Lehigh or Lackawannock coal * * * is embraced 

in the Second Grauwacke, Secondary, and that the Tioga coal is embraced in the Third Grauwacke or Upper Secondary of Bakewell and 

others " ; and in this latter position, the Third Grauwacke, he mentions 

as belonging to the " thin layers of coal at Ithaca, on Seneca Lake, and 

Lake Erie shores." 3

This error of Baton's in identifying the rocks of Ithaca, CayugaLake, 

and westward to Lake Erie with the " Third Grauwacke," placing them 

above the Blossburg coal of Pennsylvania, was not corrected until several years later, when the study of fossils clearly revealed the fact that 

the rocks belonged below the Carboniferous.

'Am. Jour. Sci., p. 130. * Ibid., vol. 17, p. 63, dated Troy, July 28,1829. "Ibid., p. 28,

Bull. 80 3
34 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. IBULL.SO.

The classification of De la Beche is reported in the Journal,1 a few 

points of which may be worth recording in order to show how opinion 

stood in England at this time. The rocks from the top down to what 

is called "the lowest fossiliferous" are divided into nine groups, and 

together are called " the superior stratified or fossiliferous rocks." 

These divisions are as follows:

1. Alluvial Group. 6. Red Sandstone.

2. Diluvial Group. 7. Carboniferous.

3. Lowest Great Maininiferous. 8. Grauwacke.

4. Cretaceous. 9. Lowest Fossiliferous.

5. Oolitic.

In this classification is seen also a separation of the Old Red sandstone from the Carboniferous, placing the Old Eed in the eighth division, the Grauwacke.

Eaton identified the second coal with the formations below the " Saliferous," and the third coal, he stated, is the same with the outcrops in 

Ithaca and on Cayuga Lake.2

This opinion was controverted by David Thomas, who dates his article, Greatfield, Cayuga County, New York, 1830.3 He pointed out the 

fact that the rocks on Cayuga Lake dip slightly to the south, which 

would bring them below the Tioga coal, and he modestly differed from 

the distinguished geologist, Prof. Eaton, and suggested that these rocks 

on Cayuga Lake must belong to different strata, below the coal deposits 

of Tioga, Pennsylvania.

In 1831 Silliman compared conglomerates associated with the anthracite coal in Pennsylvania with the Millstone grit of the English Coal 

Measures; 4 in 1832 5 Eaton supposed that he had established identity for 

the rocks in New York with European strata by their contained fossils, 

for "(1) Granular limerock with no organic remains; (2) the Metalliferous, mountain, or Carboniferous liinerock," which he recognized by 

fossils in the rocks from Glens and Trenton Falls, Bethlehem, Catskill, 

Esopus Strand, and Kondout. "(3) The Oolitic series of calcareous 

rocks, the 'coral rag,'" recognized on the south shore of Lake Erie, 

and 23 miles southwest of Albany. u (4) Tertiary marls," recognized 

in New Jersey as " London clay," and " shell marl" in the bank of the 

Erie Canal, 10 miles west of the Onondaga Salt Works.

This article is dated October 2,1831; the identifications, as it will be 

seen, are mainly utterly wrong, although the attempt shows how the 

principle of correlation by means of fossils was being forced into notice 

and adopted by even the extreme disciples of Werner.

In the same year and volume6 Eaton published another article, euti1 De la Beche, Henry. Sketch of a classification of the European rocks. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 18, 

1830, pp. 26-39.

2 Albany Institute, Transactions, vol. 1; also Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 19, pp. 21-26. 

8 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 19, p. 320.

4 Ibid., pp. 21-26. < 

5 "On the four cardinal points in Stratigraphic Geology, established by organic remains." Anj, 

Jour. Sci., vol. 21, pp. 199-200. 

»Jbjd.,pp432-13&
WIMJAMB.J SILLIMAN, HITCHCOCK, FEATHERSTONHAUGH. 35

titled u Geological Equivalents," in which is given a list of " names of 

strata which are known to geologists of both continents, with some of 

their organic associations in North America." In the list eighty species 

are named. The names were taken, of Mollusca, chiefly, from Sovverby, 

of Eadiata, from Goldfuss, of Crustacea, from Bronguiart. It is an attempt to recognize the European strata in America, adopting the Bakewelliau adaptation of Werner's system, and there are necessarily many 

gross errors.

In an article in the American Journal of Science, Prof. Sillimau, the 

editor, reviewed u Phillips's Geology of Yorkshire," which had been published in ] 829. In the course of his remarks we find the following statement: "Wernerand Smith are, therefore, the leaders of the modern 

school of geology," and " Smith has the great merit of establishing the 

facts that different strata contain different fossils, but that the same 

sratuin over a very large extent of country contains generally the same 

fossils, hence he deduces the important conclusion that strata may be 

discriminated and indentified by their organic contents."1

Edward Hitchcock reported 2 on the u Geology of Massachusetts," 

which he had examined under the direction of the government of that 

State, during the years 1830-'31. Part first, or economical geology, was 

published in the Journal, and in a foot-note the editor said that" this is 

the first example in this country of the geological survey of an entire 

State." In this report the Connecticut Eiver sandstone is called the 

" New Eed sandstone," the opinion formerly expressed in regard to 

coal occurringin Connecticut and Massachusetts is reconsidered, and 

in the present article the coal formation of this region is regarded as 

belonging to the New Eed sandstone or its equivalent.3 The Worcester 

anthracite is regarded as in older rocks than that of Ehode Island, and 

the Pennsylvania anthracite is reported as occurring in the higher beds 

of the Grauwacke, and as belonging to a newer horizon than that of 

the Ehode Island coal.

Geo. W. Featherstonhaugh4 did little more in the way of classification 

than theoretically to adapt the system of Conybeare to America. The 

table of formations is as follows: (details only of the parts pertaining 

to the present discussion are here given):

Feet. 

f!7. Lyas..............................

| 16. Variegated or red marl ............ 500

fSupermedial order.. £ ^w BSdSnditone""::: '.'.""'." m

1M Tlunliafnin rnn

Secondary..

13. Zechstein ......................... 500

12. Exeter red conglomerate........... 500

{

11. Coalbeds ......................... 1,000

10. Millstone grit and shales........... 800

9. Carboniferous limestone ........... 850

8. Old Red sandstone ................ 1,500

1 Am. Joiu-.Soi., vol. 22, pp. 4,11-12.

2 Ibid., pp. 1-70

3 Ibid. p. 43.

« Featherstonhaugh, Or. W. : On the order of succession of the rocks composing the prijat of 

Monthly Am, Jowr. Qeol. a$d JTat. Sci,, vol. 1, 1832, pp. 337-34J,
36 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEKOUS. [BULL. 80.

Transition... .Sabmedial order

In 1833 Eaton gave reasons for referring the Pennsylvania coal beds 

to the Secondary Coal Measures of Europe.1 In this article reference 

is made to coal plants collected by Mr. James Hall, then adjunct professor in Eensselaer Institute. Eaton defended his reference of the coal 

beds of Pennsylvania to the " Secondary," and mentioned his identification of twenty-three species of the specimens of ferns collected by 

Hall with species described by Brougniart from the great Secondary 

coal formation.

J. B. Gibson, in 1833, recognized in Pennsylvania, New York, Upper 

Canada, Ohio, and Michigan, two superior formations : the New Red sandstone, associated with which he reports Magnesian limestone, gypsum, and 

rocksalt ; resting on this is a calcareous formation, forming the cataracts 

of Niagara, Onondaga, and Genesee.2 Of the limestone along the Niagara 

Eiver he said :

It corresponds in all material respects to the Lias of the English geologists and 

corroborates the German doctrine of universal formations.3

And more of the same kind.

Bituminous coal in Alabama was reported by Alexander Jones in 

1834, and a section was run across the country from Baltimore to the 

Ohio Eiver by William E. A. Aiken.4

In 1834-'35 the Transactions of the Geological Society of Pennsylvania, vols. 1, 2, were published.

Eichard C. Taylor had several papers in these transactions in regard 

to the geological position of the coal deposits of Pennsylvania and 

Eichmond, Virginia.5 He recognized in the plants from Lewistowu, 

Mifflin County, Pennsylvania, " marine plants of the family Fucoids, 

from the Grauwacke group, and the Old Bed sandstone." 6 In one article Taylor shows that coal is not to be expected to the northward, as 

the dip of the rocks is southward. In PI. 8, Fig. 5, the true relation 

of the beds from Blossburg northward to the Chemung River is given, 

and from observations made upon the dip of the rocks, decreasing northward, he estimated that the rocks at the Chemung Eiver, " Chimney 

Narrows," would be 6,275 feet below the summit of the hills of the 

Tioga Basin. These beds below the Blossburg coal basin are called 

"Old Eed sandstone," and he regarded them as 6,000 or 7,000 feet 

thick.7 ____________________________

1 The coal bods of Pennsylvania equivalent to the great Secondary Coal Measures of Europe ; 

Am. Jour. Sci. , vol. 23, p. 399.

2 This is the Niagara limestone.

3 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 23, p. 203.

4 Aiken, Dr. "William E. A.: " Some notices of the geology of the country between Baltimore and the 

Ohio Kiver, with a section illustrating the superposition of the rocks." Am. Jour. Sci., 1st ser., vol. 20, 

1834, pp. 219-232.

8 Vol. 1, pp. 5-15.

6 Pp. 204-223: "On the mineral basin of the coal field of Blossburg, on the Tioga Eiver, Tioga 

County, Pennsylvania."

7 P. 208.
WIUJAMB.] TAYLOR, TEOOST. 37

Of fossils he named the following as occurring in these beds: " Producta and Crinoidal remains, and occasionally Fucoides, Garopliyllea, 

Pectens, and Spirifer are interspersed." This is, apparently, the first 

identification of the Chemung group, as it is now called, of the Upper 

Devonian.

He discussed 1 "a section passing through the bituminous coal field 

near Richmond, Virginia," and gave a full account of "these interesting beds of coal," which he regarded as "probably of Transition age" 

rather than Secondary, to which position Mr. Maclure referred them.

At that time, apparently, the fossils had not been studied, ignorance 

in regard to which left the geologists in the dark as to the true position 

of these Mesozoic deposits.

An account is given2 of studies of sections for 250 miles across Virginia and Maryland. In the discussion the Primitive, Transition, Old

Red, and Secondary rocks are recognized, and the Fredericksburg 

plant beds were referred 3 to the "Oolitic" of Europe.

In another paper the coal beds of the Alleghany Mountains are called 

"Secondary, with Old Red Sandstone lying- under them," and on the 

other side of the anticline were seen other coal beds, winch Mr. Taylor 

called " Transition." A cut is given 4 presenting the true relations of 

the Chemung and Blossburg deposits, but the Blossburg coal is regarded as Secondary.

In the same Transactions,5 Edward Miller described a portion of the 

Alleghany Mountains, in which he recognized the coal formations as 

belonging to the " Coal Measures."

Gerard Troost,6 in a paper on certain Pentremites found in Tennessee, 

Alabama, and Kentucky, identified the rocks of Perry County, Tennessee, as "a stratum below the Coal Measures," regarded by him as "in 

the Upper Transition." In the same rocks with the Pentremites were 

found Trilobites, Calceola sandaling Calamopora, Terebratula, Spirifera, 

Producta, etc.

In some cases the limestone had an oolitic structure. The limestone 

near Nashville, Tennessee, was referred to the " Mountain limestone of 

the English." The conclusion is that the beds containing the Pentreraites of these Southern States characterize "the Upper Transition 

limestone" of the interior of America.

The same author7 wrote " On the organic remains which characterize the Transition series of the Valley of the Mississippi." In this article he included " Mountain limestone" in the " Transition strata," be1 On pp. 275-294.

2 On p. 314.

3 Vol. 2, pp. 177-193: " On the relative position of the Transition and Secondary coal formations in 

Pennsylvania, and description of some Transition coal, or bituminous, anthracite, and iron-ore heds 

near Broad Top Mountain, in Bedford County, and of a coal vein in Perry County, Pennsylvania, with 

sections."

4 P. 194. 

8 Vol.1, p. 251. 

°Ibid, pp. 224-231. 

7 Ibid., 248.
38 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. |«ui.T,80.

cause, as he says, " the fossils of the Carboniferous limestone are those 

found in the Grauwacke of Europe, while his Grauwacke is without 

fossils except in the upper strata." The " Carboniferous limestone" he 

considered distinct from the u Coal Measures."

In 1836 S. P. Hildreth recognized in the State of Ohio, using the 

nomenclature of De la Beche, the " Tertiary, Super-Cretaceous, New 

Bed sandstone, Eed inarl, White Lias limestone, Millstone grit or 

Breccia, Bituminous coal, Old Eed sandstone." The "Pittsburg coal 

strata" and the "Carboniferous limestone" are described. An "extensive spring of petroleum " is mentioned. A large number of fossils 

are figured, thirty plates of which are published with names and short 

descriptions. 1

In 1836 Featherstdnhaugh 2 compared the deposits of anthracite coal 

and bituminous coal, and stated that the former belongs to an entirely 

distinct geological position from that of the latter. The " anthracite," 

with the exception of Broad Top in Bedford County, Pennsylvania, is 

" without exception deposited low down among what have been called 

the Grauwacke rocks." And he thinks they will prove u the equivalent of Mr. Murchison's Silurian rocks." 3

In 1837, George E. Hayes 4 gave his reasons for differing from those 

who considered the rocks of western New York as of Secondary age. 

He regarded them as " older than the Carboniferous " and of Transition 

age."

In 1838 Charles T. Jackson, speaking of the Coal Measures of Mansfield, Massachusetts, refers them to the "Conglomerate or Grauwacke." 5

This brings us up to the time of the Geological Survey in New York, 

and the work of the Kogers in the Pennsylvania and Virginia rocks, and 

the clearing up of the classifications, due in great measure, for the lower

rocks, to the publications of Murchison and Sedgwick in England, which

had then reached America. It is interesting to notice that so long as 

the Transition and Grauwacke rocks were classified in accordance with 

the Wernerian system, nothing satisfactory was reached. The Coal 

Measures, the Saliferous rocks, the Grauwacke, the Old Ked sandstone, 

and the Carboniferous limestones, when attempts were made to identify 

them in this country, were placed in the positions to which they were 

assigned by the Werneriau school; position being determined not by 

study of their stratigraphy alone, but by the primary identification of 

the rock from its mineralogical characteristics, which were supposed to 

be recognized, and then by an arbitrary reference of it to a position in 

the system corresponding to that found in the European series.

'Observations on the bituminous coal deposits of the valley of the Ohio, and the accompanying 

rock strata, with notices of the fossil organic remains and the relics of vegetable and animal beds. 

Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 29, pp. 1-154.

2 Report of a geological 'reconnoissauce made in 1835, from the seat of Government by the way of 

Green Bay and the Wisconsin Territory to the Coteau de Prairie.

3 Op. cit., p. 113.

* Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 31, pp. 241-247.

8 Ibid., vol.34, p. 395.
WILUAMS.] THE FIRST NEW YORK SURVEY. 39

The new school of geologists, when they began work in New York 

State, made careful stratigraphic observations. Following the methods 

begun by Murchison and Sedgwick, although taking the data from the 

facts as they found them, they arrived at a correct interpretation of 

the strata of New York, which are peculiarly simple in their stratigraphic relations. And ultimately the " New York system," as it was 

afterward called (the name was proposed as a temporary name for 

convenience), became the standard section for American Paleozoic 

rocks. This New York system of rocks is for the Paleozoic one of the 

most perfect and satisfactory geologic sections found anywhere in the 

world, and may well stand as a classic section for the interpretation of 

the rocks which had been called Transition in the older nomenclature.

In 1837, the first annual report of the Geological Survey of New York 

was published. In this report, T. A. Conrad, who had previously studied the paleontology of Tertiary deposits along the coast, and was recognized as a paleontologist of ability, reported for the third district 

of New York. In classification, the nomenclature of Eaton mainly 

was used. We notice1 that in the main the strata he studied were 

recognized as belonging to " the Silurian or Lower Transition rocks. 

Thus it will be seen that the Murchisonian classification had already 

reached America.

In this first report special attention is called to the importance of 

having the fossils carefully studied by a man specially appointed for that 

purpose, as State paleontologist. The next year Conrad was appointed 

paleontologist.

In the second report, 1838, Conrad, as paleontologist, reported the following points, which will show the progress that had been made during 

the year. He concluded that with the exception of the upper part of 

the Catskill Mountains, the rocks of the State terminate with the " "Oj> 

per Lndlow rocks" of Murchison ; and he noted that the fossils in the 

strata below the coal in Tioga County are the same as those in the 

Coldbrook Dale coal, and also that the same fossils are recognized in 

Ohio.2

Among the fossils discovered in the various strata he found what he 

regarded as equivalents of those reported from foreign rocks in the following places :

(1) Below the Catskill strata fossils equivalent to those of the Lud-

(2) A limestone and two strata of sandstone with fossils equivalent 

to those of the Dudley.4

(3) The " Calciferous slate" of Eaton, containing the gypsum, was 

correlated with the " dye earth " of Shropshire.5

(4) The tl Saliferous sand rock " of Eaton, was tliB Bed sandstone at 

Niagara and Genesee Rivers (now the Medina sandstone. 6)

'Op. cit., p. 184. "Ibid., p. 111.

2 Op. cit, pp. 109, 110. 6 Ibid., p. 112.

3 Ibid., p. 110. «Ibid., p. 113.
40 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

(5) Olive sandstone and slate of Salmon River, Oswego County (these 

two, 4 and 5 were recognized as equivalents of " the fourth group in 

the slate system of Wales," as denned in Phillip's Encyclopajdia Metropolitaua, article Geology, p. 568.)

(6) The black limestone and shale of Trenton, the "Birdseye limestone," and " calciferous sand rock" of Eaton, and the granwacke and 

slate of Hudson River, he recognized as equivalent to the " Llaudeilo 

flags " of Murchison. 1

In this report, also, thirteen species of fossils are described from the 

first group above, which he regarded as equivalent to the Ludlow.2

The localities given are Norwich, Oazenovia, Madison, and Sherburue. Since all these localities are Devonian localities, and the fossils 

are Devonian fossils, it is evident that in 1838, the paleontologist Conrad regarded these Devonian rocks as equivalent to the Ludlow group 

of the Upper Silurian of Murchison.

Lardner Vauuxem reported for the third district 3 and appears to follow Baton's nomenclature, except in a few new names, like "Trenton 

limestone," which had already been published. Fossils are given ior 

"Trenton limestone,black shale," "green shale and sandstone," "upper 

limestone," "white sandstone" (which can be recognized as the Oriskany). The species in this report were evidently determined by 

Conrad.

James Hall reported for the fourth district. This, it will be remembered, includes the rocks of the State from Cayuga Lake westward. 

These rocks were regarded as equivalents of the Old Eed sandstone 

and Carboniferous groups, and stratigraphically above the Silurian system of Murchison.4 Some erroneous identifications, however, are evident; what is now the Medina sandstone was called in this report "Old 

Red sandstone," aud the Corniferous limestone was identified as " Carboniferous or Mountain limestone." 5

W. W. Mather, in 1838, published the first annual report of the Geological Survey of the State of Ohio. In his identifications he mentioned 

first the great limestone deposit, which he correlated with the "Mountain or Carboniferous limestone" of Europe. He defined this as covering the western border of the State. He named a number of fossils 

from this limestone, which are evidently erroneously identified, as the 

formation is Silurian, and not Carboniferous, as he supposed. His 

third formation he called " Waverly sandstone series." Other points 

of the correlation were made, as " conglomerates," and also an " upper 

coal series," but it is particularly important to notice that originally 

the formations called " Carboniferous limestone" in America were not 

correctly identified.

The second annual report of the Geological Survey of Ohio was

1 N". T. Geol. Snrv., 2d Kep., p. 114.

a Ibid., p. 116.

3 Ibid.,pp.253-28C.

«Ibid., p. 291.

6 See "map along the Genessee River from Rochester southward."
WILLIAMS.] THE FIRST OHIO SURVEY. 41

published in 1838. The director of the work, and editor-iu:Chief, was 

W. W. Mather. The volume contains reports by Mather, 1 O. Whittlesey,2 J. W. Foster,3 0. Briggs, jr.,4 and J. Locke.5

In the geological parts of this report we have general descriptions 

of the regions surveyed and some location of the order of the strata, 

as seen particularly in a " table representing the geological structure 

of Ohio,"6 prepared by C. Briggs, jr., which is as follows:

The rocks of the State are divided into six formations, which, from 

above downward, are in the following order: "(1) Alluvium, (2) Tertiary, (3) Coal Measures, (4) Fine-grained sandstone, (5) Shales, and 

(G) Mountain limestone."

The "Mountain limestone (G)," which is said to be about a thousand 

feet in thickness, and is defined as "beds of limestone intermixed with 

chert," judging from the localities in which it is identified, is probably 

theCorniferouslimestone. The "Fine-grained sandstone(4)," underlying the Coal Measures, is apparently the "Waverly sandstone series" 

of the first report.

In John Locke's report 7 a generalized section of the southwestern 

part of Ohio is given. In this section the following deposits are recognized, beginning at the bottom with " (1) Blue limestone," [the Cincinnati limestone], "(2) Marie, (3) Flinty limestone, (4) Marie, (5) Cliff 

limestone, including basins of iron ore, (6) Bituminous slate, and (7) 

Fine-grained sandstone."

It will be seen from this report that nothing had been done to correlate accurately the deposits with any of the systems then in use. 

Mather was one of the corps of geologists engaged in the State survey 

of New York, and it was not until later than 1838 that the ISTew York 

geologists had adopted any systematic classification of rocks.

In Houghton's report of the survey of Michigan, the coal formation 

was recognized, but the classification was not correlated with the 

European system, and merely the nature of the rocks and their order 

were defined.

In Indiana identifications had been made of the "coal formation" 

and " Subcarboniferous rocks," including the " Oolitic limestone, 

Hydraulic limestone, etc.," which were rightly identified in their stratigraphic relations to the Carboniferous. They were regarded by D. D. 

Owen as similar to the Mountain limestone of the Europeans.8

In Tennessee (fourth report, by G. Troost), the " Primordial," the 

"Grauwacke," the "Mountain limestone,'' and the "Coal Measures" 

were distinguished, and an immense deposit of sandstone was recognized between the Grauwacke and the Mountain limestone which was 

regarded as equivalent to the Old Eed sandstone of the European geologists.9

'Pp. 1-40. 6 Loc.cit.,p. 108.

7 Pp. 41-72. 7 See p. 205.

3 Pp. 73-107. 8 Seo Am. Jonr. Sci., vol. 34, p. 193.

* Pp. 109-154. "Ibid., p. 187.

6 Pp. 203-286.
42 THE DEVONIAN AND CAEBONIFEROUS. [HULL. 80.

Pennsylvania: H, D. Rogers had been studying the rocks of Pennsylvania, and there was published in this year a generalized section of 

the Appalachian region of Pennsylvania.2 The formations recognized 

by Rogers were as follows:

1. Sandstone of Sontli Mountain.

2. Limestone of Kittatiuy Valley.

3. Slate of Kittatiny Valley.

4. Sandstone and conglomerate of Kittatiny Valley and Blue Mountain.

5. Red and variegated sandstone and sliale of the valley northwest of Kittatiny.

G. Bine limestone along the north base of Kittatiny and,both sides of Montour's 

Ridge.

7. Sandstone of the first ridge north of Kittatiny.

8. Olive-colored slate of the valley between Kittatiny and second mountain.

9. Red sandstone and shale of southeast slope and base of Alleghany Mountains.

10. Sandstone and conglomerates of second mountain, and of southeast summit 

of Alleghany.

11. Red shale of anthracite coal regions.

12. Conglomerates and sandstones immediately below the Coal Measures (Broad. 

Top and Alleghany coal region)

13. Anthracite Coal Measures.

It is interesting to note that this system of numbers for the various 

formations was made out about the same time that the system of nomenclature adopted by the New York Survey was being formed. Both 

systems have struggled for existence in some parts of the country. 

The system of Rogers was one based strictly upon the nature of the 

rocks and their stratigraphic sequence, and in so far is satisfactory for 

that particular region ; but the New York system was defined in addition by the fossil contents of the various formations, and an attempt 

was made at the very start to correlate them with the several formations defined by the European geologists.

Whether we adopt local geographical names or not, it is doubtful if 

simple numbers, as proposed in the Pennsylvania system of Rogers, 

will ever be satisfactory except for a limited re*gion.

In this same year, 1838, we have a report upon the Upper Illinois, 

by 0. U. Shepard.2 The name " Magnesiau limestone "is applied to 

the "great limestone rock formation extending from near Chicago to 

the Kankakee River," and in various places the coal formation was 

recognized. Several sections of the coal formations and descriptions 

and figures of some plants and fossil shells are given.

Prof. Dewey, of Rochester, gave an account 3 of some observations 

on the rocks in western New York. The rocks south of Rochester 

were misunderstood by him on account of the misinterpretation of the 

fossils; for instance, the "limestones" were regarded as the same as 

those of Trenton Falls, and as belonging to the Transition, and were

1 See Am. Jonr. Soi., vol. 34, pp. 189,190.

2 Ibid., pp. 134-101.

8 Ibid., vol. 33, pp. 121-123.
WILLIAMS.! CONRAD, WHITTLESEY, MURCHISON. 43

thought to "rank with the Mountain limestone of Europe, and rest on 

the Old Bed sandstone." l By the latter term he evidently meant the 

Medina sandstone.

In 1839, T. A. Conrad published " Notes on American Geology." 2 

He used the term "Trilobite rocks" for what had previously been 

called the Transition or the Silurian system. In this paper he stated 

that " Strophomena is the most characteristic of the Trilobite system ;" 

that "Producta has as yet been found only in the upper term," or 

" Pyritiferous rock" of Eaton, and that the "Producta is abundant in 

the Mountain limestone where Strophomena is rare," and that this 

genus is " eminently characteristic of the Carboniferous system." This 

indicates a careful observation of fossils, although the identifications 

are broader than customary at the present time.

In 1839, Whittlesey, Ch,, recognized the following classification of 

the rocks of Ohio :

1. Coal Measures. 

 <J. Conglomerate.

3. Waverly series. 0

4. (Black shale, Hamilton and Marcellus).

5. Cliff limestone (including Corniferous and Onondaga).

The "Hamilton and Marcellus shales" extended from the lake to the

base of the Newburg section. " Chemung and Portage" included the

rocks of Eewburg and Bedford and above to about half way to Hudson.

Murchison, in his "Silurian System," 3 London, 1839, proposed the

following names.

Oolitic sjstem.'4 Silurian system. 8 

New Red system. 5 Upper Silurian rocks.9 

Carboniferous system. 6 Lower Silurian rocks. 9 

Old Red system.7

and quotes the term " Cambrian System," 7 from Prof. Sedgwick. The 

words, " Oolitic," "New Bed," "Carboniferous," "Old Bed," were names 

used before and applied to certain rocks, but their use in connection 

wil-h the word," system," is apparently introduced for the first time by 

Murchison.

The following is the classification proposed by Murchison as it appears upon his map:

a. Inferior oolite ......................................... )

1. Upper lias and rnarlstone........ ...................... > Oolitic system.

ft. Lower lias ...'......................................... )

c. Upper red marl ........................................ 1

c. Kenper sandstone ......................................

c. Lower Red marl ....................................... >New Red system.

d. New Red sandstone .................................... ( J

e. Calcareous Conglomerate (Magiiesiau limestone)........ !

/. Lower New Red sandstone ............................. J

1 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 33, page 12i JL>

2 IWd., vol. 35, pp. 237-251.

8 The Silurian System, founded on Geological Rescarcheu in tlie counties of Salop, Hereford, Radnor, 

Montgomery, Caermarthon, Brecon, Pembroke, Monmouth, Gloucester, Worcester, and Stafford, with 

descriptions of the coal fields and overlying formations. By Roderick Impey Murcbison, F. H. S., etc. 

In two parts. London, 1839. Quarto, 7C8 pp., 37 plates, and large folding map.

«P.13. 6 P.27. °P. 70. 7 P.1C9. 8 P. 195. 9 P.2C5.
44 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

g. Upper Coal and Fresh-water lime ........ ..............~|

f Lower Coal Measures .................:........... ------L Cai-bonifer<Mis system.

/(,. Millstone grit.......................................... [ J

i. Carboniferous li mestone ...............................J

k. Old Red Conglomerate ................................. )

1. Cornstone and marls of Old Red........................ >Old Red system.

m. Tilestone of Old Red................................... S

n. Upper Lndlow rock.."l ^ 1 

n. Aymesfcry and Ludlow 1 Lndlow

limestone .... t ""(. .Upper Silurian

«. Lower Ludlow rock.. J \ ,.nfxra

n AV«r,lr,nlr 11'moatnuo ) I 1OCM.B. o. Wenlock limestone... ... w,. i ,-v i 

o. Wenlock shale ....... J w em°CK J

p. Upper Caradoc (with

limestone) . ...... VCaradoc....

p. Caradoc sandstone ... ) i .. .Lower Silurian

Silurian system.

J

r. Upper Cambrian (beds of passage).... .................. ? Cambrian system (part

a. Slaty Cambrian rocks .................................. 5 of).

M. de Verneuil 1 gave the following classification:

o

S

I. Coal Measures and Millstone grit. 

2. Mountain limestone. 

3. Lower Carboniferous shales.

{

1. Upper Silurian (including Old Red sandstone and 

Devonshire strata). 

2. Middle Silurian. 

3. Lower Silurian.

Thus evidently following Murchison, and he pointed out the error of 

Foster of Ohio and other American geologists in identifying limestones 

containing Silurian fossils as "Mountain limestone."

In the same journal, in the following year (1841), J. W. Foster explains that the Silurian fossils came from a formation wrongly called 

by him " Mountain limestone." e

In a review of the report of the geological and agricultural survey 

of the State of .Rhode Island, by Charles T. Jackson,2 the reviewer gave 

the following Opinion: "In determining the geological age of rocks 

Dr. Jackson gives a preference to superposition of strata and the 

ipineralogical composition over zoological and botanical characteristics, 

which, however, he allows to be of great value. He prefers also 

the Wernerian division of Transition rocks to the names Cambrian 

and Silurian proposed for certain groups in England, which be thinks 

will never be regarded in this country as appropriate terms for our 

rocks."

This is an indication of the prejudice which is not confined to the old 

geologists or to the early stages of geological science, but which 

troubles us at the present time. The names "Cambrian" and 

"Silurian," within 10 years of the time when Jackson wrote this, were 

almost universally adopted by Americans whenever the formations 

included under these names were under consideration, arid the Wernerian system, for which Jackson and many of his associates at that

1 Vernenil, Ed. de: Sur 1'importance de la limite qui s6pare 3e calcaire montagne des formations qui 

lui sout in f6rioiirea. Soc. g6ol. France, Bull., 1 810, vol. 2, pp. 166-179.

2 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 40, 1840, pp. 182, 183.
WILLIAMS.] CONRAD, HUBBARD. 45

time strenuously fought, has been entirely superseded. Attempts to 

fetter the progress of science by holding on to established systems are 

always to be avoided, and those who have the interests of true science 

at heart should jealously watch against the prejudices which tempt 

them to cling to those things which have been, merely because they 

have been.

In 1840 Conrad published a paper " On the Silurian system, with a 

table of strata and characteristic fossils." 1 This paper appears to be in 

its essential features the same as the table published in the fifth annual 

report of the State of New York in the following year. He had studied 

the Silurian system of Murchison and found spread over the greater 

part of New York, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and 

terminating on the south in the mountains or hill regions of north 

Alabama, rocks which represented the Silurian system. He reported 

in the vicinity of Florence and Tuscuinbia, Alabama, the "Oriskany 

sandstone." At Blossburg, Pennsylvania, the "Old Bed sandstone" 

was recognized by the presence of Eoloptychius. On the western 

slopes of the Appalachian he found the Carboniferous system well 

developed, with ^the Mountain limestone rare and generally in thin 

deposits. The "New Bed sandstone" was recognized in very limited 

areas. No traces of the "Oolitic," the "Lias," or "Wealden" were 

recognized. The "Cretaceous" was widely distributed and the 

"Tertiary formation" was reported as occurring on the sea border.

In New York State the "Llandeilo flags" were recognized and the 

"Caradoc sandstone" was regarded as the equivalent of the "Trenton 

limestone." The " Wenlock shale " was recognized in the " Bochester 

shale" and the "Calciferous slate" of Eaton. The " Wenlock limestone" was identified in the "Helderberg limestones," six of them. 

The " Ludlow rocks" were not defined in this paper. A table is given2 

showing the characteristic fossils of each of the formations and their 

English equivalents as represented in Murchison's Silurian system. 

This paper is particularly interesting as the first exhaustive attempt to 

correlate the formations of America with those of Murchison's Silurian 

system by means of their fossils alone. Previous attempts had been 

made by him to correlate the New York rocks- with the English rocks 

in general.3

In a notice, by O. P. Hubbard, of the third annual report on the 

Geological Survey of New York,4 a few remarks are made which show 

the confusion which existed at this time regarding the classification of 

the New York rocks. He shows that there was considerable difference 

of opinion as to the position of the rocks in central and western New 

York. " They have been alternately described as Transition and Secondary." "The Saliferous group" is counted as above the coal series,

1 Am. Jour. Soi., vol. 38, pp. 86-93. 

8 Ibid., pp. 89,00. 

8 See New York annual reports. 

 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 39, pp. 95-108.
46 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. (BULL. 80.

and this with the "sandstone of Eochester" is regarded as New Eed 

sandstone. The rocks of the fourth district are considered as belonging to the " Old Eed sandstone and the Carboniferous group," and to 

lie "above the Silurian system of Mr. Murchison," a conclusion based 

in part upon the organic remains.

This confusion was doubtless due to the fact that the Wernerian 

method, which, somewhat modified, was seen in the earlier works of 

Eaton, was inconsistent with the new method which was being elaborated by the New York State geologists. Those who thought in terms 

of the first considered the new method revolutionary.

Prof. Baton's systematic work heretofore followed the English treatise on geology by Bakewell. In an article which appeared in 1840' he 

quotes an outline of the system of Bronguiart, proposed in 1829, which 

he states the author still maintained in 1840. As Eaton used this system and attempted to defend its application to American rocks, it may 

be worth while to record Brouguiart's system of classification:

1. Primitive class (Agalysient, overthrowing or breaking up by internal 

forces).

2. Transition class (Hemilysient, half breaking up by internal forces).

3. Lower Secondary class (Abyssiont, deepest abyss of the ocean).

4. Upper Secondary class (Pelagieut,'the ocean).

5. Tertiary class (Thalassieut, the sea).

6. Diluvial class (Clysmient, the deluge).

7. Alluvial class (washed).

It will be seen from the terms used that Brongniart considered the 

rocks to be formed in the Primitive class by the overthrowing or breaking up processes due to internal forces; the Transition class, half to 

this operation; the Lower Secondary class, to the sedimentation of the 

deep abyss of the ocean; the Upper Secondary, to the ordinary deposition of the ocean; the Tertiary, to the shallow seas or modern seas; 

the Diluvial, to floods or deluges on the laud; and the seventh, 

Alluvial, to the washing of rivers and streams.

The general theory of this interpretation of the strata was proposed 

earlier by Lehmann, and is associated with the general notion that the 

earth was formed from water solution first, by a chemical crystallization and deposition, and later by sedimentation from the ocean, at first 

higher up in the hills, and, as the water evaporated, lower down in the 

valleys. This general theory pervades various systems of the early part 

of the century, and may be regarded as the fundamental theory of 

Werner, determining his method of classification and of correlation.

In the present article, Eaton attempted to point out the limits between the various divisions of Brongniart in our own strata. He recognized the well known Stockbridge marble of Massachusetts as the 

upper stratum of the Primitive class. Second, he regarded the " Cor1 Amos Eaton: References to North American localities to be applied in illustration of the equivalency of geological deposits o» tjje eastern and western sides of the Atlantic- <4-iu. Jpur. Sci., vol. 

W, P- HP,
WILLIAMS.] EATON, CLAPP. 47

niferous limerock" as the uppermost Transition rock. This he identified farther as equivalent to" some part or most of the Grauwacke 

group of Do la BSche, the Grauwacke limestones of some English 

writers, the Grauwacke slate of Bakewell, and perhaps the Carboniferous rock of Couybeare, and, surely, the Upper Transition (one of the 

Psamniite) rocks of Bronguiart."1

The limit between the Secondary and Tertiary, Eaton recognized along 

the south shore of Earitau Bay, in New Jersey. He says. " Uppermost of the Secondary deposits is the Cretaceous formation most perfectly characterized, but it coutains no white chalk ; the last of the 

Tertiary is the plastic clay.2

There is nothing particular valuable in this article, or new, even at 

that time, but the particular importance of quoting it is to show how 

the Werueriaus were beginning to recognize the absolute importance

of fossils in determining the relations of deposits.

In 1841 A. Clapp 3 correlated the "limestone of the Falls of the 

Ohio " with the Wenlock of Murchison; it is the "Cliff limestone" of 

Locke. The ''limestone and marls of Madison and Hanover, Indiana" 

are correlated with the Wenlock; the "Middle and Lower Blue limestone and marls" of Cincinnati are correlated with theCaradoc; the 

"black bituminous shale" at the foot of the Falls is considered as 

equivalent to the Marcellus shale of New York ; the ."Oolitic" and the 

"Pentreinite limestone" of Troost and Owen, of Kentucky, Indiana, 

and Illinois are identified as Carboniferous limestone. The author considered the "limestone of the Falls of tl\e Ohio" in its upper portion 

to be identical with the Ludlow and Wenlock, the lower and middle 

portion as equivalent to the Niagara limestone and Gypseous shales of 

New York, and he further correlated the "Cliff limestone" of Locke 

with the whole of the rocks represented in New York by Niagara limestone, Gypseous shale, Water-lime, and Onoudaga limestones. This 

constitutes the total rock deposit between the "Blue limestone and 

marls of Cincinnati" and the "Black shale" (Marcellus), and is the 

western continuation, as he says, of the Middle Silurian of Conrad. 

The 8 feet of fetid subcrystalline limestone immediately underlying the 

Black shale the author identified with the New York Water lime, and the 

"Black shale" above it he regards as not equivalent to the Ludlowville 

shale, as was asserted by Prof. Hall, but as lower and the true equivalent of the Marcellus shale.

In 1841 (which was the second year of the association), Edward Hitchcock delivered the "First anniversary address before the Association 

of American Geologists in Philadelphia." 4 A few points are interesting in this historical sketch, as signifying the progress which geology 

had made in America up to this time.

1 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 39, p. 153. It is now (1890) called, the Corniferous limestone.

2 This limit is apparently the line between the Green sand and the Raritau clays.

3 Geological Equivalents of the vicinity of Now Albany, Indiana, as compared with those describee). 

Jn the Silurian system of Murchisou; Proo. Phil. Acad. of Sci., vol. 11841, pp. 18,19,177,178,, 

?Sep Am, Jour. Sci., vol. 41, pp. 237-273.
48 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEKOUS. [DULL. 80.

The Association 2 was formed the year before at the call of the gentlemen of the New York Survey, who " issued a circular inviting those 

engaged in similar surveys in other States" to a meeting in Philadelphia. We learn from Hitchcock's address that the first attempt to 

classify American geology was made by William MacClure in 1807, who, 

in the field work preparatory to this, crossed the Alleghauy Mountains 

in fifty places. In 1810, Dr. Bruce had started the Miueralogical Journal ; in 1816, Dr. Cleveland's Treatise on Mineralogy and Geology was 

published; in 1818, Silliman's Journal was begun; in 1818, also, an 

American Geological Society was founded at New Haven, with William 

MacClure as its first president. In 1832 the Pennsylvania Geological 

Society was started.

In addition to this general activity in the early part of the century, 

from the year 1824, when the first State survey was begun by Prof. 

Olnistead in North Carolina, up to the date of this address (1841), State 

surveys had been started and more or less publication had been accomplished in the way of reports or accounts of the surveys made in twentyone States and Territories. The men engaged in these State surveys 

were as follows :

North Carolina, Olmsted; South Carolina, Vanuxem; Massashusetts, Hitchcock; Tennessee, Troost; Maryland, Ducatel; New Jersey, 

H. D. Eogers; New York, Vanuxem, Mather, Emmons, James Hall, 

Conrad, and Beck; Virginia, W. B. Eogers; Maine, Ehode Island, and 

New Hampshire, Jackson ; Connecticut, Percival and Shepard; Pennsylvania, H. D. Eogers; Ohio, Mather, Hildreth, Locke, Briggs, and 

Foster; Delaware, Booth; Michigan, Houghton; Indiana, D. D. Owen; 

Kentucky, Mather (only a reconnaissance); Georgia, Cotting (no report had been published up to 1841); Arkansas, etc., Featherstouhaugh; 

Iowa, D. D. Owen and Locke.

Besides these, a reconnaissance had been made by Nicollet west of the 

Mississippi, and in 1824 Baton's Erie Canal Survey had been made, and 

private surveys had been made by Taylor, Johnson, Sillimau, and Shepard in coal and mineral regions in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Missouri.

Hitchcock made slight reference to the actual state of progress in the 

matter of correlation and classification of the geological terranes; this 

can be better learned from the study of the New York reports, for the 

Paleozoic at least, and the other reports, which it is not necessary here 

to discuss.

The last annual report of the New York State Survey was published 

in 1841; sufficient to say here that the Archean was fairly well recognized along the eastern border of the continent, and its general extent

 The Association of American Geologists held its first meeting in Philadelphia on the 2d of April. 

1840. The following were the original founders present at this meeting: E. Hitchcock, L. C. Beck, 

H. D. Kogera, L. Vanuxem, "William W. Mather, W. R. Johnson, T. A. Conrad, E. Emmons, J. Hall, 

C. B. Trego, J. C. Booth, M. H. Boyi, R. E. Rogers, A. McKiuley, C. B. Hayden, R. C. Taylor, D. 

Houghton, B. Hubbard.

E. Hitchcock was elected chairman and L. C. Beck secretary. See Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 39, p. 189.
i WILLIAMS.] THE KOGERS BROTHERS, B. SILLIMAN. 49

i

: from Canada to the sources of the Mississippi. The Paleozoic was recognized in its distribution throughout the eastern part of the United 

States. The Coal Measures were recognized in Pennsylvania, Ohio, 

Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri. The Devonian was recognized by some of its fossils in New York State, but its limitation was 

not determined precisely as at present. The Silurian had been recognized in at least the Caraddc sandstone, the Wenlock shale and limestone, and the Ludlow rocks, but it was not until the final reports were 

published (two or three years later) that a full classification of the 

Paleozoic series was accessible to American geologists.

The Eogers brothers used fossils to determine the age of the Maitland limestone, and concluded that " though they indicate relation to 

Onoudaga, Seneca, and Marcellus strata, the exact age is not proven." 

In other respects these authors adopted the New York classification as 

a standard for comparisons.

The "Address before the Association of American Geologists and 

Naturalists for the year 1842 " was given by B. Sillimau.1

In it we have a few indications of the state of the science at that 

time. Silliman had the advantage of being in England in 1805, when 

the discussions of the rival schools, the Neptunists and the Vulcanists, 

the Wernerians and the Huttonians, were at their height; Prof. Jameson and Dr. John Murray defending the Wernerian views, and Sir 

James Hall, Prof. Playfair, and Prof. Tbomas Hope defending the 

views of Hutton. Silliman appears to have taken a neutral position in 

regard to these schools, recognizing the good points of each. We find 

a statement made in the course of his description of his part in the progress of science that Dr. Dana read the title of what was probably the 

first geological report made on American geology, at the meeting of 

the Association in Boston,viz: "Beytrage zur mineralogischen Kentniss 

des ostlichen Theils von Nordarnerika und seiner Gebirge, vou D. 

Johann David Schopf."

Of William Maclure he said:

He was the William Smith of this country, and not only did he add to the foreign 

collections of this country in mineralogy and geology, but he did great service in the 

direction of personal field-work and interpretation of our geology, and also in publishing his Geology of the United States with the first general map of the geology of 

the eastern part of the continent.

Mineralogy was studied prior to the cultivation of geology in 

America as well as in Great Britain. The earlier geologists were mineral 

geologists, and the collections of minerals constituted the principal 

cabinets of that time. Prof. Cleaveland, of Bowdoin, Maine, Dr. Seybert, In Philadelphia, Colonel Gibbs, at Yale College, the Messrs. Dana, 

in Boston, had each accumulated more or less valuable mineral cabinets, and a Journal of Mineralogy and Geology was started in. New

1 Am. Jonr. Sci., vol. 43, p£. 217-250.

Bull. 80 4
50 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEEOUS. [BULL. 80.

York by Dr. A. Brace, iii 1809, which lasted a year, aud in 1818 the 

American Journal of Science and Arts was established in Hew Haven.

Silliruan did not rehearse any detailed account of the state of the 

science at the time, but gave general statements referring to the p;ist, 

with comparisons of the general results effected by the American geologists with what had been done by the English and European geologists.

 In 1842 T. A. Conrad published an important paper in the Journal of 

the Philadelphia Academy of Science, entitled " Observations on the 

Silurian and Devonian Systems of the United States, with descriptions 

of new organic remains." A number of fossils were identified, and 

several points of interest are noted in this paper, indicating the limitation of the groups as they were then recognized. The " older Paleozoic 

rocks" were the equivalent of the Transition of the older nomenclature. 

The author notes the perfection of the series of rocks in New York 

State, and " the great convenience they afford for study, in that they 

lie nearly horizontal." l

In this paper the "Cambrian rocks" are included in the Silurian, 

and the Silurian thus includes all the rocks from the Archeau upward 

to the Tally limestone inclusive. Thus it will be seen that the fossils 

described previous to 1842 as Silurian fossils may have been Silurian 

or Devonian to the base of the upper Devonian.

A list of supposed equivalents is given, 2 in which we find the Lower 

Silurian strata are: " (10) Clinton group, (9) Niagara sandstone, (8) 

Shales of Salmon Eiver, 3 .(7) Blue shale, (5) Trenton limestone, (4) 

Mohawk limestone, (3) Birdseye limestone, (2) Calciferous limestone, 

(1) Potsdam limestone." 4

The u Trenton limestone " is reported as " forming the bed of the Ohio 

Eiver from Cincinnati to Louisville."

The Middle Silurian strata are the " Niagara shale, which equals the 

Weulock shale, and upward to Oriskany sandstone.

The Upper Silurian rocks.jncluded the lower Ludlow and succeeding 

rocks upward to the Tully limestone inclusive.

In the Devonian system, Conrad placed as Lower Devonian the 

Ithaca group; as Middle Devonian, the Chemung group; as Upper 

Devonian, the Old Bed sandstone.

The subdivision into Lower, Middle, and Upper Silurian appears to 

have been original with Conrad, and he proposed the names " Mohawk 

system" for the Lower, "Helderberg system" for the Middle, and 

"Onondaga system" for the Upper Silurian groups, respectively, aud 

stated that the systems are based upon the " distinctness of the fossil 

contents."

The year 1843 marks one of the most important periods in the history

1 Jour. Phil. Acacl. Sci., 1842, pp. 228-235.

2 Ibid, p. 230.

3 These three are regarded as the equivalents of the Caradoo,

"In his list there is uo Jfo, 6, and Conrad states that 7, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 are wanting in Europe.
WILLIAMS.] THE FINAL NEW YORK KEPORTS. 51

of American geology. The final reports of the State of New York 

were published in the years 1S42-'43.X

The classification which appears in the several final reports was, 

already outlined by Conrad in 1841, and, in fact, the general order of 

strata WHS given in his report for 1839. The development of the classification of the rocks for New York State will bear minute study, and 

will yield valuable suggestions to students of systematic geology 

The rocks with which the New York geologists were concerned were 

mainly confined to the series from the Archean or Primary rocks 

through the Paleozoic as far as to the base of the Carboniferous. The 

geologists, although working together, had the State separated into 

four divisions and developed the stratigraphical geology of each district independently, observing the character of the individual rock formations, their order, and the fossils contained in each. Conrad was 

the paleontologist during the field operations, and his contribution to

the work was the identification of the fossils sufficiently well to make 

recognizable the relationship between the fossils of the New York 

rocks and the formations of England which had been studied so carefully and were so elaborately defined by Murchison and Sedgwick.

The fossils of the British sections had been described by John Phillips, J. De 0. Sowerby, and Loiisdale, and their descriptions were 

accessible to the American geologists as early as 1839. Conrad had 

used this Silurian system with its fossils as a basis for the classification 

and correlation of the rocks of New York State.. The attempt was 

made in 1839 to divide the New York rocks in accordance with Murchison and Sedgwick's classifications, and the fossils found in them, corresponding with those of the British rocks, were enumerated. Thus, in 

the third annual report, Conrad gave a " table of formations," showing 

the order of superposition and some characteristic fossils of the Transition strata. The Carboniferous strata (No. 10) were mentioned (but 

are in Pennsylvania), then the rocks of New York2 were distributed as 

follows:

Under the " Old Red sandstone group (Murchison)" he placed:

"9. Old Bed sandstone (?) and Olive sandstone," which, we find 

from study of the reports, includes the Chemung and Catskill groups.

"8. Dark-colored shales and black slate," which appears to be the 

Hamilton and Marcellus.

Under "Medial Silurian system," are found "(7) Gray Brachiopodus 

sandstone, Helderberg sandstones, Helderberg limestones, second Pentamerus limestones; (G) Gypseous shales, Rochester shales, and Pentamerus limestones, (5) Green slate, Lenticular iron, etc., and (4) Niagara 

sandstone (red)."

1 The editors of these final reports were William W. Mather, report of the first district, published 

1813; Ebenezer Emmons, report of the second district, 1842; Lardner Vannxom, report of tho third 

district, 1842, James Hall, report of tho fourth district, 1843. It is important also to rememberthat T. 

A. Conrad published his final report on the paleontology of tho survey in the year 1841, in tho fifth 

annual report.

2 N. Y. Geol. Survey, 3d Ann. Hep., pp. C2-C3.
52 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL.80.

Under "Lower Silurian system" he placed " (3) Salmon Eiver sandstone (olive) and green slate, (2) gray Criuoidal limestone, Trenton lime, 

stone and slate, Mohawk limestone, gray limestone with sparry veins, 

gray Calcareous sandstone."

Under the term "Cambrian system (Sedgwick)" he placed " (1) olive 

sandstone and slate, and varigated sandstone (Potsdam sandstone of 

Ernrnons)," and below all these the " Primary."

In the next report 1 James Hall gave a somewhat more elaborate list 

of formations, but distributed them substantially as was done by 

Conrad. As this classification was only tern porary, I will not stop to 

enumerate it in detail, the final results published in the final reports 

will be given in the proper place.

But in the fifth annual .Report, Conrad produced a more finished 

classification, and with slight modifications the order of sequence of 

deposits and the general relations of the groups to each other are those 

which appeared in the several final reports; but we do not find the 

classification into the " divisions of the New York system" in Conrad's reports.

We may mention a few points in regard to Conrad's classification of 

18411. The following names were used: " Tertiary," " Cretaceous System," " Oolitic system," " New Eed sandstone or Saliferous system," 

" Carboniferous system," "Old Eed sandstone or Devonian system," 

including the Chemung and Catskill rocks. Then the " Upper Silurian 

series" included the rocks from the "Oneonta group, No. 26," to the 

" Black slate, No. 21." The " Middle Silurian series " included from 

the " Onondaga limestone, No. 20," down to the " Eochester shale, No. 

10;" the "Lower Silurian series" included from "Pentamerus oblongus limestone, No. 9," to the "Potsdam sandstone, No. 1," inclusive.

Thus we see, that to the end of his work in. connection with the survey Conrad's influence was directed toward the correlation of the 

American classification with that already in use in Great Britain.

After the annual reports were finished, the several geologists prepared 

their final reports. We find no evidence that Conrad assisted in their 

preparation, and in these reports, from the first one published to the 

last, there is a general symmetry in the classifications, but a neglect 

of any formal recognition of the classifications already adopted in 

Murchison's Silurian system, although the authors refer to the correlation of some of the New York deposits with recognized horizons in 

Murchison's Silurian system. A most important feature of the completed reports is the introduction of the " New York system" into 

geological nomenclature. The New York system was constituted to 

include the geological deposits from the earliest fossiliferous rocks to 

the base of the Carboniferous, and we find the four authors disagreeing in their interpretation of what this system included, and as to the 

groups Into which it was subdivided.

1 Fourth annual report, 1840. 2 See Fifth Annual Keport, pp. 31-46.
WILLIAMS.] THE FINAL NEW YORK EEPORTS. 53

Vanuxem and Mather adopted the following plan: They had a "Primary system," including the Archeau as we consider it to-day; second, 

the <f Taconic system," including a conglomeration of strata, all supposed 

by Emmons to lie below the Potsdam sandstone; third, the " New York 

system," which included the Champlain division, the Ontario division, 

the Helderberg division, the Erie division, and the Catskill division or 

group. Above this, according to Mather, followed the " Coal system," 

the "Red Sandstone system," the "Trappean system," the "Tertiary 

system," and the " Quaternary system," but Vanuxein enumerates only 

the last, the " Quaternary system," the others being wanting in New 

York State.

On the other hand, Emrnons and Hall recognized the New York 

system as including the Champlain Ontario, Helderberg, and Erie 

divisions, but placed the rocks of the Catskill Mountains in a separate 

system, calling it the " Old Eed system." The division line in their 

scheme between the New York system and the Old Bed was at the top 

of the Chemung group.

When we inspect the local distribution of the several formations in 

the "divisions" of the New York system we find like differences of 

usage on the part of the several geologists. For instance, the Champlain group of Emmons and Hall terminates above in the Oueida Conglomerate, whereas in the reports of Vanuxem and Mather it terminates with the Hudson River group. In the Ontario group Mather 

includes only the Oneida Conglomerate j Emmons includes the strata 

from the Medina to the waterlimej Vanuxem, those from the Oneida to 

the Niagara j and Hall, those from the Medina to the Niagara, inclusive. 

The Helderberg division was regarded by Mather, Vanuxem, and Hall 

as extending from the Onoudaga salt group through the Corniferous 

limestone, while Emmons made it begin with the Pentamerus limestone 

and carried it to the top of the Helderberg limestone. All four of the 

geologists in their final reports agree in the limitation of the Erie division, including the rocks from the Marcellus shales through the Chernung group.

Another point may be mentioned: While individual formations are 

substantially alike as named by the several reporters, there are frequent differences in usage, as in the use of "Loraine shales" by Emmons for the Hudson River group of the other reports, and of " Corniferous limestone" by all the authors but Emmons, who uses "He*- 

derberg limestone." Besides these differences we notice that deposits 

are mentioned in some of the reports which are left out in others, and 

in some reports the name of the rock is given, while in others the word 

"group " is attached to a geographical name, as " Niagara limestone" 

and " Niagara group."

These differences which appeared in the final reports accentuate 

the difficulties which the geologists met with in attempting to classify 

the rock formations according to the methods then in use. The old sys-
54 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

tern of correlation by means of the petrographic characters of the deposits was used in part by these geologists and formed the original 

basis of the classification. In the field \vork the formations were distinguished by their petrographic features and were so defined. In 

most cases local names were applied to them; the geographic designation of the place where the particular formation was discovered, or was 

found to be exposed in a good condition, was applied to the rock, and 

as the surveys went on the name as applied was extended to the other 

outcrops of what appeared to be the same stratum or series of strata. 

This was all very well so long as no correlation was attempted, but as 

soon as correlation of the several formations with those of other regions 

was attempted the necessity of some other means of identification was 

apparent. This means was recognized in the fossil contents, but in. the 

field the fossils were not studied, and could not be studied by the field 

geologists. It was necessary to take them home and compare them 

with other fossils from other parts of the country and world, and to describe them, and ascertain their range and distribution. All this required time and learning, which could not be attained at once by any 

one of the geologists. This learning was the special province of the 

paleontologist, and the wide knowledge requisite to correlate the 

various strata of the New York system accurately with those of Great 

Britain was, we may imagine, clearly recognized by Conrad before he 

left the survey; but, as we have learned since, many years of study 

have not enabled geologists to establish with certainty the correlation 

between the several faunas of the formations in New York and those 

abroad.

The great desideratum at that time, and for geologists at the present 

time, is such a system of nomenclature and classification as shall enable the field geologist at once to record his observations correctly and

systematically, and to preserve the records of fossil contents which he 

discovers for the careful detailed study of the paleontologist. The nomenclature adopted in many cases by the New York geologists, which 

has satisfied the demands of the progress of science, at least up to the 

present time, is that which is based upon the simple practice of giving 

a geographic name to a rock terrane, connecting it with the name of 

the particular rock which is exhibited at the locality in which it outcrops; for example, "Trentonlimestone," "Oriskany sandstone," "Schoharie grit," " Genesee slate," although in the latter case slate is not appropriate, because it is a false name, shale being the right name. 

These several terms applied to definite rock masses located in particular regions in New York State, having their typical outcrops designated 

by their names, can be applied with exactness at all times, and suggest 

the progress of the science. Whenever wrongly applied to deposits outside the original region where discovered, new names can be easily substituted. 

The groupings of these separate formations, made without regard to
WITJJAMB.] THE NEW YORK CLASSIFICATIONS. 55

the fossils characterizing them, were purely arbitrary, and were ultimately discarded. We have already entirely ignored the " New York 

system," the "Champlaiu," "Ontario," etc., "divisions," and the only 

part of the New York classification which is retained, is the nomenclature of the individual formations in their stratigraphic sequence. It is 

evident,therefore, considering how important the work of this New York 

survey has been for all American geology, that the most important part 

of the work of the geologist is that of carefully observing the characters 

of the individual formation, describing its petrographic, stratigraphic, 

and geologic relations, preserving the fossils accumulated, and describing his observations so that distinct association will be found in the 

name applied to each formation with the observations actually made in 

the field. The reference of each particular formation to a place in some 

standard scale should not be made without careful study. This careful study can not be made independently of the fossils, for fossiliferous 

rocks, and in order that the paleontologist may make his studies without prejudice, the names of the formations, their localities, and their 

petrographic characters should be described and recorded, quite independently of the fossils which they contain.

The following tables will exhibit the final results of the four State 

geologists in their attempts to classify the geological formations of the 

State of New York.

They are taken from the final reports of the " Geology of New York," 

and are arranged in the order given them by the authors.

CLASSIFICATION BY MATHER. 1843. 

[Final Report, First District, p. 2.J

C Alluvial division.

1. Quaternary system. < Quaternary division. 

( Drift division.

2. Tertiary system.

3. Trappean system.

4. Red Sandstone system.

5. Coal system.

f Catslcill division. 

Erie division.

6. New York system ..

7. Taconic system.

Helderberg division ..

Ontario division 

Champlain division..

i

Corniferous limestone, Onondaga 

limestone, Schoharie grit, CaudaGalli grit, Oriskany sandstone, 

Catskill shaly limestone, Pentamerus limestone, Water lime 

group, Ouondaga salt group. 

..Oneida or Shawangunk Conglomerate.

t Hudson River group, Utica slate, 

< Trenton limestone, Calciferoua 

( group, Potsdam sandstone.
56 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

CLASSIFICATION BY EMMONS. 1842.

[Final Report, Second District, p. 429.] 

Tabular view of the sedimentary rocks of New York.

Taconic system..........................Taconic slate, Magnesian slate, Stockbridge

limestone, Granular quartz, 

f Champlain group.... Potsdam sandstone, Calciferous sandrock,

I Chazy and Birdseye limestone, marble 

of Isle La Motte, Trenton limestone,

I Utica slate, Lorraine shales, Gray sandstone, Conglomerate.

Ontario group.......Medina sandstone, Green shales and Oolitic iron ore, Niagara limestone, Red

New York 8JStom. < S££%$£* aDd PlaSto I0°k8' 

Helderberg series....Pentamerus limestone, Delthyris shaly 

limestone, Oriskany sandstone, Encrinal 

limestone, Cauda-Galli grit, Schoharie 

grit, Helderberg limestone.

Erie group ..........Marcellus and Hamilton shales, Tully limestone, Genesee slate, Ithaca and Chemung shales and grits.

Old Red system .........................Old Red sandstone, with its beds of Conglomerate and its greenish shales of the 

Catskill Mountains.

New Redsystem .........................New Red sandstone associated with volcanic rocks and greenstone trap of the 

Palisades.

Tertiary .................................Blue and yellowish clays of Champlain and

white and yellowish sand.

CLASSIFICATION BY VANUXEM. 1842. 

[Final Report on the Third District, p. 13. J

Classification of rooks of New York State.

1. Primary system.

2. Taeouic system.

3. New York system

Champlaiu division.

Ontario division.

Helderberg division

Erie division

4. Quaternary system.

I, Catskill group.

.Potsdam sandstone, Calciferous group, Black River 

limestone, Trenton limestone, Utica slate, Hudson 

River group.

.Gray sandstone, Medina sandstone, Oneida Conglomerate, Clinton group, Niagara 

group.

.Oupndaga salt group, Waterlime group, Pentamerus 

limestone, Catskill shaly 

limestone, Oriskany sandstone, Cauda - Galli grit, 

Schoharie grit, Onondaga 

limestone, Corniferous limestone.

.Marcellus shale, Hamilton 

group, Tully limestone, 

Genesee slate,^ Portage 

group, Ithaca group, Cheniung group.
WILLIAMS.] THE NEW YORK CLASSIFICATIONS. 57

CLASSIFICATION BY JAMES HALL. 1 1843.

[Final Keport, Fourth District, pp. 18,19.J 

Tabular vleio of roclts and groups of New York.

I. Primary or Hypogene system.

II. Tacouic system.

III. New York system ....

Champlain division..

Ontario division....

Helderberg series....

Erie division

28.

Potsdam sandstone.

Calciferpus sandrock. 

, Black River limestone group, 

embracing the Chazy and 

Birdseye.

Trenton limestone.

Utica slate.

Hudson River group.

Gray sandstone.

Oneida or Shawangnnk Conglomerate.

Medina sandstone.

Clinton group.

Niagara group, including 

shale and limestone.

Onondaga salt group.

Water-lime group.

Pentamerus limestone.

Delthyris shaly limestone.

Encrinal limestone.

Upper Pentamerus limestone.

Oriskany sandstone.

Cauda-Galli grit.

Schobarie grit.

Onondaga limestone.

Corniferous limestone.

Marcellus shale.

Hamilton group. (Moscow 

shales, Eucrinal limestone, 

Ludlowville shales.)

Tully limestone.

Geuesee slate.

Portage or Nunda group.

(Portage sandstone, Gardeau 

flagstone, Cashaqua slate.)

Chemung group.

IV. Old Red system, or Old Red sandstone.

V. Carboniferous system.

VI. New Red sandstone.

VII. Tertiary. 

VIII. Quaternary system.

RfiSUMlS OF CLASSIFICATIONS.

Champlain group .. .Emmons and Hall agree in terminating it with the Oneida Conglomerate.

Vanuxem and Mather terminate it with the Hudson River group. 

Ontario group ......Emmons, Medina to Water-lime, inclusive.

Hall, Medina to Niagara, inclusive.

Mather, Oneida Conglomerate alone.

Vanuxem, Oneida to Niagara (but order wrong). 

Helderberg series....Emmons, Pentamerus limestone to Helderberg limestone.

Hall, Onondaga salt group through Corniferous limestone.

Vanuxem, Onondaga to Corniferous.

Mather, Onondaga to Corniferous. 

Erie division........ Marcellus to Chemnng, inclusive, by all.

 According to this author the formations 1,2,3,4 were correlated with the "Cambrian system" of 

Sedgwick, the Potsdam (1) doubtfully included. "Silurian system" Murchi8ona=Utica slate (5) to 

Hamilton (24). "Devonian System" of Phillipa=Cheinung and Portage and part of the Hamilton 

(24 to28). (Seep. 20.)
CHAPTER II.

THE GENERAL APPLICATION OF THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE 

NEW YORK SYSTEM AS A STANDARD OF CORRELATION IN 

OTHER PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES. 1840 TO 1851.

The termination of the New York State Survey and the publication 

of the final reports practically established the new ideals for the classification of the Paleozoic rocks of North America.

The Final Report on the Geology of the Fourth District (the western 

quarter of the State) by James Hall was published in 1843. This may 

be regarded as expressing the more perfected views in regard to classification and nomenclature.

/ The New York system was the comprehensive term applied to the 

series of rocks beginning with the Potsdam sandstone and terminating 

in the " Chemung group." The rocks of the Catskill Stage were called 

the Old Red system or Old Red sandstone. The New York system 

was made up of twenty-nine "systematic subdivisions," "founded upon 

the fossil and lithological characters." l

These were grouped into four " geographical subdivisions." The 

lowest, from the Potsdam to the Oneida Conglomerate, inclusive, was 

named the " Champlain Division; " the second, including the Medina, 

the Clinton, and the Niagara, was called the " Ontario Division." From 

the Onondaga Salt group to the Corniferous limestone, inclusive,was the 

« Helderberg series.'.' From the Marcellus to the Chemung, inclusive, 

was the " Erie Division."

Comparisons had been made with the Silurian system of Murchison 

and the Devonian of Murchison and Phillips, and a general correlation recognized, but the equivalencies were not minutely accordant.

In respect of the part of the scale with which this essay is concerned, the author wrote, " If the Devonian is to be regarded as a distinct system, we shall find its repesentatives in the Chemung and Portage groups, with perhaps a part of the Hamilton group. In New York, 

however, as already stated, no subdivisions can be made which are 

entitled to the name of systems." 2

1 (No. 3 of p. 18 vras expanded into two sub divisions on p. 517 (i. e., ifos. 27,20) by the recognition of 

the Chazy limestoneas distinct from the Black River limestone.)

2 Geology of New York, part iv. comprising the survey of the fourth geological district, by James 

Hall, 1843, p. 516, 

58
WILLIAMS.] TABLE OP EQUIVALENCIES. 59

In the table the following equivalencies are given : l

Kocks of the Now York system. Subdivisions in Great Britain.

Old Red sandstone.. .... ...... ...... ... ...... ...... . .. ..... Old Red sandstone.

1. Chemung group...... . .......... ^

2. Portage group...... .............

3. Genesee slate...... .............. ! Upper and Lower Lndlow rocks including

4. Tally limestone ................. [ the Devonian system of Phillips,

5. Hamilton group.... ............. |

6. Marcellus shale.... .......... .... J

7. Corniferons limestone ...........

8. Onondaga limestoue .... .......

9. Schoharie grit .................

10. Cauda-gallL grit...... ..........

11. Oriskany sandstone...... ........ ', , , , ,

12. Upper Peutaraerus limestone..... genlock rocka.

13. Eucriual limestoue .............. I

14. Deltliyris shaly limostoue...... .. |

15. Pentainerus limestone...... ... _ |

16. Water-li me group ..............

17. Onondaga salt group ...........

18. Niagara group ...................

Correlations with the Pennsylvania and Virginia rocks and those of 

Ohio and Michigan are expressed as follows :

Pennsylvania and Virginia Survey. Ohio Survey. Michigan Survey.

f Soft light-colored

28. Chemung group ? No 9 $ Waverly sandstone | sandstones, argilla27. Portage group £- - - £ series. I ceousslatcsaud ilag26. Geuesee slatp .. ...... .... ...No. 8 Wautiug(?) ....... I stones of Lake Hu25. Tully limestone .................. Wanting.. ........ ron, sandstones of

t Point aux Barques.

4. Htmll*. group ............No. g| *S$*£*$S*- { 8h*jJ2|* *"»"-

23. Marcellus shale.. ........... .No. 8. .Black slate.

22. Corniferous limestone.. ....... . .. j ^mesSe °f ^^ \ Corniferou8 limestone.

21. Onondaga limestone...... .....................................................

20. Schoharie grit........ ........

( Several limestones rep19. Cauda-galli grit ...... ......No. 7 ..... ........ .... ... < resent this andJower

( beds. . 

18. Oriskany sandstone......... No. 7............................... ..............

Some of the rtsults thus far attained were permanently satisfactory ; 

others have already been modified, and there are still others which 

await correction.

The classification of the rocks of the New York system into " systematic subdivisions, founded upon the fossil and lithological characters," 

and the application to them of geographical names suggested by the 

locality where the typical sections occur have stood the test of common use for 50 years. The classification is based upon observed facts, 

and the nomenclature is expressive of actual facts with no mixture of 

theory.

The groupings of these stages into " geographical subdivisions " is 

faulty, in that it expresses only accidental relations, and produces 

purely artificial groups. There are no geological reasons for drawing

1 Geology of New York, part iv, comprising the survey of the fourth geological district, by James 

Hall, 1843, p. 517.

2 Ibid., p. 619.
60 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEEOUS. [BULL. 80.

the lines between the "Chainplain" and "Ontario," or the " Ontario" 

and " Helderberg divisions," and this part of the cJassitication has 

accordingly fallen out of use, because useless.

Like objection exists to the term " New York system." While the 

base is well marked, the rocks of Pennsylvania, to the top of the CoalMeasures, should be added to them to complete the system. Adding 

the Carboniferous system, as expressed in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia, a natural group of the first order is produced which nearly corresponds to what we call the Paleozoic era. Were we to adopt for this 

grand terrane the name Appalachian group, we should have a properly 

constituted name for an actual, existing geologic group, free from 

theory, and its use would probably assist in the progress of science.

This classification of the New York State survey is further defective 

in the retention from the old nomenclature of such definitive terms as 

Corniferous, Eucrinal, Water-lime, etc. Intrinsically they are not distinctive of any particular stage and therefore do not fulfill the true purpose of names for the stages.

A similar objection holds in the case of such names as Cauda-galli 

grit, Pentamerus limestone, and similar terms. Although the fossils 

indicated may characterize the formations so named in their typical 

outcrops, the fossils may fail in the geographic extension of the formation, or further^ study may show that the fossils are not confined stratigraphically to the zone represented by the particular formation in 

question.

The only kind of name which can be applied without objection to the 

ultimate subdivisions of the terranes, is a binomial term composed of 

the lithologic name of the rock and the geographic name indicating its 

typical exposure.

The use or the name "Old Bed sandstone system" has been discarded, and its use in 1843 indicated that the name system gave Such 

dignity to a terrane that it was supposed necessary to find it in every 

complete section of rocks. It was later that geologists agreed that the 

Old Eed sandstone represents the Devonian system, but represents it 

in a different type of deposits.

The imperfection in the nomenclature, even at the present time, is 

seen in the fact that English geologists l still use the phrase " Devonian 

and Old Ked sandstone " for the rocks between the Silurian and Carboniferous systems. This error and confusion comes from the difficulty 

in ridding ourselves of the old notion that the age of rocks may be indicated by their lithologic or stratigraphic characters. Age can be 

indicated only by something which persists through time; the lithologic characters of rocks indicate what they were made of and how; 

the stratigraphy indicates the order of sequence. The age of rocks 

can be indicated only by something which changes with the passage of 

time according to some definite law. The organisms represented by

1 1887. Geikie Text-Book: Woodward'8 Geology of England and Wales.
WILLIAMS.] DEFECTS IN THE NEW YOKK SUKVEY. 61

fossil remains alone meet these requirements. A continuous rock section 

furnishes us with the order of sequence of these changes, but a classification of the rocks based upon the age of the fossils must not be 

hampered by stratigraphic or lithologic limits. The time classification 

can be built up only gradually by wide study of the fossils, and the 

nomenclature of the formations must be applied, and applied with precision, before the time limitations can possibly be fixed with precision.

Besides these defects in the final results of the New York survey, 

there were two imperfections occasioned by lack of evidenc, and others 

due to false generalization. The Devonian system was scarcely more 

than recognized by its general fauna the limits above and below were 

not determined. The upper limit excluded the Catskill formations 

which were subsequently placed in the system. An equivalency was 

supposed to exist in Ohio and Michigan between the Chemung and the 

rocks now called Waverly belonging in the Carboniferous system. The 

attempts to correlate with the English models resulted in fixing the 

limit between the Wenlock and lower Ludlow of Murchison between the 

Coruiferous limestone and Marcellus shale of the New York system. 

The rocks above this limit were correlated with Murchison's Ludlow 

group and Phillips's Devonian system.

The imperfection of this work was mainly due to ignorance of the 

precise relations existing between the two faunas; and, secondly, to the 

fact that Phillips's fossils were mainly middle and upper Devonian 

forms, while the lower Devonian,species and the lower Devonian type 

of deposits were not well understood by the New York geologists.

It was the comparative study of the fossils, and particularly a more 

careful discrimination of them and better appreciation of the range of 

the characters they exhibited, which finally cleared up these imperfections.

Having perfected a scheme of classification, the next step of progress 

was the correlation of the formations west of New York with the 

scheme. This was mainly accomplished during the decade from 1840 

to 1850. The chief discussions of the subject were published between 

1842 and 1851.

James Hall published an article in 1842 * in which an attempt was 

made to correlate the rocks of the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, part 

of Michigan, Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa, and Wisconsin, with the rocks 

of New York State. He classified the basins of the Coal Measures into 

four groups, as follows: first, that of Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio; 

a second extending over portions of Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, and 

Tennessee; a third in Missouri, and a fourth in Michigan. He traced 

the underlying "conglomerate" from Pennsylvania to the Mississippi 

Eiver. The " Old Eed sandstone" was not recognized west of the 

Genesee River in Allegany County, New York; the Chemung formation, which, he remarked, " Lyell compares with the lower part of the

1 Notes upon the Geology of the Western States, Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 42, p. 312.
62 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL.80.

Old Bed in Forfarshire, etc., Scotland, in its gray, thin, laminated sandstones and green shales," Hall recognized in Ohio, at Cnyahoga Falls, 

Akron, etc. He also correlated the Portage and Gardeau with rocks at 

Cuyahoga Falls and Newburg in Ohio, but found them of diminished 

thickness. He said, "The Portage sandstone (known as Waverly 

sandstone) " is found in many places in Ohio. The thin-bedded limestones which he found often Oolitic in structure, and in some places 

becoming thick beds of limestone interstratified with sandstone, in 

Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky, Hall found to contain fossils which 

were different from those of the limestones of New York, and he thought 

them to be identical with the Carboniferous limestone of Europe, recording one of the fossils, Productus hemispherica, which was a characteristic of that formation. 1 The conglomerates which occur above 

this he correlated with the Millstone grit of the British classification. 

This identification of the carboniferous rocks in the West, or in the 

Mississippi Valley Basin, was not new with Hall, but had been made 

several years before by D. D. Owen, as will be shown further on..

In 1842 Hall 2 read a paper before the Association of Geologists and 

Naturalists, which was published the following year with a plate explaining a section from Cleveland to the Mississippi River. In this 

plate the Waverly sandstone series of the Ohio report is called " Chemung and Portage groups." The term " Subcarboniferous rocks" is 

applied to " friable gray sandstone with intercalated beds of oolitic 

limestone" lying between the " Waverly series" and the " Carboniferous limestone." Where the latter outcrops in the Mississippi Eiver 

Valley it is called the " Great Carboniferous limestone."

At Newburg " the Portage sandstone or upper part of the group is 

seen, and is there underlaid by the green shale. These are equivalent 

to the Waverly sandstone of the Ohio reports, as was afterward ascertained by visiting the quarries at Waverly. From Newburg we pass 

over the shales and sandstones of the Chemung group, till we arrive 

upon the Conglomerate, which is well developed at Stow and Cuyahoga 

Falls. This Conglomerate, which, so far as I could discover, is identical with the outlier of a similar mass in the southern part of New York, 

is the fundamental rock of the great coal formations."

The " black, bituminous shale underlies this Portage and Chemung 

on the road toward Columbus, and represents Hamilton and Marceilus, 

particularly the latter." 3

In the vicinity of Louisville and New Albany, at the Falls of Ohio, 

the " black, bituminous limestone " he correlated with the Marceilus 

shale of New York above the " Corniferous limestone." This is followed by the "green shales and slaty sandstones of the Portage group

1 Notes upon the Geology of the Western States, Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 42, p. 57.

2 Hall, James : Notes explanatory of a section from Cleveland, Ohio, to the Mississippi River, in a 

southwest direction, with remarks upon the identity of tho western formations with those of K"ow 

York. Assoc. Am. Geol., Trans., 1843, pp. 474-531.

»Ibid., p. 272.
WILLUMH.J JAMES HALL'S CORRELATIONS. 63

or Waverly sandstone series of Ohio." l Above this were seen " friable 

gray sandstones with intercalated beds of oolitic limestone."

"These rocks are marked in the section by the name 'SubcarboniferousJ 

and although the fossils and the character of the intercalated beds of 

limestone indicate the commencement of the same era as the Carboniferous limestone, yet it requires that a limit should be fixed between 

what is to be strictly referred to Carboniferous and older deposits." 2

In a foot-note the author referred to Dr. Owen's denomination of " the 

rocks here described as well as the succeeding limestone as Subcarboniferous," and remarks that he had not seen the report when his section 

was prepared.

D. D. Owen first applied the term Subcarboniferous to the limestones 

underlying the Coal Measures, having included with them the Silurian 

limestones, and to the whole series be applied the designation Cliff 

limestone. James Hall introduced the name Subcarboniferous to indicate rocks which he regarded as lying below the " Carboniferous limestone," the intercalated calcareous beds of which contained fossils 

like those of the Carboniferous era.3

The "Carboniferous limestone" of Hall's paper was not recognized 

east of New Albany, Indiana, where it is reported as resting upon the 

" Subcarboniferous rocks." From there it was traced westward, and 

along the Mississippi Valley in Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, and Tennessee.

The author held that upon going westward the character of the 

deposits changes, and the nature of the species changes with indications of difference in depth.

It will be seen that Hall's interpretation was based upon tracing the 

continuity of the strata. Though fossils were considered in a general 

way, the differences noted were regarded as due to changed conditions 

rather than to lapse of time. So that the more minute comparison of 

the fossils for a long time failed to convince geologists of the errors of 

correlation.

The misinterpretation of the relation of the Waverly formation of 

Ohio to the New York system was very difficult to correct, since the 

State geologist who best knew the New York system had claimed, as 

the result of personal examination, tracing the rocks step by step all 

the way from New York to the Mississippi Valley, that these rocks 

were identical. It was difficult to get people to believe in the testimony of fossils against such assertions.

In the year 1843 H. D. Kogers 4 expressed the opinion that the black 

bituminous shales which appear in the States west of Ohio, between 

the Silurian and the Carboniferous, represent the Marcellus shales of 

New York State, and in this opinion he differed with Hall, who re1 Hall, James: Nates explanatory of a section from Cleveland, Ohio, to tlio Mississippi liiver, in a 

southward direction, with rein ark a vtpon Ihe identity of the western formations with those of Now 

York. Assoc. Am. Gool., Trans. 18-13, p. 280.

2 Ibid., p. 281.

3 See Chapter vin.

4 Rogers, Hoiiry D.: Ou Marcollus and Hamilton of tlio West; Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 45,1843, pp. 101,162.
64 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

garded them as representing both the Marcellus and the Hamilton, 

although not equivalent to either.1

In 1843 2 David Dale Owen commented "On the Geology of the Western States." In this paper a fine-grained sandstone and chert with 

iron ore was described from Tennessee, Kentucky, and Indiana, and 

examined on its outcrop near the Knobs. In its lower part this formation was correlated with the Devonian system of England and with the 

Chemung group of New York, and was described as resting on black 

bituminous shales and as equivalent to the Marcellus shales of New 

York.

The high appreciation of the results of the New York State survey is 

indicated by the frequent references which were made in the Journals 

to the reports.3

In D. D. Owen's review a tentative scheme of a chronologic table is 

given as follows: 4

Protozoic rocks or Neio York system.

Transition series ............. 1. Potsdam sandstone.

f 2. Calciferous sandrock.

;

3. Black River limestone. 

4. Trenton limestone. 

5. Utica slate. 

6. Hudson River group. 

( 7. Oneida Conglomerate. 

Transition series ...........< 8. Medina sandstone.

( 9. Clinton group. 

flO. Niagara sandstone. 

I 11. Onondaga Salt group. 

Second or Middle Division .. ^ 12. Water limestone.

| 13. Pentamerus limestone and Catskill shaly limestone. 

'V 14. Oriskany sandstone.

!

15. Cauda-galli and Schoharie grit. 

16. Onondaga limestone. 

17. Corniferous limestone. 

{18. Marcellus shale. 

19. Hamilton group, 

20. Genesee slate. 

21. Portage group. 

Transition series ........... 22. Chemung group.

Owen speaks of the Marcellus shale as "the base of the third division 

of the American Protozoic rocks." The equivalents to this are given 

as the " lower part of F. VIII of Pennsylvania and Virginia, Postmed idial, Ol der Black slate of Kogers;" 5 The transition from the under 

lying Corniferous and Seneca limestone is sharp.

He expressed the opinion that the black shale at the Falls of Ohio is 

probably the representative of the Genesee, and that the Encrinital 

limestone of Tennessee and Kentucky (Button Mould Knob) may represent the Encrinital limestone of the Hamilton of New York.6

«See Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 43, pp. 161-162.

1 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 45, pp. 151-165.

3 Among these may be mentioned particularly, " Review of the New York Geological Eeports," by 

D. D. Owen, published in the Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 46, pp. 143-157; vol. 47, pp. 354-380; vol. 48, pp. 296-316: 

2d ser., vol. 1, pp. 43-70, vol. 3, pp. 164-171.

4 Ibid., vol.47, p. 355. (This article is signed "D. D. 0.," p. 380,)

 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 3, 1847, p. 57.

«Ibid, p. 72.
WILLIAMS.] HENRY D. ROGERS. 65

lu 1814 Henry D. Kogers delivered the annual address before the 

association of geologists and naturalists at the meeting held in Washington, May, 1844.

At that time the geological publications of the United States had 

reached a stage of considerable perfection, the author remarked. 1 The 

<' Geology and Mineralogy of the State of New York " had been issued. 

Eeports on surveys covering the greater part of the Eastern States 

of the Union had been published, furnishing information in regard to 

the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Tertiary formations of this half of the 

United States. In regard to the Paleozoic formations he said:

From Lake Champlain, therefore, westward to the mouth of the Wisconsin River, a 

distance of at least 1,100 miles, and southward to Alabama, over a still larger and 

very complicated tract, and throughout the entire triangular area included between 

these limits, the boundaries of each of our Paleozoic Appalachian formations have 

been determined and with very considerable precision,*

He and his brother had prepared a map of the United States, 14 feet 

by 12 feet in size. This was apparently of the eastern part of the 

United States.3

The paleontology of the Appalachian basin at this time had been 

carried on by the researches of Messrs. Conrad, Emmons, and Hall, in 

New York, and by Messrs. Hall, Owen, Troost, Locke, and Clapp, in 

the Western States, until "five hundred well characterized marine 

fossils had been made known." The work of study and description was 

pushed further, particularly by James Hall. .Rogers acknowledged, in 

1844, that" the most elaborate classification of our Appalachian Paleozoic strata hitherto is that of the New York geological survey." " It 

embraces, under the title of the New York system, the entire body of 

strata from the bottom of the lowest fossiliferous rocks to the base of 

the Ked sandstone of the Catskill Mountains."

Although the New York geologists were acknowledged to have provided a valuable classification of these formations, the author did not 

feel satisfied with recommending this for general adoption. He appreciated the difficulties attaching to the application of local names to the 

geological formations, and because of the necessity of a general nomenclature for rocks he gave an account in this address of a scheme of 

grouping and naming the Paleozoic strata, which his brother, W. B. 

Kogers, and himself had been maturing during the last three years.4 

Their nomenclature was purely artificial. To quote he says:

We propose to distribute the whole great body of strata, from the base already 

designated to the top of the Coal Measures, in nine distinct series, the products of 

as many great successive periods, and resorting to the analogy between these 

periods and the nine natural intervals into which the day is conveniently divided 

we have named them in ascending order, the Primal, the Matinal, Levant, Preme1 .Rogers, Henry D., on American geologynnd present condition of geological research in the United, 

States. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 47,1844, pp. 137-101, 247, 278. 

" Ibid, p. 140.

8 Seo p. 147. I find no evidence that it was published. H. S. W. 

«Ibid, p. 154.

Bull. 80 5
66 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

didial, Medldial, Post-medidial, Ponent, Vespertine, Serai series; tbe deposits of the 

Dawn, Morning, Sunrise, Forenoon, Noon, Afternoon, Sunset, Evening, and Twilight 

periods of the great Appalachian Paleozoic day.

The author goes to some length in explaining the application of this 

scheme to the formations of the "Appalachian system" and their corresponding limits in the formations of the New York geologists, and we* 

notice that he has attempted to cover very much the same field already 

covered by the nomenclature of the New York State survey. The advantages of his nomenclature it seems to the writer are entirely negative 5 the names are entirely arbitrary, and on that account have not 

the objections attaching to them which were raised against mineralogic 

or paleoutologic names. The greatest objection to the scheme as a 

whole is that it is necessarily local, both geologically and geographically, since it is a scheme of nomenclature which does not permit intercalations without disturbing its symmetry, and it does not allow of 

expansion to cover what might be found below or to cover the higher 

rocks.

The author discussed in the latter part of his address the formations 

of the Mesozoic period, named the Bed sandstone along the eastern 

border "Mesozoic Ked sandstone,"1 and enumerated some of the fossils 

occurring in the " Mesozoic Coal Measures of Eastern Virginia." The 

Cretaceous deposits are briefly referred to and a few of their characteristic fossils enumerated. The Caiuozoic or Tertiary period is also 

briefly described, and above that the Post-Pliocene period is reported in 

Maryland and North Carolina and elsewhere along the coast, and a few 

of the fossils which Conrad had been so active in describing are named.

In 1847 Daniel Sharp2 reported the Oriskany sandstone, Cauda-Galli 

grit, and Schoharie grit as locally distributed in New York, the first 

being most prominent in Pennsylvania and Virginia. The whole series 

is classified in the Devonian system.

The Marcellus shale, the Hamilton group (Moscow shales, Encrinal 

limestone, Ludlowville shales), Tully limestone, and Genesee slate are 

especially distinguished by their faunas, which consist chiefly of Brachiopods and Lainellibranchs, the majority of them peculiar to the Devonian while a few occur in the higher Carboniferous deposits. This 

is by far the most fossiliferous series in the Devonian system. The 

Portage group, consisting of sandstones and shales and having a thickness of 1,000 feet, is nearly barren of fossils, while the Cheinung rocks, 

which have a thickness of 1,500 feet and occur just above the Portage 

group, are highly fossiliferous. Both of these series are considered as 

belonging to the Devonian system, and with the Hamilton group constitute the "Erie division." The Devonian system closes with the 

Chernung group, above which comes the Old Ked sandstone formation.

1 Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 47, 1844, p. 247.

2 Sharpe, Daniel: Keport on the fossil remains of mollusca from the Paleozoic formations of the 

United States (etc.), with remarks ou the comparison ol' the North American formations with those of 

Europe. Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc., 1847, voL 4, pp. 145-181.
WILLIAMS.] JAMES HALL. G7

The author in the main agreed with American geologists in the line of 

division between these two great groups of rocks. He then correlated 

the system of America with that of Europe, after which he added a tabulation of the faunas of both countries, giving references to synonyms, 

strata, localities, and formation in country.

In 1848, before the American Association of Geologists and Naturalists, James Hall presented a paper 1 in which some valuable comparisons are given of the characters expressed by the rocks as they outcrop 

in different areas. The Hudson Eiver group was recognized in Ohio, 

Indiana, Kentucky, and elsewhere in the interior. It becomes more 

calcareous and is called " Blue limestone " in the more western exposures. Hall noticed that it contains Conchifera in the East with few 

Bracliiopods; that in the West, Brachiopods are conspicuous with Corals 

and Criuoids, Crustacea, and Trilobites. The Oneida conglomerate, 

the Medina sandstone, and the Clinton formations of Few York were 

very slightly represented in the Southwest. The Niagara shale and 

limestone in the East were both fossiliferous; in their western exposures the limestone is reported as thicker and containing abundant 

Corals, and the calcareous matter is reported as increasing on coming 

westward. The Ouondaga Salt formation thins out on coming westward, the Helderberg formations mainly disappear west of New York, 

except the Upper Limestone, which appears in Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, but is of lighter color than its representatives2 in New York. 

The Marcellus and the Hamilton formations are reported as sandy in 

the East, aud the muds diminish and the sands increase in western 

New York, and in Ohio only the lower, Shale, and this of limited thickness appears. The rocks from the Hamilton group upward, and the 

Old Ked sandstone are more sandy in the East, and more argillaceous 

and thinner westward. The rocks of the Catskill Mountains, called 

the u Old Ked sandstone," also appear in eastern Pennsylvania, but 

disappear westward, allowing the Coal Measures to rest on the conglomerate in the East, but in the West, on the Chemuug, and still farther west on the limestone.

As a conclusion from these observations the author pointed out that 

a continent supplying sediments must have existed eastward of the 

great deposition of sediment along the border, extending from Now 

York through Pennsylvania southward,,

M. Ed. de Verneuil, after a visit to the United States and examination of our formations and their fossils, published in the Bulletin of the 

Geological Society of France the most valuable paper on correlation 

which had appeared up to this time.3

1 The Geographical Distribution of Fossils in the Older Rocks of the United States.

2 The Comiferoua and Oiioudaga limestone. H. S. W.

3 Note sur lo paralltilisine des roches dos d6p6ts pnLSozoi'quoH do l'Ani6riquo septontrionalo avoo 

coux do 1'Europe, suivio d'uii tableau des especes fossiloscoinnmnesaux doux continents, aveo 1'indication dos Stages oil olios so rencontrent ot tormiu6 par un oxameu critique do thaouuo do ces ospfccea. 

Soo. g6ol. France, Bull, 2° s6r., vol. 4,1847, pp. 646-709.
68 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

A few copies of the paper doubtless came to America, but the form 

in which it had most effect upon American geology was the condensed 

translation and review of it by Mr. James Hall, which appeared in the 

American Journal of Science.1

In the present essay the original paper and Hall's comments upon it 

will be discussed together.

Mr. Hall's Eeview of M. de Verueuil's Study of the American Paleozoic was entitled " On the Parallelism of the Paleozoic Deposits of 

North America, with those of Europe; followed by a Table of the 

Species of Fossils common to the two Continents, with indication of 

the positions in which they occur, and terminated by a critical examination of each of these species; by Ed. de Verueuil (translated and 

condensed from Bulletin of the Geol. Soc. of France, 2d ser., vol. 4 for 

this Journal; by James Hall, New York State Geologist)."

This review is of great importance historically, as it shows how the 

classification of the New York strata was perfected by comparisons 

with the European strata and their fossils.

M. de Yerneuil, one of the ablest paleontologists of the time, had 

been associated with Murchison in studying the Kussiau series. This 

had led to a careful comparison of the English Silurian and higher 

rocks with those of Bussia, and had fitted him preeminently to recognize corresponding species, zones, and faunas in the New York and 

American series. And this " review " of his report on the " parallelism " was by the rising paleontologist of New York, who, better than 

any other American, understood-the fossils and the arguments presented.

De Verneuil appreciated the great value, for classificatory purposes, 

of the New York series. He said, " No country in Europe offers us so 

complete and uninterrupted a development of the Silurian and Devonian systems," and "this series presents a continuous succession of 

deposits which are superimposed in regular stratification." 2

The various strata of this New York system had been defined and 

named in their stratigraphic order, each different kind of rock receiving 

a distinct, generally geographic name. These formations had been 

grouped together arbitrarily on grounds of their geographic outcrops; 

as Chainplain, Ontario, Helderberg, and Erie divisions. By some of 

the State Geologists they were regarded as merely convenient groupings of the rocks for reference, and of no scientific value.

In the final reports attempts had been made to correlate them with 

the English subdivisions, as given by Murchison and others, but these 

correlations were incorrect, as the result has shown.

No satisfactory method of classifying the individual formations into 

more comprehensive groups had been attained. De Verneuil proposed 

to unite them into groups according to their paleontologic affinities.

1 Second series, vols. 5 and 7,1848. 2 Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 5, p. 178.
WILLIAMS.] HALL, DE VEENEUIL. 69

This had been roughly attempted by Hall, but, as we examine the 

changes proposed by De Yerneuil, it is evident that the final grouping 

was greatly influenced by his suggestions.

In the first volume of the Paleontology of New York, published in 

1847, no attempt was made by Hall to form subordinate groups of the 

several formations included in the lower or " Champlain division," the 

Potsdam sandstone, Calciferous sandrock, Chazy limestone, Birdseye 

limestone, Black Eiver limestone, Trenton limestone, (Jtica shales, 

Hudson Eiver shales). De Verneuil thought there were several subordinate groups, viz, (1) Potsdam, (2) Calciferous, (3) Chazy, Birdseye, 

and Black Eiver limestone, (4) Trenton limestone, Utica and Hudson 

River shales. The placing of the Oneida conglomerate and the Medina sandstone with the Niagara limestone was supported by de Verneuil. It had been proposed by Vanuxem and Mather, but was not 

followed by Hallj in this review the latter expressed his assent to its 

propriety.

The combination (Water-linae, Pentamerus galeatus limestone, Delthyris shaly limestone, tipper Peutamerus) to form the Lower Helderberg group, was the suggestion of de Verneuil.1 This is in accordance 

with Conrad's identification of this combination with the "Wenlock 

limestone" in 1841, but does not agree with Hall's previous grouping 

of the equivalents of the Wenlock limestone.

The inclusion of the Oriskany with the Corniferous in the Devonian 

was suggested by de Verneuil. The combination Marcellus, Hamilton, 

Tully, and Genesee as a lower group, and Portage and Chemung as an 

upper group ot the Erie division of the New York reports was also his.

De Verneuil's parallelisms of the strata of Europe and America were 

as follows:

The Potsdam sandstone he regarded as the equivalent of the " sandstone with obolus " of Eussia and the " Carboniferous sandstone " of 

Scandinavia. The siliceous limestone and Black Eiver and Trenton 

limestones were the " bituminous schist and Orthoceratite limestone " of 

Sweden and Eussia. The Utica shales and Hudson Eiver group were 

the " Graptolite slates " of iSweden and of Bain, France. These together form the equivalent of the inferior stage of the Silurian system, 

and as we study his classification of the next division, it is apparent 

that the groupings suggested are not those arising from the particular 

American sequence of rocks, or alone from the faunas themselves, but 

from their equivalency to the divisions of the European classifications.2

In the western exposures in Indiana and Ohio, he recognized a union 

of the faunas of the Lower aod Upper Silurian, but in New York these 

are separated by the Oneida and Medina arenaceous deposits, and he 

drew the line so as to include the latter in the Upper Silurian with the 

Clinton and Niagara. The limestones and shales of the Niagara he regarded as the equivalent of the limestones and slates of Wenlock afld

 Am. Joar. Sci., 2d 8or., vol. 15, p. 180. z lbid., pp. 179,180.
70 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. (BULL. 80.

of Gothland, and the five inferior groups of the Helderberg division as 

the equivalent of the Ludlow rocks.

In M. de Verneutl's opinion the Devonian begins with the Oriskany 

and includes the five superior groups of the Helderberg division and 

the six groups of the Erie division and the Old Eed sandstone. His 

argument for beginning the Devonian with the Oriskany is the paleontologic equivalency of its fauna with the fauna of the European Devonian, the occurrence of Asterolepis in Schoharie grit, and the characters 

of the numerous Spirifera, some of which reminded him of Spirifcr cultrijugatus and 8. macropterus of the Eifel, and the fact observed by Hall 

that the Oriskany was preceded by a violent movement of the waters, 

denuding and wearing depressions in the underlying rocks. The Oriskany he regarded as the equivalent of the fossiliferous schists of the 

border of the Rhine. The Chenmng, Portage, Genesee, Tully, and 

Hamilton represented for him the formations of the Eifel and Devonshire ; the Marcellus shales, those of Wissenbach in Nassau; the black 

(Devonian) schists of Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky, he regarded as 

representing the Genesee slates of New York, and the calcareous band 

below represented the Corniferous and Onondaga limestones and the 

Hamilton group of the East. He held that the Devonian disappears 

entirely on the borders of the Mississippi, where the Carboniferous system rests directly on the Silurian.1

M. de Verneuil first pointed out the fact that the " Waverly series " 

of Ohio and Indiana in great part belonged to the Carboniferous system, and not to the Devonian or Cheinung, as American geologists 

held.2 This determination was based upon study of the fossils from 

near Medina, and from Cuyahoga, and Newark, Ohio. He showed that 

the representative of the Portage in Ohio was possibly at the base of 

the Waverly sandstone, but found it difficult to draw a line on account

of the lack of fossils, and held the view that in Indiana, Kentucky, 

and Tennessee all above the black slates is Carboniferous.

In a foot note 3 Mr. Hall explains that he had called rocks at New 

Albany, Indiana, lying above the black slates and containing Carboniferous fossils, u Subcarboniferous, from the fact that up to that time I 

was not aware that anything below the base of the great Carboniferous 

limestone had been recognized as belonging to the Carboniferous 

period."

In Tennessee the siliceous strata of Prof. Troost are also reported as 

belonging to the Carboniferous system. Those " Psainrnites and siliceous strata" M. de Yerneuil regarded as equivalent to the " yellow sandstone of Ireland" and the " slates and sandstones of Westphalia."

The reviewer at the close still differed from the author in his definition of the Devonian system above and below, insisting that the limit 

between Silurian and Devonian should be at the base of the Schoharie

'Am. Jour. Sci.,2dsor., vol. 5, p. 181. 2 Ibid., vol. 7, p. 45. 3 Ibid., p. 461.
WIU.TAMS.] HALL, DE VERNF.UIL. 71

grit, with the Oriskany left out of consideration, and that the line 

between the Devonian and Carboniferous was not established and 

should be regarded as a matter for future determination.1

Mr. Hall in this review quotes M. de Verneuil's views as to the great 

importance of the Paleozoic formations of America:

No series of formations extended in continuous manner over a vaster surface than 

the Paleozoic strata of North America. * * *

By one of those happy chances of which the history of science offers us examples, 

the territory of the State of Now York presents ns, below the Carboniferous system, 

the Paleozoic series most complete. Every favorable condition is there also united 

to facilitate that study, and to give to superposition, and consequently to paleontology, of which it is the foundation, a certainty truly scientific. 2

Hall as well as de Verneuil objected to the unfortunate grouping into 

" Ghamplain, Ontario, etc., divisions » of the rocks of New York.

The finer subdivisions are, however, of permanent value. As Hall 

wrote:

In truth, wo are satisfied that what has given certainty and security to our labors 

are Ihe minute subdivisions which have never been attempted elsewhere. 3

The reason for this is not far to seek. These " minute subdivisions" 

are the natural stratigraphic units of the rocks and express the historical changes of local conditions. They express for each geographic 

province the epochs of its geologic history and are the units of which 

the geologic history of the world was built. The fossils they contain 

are the means by which the history of geographically separate provinces may be compared, and, as will be seen by tracing the effect of de 

Verneuil's work, the coordinating and systematizing of the several 

stages of relative uniformity of condition for each separate province 

are to be accomplished by a comparative study of the fossil contents.

The reason for grouping any particular formation with those below 

rather than with those above is not found in its mineral constitution, 

nor in its stratigraphic condition, but in the character of its fossil contents.

The New York geologists attempted to make groupings of the fundamental formations based upon their relation to the present geographic 

features of the surface. Th'is plan failed because there is no natural 

connection between the two sets of phenomena.

When de Verneuil discussed the matter with Hall on a basis of the 

fossil contents of each particular formation for each particular geographic province, a natural classification was reached, which, as far as 

the state of knowledge permitted, was satisfactory, and which persists 

because it is based upon facts which have a history, and therefore can 

be historically classified.4

In Tennessee, according to the reports of Troostand Owen, Silurian,

1 Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 7, p. 231.

2 Ibid., vol. 5, p. 177. 

s Ibid., p. 179.

* Comparison of the geological features of Tennessee with those of the State of New York, by 

James llall; Proo. Amer. Asaoo., 1851, vol. 0, pp. 250-25 9.
72 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. IHULL. 80.

Devonian, and Carboniferous species occur together. Hall accounted 

for this fact by the absence in this basin of the rocks which in New 

York separate these great limestones, thus bringing the representatives of the Niagara, Lower Helderberg, and Corniferous together, and 

causing some confusion of the species at their junction.

This was in the direction of clear definition for the faunas. Up to 

this time (and to some extent even to the present), geologists did not 

appreciate the essential importance of knowing the precise order and 

association of species making up the successive faunas met with in 

geological sections.

James Hall also prepared a paper on "Parallelism of the Paleozoic 

deposits of the United States and Europe." 1 This was written after 

the work on the geological survey of the State of New York had been 

completed. Interest had also been excited in Europe, and he had the 

benefit of the studies of several very able European geologists. Lyell 

had visited America the first time; de Verneuil had written his paper 

on the Parallelism of the Paleozoic formations of America with those 

of Europe; Daniel Sharpe had written a paper on the Paleozoic rocks 

of North America;2 Murchison's Silurian System had been published 

several years before; also Phillips's Fossils of Devonshire, and McCoy's 

description of Carboniferous Fossils; these were all published and at 

hand for comparison.

The first part of Mr. Hall's paper was devoted to a comparison between the Paleozoic rocks of New York and those of the West. As 

bearing upon our present discussion the only point of particular interest 

in this comparison is the correlation of the " Cliff limestone " with the 

Niagara, Clinton, and Corniferous limestones of the East. In the West a 

black shale was found to follow this limestone in some parts of Ohio, 

Indiana, and Kentucky, which was believed to represent the remaining

part of the Devonian; above it, all over the Mississippi Valley area, the 

Carboniferous limestone appeared. Several interesting points appear 

in the discussion of the comparisons between the American and the 

European sections made by Messrs. Sbarpe, de Verneuil, and others. In 

these comparisons the use of fossils was paramount, and all the arguments were based upon the presence of fossils, irrespective of the lithologic characters of the deposits. The determinations were based 

chiefly upon a numerical comparison of the recorded lists of fossils; 

resemblance of genera and identity of species were recorded as determining the correlation in each case. This principle was carried to the 

extent of recognizing, in species from what are called now Devonian 

deposits of America, correlations with Silurian, Devonian, and Carboniferous species in the different groups of organisms which were compared. For instance, in a table 3 the Brachiopods of the Oriskany sand1 It appeared as chapter xvm of Foster and Whitney's Report on Lake Superior, part n, pp. 

285-318, published in 1851.

2 Quar. Jour. Geol. Soc. Lond., August, 1848. 

8 Ibid., p. 316.
WILLIAMS.] HALL'S PARALLELISM OF THE PALEOZOIC. 73

stone are said to indicate a "close affinity with the Carboniferous f the 

Cephalopoda of the Marcellus and the Brachiopoda and some Cephalopoda of the Chemung and Hamilton groups are reported as "of Carboniferous facies." Again, the Brachiopods and Lamellibranchs of the 

Chemung and Hamilton, and the Brachiopods of the Corniferous are indicated as presenting a "Devonian facies," while the Lamellibranchiata 

and Orthocerata of the Chemung and Hamilton, the Cephalopoda of the 

Corniferous, and the Cephalopoda and Crustacea of the Schoharie grit 

are regarded as " equivalents of the corresponding faunas of the Ludlow rocks in Europe."

This indicates considerable confusion, and the inference to be drawn 

from a study of these results is that the determination of the fossils 

was not sufficiently accurate to make the comparisons with precision. 

It is probable that the difference between the species which were defined as " Carboniferous," or " Devonian," or " Upper Silurian (Ludlow)" in Europe, belonging to the same genera, was not so great as the 

difference which the species, belonging to the same horizon, might 

exhibit on the two sides of the ocean; but at this stage in the progress 

of paleontology there was apparent tly very little appreciation of the 

amount of variation which species of the same genus undergo during 

the same geologic epoch.

Hall was of the opinion that the Upper Helderberg of the New York 

system represented the Ludlow group of Murchison, and while he recognized the fact that the Ludlow beds were separated by the English 

from the Devonian, he insisted that the fossils of the Ludlow were 

represented by the fossils of the Schoharie grit and Corniferous limestone more closely than by any of our Lower. Helderberg specjes. He 

insisted that either.the Ludlow beds belonged to the Devonian or that 

there must be some considerable gap in the New York series between 

the Lower Helderberg and the Upper Helderberg. He said, after 

stating that he could not agree with M. de Verneuil in placing the 

Lower Helderberg limestones in parallelism with the Ludlow:

Leaving out of consideration the Oriskany sandstone and Cauda-Galli grit, vro feel 

disposed to regard the Schoharie grit as possessing zoological features more in accordance with those of the Lower Lndlo w series than any other rock in our classification. 

We shall thus place it for the present. 1

And in his table of equivalents the Wenlock series is represented by 

the Clinton group in part, Niagara group, and Lower Helderberg limestones ; and the Ludlow series and Devonian system are represented 

by our Upper Helderberg limestones, Hamilton group, Chemuug group, 

and the Red sandstone and shale of the Catsktll Mountains.2

As indicative of the stage of refinement reached in the identification 

of species and its results, the following quotations may be made:

Although it is not difficult to find the evidence of a general parallelism in our suc1 Foster and Whitney, Kept, on Lake Superior, pt. 2, p. 310. * Ibid., p. 317.
74 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. IBULL.SO.

cessive groups with those of Europe, yet when wo come to more minute and critical 

comparisons the difficulties increase rather than diminish.

The relations of our divisions often appear to be in two directions, and it is impossible to account satisfactorily for the apparent divergence in the direction of 

groups, as shown by the evidence afforded by the recognized species of European 

authorities. 1

This determination of (correlation with) the Ludlow was independent 

of his determination of the true representative of the Devonian system 

in America; for in another place he said:

The Oriskany sandstone, however, marks an important horizon, since we now regard 

it as commencing the Devonian period. 2

Although fossils were used for the purpose of correlating formations 

across geographic intervals, as from .England to America, it was not by 

paleontology pure and simple. It was an identification of strata by 

likeness of fossils irrespective of the question of paleontologic history. 

The fossils were mere "medals of creation;" those possessing the same 

marks were supposed to belong to the same creation. The time had 

not come for an examination of the relations of the various fossils to 

each other. The law of paleontologic succession did not become a 

factor of correlation till the idea of the evolution of species furnished 

a rational basis of confidence in the naturalness of the observed order 

of sequence of forms. The idea of evolution suggests the true biologic 

system of correlation, in which the data of the classification are fossils, 

and the distinctions made are into periods in the history of organisms, 

the strata taking their relative position in the series according to the 

period in this history which their contained fossil remains may indicate.

1 Foster and Wliitnoy, Kept, on Lake Superior, pt. 2, p. 314. * Ibid., p. 302.
CHAPTEK III.

THE DIFFERENTIATION OF THE CARBONIFEROUS SYSTEM.

In matters of correlation the Carboniferous system is particularly 

unfortunate, in that there is nothing in the name nor in the usage 

to determine precisely the limits of the system above and below. 

The grand divisions Lower Carboniferous, Millstone Grit, and Coal 

Measures have been handed down from the early classifications before 

strictraothods were in use. The question whether the Permian shall constitute the third age of the Carboniferous period or not must be settled 

either arbitrarily or by reference to precedent. In order to establish 

a precedent it must be determined what is the standard Carboniferous 

system. If the original Carboniferous system excluded the Permian aa 

a distinct system it is important that a name be found to designate that 

usage and to distinguish it from the present common usage, which 

includes the Lower Carboniferous, the Coal Measures, and the Permian 

in the one Carboniferous system. A review of the literature shows that 

a classification of the rocks to form a system to which first the name Carboniferous was applied was made by W. D. Conybeare in 1821.l It was 

called the " Medial or Carboniferous order," and was defined to include:

(1) The Coal Measures, the "independent coal formation" of Werner;

(2) the Millstone grit and shales; (3) the Carboniferous or Mountain 

limestone; and (4) the Old Ked sandstone.2 This grouping of the rocks 

was suggested by their "association together in the districts which 

afford the principal deposit of fossil coal." 3

In this classification the "New Red sandstone," including what is 

now called "Permian" and "Trias," was distinctly excluded, and we 

discover that the New Hed sandstone beds in England generally rest uncomformably upon the Carboniferous. The line of unconformity gave 

occasion for the distinction between "primary" and "secondary," and 

later "transition" and "secondary," and for the classification of the 

rocks and faunas below the line as " Paleozoic" and those above as 

" Mesozoic." In the Weroerian nomenclature the term " Floetz class" 

was applied to the flat-lying rocks, beginning with those New Ked sandstones in the English series and running upward.

Conybeare's Carboniferous order also included rocks correlated as Old 

Bed sandstone, and lie recognized that the " Old Ked approaches in its 

lowest beds very nearly to the characters of the graywacke upon which

1 Conyboaro and PMllipa: Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales, London, 1822, p. 333. 

*0p. cit..p.335. 

8 Op. cit., p. 333.

75
76 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

it reposes, and indeed graduates insensibly into that rock, so that the 

line of separation between them is frequently only an imaginary and 

arbitrary dem arkation." l

Thus we see that the Carboniferous as originally understood was 

grouped about the Coal Measures, had its upper limit a line of unconformity, and below had no sharp line of demarkation.

Murchison and Sedgwick had previously recognized the importance 

of the Old Bed Sandstone as a distinct terrane, and as holding a peculiar and interesting fauna, 2 and in 1839, in the Silurian system, Murchison raised it to equal rank with the Silurian and Carboniferous, calling it the " Old Red system."

Murchison included in the Carboniferous system the rocks associated 

with the Coal Measures, which are terminated above by the rocks of the 

New Bed system, and below by those of the Old Bed system. The 

three divisions of the Carboniferous system (Coal Measures, Millstone 

grit, and Carboniferous limestone) were recognized by Murchison.

The Old Ked system of Murchison included: (1) Quartoze Conglomerate and sandstone j (2) Cornstone and marl j (3) Tilestone.

Immediately under the Tilestone at Ludlow village was the Upper 

Ludlow and top of his Silurian system. The Tilestones were regarded 

as beds of passage to the Silurian. They were afterward called " Downton sandstone," a name proposed by John Phillips.

This was the classification with which the New York geologists sought 

to correlate the rocks of the New York system in 1840.

The Carboniferous system was made up of the Coal Measures at the 

top, the Millstone grit, and at bottom the Carboniferous limestone. 

Above the Carboniferous came the New Ked sandstone or New Eed 

system, in which the Magnesian limestone, the Saliferous group, and 

the New Eed sandstone were conspicuous Divisions. Below the Carboniferous came the Old Bed system, which in Murchison's classification filled the interval between the Carboniferous and Silurian systems.

The confusion about the Devonian in the final reports of the New 

York survey arose partly from the original confusion in England. 

The series in New York are perfectly simple up to the Conglomerate. 

The Bed rocks of the Catskill were identified with the Old Bed system. 

The Devonian rocks were clearly below these Catskill rocks, and while 

some of their fossils were similar to Phillips's Devonian fossils, others 

were also like Murchison's Ludlow fossils, and as the Ludlow group immediately preceded the typical Old Bed rocks of England, and as the 

chief of Phillips's Devonian fossils were really Upper Devonian, it was 

natural to conclude that the rocks of our Middle and Lower Devonian 

were to be correlated with the Ludlow rocks of Murchison.

The correcting of this mistake could come only from a careful study 

of the fossils. When this had been done by de Yerneuil the correc1 Op. cit., p. 862. *Geol. Trans., vol. 3.
WILLIAMS.] CLASSIFICATION OF THE CARBONIFEROUS. 77

tion was made; but Hall accepted itonjy after making a careful study 

of the fossils for himself. To Hall the New York rocks were the standard. To de Verneuil, Sharp, and Lyell the English rocks were the 

standard, and they had no prejudices in favor of any particular interpretation of the American rocks. The lithologic characters were prominent in Hall's correlation j to the English geologists, and particularly to 

de Verneuil, fossils were the chief criteria.

In the Carboniferous system the lack of a representative of the Carboniferous limestone in the Pennsylvania sections led to confusion, 

in early reports we read of the Coal Measures as " secondary," and 

of " transition coal-beds." (1835.) It was, doubtless, this supposition 

that the true order was (1) limestone, (2) grit, (3) Coal Measures, that 

led the Ohio geologists1 to correlate the Corniferous limestone underlying the sliales and fine-grained sandstone (Waverly) with the Mountain limestone.

The Werneriau idea that anthracite coal belonged to the "greywacke" or " transition," as taught in Couybeare and Phillips's geology 

'in 1822, and imitated elsewhere,2 was the influencing cause of the 

erroneous views as to the position of the eastern coal-beds of Pennsylvania, as seen in the papers of James Pierce and William Meade,3 and 

others following up the discussion. In Tennessee the Mountain limestone was rightly classified, because there the limestone was actually 

next below the Coal Measures.

A remarkable example of error arising from this firm belief in the 

identity in the order of lithological deposits for America and England 

is seen in the paper of Prof. C. Dewey,4 who in 1838 interpreted the red 

rocks about Kochester (Medina) as Old Bed, and the overlying limestones (Niagara) as ranking wtih the Mountain limestone of Europe.

In the Mississippian province the identification of the rocks from the 

Coal Measures downward was correctly made, not because of accurate 

knowledge of the fossils, but because the three grand divisions of the 

typical English Carboniferous system were there present in the same 

order: first, a series of limestones, then conglomerate or sandstone, 

then Coal Measures.

Thus it came about that the true classification of the Carboniferous 

was through the western or Mississippi Valley formations, and not 

through the typical Appalachian sections in Pennsylvania and southward, and their subdivision was made independently of the European 

usage. The base was determined by the fossils of species allied to 

the species of the Carboniferous limestone of England.

In the Appalachian province the limit was determined by the top of 

the marine Devonian rocks. But in the case of the upper limit, while 

the general custom in America has been to regard the Coal Measures as

>0hio Geol. Survey, 2d Ann. Hop., by W.W. Mather, 1838. 

^Geological Nomenclature, by Amos Eaton, 1828. 

8 See Am. Jour. Sci., 1st sor., 1827, vol. 12, pp.09, 76, 

«Aui. Jour. Sci., vol. 33, p. 121.
78 THE DEVONIAN AND CAK130NIFEKOU& [BLUL.SO.

the top of the Carboniferous system aod to treat the appearance of the 

Permian type of fossils as indicating a new system, there has been no 

recognized standard for the settlement of the question.

In the same way at the base, where the last Devonian fossils are 

separated from the Coal Measures by deposits lacking marine fossils, 

the determination of the line of division between Devonian and Carboniferous has occasioned considerable dispute, which would certainly 

have been less had there been a recognized standard section of the Carboniferous system outside America which might be referred, to as a 

standard in all cases of difference of opinion about our own rocks.

In order that we may have such a standard, I shall describe niore in 

detail the Carboniferous system as first defined for English geologists. 1

The English author who first appreciated the importance of grouping certain rock formations with the Coal Measures to form what now 

is called a system, was W. D. Conybeare.2 The German geologist, 

Werner, and the school of geologists that followed him, had called the 

Coal Measures the "Independent Coal Formation" or "Stein Kohlengebirge." Conybeare subdivided the "Transition and Secondary 

formations" of Wern'er into orders, and his medial order was called the 

" Medial or Carboniferous order." Here were included " therock formations, which ought to be considered together with the Coal Measures." 

In his classification these formations were, "I. The Coal Measures. II. 

The Millstone grit and shale. III. The Carboniferous or Mountain limestone. IV. The Old Ked sandstone." 3 His "Supermedial order" included all the rocks from the Coal Measures to the Tertiary, substantially what we now call Mesozoic.. His Submedial order was the " Grauwacke " of Werner.

Couybeare prominently notices that the formations of the " Medial 

or Carboniferous order " are the rocks which form the " Pennine chain"

(spelled by him Penine) of mountains in northern England. He 

carefully defines the position and structure of the range, and proposes the retention of the name "Pennine," which was first applied to 

them by the early Eoman colonists of the island.4 Other exhibitions 

of Carboniferous rocks are mentioned by him, but here alone he found 

the whole series represented, and the rocks of the Pennine range were 

the typical rocks .of the system which Couybeare defined.

In Hughes's "Geography of British History" (London, 1863), we 

find the "Pennine range" defined as "applied by general consent to 

the extensive range of high ground stretching south from the Cheviot 

Hills to the district of the Peak in Derbyshire, about 170 miles in 

length," stretching from, the border of Scotland southward to the val-

'A portion of this chapter has been road before the Indianapolis meeting of the American Geological Society, and au abstract appears in its bulletin, vol. n, pp. 16-19. 

2 Couybearo ami Phillipa, Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales. Loucou, 1822, p. 323.

3 Op. cit., p. 325.

4 See Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales, pp. 3C5, 36(1.
WILLIAMS.] THE ORIGINAL CARBONIFEROUS. 79

ley of the Treat." l It is composed " entirely of roclcs belonging to the 

Carboniferous series.772

H. B. Woodward, in "Geology of England and Wales" (1887), describes this range as " a faulted anticlinal of Lower Carboniferous rocks 

supporting on the east the coal fields of Northumberland, Yorkshire, 

and Derbyshire, and on the west the Lancashire and Cheshire coal 

fields.773

As was pointed out by Conybeare, the rocks of this range not only 

contain the typical rock formations to which he applied the name " Carboniferous order," but each of the members of that system.

De la Beche (1831-1833) followed the classification of Conybeare, but 

dropped the term " Medial" as a synonym. John Phillips (1837) adopted 

the name "Carboniferous" with "system" instead of "order" in the 

same sense as proposed by Conybeare. And Murchison, in the Silurian 

system (1839), made classic the names "Silurian system," a 01d Red 

system," "Carboniferous system," "New Bed system," and "Oolitic 

system."

After them, geologists in general adopted the name Carboniferous 

system for one of the great groups of rocks composing the grand geological column.

All of these early English authors were in unison in distinctly excluding the rocks afterward (in 1841) called " Permian" by Murchison, and 

at that time going under the names " New Red sandstone " and " Magnesian limestone," " Saliferous system " and " New Red system." Conybeare, De la Beche, and John Phillips agreed in including the " IJpper 

Old Red sandstone" in the Carboniferous system, while Murchison, after 

them (in 1839), separated from the Carboniferous the lower member as 

a distinct system. On page 169 of his Silurian system he says that 

he "applied the name 'Old Red system' to the Old Red sandstone 

of previous writers in order to convey a just conception of their 

importance in the natural succession of rocks, and also to show that 

as the Carboniferous system in which previous writers have merged 

it * * * is surmounted by one red group, so is it underlaid by 

another.77

Thus, all four of these early authorities in English geology agree in 

their definition of the original Carboniferous system, which is that of 

the series of roclcs typically represented in the Pennine range of England, 

and not fully represented in any other one section of England.

When we seek to determine the precise definition of the Carboniferous 

system, we are led directly to this typical section in the Pennine range, 

first clearly defined by Couybeare, and afterward adopted as the typical 

section by the founders of geological science in England, and afterward 

by correlation recognized as the standard section of the Carboniferous 

system throughout the world. The section of this typical Pennine Car1 Op. cit., p. 20. z Op. oit., p. 22. 8 Op. cit., p. 149.
80 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL.80.

boniferous system consists of, first, tbe upper part of tbe Old Eed sandstone resting upon lower beds of Old Eed sandstone, uuconformably 

about tbe Cheviot Hills, or upon the Cheviot Volcanic series, or upon 

Silurian rocks, as in Northumberland. The second formation, resting conformably upon the first, is the Mountain or Carboniferous limestone. The third member of the series is the Millstone grit and shales. 

The fourth, the Coal Measures, including the familiar coal fields of 

Lancashire and Cheshire, of Yorkshire, Northumberland, and Derbyshire ; these latter are terminated where contacts are seen by the " New 

Eed," in some places apparently conformably, but generally unconformably. The system in this Pennine range was evidently terminated 

both below and above by geologic disturbance of greater or less extent, 

furnishing natural deliminations, thus peculiarly fitting it for a standard of geologic definition.

An analysis of the standard systems in geologic classification shows us 

that a system is a series of rock formations whose stratigraphic order 

and litbologic composition are thoroughly well expressed in some definable geograpic region, and whose fossils indicate a continuous biologic 

sequence, more or less distinctly broken at its lower and upper limits 

from contiguous formations. Thus a typical section has definite geographic position, geologic delimitation, and biologic definition. Tbe 

Silurian system in Wales and western England, the Devonian system 

of south and north Devonshire, the Jurassic system of the Jura Mountains, are examples, and no less perfect is the Pennine Carboniferous 

system of the Pennine range of north England to which the unsatisfactory name of Carboniferous has been so long applied.

While so much is true of the standard or typical expression of a geologic system, it can not be expected that any system will offer precisely 

the same features in other regions of the world or on other continents,

We conclude, therefore, that: (1) Because the composition, the sizeof particles, and the order and thickness of deposits are all determined by 

conditions that are geographically dissimilar, therefore a geologic system can have but one typical geographic position; (2) because the geologic events, such as elevation of land, breaking of strata recorded in 

faults, and volcanic eruptions, do not take place either uniformly or 

simultaneously in different parts of the earth, it is certain that intervals 

or breaks in sedimentary formations will not be uniform for separate 

regions; and (3) because organisms in the past can not be regarded as 

having ceased to carry on the ordinary functions of life and reproduction, all the breaks in the sequence of organisms, all the sharp lines distinguishing the faunas or floras of one formation from those of a preceding or following formation, are local and not universal.

To apply these reflections to the present case, it will be seen that the 

settlement of the question as to which is the typical section upon which 

the Carboniferous system was founded, will greatly facilitate all attempts 

to determine the limits of the system in other regions, It is evident
WILLIAMS.] THE PENNINE CAKBONIFEROUS. . 81

that the typical section is the section exhibited in the Pennine range, 

and as the name Carboniferous is a misnomer geologically (for we now 

know that carbon or coal-bearing rocks are not confined to the system 

generally so called), and as the name does not indicate the geographic 

position of the typical section, it is believed that the adoption of the 

name " Pennine system " may be of advantage to the science, for this 

particular type of the Carboniferous system.

This Pennine Carboniferous system maybe defined as to its geographic 

position, as the rock formations of the Pennine range of northern England and. equivalent formations in other parts of the world. In geologic 

delimitation the Pennine system begins with a red sandstone and terminates with the upper rocks of the Coal Measures. In biologic definition its first marine fauna is that of the Mountain limestone; its final

fauna and flora are those of the Coal Measures, The brackish fauna of

the Old Ked sandstone had not ceased at its opening; the characteristic Permian fauna or flora had not appeared at its close.

Whatever may prove to be the correlation between the Old Bed 

sandstone and the Devonian systems, the definition of the Pennine system is explicit in including fishes, such as Holoptychius, characteristic 

of the Old Bed system of Murchison, and is as explicit in the exclusion 

of the Devonian marine fauna above which its earliest marine fauna 

belongs. The rocks and faunas of that which was later called the Permian system, are definitely excluded by the original author from the 

Pennine Carboniferous system. The problems'of the Devonian Old 

Bed system and of the Permian system must be discussed 011 their own 

merits. This original section of the Carboniferous has its relations to 

each clearly defined.

In correlating our American rocks the recognition of the Pennine 

Carboniferous system as typical, settles for us several disputed questions. For the Paleozoic rocks along the Appalachian and eastern 

border region the limits between Devonian and Pennine Carbouiterous 

are in the following positions : The Cheinung marine fauna is strictly 

Devonian ; the brackish water fish fauna of the Catskill is as strictly 

Pennine. Hence the red rocks of the Catskill formation of New York, 

the Ponent, Uinbral, and Vespertine formations of Pennsylvania, belong 

to the Pennine Carboniferous.

When, as in western Pennsylvania and Ohio, the species of the Carboniferous or Mountain limestone fauna of England appear to follow 

the marine Chemuug, the line should be drawn between them for a strict 

correlation.

On passing westward the formations called Waverly, Marshall, Kinderhook, Chouteau, containing as they do a fauna distinctly related to 

the Carboniferous limestone fauna, must be placed in the Pennine Carboniferous system.

In Kansas and Nebraska, and other localities where the upper Coal 

Measures gradually assume species of the types described from tho 

Bull. 80 6
82 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

.Russian Permian, the problem of correlation is definite. Both the 

stratigraphy and the biological evidence indicate that there is no sharp 

division between the representative of the Pennine Carboniferous system and that of the Permian system. The division line here must be 

arbitrarily drawn, and the fact that a system is a local series of formations, and not a universal subdivision of the geologic time scale, becomes evident. It is in such cases that the paramount importance of 

the determination of the geographic position of the typical representative of a system is seen, and the only way to make this apparent to all 

is by all the association of the geographic name with the system.
CHAPTER IV.

THE COAL MEASURES OR PENNSYLVANIA SERIES. THE DEVELOPMENT OF ITS NOMENCLATURE AND CLASSIFICATION IN THE 

APPALACHIAN PROVINCE.

The classification of the rocks of middle Pennsylvania in 1836 furnished 

the basis for the system of numbers which have played so conspicuous 

a part in Pennsylvania geology ever since. The State geologist was 

Henry D. Eogers, and his assistants were D. C. Booth and J. F. Frazer, 

with E. E. Eogers as chemist. The classification was as follows:

XII. Coal Measures. 

XI. Rod shale.

X. White sandstone, J oftlie second mountain. 

IX. Red sandstone, > 

VIII. Olive shales, etc. 

VII. Cherry sandstone. 

VI. Limestone. 

V. Red shale and Fossil ore.

' }of the first mountain. 

III. White sandstone, )

II. Slate, j of the Lebanon Valley. 

I. Limestone1, >

The State geologist believed that this series of formations in the order 

given could be recognized u under slight variations of color, size, aud 

mineral ingredients, across the Old Dominion and into Tennessee aud 

Alabama." 1

This constituted the " series of Appalachian formations," which Prof. 

Eogers " for the first time systematically classified and described iu the 

years 1836,1837, aud 1838.2

The geological survey of Pennsylvania was begun in 1836 aud several annual reports were published, but the final report was not published till 1858.3

1 Second Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, 1874-'75-'7C. Historical sketch of geological explorations in 

Pennsylvania and other States. Ky J. P. Lesley, 1876, pp. 54, 55.

^Second Annual Report on the Geological Exploration of the State of Pennsylvania. By Henry D. 

Rogers, State Geologist. Harrisburg, 18'J8, pp. 82,83.

s Tho Geology of Pennsylvania, a. Government survey, with a general view of the geology of the 

TJnittnl States; essays on the coal formation aud its fossils* and a description of the coal fields of North 

America aud Groat Britain. By Henry Darwin Rogers, State Geologist. 4to, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 

London, ami Philadelphia, 1858.

83
84 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

Prof. Eogers's system of classification and nomenclature is exhibited 

in the following synopsis :*

A SYNOPSIS OK TUB APPALACHIAN PAM5OZOIC STRATA OF PENNSYLVANIA IN TUB

ASCENDING OltDEK.

Primal crystalline schists (or Azoic group}.

Primal series:

Feet. 

Primal Conglomerate in Virginia and Tennessee ....................... 150

Primal older slate in Virginia ................................. ........ 1, 200

Primal White sandstone, Potsdam sandstone of New York .............. ? 300

Primal tipper slate ..............................*...................... ?700

Auroral series (bine limestone of the Western States) :

Auroral Calcareous sandstone, Calciferous sandstone of New York...... 60

Auroral Magnesiau limestone, the C hazy and Black River limestones in 

part...... ...................................................... .2, 500-5, 500

Matinal series :

Matiual argillaceous limestone, Trenton limestone of New York ........ 300-550

Matiual Black slate, Utica slate of New York .......................... 300-400

Matiual shales, Hudson River slate.. .... .... .... ...... ...... ...... .... ? 1,200

Levant series :

Levant gray sandstone, Oneida Conglomerate of New York. ............ 250-400

Levant Red sandstone, division I, or lowest member of Medina sandstone 

of Now York ........................................................ 500-700

Levant White sandstone, apparently divisions II, III, IV, Medina sandstone of New York .................................................. 450

Sargent series :

Surgent lower slate, ? equivalent of lower green shale of Clinton group 

of New York....................... .. ............................ 200

Surgent iron sandstone.... .... .... .... .... .... .... ...... ...... .... .... go

Surgeutiipper slate.. ..................... .............. i... .......... 250

Surgout lower ore shales, ? in horizon of upper green shales, Clinton 

group .............................................................. 760

Surgent ore sandstone ................................................ 10-30

Surgeut upper ore shales, ? in horizon of upper green shales, etc.... .... 300

Sargent red marl, Clinton group..... ...................... ............ 359

Scaleut series :

......

Scalent limestone, Water-lime group of New York.... ...... ............ 250

Pre-Meridian series :

Pre-Meridiau limestone, Lower Helderberg limestone of New York. .... 50-100

Meridian series :

Meridian slate ........................................................ 170

Meridian sandstone, Oriskauy sandstone of New York .................. 150

Post-Meridian series :

Post-Meridian grits, Cauda-Galli and Schohario grits of New York (Now 

Jersey)....-...-..........-......-..........-....................... 300

Post-Meridian limestone, Upper Helderherg or Corniferous limestone of 

New York, and part of Cliff limestone of Western States .............. 80

Cadent series :

Cadeut lower black slate, Marcellus shale of New York ................. 250

Cadent shales, Hamilton group of New York ........................... 600

Cudei.it upper black slate, Geueseo shale of Now York .................. 300

' Op. cit., vol. 1., pp. 105-101).
WILLIAMS.] ,. ROGERS'S CLASSIFICATION. 85

¥oot. 

Vergont series:

Vorgent Flags, Portage flags of New York ............................. 1,700

Vergent shales, Chemuug group of New York .......................... 3,200

Ponont series:

Ponent Red sandstone, Catsldll group of New York .................... 5,000

Vespertine series:

Vespertine Conglomerate and sandstone................................ 2,600

Umbral series, or Carboniferous shales and limestone:

Umbral Rod shales and limestone...................................... 3,000

Soral series, or Coal strata:

Soral Conglomerate, or lowest division of Coal Measures................. 1,100

Lower Productive Coal Measures. 

Lower Barren Coal Shales. 

Upper Productive Coal Measures. 

Upper Barren Coal Shales.

The numbers corresponding to the names here proposed are as follows :

XII. Serai. " . VI. Pre-Moridian. . XI. Umbral. Y J Scalent.

X. Vespertine. ' < Surgent.

IX. Ponont. . IV- Levant.

5 Vergent. IIT- Matinal.

vm< I Cadont. II. Auroral.

VII. Meridian. I. Primal.

In 1850 H. D. Rogers 1 discussed the coal formations of the United 

States, considered from the following points of view:

First. The source, stratigraphical relations, and conditions of deposition. The land-derived deposits, attaining a maximum thickness of 

1,4.00 feet in the southeast, thin out westward to less than 100 feet, and 

the Coal Measures gradually thicken toward the northwest. The immense range and horizontal extension of the conglomerates and coal 

seams prove that it could not have been deposited by any local estuary 

or deltal actions, but along a broad, shallow sea shore, which was disturbed by violent interior forces, producing enormous undulations.

Second. The author discussed the structural conditions and position 

of the anthracite basins, and found them arranged in two systems of 

flexures, the larger series with an amplitude of many miles and a length 

of 100 miles, with average direction of about N. 75° E., the smaller 

series trending K. 70° B.

Third. He treated of the metamorphism of the anthracite coal-bearing strata, showing it to be more complete in the east, the products of 

the western region being bituminous and those of the east anthracitic.

Fourth. Erosion is considered.

Finally, a summary of the statistics of the coal fields is presented, 

in which the author states that the productive area of the anthracite 

fields of Pennsylvania does not exceed 200 square miles, with an aggregate thickness of 100 feet.

1 On the coal formation of the United States, and especially as developed in Pennsylvania. Proo. 

Am. Assoo., vol. 4,1850, pp. 65-70.
86 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

The same author 1 determined the age of certain footprints from the 

red shale near Mount Carbon.

Ancient footprints discovered by Mr. Isaac Lea in the "Bed Shale" 

at Mount Carbon, in Pennsylvania, and assigned by him to the Devonian period, were considered by the author to belong in reality to the 

" Beds " of the Carboniferous, a few hundred feet below the productive 

coal series. They are accompanied by a series of similar footprints attributed to batrachian reptiles, trails, prints of some unknown fourtoed animal apparently reptilian, and trails analogous to those of 

worms and mollusca. The larger footprints are mainly five-toed, alternate in the steps, and nearly equal in size.

In 1850 Mr. J. P. Lesley reported on the Broad Top coal basin.2

The Broad Top coal basin, situated between Huntingdon and Bedford Springs, was imperfectly reported upon in 1838 by Mr. McKinley, 

the substance of the report appearing in the annual reports of the Geological Survey.

In 1855 the author made a more complete survey of this region, covering about 80 square miles, established the levels of over nine thousand points, and reached the folio wing conclusions: (1) That the succession of the measures is not different from the system made out in 

western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio. (2) That the structural results lead to the conclusion that the abruptness of the anticliuals could 

be produced only by side pressure. (3) That the Precarboniferous 

Coal Measures are represented in this region by beds of black slate 

containing little coal, the Subcarboniferous limestone being present in 

small amounts.

J. P. Lesley,8 remarking on the Subconglomeratic Coal Measures of 

northwestern Virginia, thinks those beds represent early Carboniferous formations, such as are seen in Ireland, Scotland, and possibly in 

Melville Island. Similar beds occur in southern Virginia, in southeastern Kentucky, and in Nova Scotia. The lowest Devono-Carboniferous slate represents a still earlier period, and may be correlated with 

the German Devonian Coal Measures.

Mr. J. M. Hale4 (1864) reported at the junction of the Beaver Dam 

and eastern branches of Clearfield Creek, a boring of 548 feet. At the 

depth of 199 feet a vein of coal 4 feet 4 inches in thickness was reached. 

This is probably in the author's view the same vein as at Osceola or 

Phillipsburg.

Mr. B. S. Lyman,5 in 1807, commenting on the Great Carboniferous

1 Kogers, H. D.: On the position and character of the reptilian footprints in the Carboniferous Ked 

Shale formation of eastern Pennsylvania. Proc. Am. Assoc., vol. 4, 1850, pp. 250-251.

2 Lesley, J. P.: On the Broad Top coal basin in central Pennsylvania. Am. Assoc., vol. 10, pt. 2, 

1856, pp. 78«*81, map.

3 Lesley, J. P.: On the Subcouglomoratic or false Coal Measures of West Virginia and Pennsylvania. 

Am.Phil.Soc., Proc., vol. 7, 1860, p. 294.

4 Hale, John M.: Record of an old salt boring in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania. Am. Phil. Soo., 

Proc., vol. 9, 1865, pp. 459-460.

"Abstract on the Great Carboniferous conglomerate in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. Phil. Acad. 

Set, Proc., vol. 19, 1807, pp. 125-127.
WILLIAMS.] &EW&ERRY, FONTAINE\ 87

conglomerate, stated that it was the general opinion that the Great 

Conglomerate (No. xn) at the bottom of the Coal Measures thins out 

rapidly from a thickness of 1,200 feet at Mauch Chunk to less than 100 

feet in Wyoming Valley. But he found in Sullivan County a thickness 

of 400 feet, consisting of two main layers of pebbly rock separated by 

strata of light brown and greenish sandstones resembling those of the 

productive Coal Measures. The lower bed is well exposed at Shinerville, where it dips 15° S., and again on the south side of Loyal Sock. 

Farther south are the red, iron-stained shales (No. xi) north of Painter 

Den Run, and still farther south the sandstone (lower bed) outcropssouth 

of Bear Swamp Bun. The sand rock also occurs at Long Point, where 

it has a thickness of 190 feet. Close examination of the sand rocks at 

this point led to the conclusion that they are the same as at Shinerville 

and Birch Creek, 1 mile distant.

Mr. J. S. Newberry,1 in 1871, gave an account of some sections of the 

lower Coal Measures in Holmes, Tuscarawas, Jefferson, and Columbiana 

Counties, which in some cases extend down to the Waverly, and show 

alternations of shale, sandstones, and limestones, with beds of coal. 

.The sections average from 300 to 400 feet in depth, the coal seams individually rarely more than 4 feet. The coal beds are numbered according to altitude, from 1 to 7, No. 1 being the lowest, and are described 

in detail. Coal, No. 6, in Holmes County, is overlaid by a black bituminous shale, rich in marine fossils, Chonetes mesolaba, etc. At the 

mouth of the Yellow Creek, Jefferson County, the "Big Vein" of coal 

is underlaid by 4 inches of cannel, full of the remains of fishes and 

amphibians; the fishes, species of Ccelacanthus and Eurylepis, Palcvoniscus and RUizodus; the amphibians were aquatic carnivorous salamanders.

William M. Fontaine,2 in 1374, stated that the Great Conglomerate on 

New River consists of a great formation of sandstones containing important beds of coal, underneath a massive white sandstone, which itself 

underlies the lowest strata of the Lower Coal series. This formation 

is considered by William Rogers the equivalent of the Great Conglomerate, here much expanded, while others hold that it is a great development of the Lower Coals. To the east it is underlaid by the enormously 

expanded Subcarboniferous group.

Fontaine gave facts concerning the overlying and underlying formations of this peculiar series, beginning at the mouth of the Kanawha River where the strata are of Upper Coal series, diminished in 

thickness. Under these is found the barren upper portion of the Lower 

Coal series, increased rather than diminished in thickness, developing 

both to the south and to the northeast. The strata under these barren

1 Nowbofry, J. S.: Sketch of tho structure of the lower Coal Measures iu northeastern Ohio. Gool. 

Survey Ohio, Report Progress in 1870, pt. 1, pp. 1.4-53. Columbus, 1871.

2 Fontaino, Wiu.M.: The "Groat Conglomerate" on New Eiver, West Virginia. Am. Jonr. Sol., 

3d sor., vol. 7, pp. 459-4G5,573-579.
88 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL so.

measures are of great thickness, and the author gives a section showing the 

number and thickness of thecoal seams in this Lower Coal series. After 

this series comes the Conglomerate series,_introduced by a massive]white 

sandstone, remarkable for its resistance to erosion. The strata underneath it, best exposed at Sewell Station, resemble strongly the rocks of 

the Lower Coal series, are argillaceous, and contain considerable amount 

of oxide of iron, but they differ from the latter by the almost entire 

absence of shales in connection with the coal beds. The coal seams are 

inclosed in flaggy sandstones j all the evidence goes to show that they 

were formed under sudden and violent changes. Measurements are 

given of the different seams showing a great variation in thickness. 

Some Devonian plants have been found in the roof of the deposits, of 

which Alethopteris serlii is the most abundant. Underneath these conglomerate sandstones and coal seams is another massive white sandstone, evidently the base of the formation. The next lower deposits 

are heavy bedded sandstones succeeded by the red shales of the Subcarboniferous formation.

This lowest coal series on New Eiver has the same triple structure 

shown by the Conglomerate in other portions of the country, a summit 

and base of conglomeritic sandstones, and a central portion of more 

argillaceous rocks containing beds of coal, and the thickening of the 

whole formation is mostly due to the expansion of the middle portion 

followed by an increase in the amount of coal. Brief descriptions of 

the Conglomerate at other points are given to confirm these statements. 

The Conglomerate is seen to expand in two directions, to the northeast 

into Pennsylvania, and to the southwest in West Virginia, while it diminishes to the northwest. The expansion to the southwest'is followed in 

each case by the increased formation of coal. The similar expansion 

of the underlying rocks, the Subcarboniferous and the Catskill, is treated 

in detail. A thin seam of coal is found in the latter containing many 

beautifully preserved Devonian plants, confirming the supposed Catskill age of the strata. Several species of Lepidodendron, Cyclopteris, 

Newopteris, and others are found.

The great expansion of the Conglomerate on^New River is thus found 

to be like others, the effect of a condition of things which began in much 

older formations and continued until a later era. The author asks the 

question, " Does not the successive formation of coal on an extended 

scale, along the southwest border of the Appalachian coal field, commencing in the Devonian period, point to the existence at this time of a 

continental mass nearer than the Azoic of Canada "P

J. J. Stevenson,1 in 1874, made the following report on the coals of the 

Kanawha Valley:

Tho Upper Coal group along the Groat Kanawha River has two coal beds of workable thickness. The lower one is the Pittsburg, usually known as the " Raymond

1 Stevenson, John J.: Notes on the coals of the Kanawha Valley, West Virginia. Now York Lyceum Nat. Hist., Annals, vol. 10,1874, pp. 271-277.
THLLTAMB.J ' ' STEVENSON. 89

seam." The limestone overlying this coal in northern Ohio and Pennsylvania, as 

well as in the northern part of West Virginia, is greatly diminished in thickness, and 

is represented in this locality by calcareous shale only, containing a few nodules of 

limestone.

The Barren group has about 300 feet of thickness, and contains no workable coals; 

it varies but little in thickness from Pittsburgh to the Great Eanawha, running north 

and south.

The development of the Lower Coal group in this valley is extraordinary. In northern West Virginia the thickness is scarcely 200 feet; in the first geological district 

of Ohio it is rarely more than 300 feet; in either case containing only six or seven coal 

bods. In this valley it can be separated into two portions, the upper of which is no 

less than 900 foot thick, with fifteen beds of coal, and the other about the same thickness with two or three more coal bods. This development continues southwesterly 

until its thickness becomes about 2,500 feet in Tennessee.

The Mahoning sandstone, at the top of the group, is conspicuous in the river hills 

above Charleston, and holds a coal about midway, as in its northern extension in 

Ohio and Pennsylvania. It rests upon a variable bed of black flint, f> to 12 foot 

thick. A few feet below the flint, and separated from it by shale sometimes arenaceous, is a coal partly cannel and partly bituminous, from 5 to 7 feet thick. It is 

regarded as identical with the Upper Frooport of Pennsylvania, and is known locally 

as the Stockton seam. Below this is a variable bod, at Cannolton a cannel of insignificant thickness, at Coalburg, it is the " Great Splint Coal," in some respects the 

most important bed along the river, and at the Kanawha Salines the place is occupied 

by several thin beds considerably separated. The bed is from 6 to 11 feet in thickness. In the thin layer of clay between the sandstones and coal are numerous impressions of Lepidodendron and Sigillaria, and there were remarkably fine leaf-scars of 

Jiotlirodcndron discovered in one locality. The dark slate found in this bed is rich in 

bitumen. Five hundred and fifty foot below the Stockton seam, at Cannelton, is a 

bod of bituminous coal nearly 7 feet thick, known as the " Gas Coal," and below this 

coal a limestone was observed by Mr. Ridgway which ho identified as the "Ferriferous" of Pennsylvania; if he is correct, the "Gas Coal" is probably the "Kittanning" of Pennsylvania.

J. J. Stevenson, 1 in 1874, presented a paper to the New York Lyceum of Natural History which, embodies the results of an examination and comparison of the Ohio coals with those of Pennsylvania and 

West Virginia. The observations recorded cover only that portion of 

the field north of the Baltimore and Ohio Kailroad in West Virginia 

and Ohio.

The limits of the Upper coals are first considered, and the conclusion 

reached that the Pittsburg coal, the base of the Upper Coal Measures, 

" once reached as far west as Sonora, 71 miles west from Wheeling, 

and to a point northward not less than 50 miles from that city, a tortuous boundary line connecting the two points."

Several sections from Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania are 

compared in order to ascertain their relations to each other. From 

this comparison it is found that only Coal VIII, Villa, VHIb, and Coal 

XI can be seen in all the sections. Coal VIII is the Pittsburg, Villa 

appears as the Bedstone, VHIb as the Sewickley, while Coal XI is the 

Waynesburg.

1 The TTppor Coal Measures west of the Alleghany Mountains. Now York Lyceum Nat. Hist., 

Annals,vol. 10,1874, pp. 220-252, pi. No. 12.
90 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. fnuLi,8d.

A detailed description of each bed is then given. Coal VIII is regarded as the "parent bed of all the Upper coal in Ohio, remaining in 

existence as a flourishing swamp from the beginning of the epoch until 

its close."

The conditions of the Upper Coal Measures during deposition are 

treated at length, and the author is led to the following conclusions:

(1) The great bituminous trough west of the Alleghauies does not owe its basin 

shape primarily to the Appalachian Revolution.

(2) The Coal Measures of this basin were not united to those of Indiana and Illinois at any time posterior to the Lower Coal Measure epoch, and probably were 

always distinct.

(3) The Upper Coal Measures originally extended as far west as the Muskmgnm 

River, in Ohio.

(4) Throughout the Upper Coal Measure epoch the general condition was one of 

subsidence interrupted by longer or shorter intervals of repose. During subsidence 

the Pittsburg marsh crept up the shore, and at each of the longer intervals of 

repose pushed out seaward upon the advancing land, thus giving rise to the successive coal-beds of the upper coal measures.

(5) The Pittsbnrg marsh had its origin at the east.

I. C. White, 1 in 1874, before the same society, discussed the Coal 

Measures of western Virginia, and Pennsylvania,

Two sections are given from the region under consideration, one from 

the eastern and one from the western flank of the " Dividing Bidge," 

an elevation between Morgantown and Wheeling, rising in Pennsylvania and extending south into West Virginia. The eastern section has 

a thickness of 800 feet in the Upper Barren group and 340 feet in the 

Upper Coal group; total thickness, 1,140 feet. The western section has 

a total of 822 feet, 544 feet in the Barren group and 278 of the Upper 

Coal. The sections show the well known fact that the coals and sandstones in this district thin out toward the west, while the limestones 

thicken up. "The eastern section in Monongalia County is described in 

detail. The upper sandstones and shales are very coarse, showing that 

that they were deposited by pretty strong currents.

The different thicknesses and characters of the various coal beds are 

fully given.

In 1875 J. P. Lesley,1 State geologist of Pennsylvania, prepared a 

brief digest of the state of classification and nomenclature of the rocks 

in Few York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania at that time. The article might 

be quoted entire were there space, as no further condensation of the 

statements can be satisfactorily made; but a single scheme of equivalents will suffice to show the ideas of the author as to correlations at 

the beginning of the second survey of Pennsylvania. On page 97 we 

find 

'White, I.C.: Notes on the Tipper Coal Measures of western Virginia and Ponnslyvania. Sow York 

Lyceum Nat. Hist., Annals, vol. 11,1874, pp. 40-57.

*Second Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, 1874, Report of Progress, I: Note on the comparative geology of northeastern Ohio" and northwestern Pennsylvania, and western Now York, pp. 57-108.
WILLIAMS.] LESLEY, ANDREWS. 91 

The following sclvomo will show the old problem and its recent probable solution:

In Ohio.

Conglomerate .......

Bedford sbalea ......

In north western 

Pennsylvania. In Now York.

Old Red sandstone

(fish).

Hamilton .... .....

In middle 

Pennsylvania.

Serai Cong., xn.

Uinbral, xi.

Ponent, IX.

Vergent, vm.

Vergent, vm.

Cadent, vm.

Post Medidial, vm.

The author states in a foot-note that he does not adopt " the general 

terra Waverly sandstone formation of the Ollio KepOftS bCCailSC Of the 

controversies to which it has given rise." Also, that "Erie shales" 

should stand opposite both Chemung and Portage.

In a letter to the editor of the Journal,1 dated June 26, 1875, Prof. 

Lesley speaks of Mr. Ash burner's discovery of what he calls " baby 

coal beds" in No. X, Upper or White Catsldll, Eogers's Vespertine, in 

Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, and considers it of great importance to American geology, as it explains the presence of the two coal 

beds on the face of'the Alleghany Mountains and the fourteen small 

coal beds counted by Prof. Lesley years before, west of the Peak 

Mountain, in Wythe County, Virginia.

E. B. Andrews 2 compares the Ohio and West Virginia coal fields.

In this comparison the author takes the Pittsburg seam of coal as 

the base of measurement. This seam occupies the northern portion of 

the Alleghany coal field, and extends through Pennsylvania, Ohio, and 

West Virginia. From its outcrop to the base of the productive Coal 

Measures the intervals remain quite uniform. In Ohio Dr. Fewberry's measurement is from 700 to 800 feet and Prof. H. D. Eogers's 

from 600 to 700 feet. But in the southern part of West Virginia the 

interval is much greater. Prof. Fontaine estimates 3,100 feet as the 

total thickness from the horizon of the Pittsburg seam to the base of 

the productive Coal Measures. This does not include the shales and 

the adjacent Lewisburg limestone, which are probably local. Hence 

we find about 2,400 feet more of Coal Measures in Virginia than in 

Ohio and Pennsylvania, and hence in West Virginia the series of productive Coal Measures make up a great geosynclinal, which is probably 

due to continental folding. The various coal seams, separated by 

small layers of shale, indicate that it was subject to alternate depression and elevation. In West Virginia, above the Pittsburg seam, 

over 1,200 feet of Coal Measures rock occur, showing several seams of

1 Lesley, J. P.: Coal beds in the Subcaiboniforons of Pennsylvania. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 10, 

1875, pp. 153,154.

2 A comparison between the Ohio and West Virginia sides of tho Alleghany coal field. Proc. Am. 

Aesoc., vol. 24, pt. 2,1875, pp. 84-92.
92 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. rut , so.

coal, In the anthracite coal fields of Pennsylvania there is so much 

uncertainty as to the true equivalent of the Pittsburg seam that there 

is little chance for comparison.

Considerable difficulty arises in attempting to determine the exact 

situation of the Coal Measures conglomerate in the various States, nor 

is the Millstone grit of Indiana and Illinois synchronized, or its equivalent in the Alleghany Held determined. In Arkansas a Millstone grit 

is reported, which Mr. Lesquereux declares is part of the coal formation. Mr. Dawson also describes a similar Millstone grit along the 

Bay of Fundy, but its relation to those of Great Britain or of the 

United States is not known.

E. B. Andrews,1 in 1875, reported some interesting coal plants from 

Ohio:

In Perry County, Ohio, a thin bituminous shale occurs at the base of the Ohio Coal 

Measures, containing pieces of plants similar to branches of Calamites, fish scales, and 

a small Lingula. Just above this layer is a thin stratum of shale carrying leaves of 

Lepidodcndron. In the higher shaleSare found numerous ferns, etc. The plants found 

here were well marked Devonian types, with a few more recent than the Coal Measures, while those belonging to the Coal Measures arc now species. A new species of 

Archceopteris is one of the Devonian forms : Megalopteris (Dawson) is another Devonian genus. One species of the genus was known in New Brunswick only, and described 

by Prof. Hartt as Neuropteris dawsoni. With these was found a fern of a new genus, 

of the order of the Tcunioptci-idia;. The now Ohio genns the author calls Orlhogoniopteris. A new form of Alet'noplcris was noticed resembling the one found in the coal 

field of Cape Breton, but specifically different. Also a new Asterophyllites, Hymcnopliyllitcs, Eremoptcrw, and two species of Lcpidodendron, with a few others. These are 

to bo figured in the Ohio reports.

Mr. Lesley proposed a scheme of the formations 2 called "Table of 

rock formations, arranged in the order of the ages from above downwards, as they are recognized in America and according to the present

state of our knowledge."8

Recent.

Glacial.

Tertiary.

Cretaceous.

Now Red.

The Coal Measures, anthracite and bituminous.

The Great Conglomerate, No. XII, of Mount Pisgah, called by Rogers, "Soral." 

Red Shale, No. XI. Umbral, around Manch Chunk. 

White Catskill, No. X (Vespertine), of the Second Mountain. 

Red Catskill, No. IX (Old Rod of England), Pocono Mountain. 

Chemung shales (VIII, Cadent) holding the oil rocks. 

Portage sands and shales (VIII, Vergeut). « Hamilton black slates (VIII, Scalent); streaks of coal. 

Upper Helderbnrg limestones, etc. (VIII, Postmeridial). 

Oriskany sandstones (VII, Meridial), Stone Ridge, Lehigh Gap. 

Lower Helderbnrg cement layers, etc.

1 Andrews, E. B.: Notice of new and interesting coal plants from Ohio. Am. Assoc., Proc., vol. 24, pt. 

2,1875, pp. 106-109.

* See Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania.'Eep'ort of Progress D on the Brown Hematite Ore Ranges of 

Lohigh County, by Frederick Prime, jr., 1874, p. 73.

* Ibid., p. 03.
1

WILUAMB.J FONTAINE, WHITE. 93

In-1S7G W. M. Fontairie1 proposed the name of "Conglomerate 

series" for tlie strata in West Yirginia which occupy the interval between the floor of the Productive Coal Measures and the Devonian (or 

lower productive coals and red shales of the Uinbral). Important coals 

are said to occur in the equivalent of the Conglomerate series, and also 

well developed coals in the Vespertine of Montgomery County, Virginia, near White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, etc.

D. D. Owen, nearly 20 years before, had recognized coals below the 

Conglomerate in Kentucky, although not in marketable quantities, and 

the Con glomerate was regarded by him as the base of the Coal Measures.

I. C. White,2 in 187G, made some comments before the New York 

Lyceum on the Beaver County Coal Measures.

The line of section presented at the opening of this paper begins at 

the village of Homewood, in Beaver County, and follows the Beaver 

River to Rochester. The strata exposed extend from the Mahoning 

sandstone to the base of the Tiouesta sandstone, dipping eastwardly at 

the rate of little more than 25 feet to the mile. The thickness of the 

Mahoning sandstone varies from 30 to 75 feet. It is usually a massive 

rock, but its composition is not persistent, sometimes it being merely a 

mass of shale.

Below it is the upper Freeport coal, of little importance, and then the 

Freeport limestone, a pure white limestone and very persistent. The 

bed of shale under this is fossiliferous, containing species ofProductus, 

Spirifer^ Atliyris, etc. Then comes a thin seam of coal rich in vegetable remains, the lower Freeport coal, not workable, and the Kittanning 

coal, the most important bed in this part of the country, at one place 

yielding 200 tons daily.

To this succeeds the Ferriferous limestone, varying in thickness from 

8 inches to 25 feet. It is richly fossiliibrous in species of Productus, 

Spirifer, Pleurotomaria, etc. Shaly beds and thin beds of coal follow, 

one of the beds of shale containing many fossils, one stratum being 

made up almost entirely of Avictilopecten ivhitei, with Spirorbis carlonarius attached to these shells in vast numbers, the latter fossil occurring at this locality only.

The Tiouesta sandstone is a very hard, coarse white rock. It is 60'feet 

above the river at Homewood, but passes under the river opposite NewBrighton, 7 miles below.

Mr. Charles A. Young3 describes the Conglomerate on New River as 

made of alternating sandstones and shales, the former numbering five, 

and the latter containing the workable coal seams. The total thickness 

is about 1,000 feet.

1 Fontaino, William It.: The Conglomerate series of West Virginia. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d set., vol. 

2,1870, pp. 270-284, 374-384; the Virginias, February, 1880, vol. 1, pp. 27-29.

*Whito, I. C.: Notes on the Coal Measures of Beaver County, Pennsylvania. N. Y. Lyceum of Nat. 

Hist., A.uuals, 1870, vol. 11, pp. 14-18.

» Young, Charles A.: On Conglomerate No. XII (iu AVost Virginia). Philadelphia Acad. Sci. Proo., 

vol. 28,1870, p. 202.
94 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

Mr. Andrew Roy,1 in 1876, reported that the Mahoning Valley coal 

region lying in the northern part of the Ohio coal field belongs to the 

"lower coal of the Lewis No. 1 of the Ohio Geological Survey," and 

has a varying thickness from an inch to 6 or 7 feet. This deposit rests 

upon the " Waverly" sandstone, which is so folded as to form uunu'rous troughs, in which the coal has reached its maximum thickness. The 

synclinals were probably formed by erosion anterior to the formation 

of the coal vegetation, and not by the mountain-building forces exhibited in the anthracite fields of Pennsylvania.

In the year 1876 there appeared, as one of the volumes of the Second 

Geological Survey of Pennsylvania, the " Historical Sketch of Geological Explorations in Pennsylvania and other States, by J. P. Lesley, 

the State geologist."2 This was reprinted without revision in J878. It 

contains so much of interest to the readers of this essay that I refer 

them to it without abstracting its contents.

Chapter I is entitled " Early Observations of the Geology of Pennsylvania." 3 Titles of papers and comments on some of them are given 

dating back to 1780.

Chapter II is entitled " The Geological Society of Pennsylvania; and 

what it did to bring about the first geological survey of the State." 4

Chapter III, " A history of the first geological survey of Pennsylvania," 5 an elaborate description of the "Final Eeportof 1858," occupy ing pages 134 to 197.

Chapter IV is "A sketch of the history of other State geological 

surveys in the United States, and of their relations to that of Pennsylvania." 6 The press of other duties prevented the author from completing this chapter; only one State, that of North Carolina, is discussed.

In these chapters may be seen an account of the development of the 

knowledge regarding the geology of Pennsylvania up to the close of 

the first survey and publication of the final report in 1858. The new 

survey, begun in 1874, in matters of correlation adopted the classification of the first survey, but modified and amplified its nomenclature.

With the opening of the Second Geological Survey of Pennsylvania, 

Mr. Franklin Platt was engaged as assistant to work up the bituminous 

coal fields of western Pennsylvania. As a working scheme of classification and nomenclature he modified the scheme of the first survey 

as published in the final report of 1858 to adapt it to results of the investigations of the year 1874, and published in .Report7 of Progress H 

the following scheme of Coal Measures and underlying formations:

1 Koy, Andrew: The Malioning Valley coal regions. Trans. Amor. Inst. Mining Eng., vol. 4,1876, pp. 

188-190.

2 Gool. Survey of Pennsylvania, Kop. of Progress. Koport A: A history of the first Geological 

Survey of Pennsylvania from 1850 to 1858, by J. P. Lesley; pp. 226. 1870.

s Pp. 3-28.

4 Pp. 29-52.

6 Pp. 53-197.

6 Pp. 198-200.

'Second Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, 1874. Report of Progress in the Cloarfiold anil Jefferson 

district of tho Litunimous coal fluids of western Pennsylvania, by Franklin Platt, Harrisburg, 1875.
WILLIAMS.] PLATT. 95

THE COLUMN OF PALEOZOIC IfOUMATIONS.

Series.

flipper Barren Measures. 

(M) Brownsville (Washington) coal bed.

Mononganela....... MonomriheK J (L) Waynesburg coal bed. <j (K) Sewiokley ooal bedt

(J) Redstone coal bed. 0 

Pittsburg coal bed.

fonemintrh Middle Barren Measures. Couemaugh ........ j Mahoulug 8and8t0 ne.

( (E) Upper Freeport coal bed. 

(D') Middle Freeport coal bed. 

Freeport limestone.

(D) Lower Freeport coal bed (Reynoldsville). 

Freoport sandstone.

Allegbauy.

Cheuinng.

(C) Kittanning coal bed. 

(B')Femferous coal bed. 

Ferriferous limestone. 

(B) Clarion coal bed. 

(A) Brookville coal bed.

Conglomerate.................No.XII...... (Serai.)

P^lrill New River coal be<38 ---- SNo X fVflsnftrHnft ^ Catskill ............ white sandstone........... 1 N°- A (vespertine.)

Olive shales ................")

Portage ............ Olivesandstone............. | ............ 0 ,(Vergent.)

Hamilton ....... 5 J«"»iataooal beds ........... >No. VIII

	Black shales ................ | .......... ....(Cadent.)

Upper Heldorborg.. Corniforous limestone........ j .............. (Postrueridial.)

Oriskauy .......... White sandstone ............ No. VII. ......(Meridial.)

Lower Helderberg.. Lewistownlimestone........ 7^ yj (Premeridial.)

Waterlime ......... Cement layers.............. \ ' (Scalent.)

Clinton ............ Red shales and fossil ore .... No. V......... (Surgent.)

Medina ............ Redsandstoue .............. J^^ TV rr n , n *\ Oueida............. White sandstone ........... jNo.IV......... (Levant.)

Hudson River ...... Slates ...................... No.III....... ?/M t-. ~-i \

Trenton............ Limestone.................. No. II....... $ ^'"'"'" J

Calciferous......... Dolomites .................. No. II.........(Auroral.)

Potsdam ........... Sandstone.................. No. I.... ......(Primal.)

In the first column the names below Sheuaugo are those adopted by 

the New York geologists previous to 1843. The numbers in the third 

column are those adopted by the geologists of the first survey of Pennsylvania in the annual reports previous to 1842. The names in the 

fourth column are those of the final report of the first geological survey, 

by H. D. and W. B. Eogers, published in 1858. The letters A, B, C, D, 

E, applied to the coal beds of the Alleghauy series are those adopted 

by Hodge and Lesley. 1

In 1876 Franklin Platt described the geological column at Councilsville. 2 *

The section is as follows, viz:

(1) The Upper (Monongahela) Coal Measures, including about 280 feet of slates, 

sandstones, shales, and limestones, and the "Groat limestone"- with the 

''Pittsburg coal bed" at the base.

(2) The Lower Barren Measures, including, besides shales*aud sandstones, the Pittsburg limestone, about 26 feet below the coal; Connellsville sandstones, 76 feet 

below the coal; and the Mahoniug sandstone, 421 feet below the coal.

'Fifth Annual Report, 1841; Lesley's Manual of Ooal, 1856; and H. D. Rogers' Annual Report, 1858. 

2 Second Gool. Surv. of Pennsylvania, Rept. of Progress L: Special Report on the coko manufacture of tho Youghiogheuy River Valley in Jftiyotto and Westinorelaiid Counties, 1875, pp. 13-39.
96 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

(3) Lower or Alleghany River series, consisting of sliales, coal beds, limestone, and 

ores, and down to the Conglomerate, No. XII.

(4) Ore beds of XI; limestones of XI.

(5) Catskill rocks, No. X, or Catskill gray sandstone.

(6) Chernung rocks No. VIII.

The means of correlation and identification were the "Pittsburg 

coal," distinguishing the base of the Upper Coal Measures, the 

"Mahoniug sandstone," which is described as " the great key rock of 

the bituminous coal field in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and 

Kentucky. It was first best studied on the Mahoning River, in Jefferson County, and hence its name.'71

This marks the base of the "Lower Barren Measures" and it puts 

on locally a thousand varying aspects, being coarse, pebbly, and 

massive, and again fine-grained, thin-bedded, and shaly." And at the 

base of the lower series is the "Conglomerate No. XII," which presents 

similar variations. It is the "Serai" Conglomerate of the first survey.

In 1877 Mr. Platt3 published the following " Scheme of the measures" 

which " would be met with could a well be bored near Waynesburg, or 

on the highest geological laud in Greeiie County:3

1. The Mouongahela River system :

(a) Greeue County group of Upper Barren Measures.

(fc) Washington County group of Upper Barren Measures.

(c) Upper Productive Coal Measures.

2. The Alleghany River system : 

(a) Lower Barren Measures. 

(l>) Mahoning sandstone, 

(c) Lower Productive Coal Measures.

3. The Kanawha River system :

(a) Pottsville Conglomerate . ? yjj 

(I) Kanawha Coal Measures . { 

£c) Mauch Chunk red shale.. /YT 

(d) Mountain limestone ..... \

4. The New River system (of Lesley, not of Fontaine):

(a) New River Coal Measures..........

(b) Pocoiio (Upper Catskill) sandstone.

4. The Devonian system:

(a) Catskill Old Red sandstone, IX.

(b) Cliemung sand and shales........

(c) Portage shales and sands....... .

Geuesee black shales... \ y. ,-r

Juniata Coal Measures. '

Marcel!us black shales. 

(e) Upper Helderberg limestone... ..

5. Upper Silurian system:

(a) Oriskany sandstone, etc., to the Archean.

Four new names are noted in this list," proposed by the present State 

geologist of Pennsylvania," viz:

Pottsville Conglomerate, for Rogers' " Serai," No. XII. 

Mauch Chunk Red shale, for Rogers'" Uinbral," No. IX. 

Kanawha Coal Measures, for Fontaine's " New River " series. 

Pocono sandstone, for Rogers' " Vespertine," No. X.

1 Second Geol. Surv. of Pennsylvania, Kept, of Progress L. Special Keport on the coko manufacture 

of the Yougbiogliony Iliver Valley in Fayctto and Westmorland Counties, 1875,22.

3 Gool. Survey of Pennsylvania, Kept, of Progress H": lioport on Cambria County, by F. and W. Gr. 

Platt, pp. 101,1877.
WILLIAMS.] LESLEY'S SCHEME OF FORMATIONS. 97

The scheme of formations published in Report of Progress HH., 1875, 

is repeated, but with change in names, in Eeport HHH, 1877. In 

the preface of this report,1 by J. P. Lesley, the following scheme of formations is given:

I. The Carboniferous system:

1. Mouongahela River coal series: 

Upper Barren Measures.

(a) Greene County group.

(6) Washington County group. 

Upper Productive Coal Measures.

2. Alleghauy River coal series: 

Lower Barren Measures. 

Lower Productive Coal Measures.

(a) Freeport coal group.

(b) F.ittanning coal group,

(c) Clarion coal group. 

Pottsville Conglomerate (Serai).................... ............ XII

(d) Sharon and Quinneinont coal group. 

Maucli Chunk red shale........ ^

Mountain limestone ........... >...................... ........ XI

(e) New River coal group.. ) 

Pocono sandstone (Vespertine) (mountain sands).................. X

II. The Devonian system:

1. Catskill sandstone (Old Rod) (? Oil Sand group) ..................... IX

2. Chemuug sands and shales........................................

3. Portage shales and sands ..........................................

4. Hamilton formation...............................................

Geneseeblack shales .............................................. . YTTT

Hamilton sandstones ............................................

Juuiata River coal group ....................................

Marcellus black shales ...........................................

5. Upper Helderberglimestones ......................................

6. Oriskauysandstone................................................. VII

III. The Silurian system.

1. Lower Helderberg limestone ....................................... VI

r '

 The name "Quinnernout beds" is here substituted for the name

 * Kanawha Eiver system" of the former reports, because the latter 

name was found inapplicable.2

i In the report on Indiana County3 Mr. Platt notes the discovery of 

fossils in an exposure of the Mountain limestone on the bank of the 

D unbar Creek, three of which were identified with species of the Chester group.4

This correlates the series XI, Mauch Chunk of Lesley, with the upper 

division of the Lower Carboniferous limestone series of the Mississippi 

Yalley. 

? Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Kept, of Progress H3. Eeport on Somerset County, by F. and W.

 G. Platt, pp. 348,1877.

a See p. xxii.

3 Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Kept, of Progress H.4 : Report on Indiana County, by W. G. Platt, pp. 

'316. 1878.

vlbid.,p.60.

Bull. 80 7
98 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL.80.

In 1876' Mr. Stevenson classified the formations of Greene and Washington Counties. In his classification the Waynesburg sandstone is 

made the base of the Upper Barren series.

This is divided into two groups, called the Washington County group 

and the Greene County group.

The first, or lower, includes the rocks from the Waynesburg sandstone to the Upper Washington limestone, inclusive. The second, or 

Greene County group, extends from the top of the Upper Washington 

limestone to the top of the series.

The second distinguishing horizon is thePittsburg Coal Bed, and the 

series between it and the Waynesburg sandstone is the Upper Productive Coal series.

Below this the Lower Barren series is the name applied to all the 

rocks down to the Mahoning sandstone.

The rocks below the Mahoning sandstone are the Lower Productive 

Coal series, the bottom of which is not seen in the counties under examination.

Several local names are applied to the various strata presenting 

conspicuous exposures in these counties. These are not of importance 

for the purpose of this paper.

In 1877 2 the same author reported upon the rocks of Fayette and 

Westmorland Counties.

In this classification the Waynesburg sandstone, the Pittsburg 

coal bed, the Mahoning sandstone, and the Pottsville (Serai) conglomerate form the conspicuous landmarks in the sections by means of which 

the four divisions of the coal measures are separated.

Below the Pottsville conglomerate the Umbral series of Rogers are 

recognized, and the author reports the probable identification of fossils 

from the limestones of this series in West Virginia with fossils of the 

Chester limestones of the Mississippi Valley.3

The Sharon coal group is placed in this series below the Pottsville 

conglomerate.*

The Pocono (Vespertine) rocks include the rocks of the district below the Umbral limestone.5

In the following year (1878) Mr. Stevenson's third report6 was published. In this report are particularly discussed the rocks of the section 

in the LigonierValley, Fayette and Westmorland Counties. As in his 

previous reports, Mr. Stevenson adopts in general the nomenclature 

and classification proposed in the first geoogical survey. In this and

1 Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Kept, of Progress K: Report on Greene and Washington Counties, 

by J. J. Stevenson, pp. 419, 1876.

3 Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Eept. of Progress K2 : Keport of progress in the Fayette and Westmoreland district of the bituminous coal fields of Western Pennsylvania. By J. J. Stevenson, pp. 

437. 1876.

? Ibid., pp. 102,103.

«Ibid.,p.l03.

6 Ibid., p. 105.

5 Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Eept. of Progress K3 : Report of progress in the Fayette and Westmoreland district qf th,e tyituininous, coa.1 fielcts of Western Pennsylvania. By J. J. Stevenson, pp, 

831,1877,
WILLIAMS.] STEVENSON, FRAZER, MORRIS. 99

the second volume he adapts this nomenclature to that proposed by 

Mr. Lesley, as where he uses Pottsville Conglomerate for " Serai," 

Mauch Chunk Eed Shale for " Urnbral," Pocono sandstone for " Vespertine," etc.

Eegardingthe rocks underlying the Pocono sandstone, in the Fayette 

County sections, the author refers them to the Catskill " by direction 

of Prof. Lesley," but under protest.1 In a paper in the American 

Journal of Science2 he explained his reasons for this correlation. The 

outcrops in question in the river gaps through Laurel and Chestnut 

Kidges, Fayette County, are separated by many miles from other outcrops of the lower series, and the stratigraphic and lithologic characters do not furnish satisfactory means for determining the precise 

age of the lower beds. Fossils, however, found in the rocks below the 

characteristic Pocono sandstone were Devonian marine forms, the majority of them identical with species of the Chemung rocks of New 

York, two or three Hamilton species, and no species characteristic of 

typical Catskill rocks of New York. The author therefore concluded 

that the rocks were of Chemung age and " probably belong to the Lower 

Chemung."

In the closing chapter (xxn) of the report Mr. Stevenson gives some 

valuable " Notes on the Paleontology of Southwest Pennsylvania," giving a list of 55 Coal Measure fossils, 26 Lower Carboniferous,' and 15 

Devonian forms. In most of the rocks of the district the fossils are 

rare, but occasionally in the limestones and shaly beds sufficient fossils 

are obtained to satisfactorily determine the correlations.

Mr. Persifor Frazer,3 in 1877, reported that a specimen of coal was 

given to him from a locality 18 miles east of Bath, West Virginia, and 

later another specimen from Bath, by Mr. Pendletou. Mr. Frazer thinks 

there are some reasons for ascribing the coal to an horizon below the 

Carboniferous series.

Mr. S. Fisher Morris4 reported that the New Eiver coal field has only 

two seams that are workable. Their position is "in the Conglomerate, 

No. XII, and hence they are called by Foutaine "lutercouglotnerate." 

The thickness of the Conglomerate series is about 1,450 feet.

In the report 5 on Lyconiing and Sullivan counties, Messrs. Sherwood 

and Platt follow the established nomenclature, identifying the various 

statafrom outcrop to outcrop mainly by stratigraphic methods.

In the sections traced by Mr. Sherwood "provisional limits" are recorded between the Catskill red sandstone and the Pocono gray sandstone, and between the latter and " Mauch Chunk red shale."

1 Gool. Survey of Pennsylvania, Kept, of Progress K, p. 13.

2 3d ser., vol. 15, pp. 423-430.-

3 Frazer, jr., Porsifor: Anthracite from "Third Hill Mountain," West Virginia. Phila. Acad. Sci., 

Proc., vol. 29,1877, pp. 16,17, $ p.

4 Morris, S. Fisher: "The New River coal field of West Virginia." Trans. Amer. Inst. Min. Eng., 

vol. 8,1879-1880, pp. 201-269.

6 Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, llopt. of Progress G*. Geology of Lyconiing and Sullivan Counties. I. Field iiotoa, by Andrew Sherwood. II. Coal Basins, by Frank^u Plutt. 1880, pp. 200.
100 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

Iii this series no fossils appeared to help the correlations. The correlation of Chemung Measures was based upon the appearance of Devonian fossils, and in the strata where the fossiliferous beds were few and 

the red rock similar to those above was prominent the designation 

" Transition beds of Chernung iuto Oatskill" is given. 1

The report 2 on Potter County by the same authors, adds no new 

features to the general problem of correlation the report consisting of 

detailed identification of the formations already classified and named.

In the report 3 on Jefferson County the main part of the volume is 

occupied with details of the township surveys. On pages xxvm to 

xxxiv the author, Mr. W. GL Platt, attempted a grouping of the formations that had previously gone under local names. The Lower Productive Coal Measures, aggregating about 300 feet in this county, he divided 

into the Freeport group,, the Klttanning group, and the Clarion group.

The Pottsville Conglomerate No. XII, 300 feet thick, is subdivided 

into

Home wood sandstones. 

Mercer group of coals and sandstones. 

Conoquenessiug Upper sandstones. 

Quakertown coal. 

Conoquenessing Lower sandstones. 

.» Sharon coal and shales. 

Sharoii conglomerate.

H. M. Chance,4 in 1881, compared the Millstone grit of Pennsylvania 

with that of England. He said a survey of the Conglomerate No. XII 

(Millstone grit) in Pennsylvania by Messrs. Chance, Carll, and White, 

and of the same rock in Yorkshire, England, by Prof. Green and colleagues, led to the discovery of a striking similarity in the structure of 

the rock in the two regions.

A comparison of the nomenclature adopted by the two parties of 

geologists is given, from the Sharon through the Conoquenessing sandstones to the Ho.mewood sandstone of Pennsylvania, and the Kinder 

Scout grit, coal, and Rough Eock of Yorkshire. Afterward, as the 

middle members in both localities were sometimes represented by a 

single rock and sometimes by several, a generalization was adopted 

by each party, the second and third grits of the Yorkshire formation 

being called the Middle grits, and the upper and lower Conoquenessing sandstones of Pennsylvania, the Conoquenessing group. In the 

modified nomenclature the Ohio or Sharon Conglomerate of Pennsylvania corresponds to the Kinder Scout or Lower grits of Yorkshire, 

and the Eough Eock or Topmost grits of the latter to the Homewood sandstone of the former.

1 Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Eept. of Progress G*, p. 50.

"Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Eept. of Progress, G3. The Geology of Potter County, by Andrew 

Sherwood. Keport on the Coal Fields, by Franklin Platt.

8 Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Eept. of Progress H6 : Keport of Progress in Jetfersou County, by 

W. G. Platt. 1880.

' Chance, H. Martyn: The Millstone grit in England and Pennsylvania; in Aui. Jour. Sei., 3d ser., 

vol. 21,1881, pp. 134-135,
WILLIAMS.] WHITE, LESLEY. 101

The first report written by Mr. White was published in 1878. 1 He 

recognized the following formations in the district reported on, viz, 

Beaver, Alleghany, and part of Butler Counties.

Upper Productive Coal series, Pittsburg coal bed (only).

Lower Barren Measure series, including the measures from the base of the Pittsburg coal to and inclusive of the Mahoning (Lower Mahoning) Sandstone, an 

average of 600 feet. 2

Lower Productive Coal series. From the base of the Barren Measures to the "Piedmont Sandstone " of Prof. Lesley, which the author regards the upper member 

of the Pottsville Conglomerate No. XII.3 This is subdivided into Freeport group, 

Kittanning group, and Clarion group, 325 feet.

Beaver River series (J. P. Lesley). This was called by the author in MSS " Conglomerate series," thus identifying it with the series so called by Fontaiife in West 

Virginia.4

In the typical section of the series along the Beaver River and the 

Conoquenessiug Creek the series is as follows:

Poet.

1. Piedmont [?], Upper Homewood Sandstone............................... 75-155

2. Shales, inclosing sometimes a coal bed, iron ore, ? Mercer? limestone, and

coal ...............................................................20- 80

3. [Pottsville Conglomerate"] Conoquenessiug sandstone; Massillon sandstone of Ohio: 

(a) Upper members......................................................40- 50

(6) Middle members ....................................................35- 40

(c) Lower members.....................................................20- 25

4. Sharon shales; sometimes thin layers of coal .............................. 7

The name " Conoqueuessing sandstone" was introduced for the first 

time in this report. It is regarded by the author as equivalent to the 

"Lower Pottsville Conglomerate."

 Mr. Lesley, in a note in the chapter on the Beaver Elver group,5 remarks that he foresees 

The probability that the whole gronp of Pottsville (serai) Conglomerate rocks, containing as it does large and valuable beds of coal, will some day be considered as 

included in the series of the Lower Productive Coal Measures, as it certainly is in 

the Alleghany River series, and finally as the Conglomerate No. XII (whether called 

Serai Conglomerate, Pottsville Conglomerate, Piedmont sandstone and Pottsville 

Conglomerate, Upper and Lower Homewood sandstone, Homewood sandstone and 

Conoqueuessing sandstone, Massillon sandstone, for by all these names has one or 

both of its principal members been designated) may be considered the base or bottom 

member of the Lower Productive Coal Measures as justly as the Mahoning sandstone 

is considered the bottom member of the Lower Barren Measures, the Connellsville 

sandstone the bottom member of the Upper Productive Coal Series, and the Waynosburgh sandstone the bottom member of the Upper Barren Measures.

Iii the Ohio correlations the classification of the Coal Measures was 

substantially that originally proposed by the Rogers brothers and elaborated by the second survey of Pennsylvania. So far as the correla-

"Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Kept, of Progress Q.: Report on Beaver, NW. Allegheny, and S. 

Butler Counties, by I. C. White, pp. 337. 1878. 

"Ibid., p. 23, etseq. 

8 Ibid , p. 39, et seq. 

4 The conglomerate series of West Virginia, Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 11,1876, pp. 27C-284,374-384,

 Ibid., pp. 65-60.
102 THE DEVONIAN ANJD CARBONIFEROUS.

tions, strictly speaking, are concerned, this was the case down to 

details which were variable in the different counties of Pennsylvania. 

As to the classification, the separation of the Conglomerate series from 

the Lower Coal Measures was not found to express an actual change 

in nature of the formations in eastern Ohio; and as late as 1884 Mr. 

Orton, then State geologist, united these two, calling them both Lower 

Coal Measures.1

In the sixth volume 2 the Coal Measures are classified as Carboniferous, thus: 3

Feet. 

("17. Tipper Barren Coal Measures............................... 500

I 16. Upper Productive Coal Measures .......................... 200

Carboniferous-^ 15. Lower Barren Coal Measures .............................. 500

I 14. Lower Productive Coal Measures .......................... 250

i 13. Conglomerate group....................................... 250

This is practically the Pennsylvanian classification.

In the results already discussed, coal beds, as lithologic formations, 

have been the chief means used in the classifying and correlating the 

Coal Measures.

Fossil plants served to distinguish the Carboniferous from the Triassic 

and the Cretaceous Coal Measures, but have not heretofore been of much 

use in subdividing the beds into groups.

In Virginia and West Virginia the character of the plants found in 

the Upper Barren Measures led Mr. Fontaine to correlate them with the 

Permian formations of Europe.

The report of his study of the plants and of Mr. White's study of the 

structure is given in Eeport PP of the Second Pennsylvania Survey.4

A brief account is given of the floras of the Vespertine group (Pocouo 

formation), Conglomerate group (Pottsville formation), Lower Productive Coal Measures, particularly the Kittanuing Coal and the Upper 

Freeport horizons, Lower Barren Measures, Upper Productive Coal 

Measures, including the Waynesburg coal beds and the Upper Barren 

Measures. The flora of the last formation, including the roof shales of 

the Wayuesburg coal beds, is discussed at length, and the species 

described and figured, the authors reaching the conclusion that the 

" Upper Barrens of the Appalachian coal field are of Permian age." 5

Most of the species described are from the roof of the Waynesburg 

coal, and the authors suggest that " perhaps it might be best to separate the roof shales of the Waynesburg coal and Waynesburg sandstone 

and consider them transition beds, and the strata overlying and including the great limestone below the Sewickley coal are to .be considered 

strictly Permian." 6

1 Geol. Survey of Ohio, vol. 5, p. 10.

1 Ibid., Economic Geology, vol. 6,1888. By Edward Orton.

3 Ibid., p. 3.

4 The Permian or Upper Carboniferons Flora of West Virginia and SW. Pennsylvania, by Wm. M. 

Fontaine and I. C. White, 1880, pp. 143, Pis. xxxvni.

5 Ibid., p. 119. 

6 Ibid., p. 120.
wiLMAMs.1 WHITE, FONTAINE, LESQUEREUX. 103

The authors recognize as of Pocono age coal beds in numerous localities in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, and they correlate 

the Mauch Chunk formation, or " Subcoriglornerate," with the Chester 

and St. Louis limestone group of Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky, the 

Waverly group of southern Ohio, and the Guyahoga shale and Berea 

grit, of northern Ohio.1

It is not proposed here to discuss the value of fossil plants as a means 

of correlation. The whole subject of the classification, distribution, 

range and association of fossil plants is under investigation by an expert botanist.

Several interesting problems of correlation depend much upon the 

evidence of fossil plants: as the determination of the true relations of the 

arenaceous deposits between the marine Devonian and the Carboniferous formations Of the Appalachian province,the correlation of the Upper 

Paleozoic formations of the Acadian province, and the differentiation 

of the Permian from the Upper Coal Measures of the Appalachian areas. 

One work, however, may be cited as an illustration of the kind of modifications in classification suggested by fossil botany. In the year 

1880 the results of Mr. Leo Lesquereux's work on the fossil plants of the 

Coal Measures of Pennsylvania were published in Eeport P.2 Several 

of the chapters, particularly those on stratigraphy, were edited by the 

State Geologist, J. P. Lesley.

The greater part of the work is devoted to descriptions of the 

plants. At the close of the volume of text a list is given of the " Literature of the United States Coal Flora" (including Devonian), with 145 

titles. Under " General remarks," chapter 2 is entitled " On the geographical and stratigraphical distribution of the plants of Carboniferous age;" 3 and at its close a "Table of distribution" gives the vertical 

range and geographical distribution of 590 species of plants. The 

arrangement of the columns expressing vertical range and classification presents in a concise form the results of Mr. Lesquereux's long, exhaustive and most careful study of the paleozoic plants of the United 

States.

The following is the classification: 4

I. PRE-CARBONIFEROUS.

Devonian,

Chemung (top division of No. VIII)=Middle Devonian.

Calslcill (No. IX), Upper Devonian. 

2. Pocono Sandstone (No. X), including, in Pennsylvania, Sideling Hill Tunnel, 

Huntingdon County: Red shale, below Pottsville (Mount Carbon); Lehigh Gap, below 

Mauch Chunk; banks of the Susquehanna, above Pittston; (Lewis Tunnel and New 

River group, West Virginia.)

1 The Permian or Upper Carboniferous Flora of West Virginia and Southwestern Pennsylvania, 

pp. 626-627.

a Description of the Coal Flora of the Carboniferous formation in Pennsylvania and throughout the 

United States. Vol. 1, cellular cryptogatnous plants, Fungi Thalassophytes, Vol. 2, vascular cryptogamous plants, Calatnaria, Filicacea (Ferns). By Leo Lesquercux, pp. C!)4, and atlas, 87 plates.

3 Edited by J. P. L., pp. 617-635.

« Pp. 636-657.
104 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL 80.

3. Sub con glomerate: Mauch Chunk, No. XI, including Fontaine's conglomerate series of West Virginia, and localities in Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Illinois, Chester Group; Indiana, Chester Group; and Megalopteris beds of Ohio and Illinois.

4. Jnterconglomerate, No. XII, Cainpbell's Ledge, near Pittstou, east Pennsylvania; 

Shamokin Gap, east Pennsylvania; Jackson Shaft bed, Ohio; Cuyahoga bed, Talmadge Summit beds, Ohio ; Youngstown, Ohio.

II. COAL MEASURES PROPER.

1. AntUracite fields.

5. Beds A, B, and C, at Archibald, Carbondale, etc.

6. Beds D, E, F, at Pittston, Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, etc.

7. Bed G, Wilkes-Barre, etc.

8. Upper Anthracite (Salem, etc.).

9. Rhode Island, etc.

2. Bituminous fields.

10. Coal A, B, above the Conglomerate (both beds often united), at Murphysborough, Neeleyville, Marseilles, Colchester, Morris, Mazou Creek, Centralia Shaft, Vandalia, Illinois; at Burnt Branch of Caney, etc., Kentucky; at Massillon, Ohio.

11. Coal C (which is sometimes united to B), at Clinton, Missouri; Canneltou, west 

Pennsylvania.

12. Fourth Coal (under the Barren Measures), at Dnqnoin, St. John, Illinois; Nelsonville, Ohio; Coshocton, Ohio; Sullivan County, Indiana.

13. Upper Coal (top of the Barren Measures), at Pittsbnrg, Pennsylvania; Pomeroy, St. Clairsville, Barnsville, Ohio; Carmi, Illinois; Grayville and New Harmony, 

Indiana.

In this classification the base of the Pocono is regarded as the lowest 

formation of the Carboniferous system, although the line separating it 

from the Catskill below is stated to be " purely empirical."*

The Kinderhook Group of Illinois " is probabty referable to the Pocono." 2

J. P. Lesley, 1886, gave some valuable statistics regarding the Pittsburg coal region.3

The Pittsburg Coal Measures have an aggregate thickness of 2,000 

feet, containing 15 persistent workable coal seams. Their outcrop lies 

in a northwest and southeast direction across the State, forming a 

series of concentric curves, due to the peculiar way in which the surface has been eroded. The Pittsburg seam is the fifth in descending 

order. It has been preserved from eroding effects in the southern 

part of the region only. The author sees no reason for disbelieving 

that this seam with its companions once extended into New York and 

northern Ohio, and even crossed Lake Erie and Lake Ontario into 

Canada, and he is firmly convinced that " they once had a quasi-continental outspread."

The Pittsburg seam has a thickness of 12 feet at Counellsville, Penn1 Lesq., Dese. Coal Flora, p. C22. 

2 Ibi<I.,p. 624.

3 Lesley, J. P,: The Geology of the Pittsburg coal region. Am. Inst. Mining JEng., Trans., Vol. 

14,1880, pp. 618-650, plate.
WILLIAMS.] LESLEY'S STATISTICS. 105

sylvania, and 15 feet at George's Creek, in Maryland. At Pittsburg 

it is 8 feeb thick, aud its outcrop 350 feet above water level.

The Washington bed, also in the Upper Coal Measures, 150 feet 

above the Pittsburg seam, has a thickness in places of 11 feet, its 

average being only 3£ or 4 feet.

In the Lower Productive Measures occur the Freeport bed, having 

an average thickness of 4£ feet, and the Kittauning and Clarion beds.

The Upper Barren Measures are characterized by the absence of 

workable coal beds. They contain 17 different limestone beds. The 

most persistent is the Upper Washington limestone, which has an average thickness of 30 feet. These Measures also contain a number of 

sandstone strata, varying from 50 to 100 feet in thickness, and situated 

in the upper part of the series. They are not as persistent as the limestones already referred to. The thickness of this series is estimated at 

about 1,100 feet.

The Upper Productive Measures are also characterized by the predominance of limestone rocks, which form nearly one-fourth of the whole series. There is a great development of sandstones at the top, forming 

the cliffs along the river at Waynesburg. In this division occurs the 

Pittsburg coal bed.

The Pittsburg Barren Measures have an average thickness of 600 

feet, and include four beds of massive sandstone: The Connellsville 

sandstone; the Morgantown sandstone, which is oil-bearing and 150 

feet beneath the Pittsburg seam, and 50 feet thick; the Saltsburg sandstone; the Mahoning sandstone.

The limestones occur mainly under the Pittsburg coal seam and 

above the Connellsville sandstone. Two hundred and fifty feet below 

the former is the Crinpiclal limestone, and 100 feet above the Mahoning 

sandstone is found the Black limestone. The coal of this division is of 

no commercial value.

In the Alleghany series the first geological survey recognized but six 

divisions, but the second geological survey found it necessary to subdivide each of the series into three parts. A curious feature of this 

series is that it contains cannel coal beds.

But one persistent limestone is recognized in this group, designated 

as the Ferriferous limestone, which has been used as a key for the location of the oil-sand deposits beneath. This is followed by the Pottsville Conglomerate (No. XII), composed chiefly of three massive sandstone subdivisons, small coal seams, and fossiliferous limestones; next 

lower is the Mauch Chunk Red shale (No. XI), containing the iron ores 

of Uniontown and the siliceous limestone so well developed at Blairsville and Trough Creek, Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, and which 

to the south develops into the great Subcarboniferous limestone. It 

also appears in Ohio and Kentucky, and in the Mississippi Valley is 

known as the " Archimedes limestone."

The Mountain sandstone group (No. X), occurs about 760 feet below
106 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEEOUS. [BULL. 80.

the Pitfcsburg bed, where it has a thickness of 8GO feet, and in Yenango 

County of 650 feet. Its equivalent in Ohio and Kentucky is known as 

the "Knobstone formation."

Underlying these rocks is the oil-sand group, having a total thickness of 350 feet. The first oil-sand, known as the Gantz rock, was 

struck at Pittsburg, at 1,435 feet below low-water river level, and has 

a thickness of 112 feet. The second oil-sand is called the Fifty-foot 

rock, and the third (the Gordon rock) is 260 feet belo vv the Gautz rock.

Concerning the Devonian rocks below the oil-sands little definite 

knowledge has been attained.

Frank A. Hill, l in 1887, made the following remarks about the correlation of the formation of the northern coal fields of Pennsylvania:

The Northern coal fields are situated chiefly in Luzerne, Lackawanna, Susquehauna, 

and part of Wayne counties. " The Northern coal field" consists of a single curved, 

crescent-shaped basin, with its concave side facing northwest, and "locally divided 

into the Wyoming and Lackawanna valleys. " The rock series consists, besides the 

coal beds, of shales, slates, sandstones, and conglomerates. The Pottsville conglomerate above the coal seams has an average thickness of 200 feet. The coal beds are so 

split up that in many parts of the valleys they bear different local names, suggesting no relationship whatever. In fact, so little is known concerning the coal beds, 

that it is at present impossible to make any definite statement concerning their 

identification and equivalency.

In 1888 Mr. J. J. Stevenson, as a member of the American committee, prepared a u Report on the Upper Paleozoic (Carbonic)," for the 

International Congress of Geologists, which contains the following 

classification of the Upper Carbonic :2

UPPER COAL MEASURES.

Synonyms and local subdivisions,

Pennsylvania, XIII in ) XVI/Upper Barren groupj ^Tnlto^gVou'p j Permian.

part, Monongahela V xy <* per productive < Upper Productive Coal

8eries< ' [ group. 

Virginia and West Virginia. ^ -vy (Upper Coal Measures.

Ohio.........................Upper Coal Measures.

-f -.. ( Merome Sandstone. Indiana..-........-- .-..^ Upper Coal Measures.

Illinois ...... .............. I

Iowa....................... ) Upper Coal Measures.

MisstmrV "" " """"""" | Permo-Carbonic and Coal Measures in part.

Western region...............Permo-Carbonic and Upper Carbonic in part.

Nova Scotia.................. Permo Carbonic.

New Brunswick.............. Upper Coal Measures.

1 Hill,Frank A.: Geology and mining in the Northern coal field of Pennsylvania. Am. Inst. Mining 

Eng., Trans., Vol., 15; 1887 pp. 699-707.

3 International Congress of Geologists, London session. Reports of thesubcommittees appointed by 

the American committee from its own members, assisted by associates, for the fourth session of the Congross to be held in London, September 17,1888. D. Eeport of the subcommittee on the Upper Paleozoic (Carbonic). J. J. Stevenson, reporter. Pp. D4-D7.
WILLIAMS.] STEVENSON'S CLASSIFICATION. 107

MIDDLE COAL MEASURES.

Synonyms.

Pennsylvania, XIII in part, Allegheny River series { £ower ^njro^. J XIV

Virginia? VTTT ? Middle Coal Measures.

P., . 7 Barren Measures. unio .... ....... .... .... .... £Lower Qoa| Measures in part.

IH" ' oi^ ' """""" " "" > Lower Coal Measures.

T ? Middle Coal Measures. iowa. ...................... £ Lower Coal Measures in part.

Michigan .......... ............ Coal Measures.

Mississippi ................. ^j

Missouri...... .............. J

Western region .............. .Upper Carbonic in part. Carbonic in part.

Nova Scotia ...........

New Brunswick ............ > Middle Coal formation.

Newfoundland. ........

. .

J

> Mi 

)

LOWER COA.L MEASURES.

Synonyms and local subdivisions.

Pennsylvania, XII, Serai Conglomerate, Pottsville Conglomerate, Umbral in part. 

Virginia and West Virginia, XII, Quinnimont group Lower Coal Measures. 

Ohio .... . .Lower Coal Measures in part.

imuois1 """"" """ """"" \ Conglomerate or Millstone grit. 

Michigan...... ...... ......Parma Conglomerate.

Alabama.... ............... '

i Missouri .............. J

Nova Scotia..... ........... )

New Brunswick. ........... >Millstoue grit formation.

Newfoundland ............. S
CHAPTER V.

THE CONGLOMERATES AND LOWER CARBONIFEROUS FORMATIONS OF THE APPALACHIAN PROVINCE.

Below the Pennsylvania Coal Measure series there are several thousand feet of Conglomerates, sandstones and shales, with occasional 

beds of limestones, and in localities showing thin beds of coal, which 

have been referred to the Lower Carboniferous. They present such differences in their stratigraphy in different localities that considerable 

difficulty has been experienced in correlating their several members. 

In general they represent the Mississippian series of the interior, and 

in some of the limestones fossils have been found establishing closer 

correlation. But they rarely show any marine fossils and their classification has been made almost entirely upon lithologic and stratigraphic grounds. The Conglomerate at the top has been correlated 

with the Millstone grit and classified as the base of the Coal Measures. 

The lower formations were called " TJrnbral n and "Vespertine" by the 

early geologists of the Appalachian province, "Mauch Chunk" and 

"Pocono" by the Second Geological Survey of Pennsylvania, and 

*' Greenbrier " and " Pocono," by Stevenson in 1888.

The Second Geological Survey of Pennsylvania, besides the elaboration of the Pennsylvania series of Coal Measures, did good service in 

differentiating the formations immediately below, which were called in 

H. D. Rogers's nomenclature," Umbral and Vespertine (Nos. XI and X)."

Mr. I. C. White also took a conspicuous part in this work. He was 

the author of the volumes on Lawrence County, 1 on Mercer County,2 and 

on Susquehanna and Wayne Counties,3 on Pike and Monroe Counties,4 

and on "The Geology of the Susquehanna River region, in the six 

counties of Wyoming, Lackawanna, Luzerne, Columbia, Montour, and 

Northumberland." 5 In these volumes, besides the detailed correlations 

of the outcrops of the several townships, constituting the bulk of the 

reports, there is the development of a systematic classification and 

nomenclature for the geological formations, of the regions surveyed, 

which were chiefly of Lower Carboniferous and Upper Devonian age.

1 Second Geol. Snrv. of Pennsylvania, Kept of Progress. Q2. Eeport on Lawrence County, and special report on correlation of the Pennsylvania and Ohio coal beds. By I. C. AVhite, 1879, pp. 336.

* Q3. Eeport on Mercer County. By I. C. White, 1880, pp. 233.

S G*. Report on Susquehanna and Wayne Counties. By I. C. White, pp. 243. 1881.

4 G6. Report on Pike and Monroe Counties. By I. C. White. Report on the Delaware and Lehigh 

Water gaps. By H. M. Chance, pp. 407. 1882.

5 G7. Report on Wyoming, Lackawanna, Luzerne, Columbia, Montour, and Northumberland Counties, (i. e., the parts lying outside of the anthracite coal fields). By I. C. White, pp.464. 1883. 

108
WILLIAMS.] WHITE ON THE PENNSYLVANIA CONGLOMERATES. 109

In Eeport QQQ, 1880, the following are the chief members of the 

Conglomerate Measures (chapter v) as they appear in Mercer County:

Homewood sandstone.

Upper Mercer Iron Ore shales.

Mercer upper limestone (== " Maltoning sandstone," Eogers, 1858).

Mercer upper coal (= Tionesta coal of Lawrence County).

Mercer shales.

Mercer lower iron ore.

Mercer lower limestone.

Mercer lower coal.

Mercer lower ore shales.

Connoqueuessiug upper sandstone.

Quakertown over-shales and ore.

Quakertown coal bed.

Quakertown under-shales and ore.1

Connoqnenessirjg lower sandstone,

Sharon coal riders.

Sharon upper shales and iron ore.

Sharon plant shales.

Sharon coal.

Sharon Conglomerate.'2

In Keport Q4,1881, the Sharon Conglomerate is said to be,

For the western and northern counties, the accepted representative of the whole 

or of the lower part of the " Ohio Conglomerate." In Warren and Venango Counties it is known under the name of " Garland Conglomerate." In McKean, Forest, 

Elk, Cameron, Clinton, and Potter Counties it is known as the " Olean Conglomerate." In Clarion, Butler, Mercer, Lawrence, and Beaver reports it is called the 

" Sharou Conglomerate." In the nomenclature of the oil drillers it is the " Second 

mountain sand." 3

The formations next below the Sharon Conglomerate are called by 

Mr. White the " Subconglomerate formations." 4

The name is applied to a series of deposits underlying the Sharou Conglomerate in Crawford and Erie Counties, and resting on the Veuango 

oil sand group.

The Subconglomerate is subdivided into the following, viz:

Feet. 

Shenango group ....................................................... ...... 75

Meadville group 1............................................................. 205

Oil Lake group ............................................................... 162

The Shenaugo group consists of the following members:

Shenango shale. 

Shenango sandstone.6

1 " The Mountain limestone (Unibral, Mauch Chunk No. XI) or Maxville limestone, of southern 

Ohio, should be found here." p. 49.

2 Called " Ohio Conglomerate " in QQ.

8 Keport Q4, pp. 62,63.

4 These are well defined in chapters vn to xi, Keport Q4 1881.

6 This is the Ferriferous sandstone, Keport QQ, p. 05, sub-Garland conglomerate of the oil region reports ; sub-Olean conglomerate of McKean, etc., reports; upper Pocono sandstone (Vespertine) No. X j 

and it is the flat-pebble conglomerate first recognized as such by Mr. Carll (see p. 8J)
110 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. IBULL.SO.

The Meadville group consists of 

Meadville upper shales. 

Meadville upper limestone.1 

Meadville lower shales. 

Sharpaville upper sandstone. 

Meadville lower limestone. 

Sharpsville lower sandstone. 

Orangeville shales.

The Oil Lake group is correlated withlfae Berea grit of Ohio, the 

Pithole Grit of Venaugo, aud the Pocono sandstone, No. X, of more 

eastern sections in Pennsylvania.2 It is composed of the 

Corry sandstone (= Third Mountain sand of Veuango). 

Cussewago limestone.

Cussewago shales (= Bedford red shale formation of Ohio). 

Cussewago sandstone.

Eegarding the formations below this there was still (1881) considerable difference of opinion among the several members of the Second 

Survey of Pennsylvania. Mr. White, in Eeport QQQQ, correlated the 

outcrops of Erie and Crawford Counties as follows:

Venango oil sand group:

Venango upper sand (first oil sand). 

Venango upper shalo.

Venango middle sandstone (second oil sand). 

Venango lower shales.

I Le Bceuf conglomerate.

Venango lower sandstone.... < Panama conglomerate.

( Third oil sand.

The author reported Ohemung fossils from the Venango upper sand, 

the lower shales, and the lower sandstone.

The author correlated the Venango as "at least in part of Chemuug 

age." He had identified Chemung fossils in the higher Eiceville shales.3 

In a foot-note 4 he stated that he was " disposed to look upon the Venango 

group as Upper Chemung," and "on account of the fossils, I should prefer to call these [called Chemuug in the text] Lower Chemuug." The 

State geologist, however, objected to this interpretation and in the 

prefatory letter stated his objections. The substance .of this objection 

is expressed in the following clause:

Thus the matter stands at present. Geologists who insist on fossil forms will call" 

the Veuango group Upper Chemung, and will explain the McKean sections hy a total 

disappearance of the oil sand in an increased mass of red beds. Geologists who insist 

upon lithological data will call the Venango group Catskill, or even Pocono, in spite 

of Chemuug fossils. 6

The latter course appears to have been Mr. White's preference. Below

1 Containing fossils which the author concludes indicate correlation with the Lower Keokuk or Upper 

Burlington. 

3 See Q1 chapter x, pp. 91-96. 8 Q4,p.97. «Q«, p. 117. 6 Q 4,p.xi.
WILLIAMS.] WHITE ON PENNSYLVANIA STRATA. Ill

tbe Venango group in this report are the "Middle Devonian rocks 

(Chemung, Girard, Portage, No. VIII.)" They are composed of 

Feet. 

Chemnng.................................................................... 325

Girard shales....^........................................^..,............... 225

Portage flags........................................................^....... 475

Mr. White considered the interpretation of the Venango group in 

Erie and Orawford Counties as of great importance. He said:

This identification [of the third Vonango oil-sand with the LeBceuf conglomerate] 

I account the most important discovery to which my survey of the district has giveu 

rise. 1

The importance of the correlation is further testified to by the State 

geologist, J. P. Lesley, who in his letter of transmission wrote:

The cost of this survey has been justified merely by one result (setting aside the rest),

namely, the determination by sufficient evidence that the third oil sand of Venango 

County is the quarry rock of Erie County, and that this deposit in crossing Erie 

County changes its character from a muddy sandstone in the western townships to a 

coarse gravel rock east of LeBcouf Creek, becoming the Panama conglomerate in the 

State of New York ; everywhere charged with a peculiar group of fossil shells and 

seaweed, and with petroleum, which has evidently resulted from their decomposition.3

The method of this determination was in the first place physical and not 1 

by fossils. The average dip and direction of dip were ascertained by 

the comparison of altitudes of the third oil sand in the numerous wells. 

With this assumed rate of rise on going northward, outcrops were iden- j 

tified by their altitude; these were followed from ravine to ravine or 

quarry, and the rocks in the quarries were then defined, their fossils 

identified, and thus their position in the chronologic scale determined. 

Although the same method was practically used by both Mr. WT hite 

and Mr. Oarll, when their tracings of correlation had reached Chautauqua County the result was that Mr. White correlated the Panama 

conglomerate with the third oil sand of Veuango County, while Mr. 

Carll placed it entirely below his Veuango oil group.

The fact seems to be, as we review the records of the survey, that 

the data of lithologic character of rocks and of thickness of the deposits 

were so constantly variable that the " theory of persistent parallelism 

of strata" was little more thaii^a theory, the exceptions to which were 

as numerous as the illustrations. It was a cut-and-try system of 

matching together innumerable sections, made up of irregular combinations of shales, sandstones, conglomerates, and limestone of various 

color, thickness, and texture. Whenever the gaps were over a mile or 

two long the adjustment of the theoretical dip, a few feet more or less 

to the mile, would enable the parallelism to fit any particular stratum 

' in a given section. The fact that those who showed evidence of having 

noted the fossils, although they may not have identified them, were

«Q4,p.l01, s Q«,p.VI|,
112 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL.80.

invariably nearer right than those who neglected them, strengthens 

the belief that the fossils, even in this case, were the most valuable 

means of correlation.

William M. Fontaiue,1 in 1877, published some notes on the Vesper 

tine of the Virginias. The area occupied by the Vespertine in the two 

Virginias is limited by the main Alleghauy in the northern and middle 

portions, and by Peter's and East River Mountains in the southern 

portion. The Vespertine rocks compose the middle portion of the main 

Alleghany from the Potomac to Pocahontas County. The author gives 

an account of .the structure of the country and the geographical distribution of the Vespertine strata, as well as that of the underlying rocks, 

showing great distortion of the rocks and numerous faults. Two of the 

detached belts of Vespertine east of the limit mentioned are spoken of 

in detail, the first occurring on the east flank of the Alleghany Mountains, near White Sulphur Springs, containing coal strata and plant impressions, and showing the strata lying immediately above theChemuug, 

with the junction of this last with the lower portion of the Vespertine; 

the second belt more important and extended, about thirty miles east 

of the last, commencing in the northern part of Virginia, in Berkeley 

County, and extending -south through the State. In the northern and 

middle portions the coal-bearing member of the Vespertine lies under 

the inverted massive sandstones of the lower member, and is found on 

the west side of the mountain, while in the southern part of the State, 

where the Vespertine strata are not inverted, the coal-bearing member 

lies on the southeastern face of the mountain. As all the strata, including the coals, thicken to the eastward, the Vespertine coal field must 

have extended much further in that direction than any remnant now to 

be seen, the belt of country over which well defined coal beds were 

formed being more than 300 miles long and 50 wide.

The author considers the most natural upper boundary of the Vespertine in the Virginias to be the base of the " Lewisburg limestone" (p. 43), 

which he correlates with the St. Louis and Chester groups (p. 44).

The Vespertine strata on Greeubrier River are described, the red 

upper member attaining a thickness of 250 feet, but thinning out to the 

north; the middle member, 290 feet thick, having about 70 feet at the 

top of bluish gray sandstone overlying 40 feet of thinly bedded gray 

flags, with fully 50 thin strings of carbonaceous matter distributed 

through them, but with a considerable coal bed a little farther north. 

Above this carbonaceous portion are 120 feet of firm gray and brownish 

sandstones, and then 40 feet of very flaggy, gray, soft sandstones and 

shales, with some layers of fissile black shale containing indistinct 

vegetable impressions, mostly leaves of Lepidodendra. At the base are 

20 feet of dark gray, compact, fine-grained sandstone.

At Lewis tunnel the base of the Vespertine shows a rock not brought 

up at Greenbrier Eiver; a white, pebbly, highly siliceous sandstone, 60

'Fontaine, William M. Notes on the Vespertine strata of Virginia and West Virginia. Am. Jour. 

Sci., 3d ser., 1877, voL 13, pp. 37-48,115-123.
WORTHEN, ASHBURNER. 113

feet in thickness, aud one of the most persistent and characteristic 

members of the Vespertine. With this should probably be counted 500 

feet of underlying, more argillaceous flags, giving a total of 560 feet 

for the lower member of the strata in this section. The middle member, 350 feet thick, is characterized by the predominance of gray sandstones containing coal. The upper member consists almost entirely of 

red marlites, with a thickness of about 250 feet, giving the group a total thickness of 1,160 feet. Although the author does not altogether 

agree with Prof. Eogers in his measurements, h$ thinks that they show 

a considerable thickening of the red overlying strata to the south.

In Augusta County there is great contortion arid disturbance of the 

strata. To the west of this they have suffered much from erosion, and 

show only the lower and middle members. The Vespertine of Montgomery County is treated at great length. The two areas of Brush 

Mountain and Price's Mountain, separated from each other by a narrow belt of Lower Silurian limestone, are described, and a detailed section of the lower and middle members of the series exposed at Brush 

Mountain is given. The lower member shows a thickness of 930 feet, 

and the middle member is 670 feet thick, but the upper red member is 

much better displayed at Price's Mountain, where it has a thickness of 

1,090 feet. ' 

The conclusion drawn by the author from the facts stated is " that 

there has been a very marked thickening of the Vespertine as we proceed from north to south through the State, accompanied by an increase 

in the amount of coal contained in it. This increase seems to be largely 

at the expense of the supposed Catskill beds. It is in conformity with 

a law of increase which holds good for ail the strata from the Devonian 

to, aud including, the Lower Barren Measures of the Upper Coals." 1

But few species of plants were found, but these were marked by the 

great number of individuals exhibited. The most important were forms 

of Lepidodendron, Palwopteris, and Tripliyllopteris, and one specimen of 

Neuropteris.

In 1878,2 C. A. Ashburner, reported the following section across southern Huntingdon County.3

Feet.

XIII. Carboniferous, Lower Productive Co al Measures, Alleghany River series 256 

XII. Pottsville Conglomerate (= Serai Conglomerate) ...................... 280

XI. Mauch Chunk (Umbral) red shale and Mountain limestone.............

XIc. Upper Mauch Chunk shales and sandstones ................... 910

XI&. Mountain limestone .......................................... 49

("Lewisburg limestone " of the Greenbrier region in Virginia; 

St. Louis and Chester limestone of the Mississippi Valley.) 

XIa. Lower shales and sandstones ................................. 141

 P.122.

2 Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Report of Progress, F: Report on tlie Juniata River district in Mifflin, Snyder, and Huntingdon Counties, by J. H. Deweos; and on the Augliwick Valley and 

Brond Top region, in Huntingdon County, by 0. A. Aaliburiier, 1878, pp. 305. 

'Report of Progress, F, pp. 184-2GO,

Bull. 80 8
114 THE DEVONIAN AND CAKBONIFEKOUS. (BULL. 80.

X. Pocono (Vespertine) sandstone.

Xd. Upper gray sandstone group ............................ 610 "|

Xc. New Kiver coal series................................... 313 ! t> 1 qo

X&. Middle Conglomerate group...... .._.................. 380 f *> LM

Xa. Lower green sandstone group........................... 830 J

IX. Catskill (Ponent) Old Ked sandstone. 

VIII. Lower Devonian series.

IT-TTT -n ru, r, f & Transition beds .......................... 90

VIII. D. Chemung. J ft Olive (Vergent) shales.................... 860

VIII. C. Portage (Vergent flags) ................................. 1,450

S

o Genessee (Cadent, upper)slates............ 325

I) Hamilton's Cadent shale .................r 635

a Marcellus(Cacleut,lower) black slate...... 875

VIII. A. Upper Helderberg Corniferous (Postmeridian) limestone .. 60

VII. Oriskany (Meridian) sandstone........................................ 58

Etc. through the Lower Paleozoic.

In 1880 Mr. Asliburaer completed and published his report 1 on the 

geology of McKean County. During the reconnoissauce survey in 1876 

he had collected a large number of fossil specimens. He was unable 

to arrive at any " satisfactory conclusions as to a systematic division 

of the strata.77 He u finally decided to group the strata by a study of 

their lithology, and on this basis to seek to make a connection with 

sections in those portions of the State where the structure had been 

clearly defined." 2 As a result of his studies he published, as one of 

the sheets, Plate xi.3

During the construction of this sheet he indicated the groups of 

rocks by letters " A, B, C." After it was finished he determined, by 

comparison with the sections of adjoining counties, the correlations, and 

the highest, A, he called "Pocono," B " Catskill," and C " Chemung."

In this report the Olean Conglomerate formed the conspicuous base 

of the Pottsvilie Conglomerate series, or No. XII of the old classification. This was, for Ashburner, the base of the Coal Measures and was

the equivalent of the Ohio Conglomerate.4

Below this conglomerate he reported a series of 500 to 800 feet of rocks 

which he was obliged to correlate with the Mauch Chunk shales (XI), 

Pocono sandstone (X), and Bed Catskill (IX) of other parts of the State; 

but the few fossils obtained appeared to him so mingled and to range 

so throughout the whole series that he could not subdivide them satisfactorily. Eighteen species, he reported, " are identical with characteristic Waverly species," " seven with Chemung species," and he says:

I am thoroughly convinced that these rocks hold a fauna which is essentially a 

unit incapable of subdivision, and that this fauna is decidedly of a Subcarboniferous 

age. 6

1 Geol. Survey, of Pennsylvania, Report of Progress R: Report on McKean County, and its geological 

connections with Camoron, Elk, and Forest Counties, by C. A. Asliburner; pp. 371, 1880.

2 Report of Progress R., page 29; also see page 292.

3A series of columuar sections constructed from surface observations and the records of eleven oil 

 wells situated between Bradford, in McKean County, and Ridgeway, in Elk County, showing the relation of the Lower Carboniferous coal beds to the Bradford oil-producicg sand and the thickening of 

the subconglomerate rocks. J. P. Lesley, State geologist; "Chaa. A. Ashburuer, assistant geologist; 

A. W. Sheafer, aid.

4 Report of Progress E, pp. 56,62.

'Ibid., p. 30.
WILLIAMS.] CARLL, LESLEY. 115

In western Pennsylvania the development of the oil industry furnished a means of geological correlation not before accessible. The great 

number of oil wells distributed over large areas in western Pennsylvania (and since then wells have been drilled in almost every State in 

the Union), where the records were preserved and studied, furnished 

data of levels attained by particular formations under the surface.

Mr. John F. Carll, one of the geologists of the second geological survey 

of Pennsylvania, collected these data, coordinated them, and elaborated 

from the records a classification of the formations. His results are contained in Reports of Progress I, II, III, and IIII. 1 In the first of these 

reports (I) the origin of the name oil sands is explained. In the early 

drilling for oil in Yeuaugo County, the drillers, recognizing these sands 

in their wells in Oil Creek, distinguished them by the term oil sands. When the higher ground was perforated the sandstone layers supposed 

to lie above the horizon of the three oil sands of Oil Creek were called

" mountain sands."

Thus it came about that the series of shales and sandstones, atout 

350 or 400 feet thick, containing the three petroleum-bearing sands of 

Oil Creek, Yenaugo County, were named the " Petroleum Measures of 

Veuango, or Division of the Three Sands or Oil-sand group," and the 

rocks above, up to the base of the Conglomerate No. XII, were called 

the " Mountain sand group or Barren oil measures."

In this report the following equivalences were proposed:

First mountain sand = Upper Berea grit, No. X. 

Second mountain sand = Lower Berea grit?

The fact of the conspicuous development of the three sand layers in 

the wells of Venango County suggested the name "Yenaugo oil-sand 

group," which was definitely proposed and defended by Mr. Carll in 

his third report.2

Prof. Lesley, in his letter of transmission, says of this report :

The main feature of the report is the settlement of the true character of the Veuango 

oil-sand group as a distinct and separate deposit, with characteristic marks distinguishing it from the Paleozoic formations of a preceding and a succeeding age; the 

differentiation of the group into three principal and other subordinate layers of 

gravelly sand, holding more or less oil and gas ; the local variability of these sands; 

their singular persistency beneath long and narrow belts of country; their change 

into barren shales elsewhere, and their independence of other oil-bearing sands and 

shales of an earlier and of a later date.3

Mr. Carll proposed the name " Garland Conglomerate " for the low- i 

est member of the Carboniferous Conglomerate series in the part of the '

'I. Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Kept, of Progress: I. Report on Venaugo County, by J". F. Carll: 

the geology around Warren, by P. A. Ramlall; notes on the comparative geology of northeastern 

Ohio, northwestern Pennsylvania, and western New York, by J. P. Lesley, 1875, pp. 127.

II. Report of oil well records and levels in Venango, Warren, Crawford, Clarion, Armstrong, Butler, 

etc., by J. F. Carll, 1877, pp. 398.

III. Report on the Venango, Warren, Clarion, and Butler oil regions, by J.F. Carll, pp. 482. 1880.

nil. Report on AVarren County, by J. F. Carll, pp. 439. 1883.

2 13 , p. 130.

8 Kept, of Progress, I3, pp. vi, vU.
116 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

State studied by him. 1 He correlated it with the Olean Conglomerate 

of McKean County, the Sharon Conglomerate of Mercer County, the 

Ohio Conglomerate of Ohio, and the Second Mountain sand of the oil 

wells. . s

" Sub-Garland sandstone " was-used for Mr. Ashburner's " Sub-olean" 

and Mr. White's " Shenango sandstone." In chapter vi the author, by 

the application of the methods of correlation suggested by his experience with oil well records, determined the Panama Conglomerate of 

Chautauqua County, New York, first, to be older than the Olean or 

Garland Conglomerate; second, to be neither of the Venango oil sands; 

and third, to be^6hemqng_agje by lying below the horizon of the Venango oil sand group.2 t

He pointed out the important distinction that the pebbles of the Panama Conglomerates are almost always lentiform or flat in shape, while 

the pebbles of the higher Carboniferous Conglomerates are irregularly 

spheroidal.3 f 

By the same methods he argued that the place of the Salamanca Conglomerate is above the Panama Conglomerate.4 Again, he correlated 

the "First Mountain sand" with the Conoquenessing sandstone of. 

Butler County and the Kinzua Greek sandstone of McKeau County; 

the " Second Mountain sand" is a synonym for the Garland Conglomerate; for the " Third Mountain sand" of the earlier reports of the 

oil men, he proposed the name " Pithole grit," which he considered 

equivalent to the Berea grit of Ohio.6

« The author prepared the following generalized section of the formation 

from the Upper Barren Coal series of Greene County, Pennsylvania, 

down to the Corniferous/limestone, which will show his interpretation 

of the series as the result of a detailed study of oil well records :6

 "' Feet. 

( Upper Barren Coal Measures, B.

, 1 j Greene County group, from top to Washington upper limestone... - 600 

| Upper Barren Coal Measures, A. 

(^ Washington County group, extending to Waynesburg sandstone.. 350

2.'Upper Productive Coal Measures, to base of Pittsburgcoal.........'.... 475

3. Lower Barren Coal Measures, to top of .Mahoning sandstone........... 500

4. Lower Productive Coal Measures, to top of Conglomerate No. XII...... . 400

5. Mountain Sand series, to base of Olean-Garland-Ohio Conglomerate....

6. Crawfordshales, to top of VenangoOil'group~.........................

7. Venango Oil group, from top of "First Oil Sand" to bottom of the

" Third pil Sand ".............................. .................... ^350

8. Interval between the Venango Oil group and the Warren Oil group.... ±300

9. Warren Oil group ........................................ :.;......... 300

10. Interval..................................................... ...... 400

11. " Bradford Third Sand"......-......................................... .20 to 80

12. Interval between the Bradford " Third Sand" and the Corniferous lime 

stone, commencing in the Chemuug and including the Portage and 

Hamilton groups of the Ne w York Geological Survey................ 1,600

13. Corniferous limestone ..-;.................................. ..........'

' Kept, of Progress, I3, p. 13. 2 Ibid., p. 77. 

6 Ibid., p. 82, and chapter 8, p. 91.

3 Ibid.,p.60. -, 4 Ibid., p.79. 

6 Kept, of Progress, III, pp. 156-164.
WIUXAMB.] CARLL, CHANCE. 117

Mr, Carll further discussed the Conglomerates in his report on Warren County.1

The Pottsville Conglomerate No. 12 was subdivided into upper, middle, and lower beds, called " Johnson's Eun rocks," " Kinzua Creek sandstone," and " Olean Conglouierate."

He correlated these with ^Homewood sandstone," "Conoquenessing 

sandstone," and "Sharon Conglomerate" of the reports Q, Q15 , Q3, and 

Q4. And he proposed to drop the name " Garland Conglomerate " as a 

synonym for the Olean Conglomerate of Mr. Ashburner's report on 

McKean County.2

In the chapter on the Panama Conglomerate Mr. Carll defended his 

former opinion that the Panama Conglomerate is not equivalent to any 

member of the Venango group but stratigraphically is below it, against 

the view published by Mr, White in Q4 5 that the Panama represents

the Third oil sand of the Venango oil group. Mr. White claimed the 

equivalency upon evidence of fossils. Mr. Carll objected to the recognition of the Yenaugo group as Chemung, on account of the absence of 

any Cliemuug fossils in any of the members of that group as seen in 

the Yenango County sections.3 Mr. Carll's method was based upon 

the theory of the persistent parallelism of strata. While for short distances and in certain directions no doubt the dominant character of the 

strata could be traced, often this theory utterly failed him, as he confessed in a foot-note on page 205, where, discussing the relations of 

the sub-Oleau and Salamanca Conglomerate across Warren County, 

he says: 4

Sometimes no trace of the particular sand rock sought for could be found in proper 

place, and instead of it other massive pebbly strata would obtrude themselves, 100 

feet too high or 100 feet too low to fit into the [places where, according to our theory 

of persistent parallelism of strata, they ought to belong.

In report V 6 Mr. Chance discusses the u geology of northern Butler 

and parts of Beaver, Lawrence, and Mercer Counties." Aside from the 

detailed geology the most important contribution toward the development of the classification of the Pennsylvania rocks was his analysis of 

the Coal Measure Conglomerate, No. XII. The following table exhibits it: 6

Coa! Measure co NO. XII.

fHomewood Sandstone.

Sharon group, coal and shales. 

^Ohio Conglomerate.

1 Kept, of Progress I4, 1883.

2 Ibid., p. 185.

"Ibid., p. 195, et seq.

4 Ibid., p. 205, foot-note.

6 Gool. Survey of Pennsylvania, Report of Progress V. Report on northern Butler County; and 

(Part 2) special report on Ibe Beaver and Sbenango River Coal Measures, by H. M. Cbance, 1879, 

pp. 248.

« Ibid., p. 188.
118 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

Another table shows the difference between his interpretation and 

that of Mr. Carll:

Feet. 

Homewood Sandstone....................... 30^ No. XII, according to Mr. Chance.

Mercer group............................... 30 Feel.

Connoquenessing group..................... 155)265 ")

Sharon group............................... 101 | , , f , N x yT fl

Sharon Conglomerate (Ohio Conglomerate)... 40 J > 4<to ^ , ^ °' A"' accoraSharon upper shales ........................ 30) I mg to Mr. Carll.

Sharon upper sandstone..................... 15 I 170 J

Sharon middle shales........................ 75 f

Sharon lower sandstone..................... 50j

Feet. 

Crawford upper (Cuyahoga) shales ............................................ 135

Berea grit (Third Mountain sand of oil men, Carll).... ..i...................... 75

Crawford lower (Bedford red) shales........................................... ..

The last three members of this table, classed together, were called 

" Crawford shale group" by J. P. Lesley.1

In the Eeport of Progress, G4,2 Mr. H. Martin Chance published as 

Part Second, " A Special Study of the Carboniferous and Devonian 

strata along the West Branch of the Susquehauna Kiver."3 At the 

time this report was written the Coal Measures series had been fairly 

well studied,the Conglomerate as a base was established, and the eastern 

section had been particularly well surveyed, classified, and compared 

with that of Ohio. The northwestern sections of the State had been 

examined and great difficulties had been found in identifying the various members.

Dr. Kewberry, in the third volume of the Geology of Ohio, had reported u that the Vespertine connects throughout this gap with the 

Waverly, but the Unibral and Catskill do not reach Ohio."

Mr. Chance says that 

The Mauch Chunk red shale, No, XI, and the Red Catskill, No, IX, diminish in

thickness rapidly from the Alleghany Mountains westward, so that in a low miles the 

latter entirely disappears ; whereas the Pocono (Vespertine, No. X) thins gradually 

for a few miles, then maintains a nearly constant thickness for 90 miles, when it rapidly loses its lower half by a rise in the Cheimmg floor at the oil-sand shore line 

and again stretches away to the west, with a nearly constant thickness, for 100 miles 

or more.

Among other causes productive of erroneous identifications in the northwestern 

counties, insufficient paleoutological data may he mentioned. The lines of deraarkation between Subcarboniferous and Catskill and between Catskill and Chenumg 

fossil horizons are not uniformly drawn by paleontologists, and as from the conditions essential to the growth of shellfish it seema certain that there must (at some 

points) be an overlapping of the fossil fauna of ou>3 formation into that above it, the 

structuralist can not accept unquestioningly an identification supported by paleontological evidence alone.

His correlations are well expressed in detail in a " Table showing the

1 14. See foot-note, p. 224.

2 Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Report on Clinton Coanty, by H. M. Chance; inclmling a description 

of the Renovo coal basin, by C. A. Asllburner; and notes on '.;he Tangascootac coal basin, by F. Platt, 

pp. 183,1880.

3 Ibid., pp. 79-174.
CHANCE, STEVENSOtf. 119

proposed nomenclature of the Carboniferous and Devonian rocks of 

eastern Pennsylvania and Ohio."

Eastern Pennsylvania. Western Pennsylvania. Ohio. 

Carb $ XIII Coal Measures......Coal Measures ...........Coal Measures.

"""" \ XII Conglomerate ...... Conglomerate series...... Sandstone and shale

with coals 1,2,3. 

f XI Mauch Chunk red 

I .shale ........ .Red or dark shales.

Subcarb. <( flipper (gray) Pocono ... .Cuyahoga and Boroa

^ X Pocono sandstone <^ Lower (red) pocono=0ii. ( Bedford sliale.

t sand group. I Cleveland shale, 

f IX Catskill ...........Absent...!...............Absent.

n ::::::::::n (?) ~~ '~~ H 8halesI Corniferous lime- Corniferous..... ...... ....Corniferons limei. stone. stone.

In order to explain the difficulties in correlating the deposits

the great Conglomerate, No. XII, Mr. Chance assumed that there was 

a basin during the deposition of the Catskill rocks, the western limits 

of which swept approximately through Potter, Cameron, Elk, Jefferson, Armstrong, and Westmorland Counties ; that along this line, or 

somewhat westward of it, a sudden rising into shallow water, or to 

shore line .conditions, prevailed in the Catskill and Pocono time. This 

explains, as he thinks, the accumulation of oil-sands along such a shallow bottom, while further out the Catskill deposits were forming.1

Mr. Stevenson,2 in 1887, presented some new views regarding the cor- 1 

relation of the Umbral and Vespertine in the southern extension of the 

Appalachian province. He stated that Prof. Roger's division of the 

Lower Carboniferous into Umbral and Vespertine, seems correct for \ 

the eastern side of the Appalachian area, but in southern Pennsylvania | 

and Virginia there are variations worthy of study.

The Umbral deposits in Pennsylvania consist of red shales and shaly 

sandstones, and were afterward called by Prof. Lesley the "Mauch 

Chunk."

The limestones first noticed in Maryland increase rapidly in thickness westwardly.

The Vespertine consists of sandstone and shales, with occasional coal 

seams, and varies in thickness from 1,300 feet in Huntingdon County 

to 400 feet in Fayette County.

Owing to the faulted condition of the rocks in southwest Virginia, 

good sections of Lower Carboniferous rocks are shown from the Tennessee line to Giles County. The rocks do not change materially until 

we come within 75- miles of the Tennessee line. In this direction the 

Vespertine thins out more rapidly than the* Umbral rocks, which in 

Pulaski and Bland Counties contain streaks of coal. In Smyth County,

'A diagram is Riven illustrating tliis view on p. 114 of the Report.

51 Stevenson, J. .T. . Notes on the Lower Carboniferous groups along the easterly side of the Appalachian area in 1'emisylvauia and the Virginias. Am. Jour.- Sci., 3d ser., vol. 34, 1887, pp. 37-44.
120 THE DEVONIAN AND CAEBONIFEROUS. [BUTT, 80.

the Uinbral, as well as the Vespertine, is scarcely noticeable, while the 

increasing limestones form the most important feature.

The Uinbral of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the Virginias is equivalent to the 

Chester and St. Louis groups of the Mississippi Valley, and it may include the Keoknk ; while in the Vespertine must be sought the equivalents of the Burlington, and 

possibly of the Kinderhook.

In 1888 Mr. Stevenson, as one of the members of the American committee, prepared a report on the Upper Paleozoic (Carbonic) for the 

International Congress of Geologists. In this report the classification 

and synonomy of the Lower Carbonic is given as follows : l

tJREENBRIER.

Synonyms and local subdivisions. 

Pennsylvania XI, Uinbral, most of ; Mauch Chunk, most of; Shenango shale f

OM-> - \ 2g±EE?± }» «* "-up, in part. 

Virginia XI ...... Greenbrier group.

Tennessee.. ? ( Mountain limestone. 

Alabama... J '"'" } Siliceous group. 

Indiana . ..... Mountain limestone.

Chester group. 

..... Jst .Loni? group. 

/ [Keokuk group.

Nova Scotia...... )

New Brunswick.. > Windsor group. s Newfoundland... )

POCONO.

Synonyms and local subdivisions.

£ Shenango group. 

Pennsylvania X, Vespertine, Pocono ....................< Meadville group.

( Oil Creek group, in part.

Virginia X.................................................. _ .New River series.

f Cuyahoga shale.

OMo: Waverly group, in part .......................... J %%£££* **'

^Cleveland shale.

Alabama6 s * ^8ea*> or represented by the lowest beds of the Siliceous group.

Indiana............ .......................... ............Knobstone group, in part.

Illinois.... .............................................. ........Burlington group.

Iowa ............................... _ .................. ......Kinderhook group.

M;/.i,{»nn 5 Michigan salt group. M.ch!gan .................................................. Marshall 8 ll 5

New York...... .... ............ .... ....Upper part of the Catskill gray sandstones.

Nova Scotia .................................................... ....Horton series.

Eastern Quebec.......... ............ ...... ........ __ .... ....Bonaventure series.

1 See Report, D.'pp. 7, 8.
OHAPTEE VI.

THE CHEMUNG-CATSKILL PROBLEM: THE HISTORY OF THE DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING THE CORRELATION OF THE CHEMUNG 

AND CATSKILL FORMATIONS IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE 

APPALACHIAN PROVINCE.

In the year 1862 the discovery by Mr. J. M. Way, in the rocks of 

Franklin, Delaware County, New York, of fish bones, in association 

with Chemung fossils, raised doubt as to the validity of the correlation

of the deposits. The rocks had previously been considered as Catskill, 

or Old Bed sandstone. The fish remains discovered were regarded as 

characteristic fossils of the Oatskill group. The marine fossils found 

in the same rocks had been regarded as typical Chemung fossils.

Col. B. Jewett, then curator of the State Museum at Albany, annoiiQced that " From my investigations I believe there is no Old Ked 

sandstone in this State." 1 The letter communicating this determination was dated " Albany, September 20,1862."

The same facts led Mr. James Hall to the following judgment:

Late investigations, combined with those heretofore made, have forced upon me 

the conviction that the greater part of the area colored on the geological map of New 

York as Catslcill group, is in fact occupied by the Portage and Chemung. 9

Again 

Until we ascend the slopes of the Catskill Mountains and rise to an elevation of at 

least 2,000 feet above tide water, we find no rocks of newer age than the Chemuug.3

And again 

It now becomes necessary to restrict the term Calskill group to the beds formerly 

known as x and xi of the Pennsylvania survey.'1

This announcement, as Alexander Winchell wrote 5 in a letter to 

James D. Dana, dated December 10,1862, produced " a sensation among 

geologists," and led to discussions extending over a number of years.

In this letter Winchell spoke of Jewett's announcement 6 of disbelief 

in the existence of the Catskill group in the State of New York, and 

recalled his own disbelief in its existence as a distinct group, and his

'Am. Jour. Sci.. 2d ser., vol. 34, p. 418. Also 15th Ann. Rep. State Cabinet of Nat. Hist., Albany, 

1862, p. 198.

*0n the Catskill group of New Tork, by Prof. James Hall. A letter addressed to Principal Dawson, dated Albany, October, 18G2. Canadian Nat. and Jour, of Sci., new series, vol. 7, p. 377.

3 Tbid.,p. 380.

«Ibid., p. 381.

'See also "James Hall. Remarks on absence of Catskill group in New Tork." Albany Inst. 

Trans., vol. 4,1803, pp. 307, 308.'

. Wiuchell, Alexander, on the identification of the Catskill Bed Sandstone group with the Chemung 

(in a letter to J. D. Dana). Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 35, 1863, pp. 61, 62.

e Am. Jour. Soi., voL 34, p. 418.

121
122 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

o

doubts of the Devonian character of the Old Eed sandstone of New 

York when he had previously announced his conviction of the equivalency of the Marshall and Chemung groups, and of their common Carboniferous character. Since that time the confirmation of his doubts 

led Winchell to include within the Marshall (Chemung) group the Old 

Eed sandstone of New York.

In his researches among the rocks of this age, the writer found an 

almost universal generic identification, establishing fully the equivalency of the Chemung, Marshall, Ohio, Rockford, Burlington, and 

Chouteau strata. He gives as evidence that these localities are all of 

Carboniferous age: " First, the fact that of the 135 species now known 

from the yellow sandstones of Burlington no less than 40 ascend into 

the base of the Burlington limestone, while 2 rise to the upper portion 

of it, and 1 recurs in the Coal Measures; second, the fact that of the 

known species of this horizon, at least 9 occur in the Coal Measures, or 

upper part of the Carboniferous limestone; while third, multitudes of 

species are clearly the local representatives of European and American 

Carboniferous types." Mr. Hall's declaration in the Canadian Naturalist 

"that large areas of the rocks of New York hitherto regarded as Chemung, do really fall within the limits of the Hamilton group," is said 

to account for the Devonian aspect of some portions of the Ohemung 

fauna, as heretofore understood, and, Winchell adds, " tends to confirm a broad generalization, and complete the adjustment of American 

to European Paleozoic formations."*

Mr. James Hall 2 in 1870 announced that he had previously regarded 

the so-called "Montrose sandstone" (of Pennsylvania) and "Oneonta 

sandstone" of Vanuxem as lying above the Chemung rocks. The same 

views were held by Mr. Mather, who made the Montrose and Oneonta 

series equivalent to the upper part of the Catskill rocks. Further examination proved this conception of their relations to be erroneous and 

brought out the following parallelism of the groups in the eastern and 

western parts of the State:

Old Red sandstone of Tioga. etc.: 

Chemung group. 

Portage group. 

Hamilton group.

Catskill Mountain sandstone: 

Chemung group. 

Oneonta group. 

Hamilton group.

The Oneonta sandstone does not occur in the central part of the State, 

and its western extension has not been traced beyond Chenango County.

In 1875 Mr. Hall 3 again referred to the age of the Catskill formation.

In 1870 it was the prevalent opinion that, contrary to the author's 

statements, the Old Ked sandstone did not exist in New York State.

1 Regarding the development of Winchell's views on the correlations here announced, see the chapter 

on the Waverly Problem.

2 Hall, James: On the relations of the Oneonta Sandstone and Montrose Sandstone of Vannxem 

with the Hamilton and Chemung groups. Am. Nat., vol. 4,1870, pp. 563-565.

3 On the geology of the southern counties of New York and adjacent parts of Pennsylvania; especially with reference to the age and structure of the Catekill Mountain Range. Am. Assoc., Proc., vol. 

24, pt 2, pp. 80-84; Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 12,1876, pp. 300-304.
WILLTA.MS.J HALL. 123

Further examination proved its existence, as well as the occurrence of 

higher formations. From these additional facts a map was constructed, 

colored to represent the different formations. The Catskills consist of 

a series of nearly parallel synclinals and anticliuals, with a southwest 

and northeast strike, running from the base of the Catskill range u to 

the western limit" of the red rocks in Chenango County. This continues to the western part of the State, but before reaching the boundary of western New York and Pennsylvania, it probably thins out 

entirely. In the southern part of New York State the synclinals show 

traces of the Coal Measures, -while others are cut down to the Chemung. 

The author states the difficulties that have arisen in determining the 

relation of the Chemung and typical Catskill. In some localities the 

Chemung fauna runs above its apparent horizon, and even mingles 

with Carboniferous forms. This fact is especially important when we

attempt to determine the limit between the Devonian and Carboniferous 

formations. In the section exhibited which runs across the Catskill 

range from Schenevus to Glasco, the Portage and Chemung rocks have 

a thickness of over 2,000 feet, the Ked Books of the Catskill about 3,000 

feet, and the Vespertine beds about 800 feet.

He stated in 1880 l that he found long ago that the Catskill Mountains of New York consist of Devonian rocks of Chemung and Catskill 

epochs, resting unconformably on Silurian rocks. Mr. Arnold Guyot 

in his observations found that the highest points of this region were on 

Slide Mountain, 4,205 feet, and the Panther, 3,828 feet above tide level. 

"As to structure, the beds show weak plications whose axes are parallel 

with those of the Alleghany system, but the mountain ranges were at 

right angles to the system, or from northwest to southeast." This 

anomaly is explained by erosion. " The general level descends westward,,"

The work of the Second Pennsylvania Survey had been conducted, 

up to 1880, or up to the time of preparing the reports published in 1880, 

on the plan that correlations could best be made by lithologic and 

strati graphic means. Frequently one meets with expressions of lack 

of confidence in the evidence offered by the fossils.

In the correlation of the Coal Measures and as far down as the Catskill 

the fossils were not discovered frequently enough to serve as satisfactory means of correlation. In this case lithologic character, thickness, 

and stratigraphic order were the data which by aid of actual altitude of 

the strata in individual sections enabled the geologist to trace dominant 

formations from one township to another and from county to county. 

But as the work progressed, different geologists having charge of groups 

of two or three counties, the correlations at the edges of contiguous 

counties were constantly presenting disagreements.

The formations, where fossils were not present stubbornly to resist

1 Hall, .Tames: The geology and topography of the Catskill Mountains. Am. Nat, vol. 14, 1880, 

pp. 612-613. £ p.
124 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [Bunr,.80.

false conclusions, could be adjusted by compromise or by readjustment 

of nomenclature. In the case of fossiliferous zones the real difficulties 

became more apparent as the final adjustments were attempted.

Mr. Stevenson,1 in 1878, said that the Upper Devonian rocks of southwest Pennsylvania, underlying the Vespertine or Pocono sandstone, 

are well exposed in the gaps of the Conemaugh Eiver through Laurel 

and Chestnut Ridges. He gave a general section of these rocks as observed in the gaps, as follows:

Feet

1. Shales and thin gray sandstones............................................. 80

2. White to reddish-gray sandstones with some shale........................... 70

3. Reddish-gray micaceous sandstones with red to gray and olive shales......... 150

4. Red to gray shaly sandstones with variegated clays and shales..... ...... SCO

500

After a description of the rocks, and a discussion of their relations, 

he concluded by saying, that, " as the lithologtcal characters of these 

rocks are much like those of the Chemung, and their fossils, both 

animal and vegetable, are unquestionably of Chemung age, the rocks 

themselves must be Chemung, probably representing the Lower Chemung;" and that " the great Catskill group has so far thinned out that 

it is represented only by its upper or gray member, the Vespertine of 

Pennsylvania."

The Pennsylvania reports published in 1880 gave little indication of 

the true nature of the errors of correlation of the Upper Devonian. In 

the Report of Progress G7,2 the imperfection of the theory of " persistent parallelism of strata" became evident. The author classified the 

deposits examined as follows: 

Pottsville Conglomerate, with 8 feet of slate and sandstone below it in a section at

Susquehanna Gap.

Maueh Chunk Shale, No. XI, 150 feet. 

Pocono group, No. X, 353 feet.

The Pocono-Catskill group, 400 feet thick near Loretto.

Catskill, No. IX, varying in thickness from 1,800 to 4,500 feet. The base of the Catskill is fixed as the lowest horizon at which the scales, teeth, and bones of 

Holoptycliius occur. 

The CatskiJl-Chemung group, section between Rupert and Catawissa, 1,077 feet.

The base of this group was the lowest red bed. 

Chemung, near Rupert, 2,443 feet thick.

Hamilton, at Little Fishing Creek, made up as follows:

Feet. 

Genesee slate ................................................................. 275

Tully limestone........................... .._............................ 50

Hamilton..................................................................... 400

Marcellus shale ............................................................... 410

This is called the " Northern type."

1 Stevenson, J. J.: The Upper Devonian rocks of southwest Pennsylvania. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d 

ser., vol. 15,1878, pp. 423-430.

* The geology of the Susquebauna River region in the six counties-of Wyoming, Lackawauna, Luzerne, Columbia, Moptour, and Northumberland, by L C. White, 1883.
WILLIAMB.J STEVENSON. 125

The section below Selin's Grove is as follows i

Feet. 

Genesee slate ............................................................... 264

Hamilton group.......... ............................................... 2,022

Marcellus slate.......................................................... 300

Selin's Grove lower limestone............................................ 65

Seliu's Grove shale....................................................... 140

 505

This is the "Middle type."

The third or " Southern type" is exhibited at a railroad cut two miles 

below Georgetown.

, Feet.

Concealed............................................................... 400

Selin's Grove upper sandstone ............................................ 300

Selin's Grove shales ............. = .................... ................. 325

Seliu's Grove lower sandstone............................................. 100 to 50

Marcellus? .... ......................... .................................. 25

Selin's Grove lower limestone............................................. 75

Gray shales.........................-..........,.........'................ 50

Oriskauy sandstone, VII, placed in the Silurian by Mr. White, varying from 40 to 

0 in thickness.

In the CampbelFs Ledge black slate, immediately below the Pottsville 

Conglomerate, sixty-three species of plants and six fossil insects were 

obtained, a few of them suggesting " Subcarboniferous types," but the 

great majority were of the coal flora, known only from the Potts ville 

Conglomerate. 1

High up in the rocks called Catskill, fossils of Chemung species were 

reported, as Spirifera disjuncta and 8. mesostrialis. 2 This was some 

three hundred feet above Roloptycliius remains.

Several species regarded as of characteristic Chemung age in New 

York were reported from several horizons in the Chemung-Catskili 

group. These, too, are well above red shales which had been regarded 

as at least as high as Catskill formations. In the Chemung, typical 

Chemung species were reported, but in combinations not precisely those 

commonly seen in the typical New York sections. The "Tully" was 

not recognized by its fauna, but on account of resemblance lithologically to the Tully limestone of New York.3 The "Hamilton" is identified by typical Hamilton species. Thus is the "Oriskany" also distinguished. The identification of species is credited to Prof. E. W. 

Claypole.

The report called out sharp criticism, first in the letter of transmission by the State geologist who wrote:

The paleontology of this report requires the closest consideration, and presents 

some difficulties of considerable magnitude, I have, therefore, submitted the proof 

sheets to our highest authority, Prof. James Hall, of Albany. 4 * » »

Prof. Hall objected to considering the Holoptyclilus bed as the base 

of the Catskill, because of the occurrence of Chemung species higher up.

1 Bop. of Prog. G7, p. 39. * Ibid., p. 57. 8 Ibid., p. 76. «Ibid,, p. xtx.
126 THE DEVONIAN AND CAKBONIFEROUS. [BULL.80.

To "the topsyturvy appearance of the three species of Spirifera which 

outside of Pennsylvania have been found (1) never in any but Cheinung 

rocks; (2) confined each to its own horizon; and (3) always in a fixed 

order from above downwards;" 1 and also to the high reported range of 

several species. The objections were so pointed that the State geologist, J. P. Lesley, closed his letter with the statement that " the startling fossil species of this report will therefore be regarded by the paleoutological reader as only provisionally verified," etc.2

Two things about the report were out of the ordinary and expected 

line of opinion. The author, though partly recognizing the lithology 

as worthy of consideration, based his classification of these " subcoiiglomerate " rocks on the evidence of the fossils and secondly he classified 

the rocks according to the evidence and not according to the standards 

as they existed in New York State. He was forced to recognize two 

" transition " groups in order to suit both kinds of evidence. This satisfied neither the lithologic nor the paleoutologic schools of geologists.

The identification of fossils may not have been accurate in all cases, 

but the result of later studies has clearly shown that the real difficulty 

was not in the identification but in interpretations which were brought 

out by the facts. The minute and exhaustive field work of the second 

Pennsylvania survey had shown beyond the possibility of contradiction 

that geologic formations vary within wide limits in their lithologic 

character and in their thickness, and constantly, so that sections a few 

miles apart may present very little in common, although known to be 

stratigraphically correlative with each other. This had led to the full 

adoption of the idea that the parallelism of strata must be made by 

actual tracing of the strata from place to place, and that identification 

by lithologic likeness was impracticable over any considerable interval 

of space. Paleontologists, however, still clung to the theory of the 

strict uniformity of sequence in faunas,

The "canonical" opinion of the "highest authorities" in paleontology was that the order of sequence in species of fossils, established 

by the facts in one well authenticated section of deposits, furnished a 

standard that could be implicitly relied upon in the correlation of other 

sections. When it was reported that this established order was not 

preserved, doubt was naturally ,cast upon the identification of the fossils.

The Pennsylvania geologists did not seem to be aware, of the importance of the facts, but they were correct and the error lay in the theory 

of the paleontologists.

Mr. Claypole,3 in defense of his statements embodied in the Pennsylvania report, and criticised by Mr. Hall in the preface of the same 

volume, quoted from an article of Mr. Williams's, in which are recorded 

observations confirming his statements in Eeport G7 .

1 Kept, of Prog. G7, p. xx. 2 lbitl., p. xxvi. 

3 Claypole, E. W. : On the vertical range of certain fossil species iu Pennsylvania and New York, 

Am. Naturalist, vol. 19,. pp. 644-Q54.
WILLIAMS.] CLAYPOLE. 127

The principle underlying the new interpretation of this problem was 

suggested several years earlier in a paper read before the American 

Association in 1881.1

In this paper announcement was made of the discovery of a distinctly 

Hamilton fauna, all the species of which had been heretofore considered as strictly Hamilton species, in arenaceous shales several hundred 

feet above the Genesee shales, at Ithaca, New York. It is separated 

from the typical Hamilton fauna by four distinct faunas ; those of the 

Tully limestone, the Genesee shale, the Spirifera lams fauna, called 

Portage in the State reports, and a fauna described in this paper from 

shales overlying the last, called " Ithaca shales," resembling the Genesee shale fauna, but evidently a later stage of it. This black shale 

was regarded by the author as u a single continuous fauna." He says:

Its appearance in the rocks of central New York in three separate zones, called the 

Marcellus shales, the Genesee slate, and the Ithaca shales is regarded as evidence of

interrupted incursion eastward of the conditions which were continuous over some 

portions of the interior of the Devonian intercontinental sea, where the three New 

York zones were represented by one continuous series of Black shales.

The hypothesis is also advanced that (a) the Hamilton and Chonmng faunas wore 

probably coexistent with this Black-shale fauna; and (b) were respectively the 

northern and southern faunas of a western coast line of the open ocean on the eastward of this continent; and (c) the appearance of the Chemung fauna, displacing the 

Hamilton fauuas, in the latitude of New York and Pennsylvania, was the resultant 

of some grand changes in the relations of the ocean and continental borders, by 

which tropical conditions of the ocean were advanced northward, occasioning the 

shifting of the Hamilton faunas toward the North pole ; so that (we may suppose) 

at the time when the Chemung fauna was dominant over the northeastern United 

States, rocks being deposited in the arctic latitudes received a Hamilton fauna; and 

(d) finally, these changes were'gradual, the shifting of the faunas northward beginning 

as early as the beginning of the Portage epoch, and continuing far into, and perhaps 

after the close of the Cheinung epoch, with some oscillation of the conditions, causing 

traces of the Hamilton to recur at the base, and possibly a second time higher up iu 

the midst of Chemung rocks and fanaas.

The fundamental idea inspiring the paper was an application of conditions of modern biology to the interpretation of the fossil fauuast 

As in the present seas many faunas are known to coexist in the same 

ocean basin, their particular constitution and characteristics being determined in great measure by differences of environment, bathymetrical conditions, temperature, purity of water, etc., so in the past, it is 

supposed, similar differences in' the faunas will be found to mark deposits 

which were made at the same time, but under different conditions. 

And iu the second place since oscillations are known to have occurred 

and currents are supposed to have existed in the ancient as in the 

modern oceans, according to the theory it is reasonable to expect a 

more or less constant change of the conditions of environment at any 

particular geographical position, and consequently a shifting backward 

and forward over it of the faunas during the accumulation of the sedi1 TkeKocurronce of Faunas in the Devonian Koclcs of New York, by H. S. Williams. Proc. Am. Ass. 

Adv. Sci., vol. 30, pp. 186-191.
128 THE DEVONIAN AND CAEBONIFEROUS. JBULL.SO.

ments. With this as a working hypothesis the paper on u Recurrence 

of faunas" was the announcement of the first confirmatory evidence 

actually seen. Barrande's theory of " Colonies " considered the laws concerned as exceptional; the theory of the recurrence of faunas was set 

forth as the formulation of a general law.

Investigations in the same line were extended by the author westward from the meridian of Cayuga Lake, New York State, across the 

State, northwestern Pennsylvania, and the eastern part of Ohio. The 

rocks studied were of Devonian and Lower Carboniferous age, and the 

problems were the same over which the Pennsylvania geologists were 

struggling.

In 1883, Mr. Claypole1 reported that the Catskill group of New York 

had hitherto been considered as non-fossiliferous, and as separating tbe 

characteristic Devonian and Carboniferous faunas. Further examination, however, proved that these rocks contained a scattered fauna 

consisting of fish and plant remains. From a study of these deposits 

in central Pennsylvania, the author reached the following conclusions:

(1) That the lower portion of the Ponent Red sandstone and shale (Catskill) is 

less barren of organic remains than has been supposed. (2) That Holoptychkis and 

Botlmolepis are not exclusively Catskill fauna, and (3) That the Ponent group 

differs from what it is generally understood to be, the contained fossils indicating 

that there are Cheuiung and also Carboniferous faunas included in rocks called 

Pouent.3

Mr. Claypole,3 during tbe same year, communicated several other 

papers bearing more or less upon the general discussion.

In the same year (1883) in which Keport G7 of the second geological 

survey of Pennsylvania appeared, the manuscript of Bulletin 3 of the 

U. S. Geological Survey 4 was furnished, though not published till the 

following year.

The bulletin is a report upon the constitution, the order, and relative

position of the fossil faunas in a continuous section of the rocks, from 

the Geiiesee shales through the Upper Devonian to the first appearance 

of a coal bed at the Barclay coal mines in southern Bradford County, 

Pennsylvania.

1 Claypole, E. W.: On tbe occurence of fossiliferous strata in the Lower Ponent (Catskill) group of 

middle Pennsylvania. Am. Nat., voL 17,1883, pp. 274-282.

2 Ibid., p. 282.

3 Claypole, E. W.: Note on the occurrence of Holoptychius about 500 feet below the recognized top 

of the Cbemung group, in Bradford County. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., vol. 20,1883, p. 531.

On a mass of Catskill rocks, supposed to exist on tbe north bank of Towanda Creek, near Franklin. 

Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., vol. 20,1883, pp. 531-533, 535.

On two small patches of Catskill, represented near Leroy, on the map in report G, of the second geol. 

survey of Pennsylvania. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., vol. 20,1883, pp 533-534.

On the Kingsmill white sandstone. Am. Phil. Soc., Proc., vol. 20,1883, pp. 666-677. 

' On the equivalent 'of the New York Portage, in Perry County, middle Pennsylvania. Am. Phil. SocProc., vol. 21,1883, pp. 250-255.

On a large crustacean from the Catskill group of Pennsylvania. Am. Ass. Proc., vol. 32,1883, p. 265.

*0n the fossil faunas of the Tipper Devonian along the meridian of 76° 30', from Tompkins County, 

New York, to Bradford County, Pennsylvania, by Henry S. Williams.

A notice of the general results, embodied in the bulletin, appeared in Science, December 28,1883. 

(Comparative Paleontology of the Devonian formations, Science, vol. 2, p. 836.)
WILLIAMS.] WILLIAMS. 129

The consecutive faunas were also examined particularly as to conditions of environment with which they were originally associated, as indicated by the lithologic character of the deposits. The scope of the 

work may be indicated by the following quotations:

The aggregation of species into faunas, the blending of one fauna with another, the 

rarity or abundance of particular species, variation in form or size or modification of 

specific characters, the extinction of old and the initiation of new forms all these 

become the most delicate tests of change in the physical conditions, the record of 

which constitutes the geological history of the earth.

For the correct solution of this problem the laws of geographical distribution form 

as important an element as geological sequence. The attempt to apply such principles 

to the study of the Devonian and Sub carboniferous deposits is no simple task, but 

the very fact that their faunas offer so great variation and difference in their combinations makes 

«*##*#a

this series particularly attractive for the purpose. 1

These facts make it plain that over any particular area the faunas shifted back and 

forth with the advance of geological time. Hence I was led to the simple conception 

of a fauna as continuing on intact as long as the favorable conditions for its life continued, as shifting its habitat with the elevation or depression of the land, with the 

advance or retrocession of the coast line. In such shifting and change of conditions, one species after another may drop out and become extinct; others may suffer 

varietal modification, and, what is still more important, the sudden appearance of 

new forms may take place in the midst of the normal fauna forms new to the locality only, or entirely new, so far as our knowledge of the fossils can tell us. Merely 

from the initiation of the new forms in the fauna we can gain no clew of its origin, 

but the study of its relations to allied forms of other faunas may enable us to decide 

whether it is a modification of some older form or $he forerunner of a new type, 

marking a later geological stage.8

O » # » S » #

The following is a summary of the order and general relative position of the faunas 

from the Genesee slate to the Barclay coal, which my present knowledge leads me to 

believe is true for the meridian passing through Ithaca, New York, running southward.

(1) Genesee slate fauna,

(2) Portage group fauna, distributed through approximately 1,300 feet of strata, 

but interrupted by the intrusion of the Ithaca faunas and several sub-faunas.

(3) Chemung fauna, occupying at least 1,200 feet of strata, with perhaps two subfaunas, and driven out or destroyed by the presence of the conditions marked by the 

deposit of red and gray Catskill rocks.

Within the limits assigned to the Portage group in the western part of New York 

State, I believe should be included for this meridian all those deposits lying between 

the Genesee shale and the lowest yellow-brown shale and sandstones which carry the 

true Chemung group fauna.

This series, as a whole, may be described as arenaceous, dark-colored shales with 

the Cardiola speciosa fauna, toward the top running into wave-marked, tough, arenaceous deposits, almost totally barren, so far as known. ,

The passage between this series and the true Chemuug is stratigraphically indistinct, but in a general way it may be recognized by the clearer separation of the 

argillaceous from the arenaceous deposits after passing the line, and the appearance 

of lighter-colored sandstones in the midst of softer argillaceous shales, in which iron 

nodules and iron stains become more conspicuous than below.

The shales of the Portage below are thinner and of more greenish tint, and its

' IT. S. Geol. Surv., Bull. No. 3, p. 8. * Ibid., p. &

.Bull. 80 9
130 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS.

sandstones are darker in color and thin, tough, and wave-marked or flaggy. Pale* 

outologically, however, the transition is more marked.

The upper part of the Portage appears to be utterly barren except in an occasional 

thin stratum of green shale, a Cardiola speciosa, or a small Palaoneilo, or Leda may 

appear.

As soon, however, as we reach the true Chemung rocks we meet large Productella 

lachrymosa, Amboccellas and Spinfers of the Chemung types. * * *

To the author of this bulletin the facts reported by Mr. White in the 

Report of Progress G7 were not startling, but what he was ready to ex* 

pect from his studies in New York. He expressed his agreement thus:

In regard to the identification'of these Upper Devonian faunas of Columbia County, 

Pennsylvania, in the association of species and the relative order of the sub-faunas, the 

record agrees in general with that of the series exposed along the same meridian 

farther north in New York State. l

The following year, 1884, the same author read a paper before the 

American Association on "Geographical and physical conditions as 

modifying fossil faunas." 2 In this paper application of the principles 

above described is made in the study of sections of the Devonian rocks 

east and west of those described in the Bulletin No. 3. By dissecting 

the faunas of each section and comparing them consecutively across the 

State, is it shown that there are changes in the composition of the faunas 

coordinate with changes in the deposits. Among other examples the 

occurrence of Castkill type of fossils with Catskill character of rocks 

in Chenango and Otsego Counties, New York, is reported entirely below 

genuine Chemung fossils, in the Oneonta formation. '

In the discussion which followed, Mr. Hall, to whom the objectionable 

identifications of the Pennsylvania Eeport G7 had previously been referred, again objected to the report that Spirifera mesostrialis and S. 

disjuncta were found together, on the ground that they represent different zones and should not occur together; also, he objected to the 

interpretation of strata as u Chemung-Catskill," claiming that these 

are two distinct formations with distinct faunas, and it was not reasonable to expect the two to be blended. At the same meeting, in a paper 

read by Mr. Hall, this opinion is further illustrated by his interpretation of a section in Warren County, Pennsylvania. 3 In the section described about 1,500 feet of Chemung rocks are reported with Chemung 

fossils, followed immediately, and without sign of unconformity, by 

Waverly sandstone rocks with Waverly fossils. Between the two is 

marked " the place of the CatsUll," where, it is stated, 4< there is a hiatus 

which in eastern New York and Pennsylvania is marked by the presence of measures having a thickness of from 3,000 to 5,000 feet."

The interpretation of the facts is " that there has been a long interval 

of time between the final deposition of the barren Chemung shales and 

the fossiliferous Waverly sandstones, or that the deposition of the1 See " The Spirifera of the Upper Devonian," hy H. S. Williams, Science, vol. 3, p. 374.

2 Proc. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 33, p. 422, et. seq.

3 On the intimate relations of the Chemung group and the Waverly sandstone in northwestern^ 

Pennsylvania and southwestern New York, by James Hall, Proc. Am. Assoo. Adv. Sci. vol.33, p. 416.
WILLIAMS.] CLAYPOLE, 131

estuary Catskill sediments has been going on simultaneously with the 

open sea deposits of the Waverly formation." 1

The true objection to such terms as " Cheiuuug-Catskill" and " Catskill-Pocono " did not come to light in this controversy- The names do 

not misrepresent the facts they were intended to represent, i. e., that 

in Pennsylvania there are formations which by their fossils indicate not 

only transition, but a blending of two distinct formations of New York, 

but it may be urged that these names do not clearly express the facts. 

The truth is that sedimentation did not change synchronously for even 

very limited areas, and to attempt by the use of nomenclature to make 

the division lines of the chronological scale precisely coincide for the 

sections of adjoining States will often unnaturally strain the facts.

In 1885 Eeport of Progress F2 was published.2 In this report the 

classification adopted in Mr. White's Eeport G7 was more fully elaborated, Mr. Claypole's classification is as follows s

No. XI. Mauch Chunk red shale.

No. X. Pocono sandstone.

No. IX. Catskill formation, including 

Upper beds.

Dellville sandstone, 

. King's Mill shales.

King's Mill sandstone,,

Fish beds.

No. VIII (/). Chemuug group. 

No. VIII (e). Portage group. 

No. VIII (d). Genesee group. 

No. VIII (c). Hamilton group, including 

Hamilton Upper shale, 200 to 300 feet.

Hamilton (Montebello) sandstone, 500 to 800 feet.

Hamilton Lower shale, 400 to 500 feet. 

No. VIII (&). Marcellus limestone and black shale, including

Marcellus black shale, 100 feet.

Marcellus upper iron ore, 2 feet.

Marcellus limestone, 50 feet.

Marcollus lime shales, 50 feet.

Marcellus lower iron ore, 2 feet.

No. VIII (a). Upper Helderberg (Corniferous) group. (Absent.) 

No. VII. Oriskany sandstone group.

The division line between the Chemung group and the Catskill is not 

clear. Occasional red beds occur below the line he sets, and Ohemung 

fossils occur above the "Fish beds," which he regards as the base of 

the Catskill.3

In 1885 Williams read a paper on the classification of the Upper Devonian.4

1 On the intimate relations of the Chemuug group and the Wavorly sandstone in northwestern Pennsylvania and southwestern New York, by James Hall, Proe. Am. Assoo. Adv. Sci., vol. 33, p. 418.

2 Second Geol. Survey of Pennsylvania, Report of Progress F2. A preliminary Keport on the Palaeontology of Perry County, describing the order and thickness of its formations and its folded and 

faulted tructuro, by E. W. Claypole. Harrisburg, 1885.

"Ibid., pp. 72,73.

4 On the classification of the Upper Devonian, by Henry Shaler Williams, Am. Ass. Adv. Sci. Proo., 

vol. 34, 1885, pp. 222-234.
132 TH3 DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

A number of sections across the same series of deposits, about 50 

miles apart, are compared. The sections are called: I Cuyahoga, II 

Painesville, III Girard, IV Chautauqua, V Genesee, VI Canandaigua, 

VII Cayuga, VIII Tioughnioga, IX Chenango, X Unadilfa, making a 

series reaching from Cleveland, Ohio, to the Unadilla Valley, Otsego 

County, New York.

The individual faunas were studied in their stratigraphic order in the 

various sections, and their relative positions in the sections were shown 

to exhibit a shifting back and forth of the faunas during the deposition 

of the sediments. The faunas were classified and the recurrent stages 

of each were given names from the dominant fossils, characterizing 

them as follows : l

A. is the Hamilton fauna and its immediate successors.

The middle Devonian fauna (A) was traced above the horizon of the Genesee 

shale- in the following successive stages:

A 1, the Paracyclas lirata stage.

A 2, the Spin/era Icevis stage.

A 3, the Strophodonta mucronata stage.

A 4, the Atrypa reticularis stage.

A 5, the Leiorhynchui} globuliformis stage.

A 6, the Tropidoleptus carinatus stage.

A 7, the Spirifera mesosirialis stage.

A6 + is a second recurrence of the Tropi&oleptus stage, found above the Chemung fauna and distinguished by the variety Oivegoensis of Spirifera marcyi, 

a characteristic variety of the granulifera type of Spiriferas.

B is the black shale fauna, beginning in the typical or first stage of the Genesee shale. 

In the fauna of the black shales:

B, the Genesee stage of Lingula spatulata.

B 1, the second Lingula spatulata stage, in Portage shales.

B 2, the Lingula complanata stage of the "Ithaca group."

B 3, Lingula spatulata, third variety, in the Cleveland shale,

B 4, Lingula complanata, second stage, in Chemuug shales.

C is the fauna of the green shales of the typical Portage group.

C I is the Cephalopod stage, with Goniatiies and large Cardiadce.

C 2, the Lainellibranch stage, with Cardiola speciosa, etc.

C 3 is the Portage sandstone, generally barren.

D is the Chemung fauna associated with brown argillaceous shales, flags, or

calcareous sandstones.

The faunas of the brown shales and sandstones of the Chemung deposits were 

classified into the following stages:

D 1, the stage of Orfhis tioga.

D 2, the stage of Stropliodonta cayuta.

D 3, the stage of A thyris angelica,

D 4, the stage of Rhynchonella contracta.

D 5, the stage of Spirifera alta.

All of these stages, except the first (D 1) are characterized by the presence of some 

variety of Spirifera disjunota) = Sp. Ferneuili).

E is the fauna of the flat pebble conglomerate.

F is the fauna and flora of the Catskill grays and reds. 

In the Catskill rocks the fossils are very rare, but there are two stages (F 1) of the

: 0n the classification of the Upper Devonian, by Henry Shaler Williams, Am. Ass. Adv. Soi.Proo., 

vol. 34,1885, pp. 225-227.
WILLIAMS.] WILLIAMS. 133

Oneonta reds and grays and (F 2) of the typical Catskill. So far as fossils have been 

found there is difficulty in defining them.

It is probable that Holoptyohius and several allied fish, Conrad's Cypricardia anyusta 

and several plants, are found in both alike, but further investigation will be necessary 

to establish any clearly distinctive characters in the fossils.

The Waverly fauna G appears to be distinguished into three stages in othet parts of 

Ohio. But in the region comprised in these sections the stages are recognized more 

by theirlithologic than by their paleontologic characters. The general fauna may 

be called the Syringotliyris fauna,

With G 1, the Bedford shale stage,

With G 2, the Berea grit and sandstone,

With G 3, the Cuyalioga shale and sandstone.

H is the conglomerate (Olean and equivalent).

J is the Barclay coal beds.

From these studies the following principles of correlation were deduced : l

First. The complications arising from both geological and geographical modifications of fossil faunas are so great that the attempt to determine horizons by single 

or by roughly identified fossils will certainly lead to erroneous results.

Second. In classifying deposits in geologic surveys, it is of the greatest importance 

that the actual altitude and the geographi c position of rock strata should be precisely defined, as well as the lithologic character of the strata themselves. And for 

this purpose some systematic and uniform nomenclature for the various kinds of 

rocks should be made and adopted by all geologists in the country.

Third. The fact that species composing the faunas and the total faunas themselves 

are subject to constant modification, both geographical in the same horizon and geo 

logical in the same area, is an element that paleontologists can not safely ignore. 

These modifications, though they may be slight, can be easily recognized in the passago of 50 miles.

Fourth. The actual order of faunas met with in a vertical section is not necessarily 

expressive of biologic sequence, but signifies the sequence of the occupants of that 

particular area.

The change in the species from one stratum to the next may express the shifting 

for miles of the actual inhabitants, and if the change, within a few feet of strata, is 

to au entirely distinct group of species, the evidence should be taken as pointing to 

a considerable shifting of condition of the bottom. If in such case each fauna is 

kept distinct, the means of tracing the geographical distribution and modification 

are at hand. If mingled, then the collection, though made at the same locality, will 

only confuse. Two such faunas meet at Owego, Tioga County, in distinct strata, but 

in rocks which are of similar lithologic character. One is a remnant of a prevailing 

western fauna, the other is an eastern and late stage of a new fauna.

Fifth. The classification of the rocks may receive local geographic .names; the 

classification of the biologic series should receive names derived from the names of 

species; ages defined by families, periods by genera, and epochs by species, or something of that kind, and these periods or ages will always adjust themselves to future 

discoveries.

Regarding the classification of the particular formations the following conclusions were reached, viz:

(1) The Devonian black shales occur in the strata from the Genesee shales upward, 

alternating with the normal deposits of the Portage and Cleveland shales and sandstones, and possibly higher, with modifications of the faunas, but run out at the 

eastern extremity of the area.

1 On the classification of the Upper Devonian, by Henry Shaler Williams, Ain. Ass. Adv. Sci. Proo., 

VOL 34,1885, pp. 232.
134 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

(2) The Portage rocks and faunas are local, the characteristics of each being unrecognizable east of the Cayuga section.

(3) The typical Portage formations of the Genesee section have quite a different 

set of species from the rocks occupying the same interval in the Cayuga section, while 

farther east the same interval is filled by rocks like the Catskill, called the Oneonta 

sandstones, etc.

(4) The "Ithaca group" contains a, modified Hamilton fauna, which differs from 

the Chemung fauna in the absence of some of its most characteristic species.

(5) The modified stages of the Hamilton fauna appearing above the Ge'uesee shale 

are confined to sections east of the Cauandaigua meridian.

(6) The Catskill deposits of Chenaugo and Otsego Counties are intrinsically not 

distinguishable from those of the higher stage called Catskill, but appear at a lower 

position, strati graphically, in the interval occupied by the "Ithaca group" of the 

Cayuga section, and by the middle part of the Portage group of the Genesee section; 

but paleontologically they are immediately preceded by stages of the same general 

fauna.

(7) The dominant and most characteristic species of the Chemung fauna appear 

stratigraphically earliest in the more western sections (D 4 of Girard and Chautauqua). 

This stage of the fauna appears in the upper part of the Chemung group in the eastern sections; and in the extreme part of the area this stage of the fauna is all that 

appears, and it is there represented by only a few specimens in the very upper strata 

just before the final incursion of the Catskill deposits. 1

'Op.cifc., p.234.
CHAPTER til

THE LOWER CARBONIFEROUS OR MISSISSIPPIAN SERIES: THE 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE NOMENCLATURE, AND CLASSIFICATION 

OF THE LOWER CARBONIFEROUS FQ&MATJONS' OP THE MISSISSIPPIAN PROVINCE.

The presence of the Carboniferous system in America wais early recognized by finding coal beds containing plants similar to those of the' 

Coal Measures of Europe ; but the determination of the lower and 

upper limits and the classification of the Carboniferous formations 

were matters of gradual development.

In the northern and central portions of the Appalachian province 

the interval between the marine Devonian formations and the Coal 

Measures is mainly filled by arenaceous deposits with few distinguishing fossils, and here the more interesting correlation problems were 

(concerning the termination of the Devonian.

In the Mississippian province the sedimentation introducing the CarIboniferous was strikingly different. A considerable series of lime-

 stones and calcareous shales, and a few sandstones intervene between 

ithe termination of the Silurian and the base of the coal-bearing strata 

;above. These rocks contain rich and varied fossil faunas, and their 

'Correlation and classification constitute one of the most important

 chapters in American geology. Kocks containing Devonian faunas are 

tfbund at the base of the series in some parts of the province, but in

 other sections they are missing. The formations resting upon the Devonian where these occur, and in other places upon the Silurian, are 

'characterized by fossils of Carboniferous age, and have heretofore gone 

mnder the names " Mountain limestone," " Carboniferous limestone," 

" Subcarbouiferous," and "Lower Carboniferous." Eo one of these 

mames is satisfactory, and as these formations are bound together by a 

^common general fauna and constitute a conspicuous feature in the 

; geology of this region, it is proposed to call them the Mississippian 

. series. This series may be defined stratigraphically as that series of 

irocks, prevailingly calcareous, which occupies the interval between the 

'Devonian system and the Coal Measures, and is typically developed in 

'the States forming the upper part of the valley of the Mississippi 

.Eiver, viz, Missouri, Illinois, and Iowa. The name is a slight modification in form and usage of a name proposed by Alexander Winchell in

1 The Marshall group, etc., Am. Phil. Soc., Froc., vol. 11, p. 70.

135
136 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BUM. 80.

He proposed "the use of the name " " Mississippi limestone series or 

Mississippi group" "as a geographical designation for the Carboniferous limestones of the United States which are so largely developed in 

the valley of the Mississippi liiver."

At the time this was written the Chouteau group of Broadhead was 

correlated with the Chemung group of the New York geologists, and one 

of the important results of Winchell's paper was the demonstration 

that the Chouteau group of Missouri, the Kiuderhook group of Illinois, 

the Waverly group of Ohio, and the Marshall group of Michigan were 

different types of a single formation of more recent age than the Chemung group of New York.

As the Carboniferous age of the Chouteau and Kinderhook faunas is 

fully established, it appears entirely appropriate to extend the limits of 

the Mississippian series so as to include all the formations containing 

Carboniferous faunas from the top of the Devonian to the base of the 

Coal Measuses. I have already proposed the use of the name in this 

sense in recent reports to the State geologists of Arkansas and Missouri.

As the nature of sedimentation is greatly determined by the geographical relations of ocean to shore lines, a brief description of the 

geographical conditions of the region during the upper Paleozoic is 

here appended.

At the opening of the Devonian period the Archean continental 

nucleus of the Northeast had been increased by a considerable border 

of Silurian formations. The borders of this land mass roughly defined 

extended from near the mouth of the Mackenzie Eiver southeastward 

to Lake Winnipeg, and as the line approached Lake Superior it was 

diverted westward, to what extent we do not know, as the more recent 

deposits cover the record. The shore line appears again running across 

the northeast corner of Iowa, thence eastward across Illinois, and there 

suddenly bends northward, forming a great bay, taking in the peninsular part of Michigan; thence eastward across Ontario, northern New 

York, and around the Catskill Mountains into New Jersey; thence with 

some interruptions south westward, forming an eastern shore for the 

Appalachian basin.

The Cincinnati uplift was probably an island for part of the Devonian period, and the Ozark uplift of southeastern Missouri formed another large island, which probably remained above water throughout 

the Carboniferous. Other islands may have furnished shores of erosion 

farther to the south and west. Thus from the beginning of the Devonian till the time of the general continental elevation which initiated the 

Coal Measures, the central part of the United States was a vast ocean 

basin. The sedimentation about the margins of this basin was prevailingly arenaceous and argillaceous, the formations are more varied, and 

it is in these margins that we find the best development of the Devonian system, both stratigraphically and faunally considered. As we 

approach the central portion of the basin the sedimentation is prevail-
WILLIAMS.] NUTTALL, OWEN. 137

iugly calcareous; and the strata representing the Devonian system become reduced in amount, and less varied in composition, and contains 

limited fauna; and, finally, in Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, and 

southern Missouri, a black shale only a few feet in thickness, with Liiigulas and rarely other fossils, is all that represents the complex stratigraphy and paleontology of the Devonian of New York. The "Black 

shale " has consequently assumed an important role in the correlations 

of the Mississippian series.

The upper termination of the series is marked by the more or less 

rapid change from calcareous to coarse arenaceous deposits, indicative 

of elevation and shore line sedimentation.

In the Appalachian province, Bogers's " Serai Conglomerate " has 

been adopted as the base of the Pennsylvania series of foul Measures, 

butin the Mississippian province, although the coal bedo are preceded by 

a greater or less thickness of arenaceous sediments, the delimitation

between the Mississippian and the Coal Measures, as we shall see. is 

not yet drawn with any great degree of precision.

Thomas Nuttall, in the year 1821, in the article referred to on p. 25, 

made the first allusion discovered in our literature to the limestone 

rocks of the Mississippi Valley as a formation possessing common characteristics. These limestones he rightly interpreted by recognizing in 

them the fossils of Martin's Petrifacta Derbiensis. It is not probable 

that he, any more than many geologists who immediately followed him, 

recognized the distinction between the true Carboniferous limestones 

and others of Silurian and of Devonian age. The fact that the limestones which he described as forming the calcareous platform of the 

Mississippi are conspicuously of Lower Carboniferous age, and that 

for years they went under the names "Mountain limestone," "Carboniferous limestone," and " Cliff limestone," is sufficient reason for giving 

special consideration to these Mississippi Carboniferous limestones.

It was D. D. Owen, however, who devoted careful study to the Mississipian series and first described and elaborated the details and proposed a distinct nomenclature and classification. His earlier views on 

the subject are found in the reports of the geological survey of Indiana. The first and second annual reports were published in 1839.1

In the first report Owen gave the general outlines of the system then 

in use in Europe as expressed in De la Beche's Manual, and constructed 

a section representing his interpretation of the rocks " along a line from 

Terre Haute running southeasterly toward that part of the Alleghany 

range which divides Tennessee from North Carolina," thus:

Bituminous coal formation.

Mountain limestone.

Grauwacke.

Crystalline and inferior stratified rocks.

1 Report of a Geological Reconnoissnnce of the State of Indiana made in the year 1837 in conformity 

to an order of the legislature. By David Dale Owen, M. D., geologist of the State, pp. 34, 1839.

Second Report of a Geological Survey of the State of Indiana made in tlie year 1838. By David 

Dale Owen, 1839.
:138 THE DEVONIAN AND CASBONirEROtfs. [BULL.so.

In the course of the survey a line was run along the Ohio Biver. and 

' the succession there is interpreted as follows:

tCoal formation. Seams of coal associated with beds of sandstone, shale, clay, and 

limestone.

'1. Oolitic limestone.

2. Encrinital strata, Siliceo-calcareous series with occasional beds 

of clay.

Subcarboniferous

group

3. Black bituminous aluminous slate.

4. Fossiliferous and inferior strata of the Subcarboniferous group, \ 

consisting of (1) Fossiliferons bed of Ohio Falls. (2) Waterlime and variegated strata. (3) Sand or burr stone. (4) Bluish or brownish limestone. \

On page 25 the rocks of the State are classified into three forma- l

fcions: ^

1. A bituminous coal formation.

2. A limestone formation (similar to the Mountain limestone of European 

geologists). i

3. A diluvium. \

In this report the Carboniferous group is restricted to the coal-bear- ~ 

ing rocks, or what is now called the Coal Measures.

All the fossiliferous rocks below the Coal Measures were called " Sub- v 

carboniferous." The author said:

To this group may with propriety be applied the name Subcarboniferous, as indicating its position immediately beneath the coal, or Carboniferous group of Indiana; 

[and in a foot .note], " The fossils generally coincide closely with those of the Carboniferous or Mountain limestone of Europe; but as no perfect seams of coal have ever 

yet been observed alternating with these deposits in this country, and as most of its 

fossils differ decidedly from those of the coal formation, it would seem to preclude, 

the possibility of including it, here at least, as some European geologists do their \ 

^Mountain limestone, in the Carboniferous group. * * * I prefer designating it by I" 

'.the term " Subcarboniferous," which merely indicates its position beneath the Car- ,

iboniferous group without involving any theory. 1

In the second report, published the same year, Owen briefly reported 

details for various counties of the State. The " Encrinital strata of 

Harrison County" are said to "correspond to the ' incrinital' of Dr. 

Troost" of the " well known iron region of Tennessee." The rocks, 

below the fossiliferous strata of the Falls of Ohio were correlated with \ 

the " Cliff strata" of Dr. Locke, of Ohio, and " most of the rapids and i 

falls in the State are produced by these cliff rocks." 2 And in the discussion of the rocks near Lockport and near Delphi, the author re-1 

marks: \

The whole of the rock formation which I have just been describing I consider as - 

belonging to the strata inferior to the black bituminous aluminous slate, including '' 

part, if not the whole, of the Cliff strata.

In the latter part of the report a comparison is made between the 

geological formations of Indiana and those of Ohio.

1 Eeport of a Geological Eeconnoissance of the State of Indiana made in the year 1837 in conformity 

to an order of the legislature. By David Dale Owen, M. D., geologist of the State, 1839, pp. 12,13.

2 Second Eeport of a Geological Survey of the State of Indiana made in the year 1838. By David 

Dale Owen, 1839, p. 17.
WILLIAMS.] OWEN. 139

1 The bituminous coal formation of Indiana is correlated with the coat 

fields of lower Missouri, northwestern Kentucky, and Ohio, thus :l

(

' INDIANA. OHIO.

Oolitic limestone (of Troost) ........... = "Conglomerate" of Locke.

' Tlio soft freestone of the Knobs......... = Waverly sauclatone rock, which caps the

hills bordering on the Scioto Valley, 

Ohio.

/ The black slate at the base of the Knobs = The shale stratum in " the base of the

hills capped with sandstone, bordering 

on the Scioto Valley."

Arenaceous and argillaceous limestone, = Cliff rocks, 

forming falls and cliffs in Madison 

County, on the Ohio Eiver, and on the 

' Upper Wabash, etc. 

Blue fossiliferous limestone............. = Blue fossiliferous limestone.

The whole of the series above described, from the bottom of the coal formation 

downward, that is, the Subcarboniferous group, has received the name of "Galeuif- 

/ erous limestone " from some geologists, because it has yielded in a few of the Western States an abundant supply of galena.

The next contribution Owen made was his report on the mineral lands 

of the United States, which first appeared as a Presidential message to 

the House of Representatives in 1840.2

As we glance over the introduction to this document we find that 

Owen regarded all the stratified rocks, from the Coal Measures downward, including the "Blue Fossiliferous limestone" (Cincinnati limestone), as belonging to the Mountain limestone of the English geolo- 

, gists. For the States of Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee this 

( Mountain limestone was represented by him under the following sub- 

\ (divisions:3

Pentremital limestone, light-colored limestone, sometimes oolitic. 

Fine-grained sandstone in Knobs. * 

Black bituminous shale.

Thick beds of yellowish limestone, Cliff limestone of the West. 

i Blue fossiliferous shell limestone in thin beds with marlite.

| Of these the Cliff limestone was dominant in Iowa and Wisconsin, 

/ and the other members were absent or greatly diminished, as in the 

case of the Blue limestone, so that in Iowa and Wisconsin the following subdivisions were observed:4

Pentremital limestone. 

, Cliff limestone. 

Blue limestone.

1 Geol. Surv. Ind., 2d Report, pp. 39-45.

 « " Mineral Lands of the United States. Message from tbe President of the United States in reply to 

tiinesolution of the House of Representatives, February 6, 1840. House of Representatives, Executive Document "No. 239, Twenty-sixth Congress, first session."

Report on a geological exploration of part of Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois, made under instructions 

from the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, in the autumn of the year 1839, by D. D. 

Owen, M. D., principal ageut to explore the mineral lauds of the United States, pp. 9-1CO.

3 Ibid., diagram 4, op. p. 14.

4 Ibid., diagram 6.
140 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

The sandstones below the blue limestone were regarded as equiva- , 

lents of the Old Eed sandstone.

Another table exhibits the folio wing classification of the rocks of 

Iowa and Wisconsin: /

Coal formation ...................................Coal, shale, grit, and slaty clays , with ironstone. 

I" Cliff limestone.

Carboniferous or Mountain limestone formation.. ^^aS^^Sdwhite Old Redformation(?)........................... [ J sandstone and Magnesian lime- ;

I,Red sandstone. (?)

John Locke, in a report accompanying Owen's report, stated that he 

had used the term." Cliff limestone" in the Ohio report (1858), adopting it 

as a provisional name "from the inhabitants on the Miami above Dayton, Ohio." He gave a list of synonyms: 1

Galeniferous limestone, Featherstonhaugh.

Cornutiferous limestone, Eaton.

Magnesian limestone, Keating and Shepherd. .

Mountain limestone, Ohio Reports. \

Cliff limestone.

The name " Cliff limestone" is adopted in this paper as a synonymous 

term for the " Scar limestone" of Phillips's Geology as it appeared in v 

the seventh edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

This report was printed on the 4th of June, 1840, without the accompanying charts, sections, and illustrations, and transmitted to the 

House of Eepresentatives. It was revised, and the public edition was 

ordered by the Senate to be printed June 1,1844. The executive document of the House (No. 239) appears to be the first edition unrevised, > 

and there were ordered printed (February 25, 1843) 5,000 extra copies \ 

for the use of the House. /

Some important revisions first appearing in the Senate document < 

are as follows:

First, a modification of the classification, expressed in a table giving 

a comparative view of the correspondence between the New York and 

English surveys, modified from Hall's table of formations in the Final ; 

Eeport on the Fourth District of New York, published in 1843. In the ! 

table of the 1844 edition the "Blue limestone" is the equivalent of the \ 

Trenton limestone, Utica slate, and Hudson Eiver groups of the New 

York system. The "Cliff limestone" was recognized in part as the 

equivalent of the Clinton group, Niagara group, the Onondaga, and the 

Corniferous limestones of the New York system. The " Black slate " of 

Ohio and Indiana was the equivalent of the Marcellns shale of New 

York, and the Waverly sandstone and " fine-grained sandstone of the 

Knobs'' were considered as the equivalents of the Portage and Che1 " Mineral Lands of the United States. Message from the President of the United States in reply to 

a resolution of the HouHe of Representatives, February 6, ]840. House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. j 

No. 239, Twenty-sixth Congress, first session." j

Report on a geological exploration of part of Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois, made under instruc- s 

tions from the Secretary of the Treasury of tho United States, in the autumn of the year 1839, by x 

D. D. Owen, M. D., principal agent to explore the mineral lands of the United Stares, pp. 116,117.
WILLIAMS.] OWEN. 141

/ mung groups. Owen subsequently changed these last two correlations.

In a footnote 1 Owen mentioned Hall's substitution of the term Niagara for " Cliff limestone," and on page 28 of the same document he 

stated:

A review of fclie fossils of the region under consideration proves, however, that the 

Cliff formation of Iowa and Wisconsin is, in poiut of fact, the American equivalent 

1 of the Upper and. perhaps of part of the Lower Silurian formations of Murchisou.'2

Owen introduced another distinction which is of great importance,

but would scarcely be noticed were we not watching for it. In the

House edition of the report, the table giving the rocks of Iowa and

Wisconsin has "Carboniferous or Mountain limestone" for the rocks

/below the Coal Measures,3 and the revised edition 4 has " Subearboniferous limestone or Protozoic rocks" in its place, and on page 32 is

added a clause describing the " Carboniferous limestone of Iowa."

jlnder this heading the author included the reddish limestones of Bock-

/ ingham, Iowa,5 and some dark encrinital layers near Stevenson, Illinois.

The "white limestones " of the same part of the State the author 

reported as contemporaneous Avith the " shell beds " on the Falls of the 

Ohio, and as representing by their fossils the Onondaga, Corniferous, 

Marcellus, and Hamilton groups of New York.

The geological chart 6 has a legend which gives the following classification for the part of the scale here under consideration:

Northwest margin of Great Illinois coal field.

Subcarboniferous limestone. 

' Shell stratum. 

! Cliff rocks of the West ...... .....=....................... ? < Coralline beds.

\ Upper Magnesian limestone ............................... i c Lead-bearing beds.

'iBlue Fossiliferous limestone. 

' Etc.

On comparing the two editions of the report it becomes evident that

a study of Hall's report of the Fourth District of New York, in which a

i comparison is made with Murchison's Silurian system, convinced Owen

'that his " Cliff limestone and Blue limestone" were representatives of

Silurian rocks.

In the Senate edition of the report as published in 1844, Owen stated:

A review of the fossils of the region under consideration proves that the Cliff 

formation of Iowa and Wisconsin is, in point of fact, the American equivalent of the 

/ Upper, and perhaps of part of the Lower, Silurian formation of Murchison.

It will be remembered that at this time the Lower Devonian, as far 

up as the Hamilton formation inclusive, was identified with the Silurian

1 Senate Document 407, page 23. 

1 2 He had just remarked upon the identity of the Cliff limestone of America with the Scar limestone

' of England.

I » Doc. 239, p. 22.

j « Senate Doc. 407, XXVIIIth Congress, first session, pp. 27-32.

i s Previously called Archimedes beds. 

 1 B PI. 3 of the Senate document.
142 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

of Murchison.1 And the identification of the fossils of the Cliff limestone in lowa^ Falls of Ohio, and Illinois, with species of the Onondaga, 

Corniferous limestones, Marcellus shale, and Hamilton group of New 

York, was strictly in accordance with the statement above quoted.

I find no evidence in this report of the recognition of the Black 

shale.

The name " Subcarboniferous limestone," thus introduced by Owen 

in the Indiana reports of 1839, was again used in the second edition of 

the " Mineral Lands," and in his final report of 1852 was adopted as the 

name for the lower division of the Carboniferous rocks of Iowa. Owen 

considered it the equivalent of the Yoredale series and the Lower Scar 

limestone of the English geologists.

As we shall see elaborated beyond, Swallow retained the old name 

" Carboniferous or Mountain limestone " in the Missouri reports of 1855. 

Hall in the Iowa reports of 1858 retained " Carboniferous limestone." 

In 1859, in volume 3 of the Paleontology of New York, " Great Carbon-, 

iferous limestone of the Mississippi Valley " is used. Owen in the Ken-i 

tucky report of 1856 continued to use " Subcarbouiferous limestone," 

and Worthen in the Illinois reports of 1866 and later used Owen's 

name "Subcarboniferous." Thus the name became established in 

American literature. Not only is it inappropriate for the purpose to 

which it is applied, but it is evident that it was introduced as an expression of confusion and "dissatisfaction with the correlation attempted. It probably never would have appeared except for the erroneous correlation of the " Cliff limestone " of the Mississippi Valley 

with the " Scar limestone " of England. " Scar limestone" was Sedgwick's name for the Carboniferous limestone of the Lake district and 

Yorkshire] "Cliff" was the American name for "Scar," but the "Cliff 

limestone" of the Mississippi Valley was found to be, some of it certainly, not Carboniferous, and all of it below the coal-bearing strata, 

and the prefix " sub " was attached to indicate these facts.

Although we have come thoroughly to understand the application of 

the name, the substitution of the Mississippian series for it will not, 

it is believed, do violence to the honor of the early geologists or to the j 

rights ot the present and future geologists who will adopt the nomeu- \ 

clature best suiting their purposes.

In 1847 D. D. Owen and J. Gr. Norwood published a paper entitled 

" Eesearches among the Protozoic and Carboniferous rocks of Central 

Kentucky, made during the summer of 1846." This was noticed in the 

American Journal of Science.

The reviewer remarked :s

Most if not all of the groups of rocks which occur in New York, from the Geuesee 

slate to the top of the Catskill range, are deficient or obscurely marked in the west, 

and the Carboniferous rocks rest almost immediately on the schistose beds which

represent the Genesee slate; whilst our black slate, and the underlying shell beds of 

 

1 See Geol., Fourth Dist. New York, p. 20. 2 Ain. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 5,1847, p. 2C9. !
VERNEUIL, OWEtf. 143

the Falls of Ohio, with the Goniatite limestone of Kockford, Jack

' as well as the upper shales of Perry County, Tennessee, are the represeiitatiLvee. of fiJW 

Devonian system of Europe. j

The reviewer further states: "The Knob region, Indiana, Kentucky;, 

Tennessee, Illinois, and Ohio, above the black slate, they show to correspond to the Carboniferous rocks." l

In 1847, M, de "Veraeuil called attention to the necessity of changing : 

, the limits of the Cliff limestone and Blue limestone of the Ohio reports. 

He regarded the upper part of the Cliff limestone as equivalent to the Devonian system of Europe. He announced (in this paper,2 for the'flrst - 

time, I believe), that "le grand e"tage des psammites, situe" au-dess$tis> 

da gr&s houilleret du ealcaire de montagne, la ou il existe, et que rfom 

appelait Dtivouieu, devait <ltre range" dans le systeme carbon ifere."3

Later in the same year, in his paper entitled "Note sur le paral!6- 

lisme, etc.," he elaborated the same idea.4

f In the same year, after a visit to this country, M. Verneuil published 

j1ii8 important paper in the Bulletin of the Socie'te' g6ologique de France,5 

on the parallelism of Paleozoic rocks. This paper is discussed in a previous chapter (see p, 68). M. de VerneuiPs most important contributions 

to the correlation of the Mississippiah series were his positive recognition of the Waverly group of Ohio as Carboniferous, and Ms demonstration that all the formations from the top of the Black shales n/pwaffdj 

and inclusive e>f the so-called " Carboniferous limestone," for Indiian% 

Kentucky, Tennessee, and the corresponding beds in the Mississippi! 

Talley, were of Carboniferous age.

O\?enys final report did not appear till 1852, but he presented an abstract of its- contents before the American Association in 1851.6 After: 

outlining the lower and " metalliferous rocks " of these States, he mentioned the occurrence i» Bed Eiver Valley of a " Magnesian limestone,"' 

followed by a calcareous formation which he called "Devonian." This, 

was traced westward to Iowa City, thence southeast to the Mississippi! 

Eiver. Between Johnson and Iowa Counties is found an uplift of " Carboniferiousi sandstone," and " Carboniferious limestone" occurs along. 

the Iowa Eiver, which runs on the extreme eastern margin of the coal' 

field. From Iowa Eiver the Carboniferous rocks bear south through 

Washington, Henry, and Lee Counties, crossing the Des Moines Eiver 

and Iowa into Missouri.

'The original article reviewed I have not seen. H. S. W.

2 Lottre sur U geologie des Utats-Unis. By M. Ed. de Verneuil. Soo. g6ol. France, Bull., n, vol. 4, 

pp. 12, 13,

3 Page 12.

« Pages 646-687.

6 ' ' Note aur le parall^lisme des roches des d6p6ts pa!6ozolques del'Amerique Septentrionale aveo 

ceux ilel'Europo, snivi d'un tableaq. dus especes fossiles communes aux deux continents, aveo I'indication des 6ta.^es oti elles s,e rencQutrent pt termine par un exaruen critique de chacune de ces esp'jices." Soc. g6ol. Prance, Bull, , JI, yol. 4, pp. 646.-709,

"Owen.B.D. . Abstract of an introduction to tfte flnal report on the Geological Surveys madeitt 

AVisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, in the years 1847-185Q, ppn$ajping a eyaopsis of the geologic features of the country. Proc. Amer. A8s.qc., vpl. 5j 1851, pp. 11
144 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

The coal field of Missouri and Iowa covers about 35,000 square miles. 

This western field is very shallow, consisting of three well marked divisions (1) an upper siliceous, 100 feet; (2) middle argillaceous, 75 feet; 

(3) lower calcareous, 100 feet. The middle division carries the coal, 

the coal layers having a thickness of four or five feet.

Passing from the mouth of Iowa Eiver to that of the Des Moines, the 

" Subcarboiiiferous limestone" occurs "with no coal seams." There the 

Mississippi passes through a corner of the Illinois coal field. The limestone thins out here and the Coal Measures rest on "the limestones ol 

Devonian age." At the junction of the Missouri and Mississippi, " Carboniferous limestone" is found which just underlies the lowest workable seam of the Illinois field.

In the same year, in association with B. F. Shumard, Owen published 

some statistics regarding the fossils obtained during the survey.1

The authors found in the Devonian rocks of these States 49 species, 

included in 26 genera, and in the Carboniferous 120 species, included in 

49 genera.

" Of the above genera 5 are peculiar to the Devonian and 36 to the 

Carboniferous." * * * " Eight genera are common to the Silurian 

and Devonian, 10 to the Silurian and Carboniferous, 10 to the Devonian 

and Carboniferous, and 9 are common to the three systems."

Two-thirds of the 39 species from the Devonian rocks between Parkhurst and New Buffalo, on the Upper Mississippi, are identical with 

those found in the coralline beds of the falls of the Ohio at Louisville 

and Charleston Landing, Indiana. "Thirteen species are identical 

with European forms."

Twenty-four of the 120 Carboniferous species found mainly in Iowa, 

are identical with European species. While over one-half of the Brachiopoda are identical with (" can be referred to") European species,

only two out of 52 Crinoids are common to the two countries.

Polyparia are most abundant in the Devonian, while Acephala are 

most numerous in Carboniferous rocks.

Mr. H. King,2 in 1851, published a paper in which he commented upon 

a section running from St. Louis southwest to Iron Mountain and Pilot 

Knob. He observed that above the so-called " Mountain limestone " or 

" Yoredale limestone," upon which St. Louis stands, occurs a coal bed 

having an average thickness of 4 feet. This coal deposit is not an outliner of the Illinois coal basin, but a continuation of'it. Passing over 

the southern point of this basin, we meet again the " Mountain limestone " which the author for convenience named " St. Louis limestone; " 

he considered it, both from its position and fossils, as strictly Carboniferous. Its thickness was estimated to be between 500'and 600 feet.

1 Owen, D. D., and B. F. Shumard: On the number and distribution of fossil species in the Paleozoic rooks of Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Am. Assoc. Proc., vol. 5, 1851, pp. 235-239.

2 King, H.: Some remarks on the geology of the State of Missouri. Am. Assoc., Proe., vol. 5,1851, 

pp. 182-199.
WILLIAMS/ KING, CHRISTY. 145

Below this limestone occurs a siliceous sandstone, from 40 to 100 feet 

thick, which rests upon the second important coal deposit of Missouri, 

consisting of two beds, sometimes thinning out to a single bed, resembling very much the upper deposit near St. Louis. This is again 

underlaid by another limestone, some two or three hundred feet thick, 

and "of Devonian aspect," but with the majority of its fossils Carboniferous, All that portion of the State lying northwest, north, and east 

of the line starting on the western boundary of the State, near the 

headwaters of Sac River; thence northeasterly to the junction of the 

Sac and Osage Eivers; thence to Warsaw and northeasterly to the 

Missouri River, a few miles west of Jefferson City to Salt Eiver, is 

classified as " Carboniferous." From thence the line runs south to the 

Missouri River, to a point opposite our starting place.

Mr, D. Christy,1 in 1851, gave account of the Goniatite limestone of 

Eockford, Indiana. The author, having sent a few Goniatites fromRock-

, ford to M. de Verneuil, was informed by him that they were " Carboniferous fossils," identical in age with the supposed Mountain limestone of 

Belgium ai\d England. Dr. D. D. Owen, who had also presented him 

with some Goniatites from this locality, had reported that they came 

from the Black slate beneath the Cliff limestone. But further examination proved, as .was suggested by M. de Verneuil, that they came 

from the " Gouiatite limestone."

In the vicinity of Queensville unmistakable evidence was found that 

it was " central in the Black slate" and "above the Cliff limestone." 

Hence " should the European classification be adopted, this would require us to bring down our range of Carboniferous rocks to within 30

 feet of the Cliff.limestone."

In a note which appeared in the Proceedings of the American Association 2 Mr. Christy reported that " M. de Yerneuil had remarked in one 

of his letters that these Goniatites, in the structure of their septa, present

j a curious blending of the forms of the Carboniferous and Devonian

I Goniatites, which makes them exceedingly interesting; hence his 

anxiety to ascertain their true geological position."

This note reveals to us the method applied at this early date by de 

Verneuil in the correlation of geological formations. He already appreciated the historical (or perhaps chronological will more accurately 

express it) relations of the morphological characters of fossils.

Fosisils were not merely "medals of creation" to him, they were 

remains of organisms which had lived; similarity suggested genetic 

relationship. 

In 1852, Owen published his final report.3

'Christy D.: On the Goniatite limestone of Rockford, Jackson County, Indiana. Am.Assoc., 

Free., vol. 5, 1651, pp. 76-80.

" Am. Assoo. Adv. Sci., Proc.,vol. 5, p. 180.

8 Report of a geological survey of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, and incidentally of a portion of 

Nebraska and Tennessee, by D. D. Owen, United States geologist.

Bull. 80 10
146 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. IDULL. 80.

The following generalized section of the " Subcarboniferous limestones of Iowa" appears in this report.1

Feet. 

'/' Upper concretionary limestone ............................ 25

e'. Gritstones contains Lepidodendra, Catamites, etc ......... 5

d'. Lower concretionary limestone Lithostrontian, etc., compact white, usually concretionary, ruagnesian in places, in, 

TT *««,. aar.ioc, ) eluding the more evenly bedded limestones of St. Louis, 

Upper series. <; with .Metonitea, etc ..................................... 30

c'. Gritstone...... .......................................... 10

a V. Magnesiau limestone reticulate corals and Terebratula

Roy mi............. .................................... 10

a'. Geodiferous bed ......................................... 30

'/ Archimedes limestone, a thin bedded, light gray limestone 

Spiri/ers, Terebratula Royssii, Ortliis, etc................. 50

a e. Shell beds gray crystalline limestone, Spirifer striatus, 

< ouspidatus, rotundus, Productus punctatus, and semireticulatus, etc.........................'...................... 15

a d. Kepkuk cherty limestone ................................. 15

,§ c. Reddish brown Eucrinital group of Hannibal, Mo., alternating with bands of chert, at base white, crystalline,

Lower series. ^ and semi-oolitic Productus com, tipirifer cuspidatus, etc. 70 

o ft. Encrinital group of Burlington, top brown and flesh 

colored encrinital limestone, with Pentremites and Crinoids, various beds of limestone, argillaceous and magnesian ................................................... 60

a. Argillo-calcareous group, Evans's Falls, at the top a finegrained buff siliceous rock, containing casts of Chonetes, 

Posidonomya, Allorisma, Spirifer, and Phillipsia ; Middle, 

ash-colored, earthy marlites...........................1 70

The author described under the name u Cedar Eiver limestone formation " the limestones of Eed Cedar and Iowa Eiver Valleys, Iowa, and 

referred them to the Devonian age.2

On the map the legend classifies this "formation of Cedar Yalley" 

as follows:

Upper Coralloid limestone. 

Middle shell beds. 

Lower Coralline beds.

Hamilton and Ouondaga limestone.

to. ....n.

(a.

The author recorded no evidence of the Black shale in the States 

reported upon.

In the fall of 1855 G. C. Swallow, as State Geologist, published the 

" first and second annual reports of the Geological Survey of Missouri." 

The first annual report was made in 1853, but was merely a short report 

of progress.

In the Survey work, F. Hawn, G. C. Pratt, G. C. Broadhead, B. F. 

Shumard, and F. B. Meek assisted. Dr. Litton furnished a chemical 

report on some of the principal mines. The maps and charts were 

drawn by E. B. Price. Messrs. Meek, Hawn, and Shumard each furnished reports on the special work assigned him, and the classification 

in the main report is in some cases at least suggested by the studies of 

these assistants. In the generalized section, opposite page 60, the following classification of the Upper Paleozoic is given :

1 Keport of a geological survey of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, and incidentally of a portion of 

Nebraska and Tennessee, by D. D. Owen, United States geologist.

2 Ibid., p. 77,
WILLIAMS.! THE FIEST MISSOURI REPORT. 147

Feet. 

f ( Upper Coal series. .......... 275

Coal Measures, e;. . . < Middle Coal series .......... 225

( Lower Coal series. .......... 140

System III. Carboniferous <( /. Ferruginous Sandstone.... 195

9" St> Louis limestone ...... 200

t ^Sfflffisr:::: SS

;'. Chouteau limestone. ..... 70

Chemung ...... ....

[l. Lithographic'iimeVtone":: 60

p. Hamilton group...... .... 50

TO. Onoudaga limestone ..... 75

Coal Measures is overlaid by <f, Drift, and the Onondaga limestone is underlaid by Delthyris shaly limestone. The term " Ferruginous 

sandstone " appears to have been first applied here in a technical sense 

and defined by Prof. Swallow1 and first applied to the rocks in the bluff

near Salt Creek, Sulphur Springs, near Oseeola. St. Louis limestone 

had been used as a general term, and was technically applied by Dr. O wen 

as a discovery of Dr. Shumard in 1849. Archimedes limestone had been 

used already by Dr. D. D. Owen in 1852. The name Eucrinital limestone was also suggested by Owen in 1852, who spoke of the Encriuital 

group of Hannibal, Missouri, which was also Swallow's typical locality.2 

Prof. Swallow applied the name "Chemung" to the group of strata 

including the Chouteau limestone, Vermicular sandstone and shales, 

and Lithographic limestone. It is placed stratigraphically at the base 

of the Carboniferous system. In a foot-note he says : 3

There is some difference of opinion respecting the system to which this group belongs, but if we make a division of the Missouri rocks into Devonian and Carboniferous, the lino of separation most distinctly marked is between the Encrinital and 

Chouteau limestones.

Six pages later a new section begins with the following :

System IV, Devonian. Two formations of this system exist in Missouri: Hamilton 

group, Onondaga limestone.

Mr. Meek, stated in his report that the stratigraphical position of j, 7c, 

and I, " taken in connection with their organic remains, leaves little 

room to doubt that they represent the Chemung group of New York," 

and "I am far from considering it a settled question that we should not 

carry up tins Devonian so as to take in the Ohouteau limestone."4

As well as the fact can be determined by the literature, Prof. Swallow was the first to correlate these rocks with the Chemung group of 

New York. The rocks themselves had been included in the Carboniferous by Owen in 1852, under the name "Argillo-calcareous group of 

Evans Falls." Neither Messrs. Swallow nor Meek was fully satisfied in 

placing them in the Devonian. But it was James Hall who settled the 

correlation by identifying Owen's lk Argillaceous group" of Iowa with the 

Chemung (Devonian) of New York, and recognized the same formation 

in the section at Hannibal, Mo. This was in harmony with his correla1 Owen's Report, pt. 1, pp. 91, 92. 2 Ibid. pt. 1, p. 101. 3 Ibid., pt. 1, p. 101. < Ibid., pt. 2, p. 103.
148 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

tion of the Waverly with the Chemung.1 Later, when Mr. Meek had 

become better acquainted with fossils, he corrected the mistake.

"Chouteau group," the name proposed later by Mr. Broadhead in 1879, 

is a proper designation for the rocks in question, and had Swallow proposed it in 1855, the name Kinderhook group would have been superfluous.

In the report of the Geological Survey in Kentucky,2 made in 1854 

and 1855, by D. D. Owen, principal geologist, and printed in 1856, the 

"Anvil Kock " is named and denned.

The name is applied to a massive sandstone separating the Lower 

Coal Measures from the Upper Coal Measures of southwestern Ken. 

tucky. The title is a popular one originally applied to an immense mass 

of the sandstone, which has somewhat the form of an anvil, in Union 

County, Kentucky, a figure of which is given.3 The name was extended 

to the sandstone formation of which this rock was a part.

In this volume the term " Subcarboniferous" is applied to the limestone below, separated from the Coal Measures by sandstones, shales, 

and conglomerates, which together are regarded as representing the 

" Millstone grit." The " Subcarbouiferous " includes "Archimedes limestone" of the Dismal Creek section and "limestones with Peutremites 

and Archimedes " of other sections.

The author 4 subdivides the " Subcarboniferous" into 

1. Archimedes and Pentremital limestone.

2. Lithostrontion or Barren limestone group.

3. The lower part of this is more argillaceous and may constitute a third division.

4. Suhcarhoniferous sandstone (Jefferson and Bullitt Counties). This is the 

Knob formation. Under this lies the "Black Lingula shale," " Coralline 

Falls limestone," " Chain Coral and Maguesian limestone," and " Blue Shell

limestone marl."

In 1856,5 in the Subcarboniferous limestones near Warsaw, A. H. < 

Worthen discovered the remains of fish in considerable abundance, and I 

later two other beds were found lower down in the series. '

The upper fish bed is situated in the Lower Archimedes limestone, 

the fossil remains consisting entirely of palate teeth. At the base of 

this limestone is the middle bed, in which the more abundant remains 

are mostly jaw teeth, with a few palate teeth and spines.

The lower bed was first observed in Quincy, Illinois, near the top of 

the Burlington Crinoidal limestone, and subsequently in Henderson 1 

County, Illinois, and at Augusta, Iowa. As the fossil remains in this 

bed are much smaller than those mentioned above, the author inferred

1 See (Jeol. of Iowa, vol 1.

2 Report of the geological survey in Kentucky, made in 1851 aud 1855. By D. D. Owen, principal 

geologist, Frankfort, Kentucky, 1856.

3 Ibid., PI. in, opp. p. 45. 

* Ibid., pp. 81,82,89,90, 91, 95, 97,98.

6 Worthen, A. H.: On the occurrence of fiah remains in the carboniferous limestone of Illinois. Am. 

ABSOC., Proc., vol. 10, pt. 2,1856, pp. 189-102.
WILLIAMS.] JAMES HALL. 149

that the Subcarboniferous fish increased greatly in size during this period. In the southern extension of the Pentremital and Archimedes 

limestone, into Tennessee and Alabama, these remains are exceedingly 

rare.

In 1856 James Hall 1 read a paper before the American Association, 

an abstract of which was published in the American Journal of Science. 

His object was "to show that there are certain well marked subdivisions in the Carboniferous limestone of the Mississippi Valley."

The article appears to be a preliminary account of chapters which 

appeared later in his Eeport on the Geology of Iowa.

In the following table are expressed the correlations which he proposed, showing the " true order of superposition among the different 

members of the limestone series:"

VII. Coal Measures. 

VI. Kaskaskia, limestone, or Upper ? - ( Kaskaskia and Chester, St. Mary's,

Archimedes limestone. > i Missouri. 

V. Gray, brown, or ferruginous sand- ) (Below St. Geuevieve, Missouri. Bestone, overlying the limestones > of < tween Prairie du Eocher and Kaskasof Alton and St. Louis. ) ( kia, Illinois. 

IV. "St. Louiu limestone," or "Con- > - < St. Louis; highest beds helow Keocretiouary limestone." $ c kuk. Alton; St. Geuevieve. 

III. "Arenaceous bed," Warsaw or ? »< Warsaw and above Alton, Illinois;

Second Archimedes limestone. $ \ Keokuk, Iowa.

" Maguesian limestone," Spergen .Hill, Bloomington, Iowa. 

Beds of passage, soft shaly or marly bed with geodes of quartz, chalcedony, etc.

II. Keokuk limestone, or Lower AT- > . ( Tr--1r ,,v A ;., m; - «.«. chimedes limestone. $ of \ Keokuk> Quincy, Illinois, etc.

Beds of passage, cherty beds 60 to 100 feet. Eapids above Keokuk.

The formations I to VI, inclusive, constituted the " Carboniferous 

limestone;" next below them he reported the

Oolitic limestone and argillaceous ) 

sandstone of the age of the Chemung > of 

group of New York. )

He correlated the "Argillo-calcareous group" of Owen and the 

"Chouteau limestone" of Shumard and Swallow with the "Chemung 

group " of New York, stating that " the higher beds contain the same 

fossils as the Chemung group of New York and elsewhere, and have 

been carefully traced throughout the intermediate space." 2

He thought the "green shale" 6f the Burlington section and the 

"ash-colored earthy marlites" of Evans Falls "should be referred to 

the Portage group. * * * It is likewise probable that the lithographic limestone of Prof. Swallow will be found more closely allied 

to the Hamilton than to the Chemung group."

The name "Burlington limestone" was proposed to include what 

Owen had called the "encrinital group of Burlington," and "reddish1 Hall, James: On the Carboniferous limestones of the Mississippi Valley. (Abstract.) Am. Jour. 

Sci., vol. 23,1857, pp. 187- 2D3. 

3 Ibid., p. 189.
150 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

brown encrinital group of Hannibal," and what Swallow and Shumard 

had called the " encrinal limestone " in Missouri.

Owen's name "Keokuk cherty limestone," with " cherty " omitted, 

is adopted for the next division, and the author writes, " the so-called 

siliceous formations of Tennessee and Alabama are of the same strata." 1 

This division includes the three divisions d, e, and/of Owen's classification, viz, the " Keokuk cherty limestone,77 the " shell beds," and the 

"Archimedes limestone."

Omitting the " Geodiferous bed" of Owen as " beds of passage," 2 Hall 

applied the name " Warsaw or Second Archimedes limestone" to the 

"Magnesian limestone" and "Gritstone" of Owen. The next higher 

division is called the " St. Louis limestone."

D. D. Owen, in a letter 3 to M. de Yerneuil, referred to the discovery by 

Shumard of the "St. Louis limestone" which, Owen thought, "belonged 

in the lower part of the Carboniferous limestone." This appears to be 

the earliest announcement of the St. Louis limestone in the scientific 

sense. The name was definitely proposed and defined by Dr. H. King 

of St. Louis in 1851,4 and in Owen's table the " lower concretionary 

limestone " includes the " limestone of St. Louis."

Above the St. Louis limestone is reported the " Ferruginous sandstone " of Missouri. Owen did not report such a member, but for the 

overlying limestone series (composed of heavy-bedded limestones, and 

generally alternating with <marl, shale, limestones, and a few beds of 

sandstone), Hall proposed the name "Kaskaskia limestone or Upper 

Archimedes limestone." This formation was found both at Kaskaskia 

and at Chester, Illinois, and below St. Genevieve in Missouri, and according to A. H. Worthen had been examined, its position clearly determined, and reported upon under the name " Chester limestone " 5 by 

himself in 1853. It is probable that Owen did not recognize this higher 

limestone, and that his "/, upper concretionary limestone," may be only 

a continuation of the " lower concretionary," df, separated from it by a 

more or less local sandstone, e'.

Evidence was given of extensive denudation previous to the coal 

period, and the author mentioned as consequences of this ancient denudation, the coal deposits in depressions among the inclined strata of 

the Silurian rocks; also rounded masses of clay found in the limestones 

of the Hamilton and Upper Helderberg groups, and he concluded from 

examination that these masses of clay and coal deposits were made 

subsequently to the deposition of the limestone, filling cavities caused 

by denudation.

In conclusion, a few words express the general features of the series

1 Hall, James: On the Carboniferous limestones of the Mississippi Valley. (Abstract.) Am. Jour. 

Sci., vol.23, 1857, p. 190.

2 In the final Keport on the Geology of Iowa, 1858, this bed is included with the Keokuk limestone, 

p. 96,

3 Dated January 14,1819, and published in the Bull. Soc. g6ol. Prance, II, vol. 6, pp. 419-441. 

4 Proc. Am. ABSOC. Adv. Sci., vol. 5, p. 185. 

6 See Geol. of Illinois, vol. 1, p. 41.
wn.LUMB.1 OWEN, -SWALLOW. 151

of limestones on the south of the Ohio Eiver. All the members of these 

limestones thin out, with the exception of the u Kaskaskia limestone," 

which predominates over the whole country, and is there the great 

" Carboniferous limestone."

In 1857 Owen 1 recognized the following classification at the Falls of 

Ohio : 2

1. Black bituminous shale.

2. Upper Crinoidal, shell, and coralline limestones above.

3. Hydraulic limestone.

4. Lower Crinoidal, shell, and coralline limestones.

5. Ollvanites bed.

6. /Spin/era gregaria and shell and coralline beds.

7. Maiu beds of coral limestone, resting upon the "chain coral limestone" 

(Niagara).

In the base of No. 2, on Conn Island, fish remains were found, and 

this stratum is called the " Upper Fish bed." A lower fish bed was seen 

at the base of No. 6, called the " Turbo bed " in general, the subdivisions of which are given as follows of Nos; 6 and 7:

fou n i A $ A. Conocardium ted. ...../................ .............inches.. 7

| Shell beds J B Leptasna bed ..................................... .....f^t.. 6

6. <{ Parting chert layers...... ...................................... ......do... 3

I Coral layers .........................................................do... 7

hard rock ...................................................... do... 2

This rests upon the (Niagara) "chain coral bed."

G. C. Swallow 3 gave a brief description of the formations of Missouri 

and the contained minerals. He reported that the stratified rocks of 

Missouri belong to the following divisions, enumerated in descending 

order :

I. Quaternary.

II. Tertiary.

III. Cretaceous.

IV. Carboniferous.

V. Devonian.

VI. Silurian.

In giving a detailed account of each system, he considered the Carboniferous as presenting the following divisions :

(1) Upper Carboniferous or Coal Measures.

(2) Lower Carboniferous or Mountain Limestone.

The upper series is made up of sandstones, limestones, and shales, 

amounting to 1,500 feet in thickness, containing numerous beds of iron 

ore and ten beds of workable coal. The lower series, about 1,745 feet 

in thickness,, includes " Chester limestone," "Ferruginous sandstone," 

" St. Louis limestone," "Archimedes limestone."

1 Geological survey of Kentucky, second annual report, 1857.

2 Ibid., p. 97.

8 (Explanations of the geological map of Missouri, and a section of its rocks. Froc. Amer. Assoc., 

vol. 11, pt. 2, 1857, pp. 1-21.
15.2 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

In the report of the geological survey of Iowa, a systematic study of 

the fossils of the Mississippian series was applied in the differentiation 

of the several formations. 1

The geological formations of the upper Paleozoic were classified in 

the following manner by James Hall :

Above the Le Claire limestone comes a hydraulic, drab-colored limestone and shales with cavities, called the " Onondaga salt group"; next 

above this a limestone, gray and ash-colored, subcrystalline, also containing cavities, and with shaly partings, called the " Upper Helderberg;" following this is an argillaceous limestone or calcareous shale 

called the " Hamilton," which in some places is an alternation of calcareous shales and limestones, but is said to be more calcareous at the 

bottom. A stratum 10 to 15 feet thick at Eockingham and New Buffalo is called the " Encrinal limestone." Next above are shales and 

soft sandstones, as at Pine Creek, called* the "Chemung." The order 

observed at this last mentioned place for the Chemung is " shaly limestone, green shale, sandy beds, yellow sandstone." At Davenport, 

Burlington, etc., the Chemung is described as "gray and yellow sandstone with shaly partings." Sometimes it is underlain by green shales, 

which are called the "Portage group." 2

The typical section of this part of the series is at Burlington, Iowa.3 

It is as follows:

(1) Soft green shale. (2) Finegrained siliceous and argillaceous sandstone. (3) 

Limestone and ehale, siliceous. (4) Argillaceous sandstone with Chemung fossils. 

(5) Oolitic bed. (1-5 " Chemung group".) (6) Calcareous and argillaceous shale, 

beds of passage. (7) Cherty beds. (8) Burlington limestone, brownish or grayishbrown encrinal limestone, the higher beds more or less white and subcrystalline, 

and in places 72 feet thick.

This Burlington limestone was regarded by Hall as equivalent to the 

<'Encrinital limestone "of Owen of Missouri. It thickens southward.

Following the " Chemung " occurs a light gray or brownish white crinoidal, subcrystalline limestone called the " Burlington limestone." Upon 

this comes the " Keokuk limestone," a shaly grayish or bluish crinoidal limestone, which the author regarded as an equivalent of the "Archimedes limestone" of Owen and the u Siliceous group" of Tennessee. 

The Keokuk is followed by a geode bed and this by the " Warsaw limestone or second Archimedes limestone," which is " a magnesian limestone, shale and shaly limestone, thin-bedded and arenaceous," and after 

this a " coarse yellow calcareous sandstone and some pebbles of quartz." 

Next comes the " St. Louis limestone" of Swallow or " Concretionary 

limestone" of Owen. This is a brecciated, ash colored limestone, and 

sometimes subcrystalline and granular in texture, becoming more com1 Report on the Geological Survey of the State of Iowa, embracing the results of investigations made 

during portions of the years 1855,1856, and 1857, by James Hall and J. D. Wkitiug, vol. 1, Albany, 1858. 

8vo., xv, 724,4, and 30 pp., 29plates, plate of section, and 2 maps.

* Ibid., p. 89.

»Ibid., pp. 89-90.
WILLIAMS.) JAMES HALL. 153

pact on going southward. Hall speaks of " the brecciated character of 

the northern exposures of the St. Louis limestone," and of the " more 

or less diagonally laminated limestone of gray to white color " in the 

more southern part.1

Below St. Louis, along the valley of the Mississippi, from Prairie du 

Eocher to Chester, the series dipping gradually southward exposes the 

" St. Louis limestone," with the " Ferruginous sandstone " resting on it. 

and above this the " Kaskaskia limestone." Hall observed the fact 

that the limestones thin out toward the north and upon their inclined 

edges are followed unconformably by the Coal Measures. He drew 

from this the inference that a contraction of the borders of this sea at 

the north began with the deposition of the Carboniferous limestone; that 

this was consequent upon the uplifting of the older rocks at the north.2

The limestone of the UpperCoal Measures in Ohio is traced westward, 

and is regarded as represented by the Carboniferous limestone of the 

Eocky Mountains. Previously, in the Eeport on the Mexican Boundary, 

Mr. Hall had recognized the fact that the Eocky Mountain region must 

have been an open sea at the time the Coal Measures were being deposited in the Mississippi Valley and farther eastward. The oscillation daring the time of the Carboniferous limestone was mainly upward for the Upper Mississippi basin, and during the Coal Measures 

Worthen shows 3 that the same region was gradually sinking, causing 

the higher Coal Measures to extend farther northward than those below.

In the classification of the rocks of Iowa it was quite natural that 

the New York series should take a prominent part in the nomenclature. 

Although fossils were considered in the correlation, the erroneous inter, 

pretations, as well as the reports themselves, show that the lithologic 

characters of the various rocks were considered of chief importance. 

As Worthen stated in the First Eeport on the Geology of Illinois, in 

regard to the beds in Indiana, Iowa, and Missouri, which had been referred to the "Chemung group" of New York, the identifications were 

." made purely on lithological grounds."4 It was this dominant idea, 

that there should be some similarity in the character of the rocks of the 

corresponding zones in separate regions, that led to the importance of 

the "Ferruginous sandstone" of the Missouri and, later, of the Iowa 

Eeports.

Again, the " Siliceous group " in Tennessee and Alabama was regarded 

as important because probably representing a corresponding Siliceous 

group in the English classification.

The "Carboniferous or Mountain limestone" was distinctly recognized 

in the upper Mississippi region, and a " Millstone grit" was needed to 

fill out the system as interpreted in England. It can not be denied that 

great masses of limestone or of sandstone can be traced satisfactorily 

for hundreds and may be thousands of miles along the geological outcrops, but this expresses only the fact that, for long geological periods,

1 Geol. Surv.Iowa, Eep., p. 105. 8 Geology of Illinois, vol. 1, p. 50. 

*Ibid., p. 117. «Ibid., p. 109.
154 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL.SO. V

the general relations of oceans and continents remained substantially 

the same. When, however, the attempt is made to trace the subdivisions and to correlate series and stages and the lesser zones of the geological classifications by lithologic means, then the inadequacy of the 

method becomes apparent. As we look over the history of the work of 

geologists in America, we find the majority, and for the field I have 

specially studied I am inclined to say nearly all, of the erroneous correlations are directly traceable to a too great dependence upon lithology. 

The following exhibits the classification of the Carboniferous limestone of Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri as it was understood by Hall in 

1858.1

COAX MEASURES OF IOWA, ILLINOIS, AND MISSOURI.

VL ^S^SS^^S^^^^jss^s^^ imnoi8- Sfc

Lower arenaceous beds of passage.

V. Gray, brown, and ferruginous sandstone ) Below Ste. Genevieve, Missouri. Below 

overlying limestone of St. Louis and > Prairie du Rocker and Kaskaskia, 

Alton. . ) Illinois. 

Abrupt passage.

IV. St. Louis limestone, Concretionary £ Highest beds below Keokuk, Alton, St. 

limestone. $ Louis, Ste. Genevieve, Prairie duRocher. 

Passage arenaceous or indistinct.

III. Arenaceous bed, Keokuk and north- ^ Wo __ 0 , ,* A u TIU , «, TH - _ 

ward. Warsaw limestone or Second 1 WC^ ^nl In Hill C no On , & Arohimorlfls limflqfmift Mitriipqian f ton and Spurgen Hill, Indiana. Opposite 

Umestone Magnesianj Fort Madison, Mount Pleasant.

Passage soft, marly, geodiferous. Geode bed, Keokuk, Nashville, Iowa, and 

Warsaw, Illinois. 

II. Keokuk limestone, Lower Archimedes

Passage cherty limestone, 60 to 100 feet. Ra£oif °V6 Ke°kuk' Iowa" Quincy'

I. Burlington limestone. ........... 

............ * 1 QuinCy' IUln°i8>

Oolitic limestone, sandstone, and shale of ) p,,^- . , -.-, T m 

Chem^gandtortago groups of New j 3^^^^ V^' l0"'

In 1859 Mr. A. H. Worthen1 reported the discovery of a terrestrial 

flora in the Chester limestone group.

While constructing a section of the Ohio Bluffs he discovered, in 1851, 

in the middle of the Chester limestone of Pope County, a bed of calcareo-argillaceous material containing fossil plants. The flora does 

not present a single species in common with the Carboniferous. Among 

the plants he found representatives of the genera Stigmaria, Sigillaria, 

Knorria, and Lepidodendra, but of species quite distinct from those in 

the Coal Measures.

"This fact seems to indicate the close proximity of an ancient coast 

line in this direction," and its probability is increased by the fact that 

"the JSubcarboniferous series thins out rapidly to the north and east."

1 Geology of Iowa, p. 109.

1 Worthen, A. H : Remarks on the discovery of a terrestrial flora in the Mountain limestone of 

Illinois. Ani. Assoc., Proc., vol. 13, 1859, pp. 312, 313.
WH.MAW8.] JAMES HALL, S. S. LYON. 155

In 18591 James Hall presented his view of the relation of the strata 

of the Mississippi Valley to those of the New York section. The interval between the Chemung and the Coal Measures of the Appalachian 

section is filled, in the West, by the representatives of the Carboniferous 

limestone. The following table explains this view: 2

New York and Pennsylvania Mississippi Valley Coal Measures. 

Coal Measures.

f Kaskaskia limestone.

Red shales ............ ..) Great Carboniferous lime- | SToSniStone0116'

Conglomerate ............ > stones of the Mississippi { w'arsi 1'nestone*

Catskill Mountain group.. j Valley. I Keo^. liniestone;

^Burlington limestone.

Chetuiing and Portage groups........................Chemung and Portage groups.

Hamilton group.................................... .Hamilton group.

Concerning the fauna of the Western rocks, which he regarded as the 

equivalent of the Chemung and Portage groups, he reported that he had 

traced the rocks through Ohio, and then from Indiana into Michigan, 

across Indiana and Illinois to Iowa, and into Missouri. He recognized 

scarcely a single species identical, but found representative forms.

It will be seen thus that the dominant means of correlation was the 

strata, probably the black shale and the argillaceous and arenaceous 

deposits following below the limestone. The suggestion was thrown 

out that the cause of the great difference in sedimentation is the elevation of the Cincinnati axis, allowing a sea to be depositing calcareous 

sediments in. the Mississippi Valley, while a coarse deposit was being 

made east of that axis.3 This is evidently the true explanation.

It was the wide territory which American geologists had to study 

which led them to recognize the great difference in the conditions which 

existed at the same geological time in separate regions of the continent, 

and developed that minute comparative study of fossils which alone 

has made exact correlation possible.

In the above table it is evident that up to this time Professor Hall 

still held to the view that the Chemung Group of Iowa, Missouri, and 

Illinois was, as he called it, " Subcarboniferous," that is, was below 

the " Carboniferous formations," not one of them.

In 1860 Sydney S. Lyon4 recognized three divisions, viz: "(1) Coal 

Measures, (2) Millstone grit series, (3) Subcarboniferous series;" but 

in the latter, the lower or " Subcarboniferous series," he follows the 

erroneous usage introduced by Owen, for we find included under this 

division not only the lower Carboniferous rocks, but all from the "Black 

slate" to the : 'Catenipora beds," inclusive. " Subcarboniferous series" 

applied to the rocks below the Millstone grit is a modification of Dr. 

Owen's usage. Owen proposed the name " Subcarboniferous limestone," 

but applied it in about the same sense in which Mr. Lyon applied the 

name " Subcarboniferous series." Mr. Lyon restricted the use of the

1 Paleontology of Hew York, vol. 3. * Ibid., p. 53. s Ibid., p. 58. 

4 Discussion of tlio Stratigraphical Arrangement of the Kocks of Kentucky. Trans. St. Louis Acad. 

Soi., vol. 1,18CO, pp. 612-621.
156 THE DEVONIAN AND CAEBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

former term to the limestone which Prof. Hall called " Carboniferous 

limestone." 

Mr. Lyon's classification was as follows: l

Feet. 

a. Coal Measures ......................................1,200

6. Fifth sandstone .............................. 40-100^

c. Fourth limestone................. ........... 10- 40

d. Beds of colored clays ......................... 0-84

e. Fourth sandstone............................. 0- 6

/. Third limestone .............................. 25- 50

g. Aluminous shale ._......................... 0- 53 } Millstone grit series.

h. Third sandstone.............................. 25-40

i. Second limestone. ............................ 25-50

fc. Second sandstone............................. 75-90

I. First limestone....................._....... 15-20

m. First sandstone .............................. 10- 30,

n. Cavernous limestone.......................... 200-400 ~)

o. Middle limestone............................. 500-600 |

p. Sandstones and shales........................ 205-300 j

q. Black slate................................... 50-100 |

r. Encrinital limestone.......................... 0- 8|

s. Hydraulic limestone.......... ._........._ 0-20 ]> Subcarboniferous series.

t. Spirifer bed.................................. 0- 3|

u. Nucleocriuus bed............................. 0- 2|

v. Turbo bed.................................... 6- 10

w. Coral bed................................_. 5- 10

x. Catenipora beds.............................. 15- 40J

The divisions jp, o, n, constituted what he called " Subcarboniferous 

limestone," the synonyms for which were "Barren limestone," "Cavernous limestone," "Carboniferous limestone," and "Mountain limestone " of the Europeans.

Division o was the middle member of the Subcarboniferous limestone, 

and 180 feet above its base is a bed which was regarded as equivalent 

to Hall's " Spurgen Hill beds," of Washington County, Indiana, which 

Prof. Hall considered as equivalent to the " Warsaw limestone."

The lower member of the "Subcarboniferous limestone" (p) "is frequently distinguished as the Enobstone beds." 3 The " Black slate " with

Linguiaa (q} the author put in the " Devonian," and he stated that division p has been also placed in the Devonian, but that the paleoutologic evidence of the Gouiatite beds at Eockford, Indiana, would point 

to its inclusion with the Subcarboniferous limestones, instead of in the 

Devonian.4

The beds r, s, tf, w, v, w, ac, " thin out rapidly and disappear entirely 

about twenty miles south of Louisville." 4

This classification was in accord with the general usage of Dr. Owen 

and those who had assisted him in his surveys in the Mississippi Valley.

James Hall, in the various papers in which he attempted to correlate 

the Western deposits with his New York system, used the name " Carboniferous limestone " for the calcareous portion of the " Subcarboniferous series" of Owen, and applied "Subcarboniferous" to his so-called 

"Chemung group," which in New York is of Devonian age. The Western geologists clearly understood the relation of the so-called "Chemung" of the Mississippi Valley to these "Carboniferous limestones,"

1 Discussion of the Strategrapliical Arrangement of the Rocks of Kentucky. Trans. St. Louis Acad. 

Sci., vol. 1,1860, p. 641. 

"Ibid., p. 617. *Ibid.,619. «Ib.,p.620.
WILLIAMS.] LITTON, WHITE, ROGERS. 157

but they were not so well acquainted with the Chemung group of Hew 

York. This is shown by the fact that Swallow and Meek, in the Missouri report of 1885, placed the Chemung above the "Devonian," 1 although in tabulating it they bracketed the Cheinung with the Devonian. However, to the State geologist of New York the "Ghemung" 

was unmistakably Devonian, and for him to correlate deposits in the 

West with the Chemung necessitated placing them below the Carboniferous system; hence he used the term " Subcarboniferous " to separate these deposits from the Carboniferous system above, whereas the 

Western geologists included the Subcarboniferous limestone iu the 

Carboniferous system to distinguish the lower series, which was under 

the true> carbon-bearing Coal Measures.

Mr. A. Litton 2 in 1860 reported some statistics regarding thickness of 

deposits; derived from a well boring in St. Louis.

A description of the boring is given, beginning in the St. Louis limestone and penetrating to a depth of 2,199 feet, passing through the 

liinestou.es, cherty rock, and shales of the Carboniferous system, 650 

feet, the red marls and the shales of the "Chemung," the limestones, 

shales, sandstones, etc., of the Hudson Eiver, Trenton, and Black Eiver 

groups, and finally the maguesian series. The white, soft sandstone 

found at a depth of 1,505 feet is considered as the Saccharoidal sandstone; from that the main supply of water was obtained, none rising 

to the surface from below this sandstone. '

Mr. C. A. White contributed a paper 3 on the rocks at Burlington, 

Iowa, in 1860, in which he called attention to the close relationship between the faunas in the " Chemung" rocks in the lower part and those 

in the upper rocks of the Burlington section. He noticed also that the 

Brachiopods of the " Chemuug" were very similar and possibly of 

identical species in some cases with those above the Burlington limestone. He suggested (p. 225-6) that although the so-called Chemung 

rocks of Iowa may be geologically equivalent to the Chemung of New 

York they are not contemporaneous; migration of the species westward 

having taken place at the close and after the time of the Upper Chemung of New York.

W. B. Kogers, commenting upon this paper,4 remarked on the gradual 

passage from a Devonian to a Carboniferous fauna on passing westward from the Appalachians, previously suggested by James Hall. He 

suggested that " the mingling of races iu successive formations is a natural result of the accumulations of the strata during a long period of 

comparative repose," and said further: 5

The changes of fossil faunas are more gradual in proportion to the degree in which 

the successive deposits of a given period have been preserved from destruction.

1 See text of the report (vol. 1-2, Pt. 1, p. 101. and Pt. 2, p. 101.

"Litton, A.: Belcher & Brothers' artesian well in St. Louis, Missouri. St. Louis Acad. Sci., Trans., 

1857, vol. 1,18(10, pp. 80-80', plate.

3 Observations upon the geology aud paleontology of Burlington, Iowa, and its vicinity, by Charles 

A. White, Sept., I860. Boston Jouru. of Nat. Hist., vol. 2, pp. 209-235.

 » Proc. Boston Soo. Nat. Hist., vol. 7,1861, p. 320.

* Ibid., p. 321.
158 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. IBULL.SO.

He would correlate the calcareous and associated beds below the Bur. 

lington and possibly all below the Keokuk with the Ponent or Catskill 

and Vespertine, represented by 6,000 feet of deposits in the Appalachian region. He adds:

But all such attempts at synchronizing distant deposits must be limited to a general 

and vague result, even when corresponding fossils would seem to mark simultaneous 

origin, and we must not forget the large agency of migration, and the long lapse of 

years, which in many cases may have been required for the extension of a living race 

into distant submarine settlements.

Messrs. 0. A. White and E. P. Whitfield, in the introduction to their 

paper 2 on the Chemung rOcksof the Mississippi Valley, which is mainly 

descriptive of species, state their reasons for recognizing the"Chemung"in Iowa. They say the Hamilton group of New York is recognized 

in Illinois and Iowa as a reliable Devonian horizon by the fossils ; that 

the Chemung offers changes even in short distances. In northeastern 

Ohio they hold that there are few if any species common with those 

of New York, and the fauna in western Ohio and Michigan is still different, but still the Chemung age .of each is maintained. It is thus apparent that to these authors the correlations in the West were based 

upon relative stratigraphic position, the generic relations of the fossils, 

together with a not unremarkable similarity of lithological characters.

Some species of the " Chemung" of Burlington, Iowa, are said to be 

the same as those of the " Chemuug " of Ohio, " which rocks can be 

traced continuously to New York."3

Notwithstanding an unmistakable resemblance to Carboniferous 

fauna, they refer them to the Chemung of New York, explaining that 

" a direct continuity of strata of the Chemung of New York can be 

traced from that State to those of Ohio." Thus it appears that Messrs. 

White and Whitlield, relying upon the correctness of the determination of continuity of strata claimed by Hall in 1842 were led to put 

aside the evidence of fossils, and to explain the differences as due to 

geographic causes.

Messrs. Meek and Worthen, in their discussion of this question, made 

the want of specific identity the chief reason for separating the Burlington rocks called " Cheraung " from the Chemung of New York,4 and 

their reliance upon the Carboniferous aspect of the fossils led them to 

correctly correlate the formation which had hitherto been called " CheimiDg."

Messrs. W. H. Niles and Charles Wachsmuth,5 maintained that the

1 Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. 7,1861, pp. 321, 322.

2 Observations on the Rocks of the Mississippi Valley which have heen referred to the Chemung group 

of New York, together with descriptions of new species from the same horizon at Burlington, Iowa. 

By E. P. Whitfield and C. A. White, Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. 8,1862, pp. 289=306.

3 Ibid., p. 290.

4 Remarks on the age of the Goniatite limestone at Rockford, Indiana, and its relations to the "Black 

slate " of the Western States, aud to some of the succeeding rocks ahove the latter. By F. B. Meek 

and A. H. "Worthen. 1861. Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 32, pp. 167-177 and 288.

5 Evidonce of two distinct Geological Formations in the Burlington Limestone. Am. Jour. Sol., vol. 

42, I860, pp. 95-99.
WILLIAMS.] NILES, WACHSMUTH. 159

Burlington limestone is divided into two distinct formations, which they 

called the "Lower" and "Upper Burlington limestone." The two 

sections can be distinguished from each other by their lithologic characters alone, but the distinction chiefly depends upon the different kinds 

of criuoids found in the two divisions. In the lower section its upper 

strata become interstratified with beds of chert, and the uppermost 

stratum of chert forms the division between the two sections. The 

crinoids below this cherty bed are smaller, less coarse in their general 

features, and the ridges, spines, etc., are never so prominent as in the 

species of the upper division. The inference is, that circumstances 

were noli so favorable to the growth of these animals during the deposition of the lower strata. There is a similar marked distinction between 

the crinoids of the Upper Burlington and those of the Keokuk limestone, 

the latter being still larger in size and more prominent in feature. A 

band of chert is also found between the Upper Burlington and the 

Keokuk, and it appears from these facts that there was something in 

the presence of siliceous material in the depositing waters during the 

formation of the upper beds of both the Lower and Upper Burlington 

divisions which was unfavorable to the growth and life of the inhabiting crinoids, for as the chert appears the crinoids seem to have declined, 

and finally all species became extinct before the completion of the chert. 

The samo fact is found true of the Mollusca, most of the species of the 

two divisions being distinct. Lists of some of the better-known species of the crinoids are appended, arranged under the names of .the 

formations to which they are exclusively restricted.

If the view of the authors were found to be correct in fact, it would 

signify that the cherts had their origin during the original deposition 

of the rock, but even were it a fact, it may be questioned whether the 

difference in fauna was not purely local, conditioned upon changed 

character of the bottom.

The series of Eeports of the Geological Survey of Illinois, 1 by Mr. 

A. H. Wortheu as Director, began with vol. I., in 1866.

In the classification of the rocks of Illinois, the New York nomenclature was used for the subdivisions of the Silurian and Devonian

1 Geological Survey of Illinois, A. H. Worthen, Director.

Vol.1. Geology. 1866.

Vol.11. Paleontology, Descriptions of Vertebrates, by J.S. Newbury and A. H. Worthen. 1866. 

Descriptions of Invertebrates, by F. B. Meek and A. H. Worthen. Description of Plants, by Leo 

Lesquereux.

Vol. III. Geology and Paleontology. 1868. Geology, by A. H. Worthen. Paleontology, by F. B. 

Meek and A. H. Worthen.

Vol. IV. Geology and Paleontology. 1870. Geology, by A. H. "Worthen. Paleontology, Vertebrates, 

by Newberry and Worthen. Plants, by Lesquereux.

Vol. V. Geology and Paleontology. 1873. Geology, by Worthen and James Shaw. Paleontology, 

by Meek and Worthen.

Vol. VI. Geology and Paleontology. 1875. Geology, by Worthen, G. C. Broadhead, E. T. Cox. Paleontology, by 0. St. John, Worthen, and Meek.

Vol. VII. Geology and Paleontology. 1883. Geology, by A. H. Worthen. Paleontology by A. H. 

Worthon, Oreutes St. John, and S. A. Miller, with an addenda by Charles Wachsmuth and W. H. 

Barria.
160 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

systems, and for the Carboniferous system the nomenclature already 

proposed in the Missouri (1855) and Iowa (1858) Reports was adopted 

with some modifications.1

In classifying the Carboniferous rocks, Worthen included the " Barren 

Coal Measures" or "Millstone grit" in the Coal Measures. They are 

seen in the southern part of the State, but not in the more northern 

part, where the Coal Measures proper "or " Upper Coal Measures " outcrop. They are terminated by a sandstone called the "Anvil rock 

sandstone " (Owen), upon which are some limestones regarded as equivalent to the " Great limestone of Pennsylvania." 2

Wortheu adopted the name "Subcarboniferous limestone" for the 

rocks between the Black slate and the Coal Measures .and Conglomerate.

The following expresses the classification of the upper Paleozoic 

rocks of Illinois as interpreted by Mr. Worthen in 1866: 3

Coal Measures and Millstone grit.. .Coal Measures, 600-1,200 feet and Conglomerate.

f Chester group, 500-800 feetv

| St. Louis group, 50-200 feet. 

Subcarboniferous .............................. <[ Keokuk group, 100-150 feet.

| Burlington limestone, 25-200 feet.

l^Kiuderhook group, 100-150 feet.

( Black slate, 10-60 feet. 

Devonian............................. .........< Devonian limestone, 10-120 feet.

( Oriskany sandstone, 40-60 feet. 

Devonian and Silurian......................................Clear Creek limestone.

Mr. Worthen in the first report considered the " Clear Creek limestone as equivalent, in its upper part, to the base of the Devonian. The 

name "Chester group" is proposed by Worthen for the "Chester limestone "and the underlying " Ferruginous sandstone "of the Missouri 

Eeports. The "Warsaw limestone" (Hall) of the Iowa Heport, Mr. 

Wortheu united with the " St. Louis limestone" of Missouri to form the

" St. Louis group." He also united the " Geode bed," the u Keokuk 

limestone," and the underlying "Cherty beds" of the Iowa Report to 

constitute his "Keokuk group." The "Siliceous group "of. Tennessee 

and Alabama he regarded as a southern extension of this same " Keokuk group" of Illinois. The author further pointed out the fact that 

Xhe 

Subcarboniferous limestone becomes arenaceous on the northeastern border of the 

coal field, and that all the upper members above the Kinderhook group thin out in 

that direction, and are replaced by the grit stones forming the lowest member of tho 

series; and in Ohio these grit stones occupy the entire horizon from the Conglomerate to the " Black slate."*

»

The name "Burlington limestone" was adopted with substantially 

its original meaning as applied by Hall in the typical locality, Burlington, Iowa. It was not recognized outside the States of Iowa, Illinois, 

and Missouri. It is famous for the great abundance of crinoids, which 

are found in beautiful preservation about Burlington.

1 See Geol. Survey of 111., vol. 1, p, 40. "Ibid., vol. 1, p. 26. 

* Ibid., p. 61, et seq. * Ibid., p. 101.
WILLIAMS.] MEEK AND WORTHEN. 161

The name " Kinderhook group " was proposed by Messrs. Meek and 

Worthen in 1861 in the course of a discussion on the geological positions of the Goniatite beds of Bockford, Indiana.1 Its original application was to the rocks between the top of the Black slate and the base 

of the Burlington limestone as seen at Kinderhook, Pike County, Illinois. In the present report Mr. Worthen further defined the group, 

and defended its reference to the Carboniferous.2 He defined it as in. 

eluding " the Chouteau limestone, the Lithographic limestone, and the 

Vernriculair sandstone and shales of the Missouri Eeport, the so-called 

4 Chemung rocks' of the Iowa Report, that part of the ' Waverly sandstone ' of Ohio which overlies the Black slate of that region, and the 

' Goniatite limestone' of Indiana." 3 ,

This group, the " Kinderhook," was traced into Indiana, where it is

represented by grit stone and arenaceous deposits, and is regarded as

the only division of the Subcarboniferous in northwestern Indiana and 

in northern Ohio, where it constitutes all the so-called " Waverly sandstone." The Kinderhook group of Worthen constituted the lowest 

member of the Carboniferous system of the upper Mississippi province.

Mr. Worthen correlated " a series of dark blue, green, or chocolate 

colored shales, passing locally into a black bituminous shale," of western and southern Illinois with the " Black slate " of Tennessee and other 

States in the interior.4 Certain Devonian limestones were recognized immediately underlying it, and from this fact and the presence of Lingula, 

spatulata he correlated it further with the Geuesee slate of New York. 

In that part of the State it is followed by the Kinderhook group. In 

the northern part of the State, however, in Kock Island County, the 

author reported the Black slate and the Subcarboniferous limestone 

series absent, the Coal Measures resting unconformably upon the Devonian limestones, which were correlated with the Corniferous limestone 

of New York by their fossils.5

In the southern part of the State a sandstone was observed which 

Mr. Worth en identified with the Oriskany sandstone of New York. 

This was first observed in the neighborhood of Jonesborough, Union 

County, Illinois.6

In the second volume, published in 1866, slight changes were made 

in the classification and nomenclature. The introduction was by 

Messrs. Meek and Worthen.

The classification preferred is as follows :7

Feet. 

(Upper.-Carboniferous period. Coal> Measures, Millstone

I Grit .......................................... 1,200 

f Chester group......... 800 

Of T mil a W1« 9(\n Lower..Mountain limestone or |eokukIrouB """" £5 

P^oa^0.?^ 

^ Ki nderhook group .... 150

»Am.Jonr.Sci.,val.33,p.228. »Ibid., p. 109. "Ibid., p. 121. f Cr«oJ. Snrv. HI., vol.2, p.vm. 

;'Ibid., pp. 108-118. «Ibid., p. 119. Ibid., p. 124,

Bull. 80 11
162 THE DEVONIAN AND CAEBONIFEROUS. [BULL.80.

Feet.

S

Genesee division ("Black slate " and ;, 

grayish shale).................... 100 

Hamilton beds'.................-... 120

Devonian system.. <( Upper Helderberg period. Corniferousand Onondagabeds 25 

| i Oriskany, upper bed ............... 40

(^ Oriskany period.. < Oriskany, lower beds or Clear Creek

( group..................... ....,.. 200

Silurian system......Lower Helderberg period.

In this table the use of the term " Subcarboniterous " as meaning 

below the coal-bearing strata is clear. The recognition of the absence 

of upper Devonian is to be noticed. In the Oriskany the upper cherty' 

part only of what was originally included in the " Clear Creek group" * 

is placed in the Devonian. The lower part as it arrives at Bailey's 

lauding, Perry County, was correlated by its fossils with the " Shaly 

limestone of the lower Helderberg group." 1 , The authors, after the proposal of the name "Kinderhook group," \ 

examined the rocks in Ohio and concluded that the " Waverly sand- v 

stone " or more properly " Waverly group," is of the same age, and suggested that it may be necessary to adopt the earlier name. Still they 

think it wise to retain the local State names until exact parallelism be 

established.

The third volume was published in 1868. The authors of the Geology, 

besides A. H. Worthen, were H. Eugelmann, H. C. Freeman, and H. M. 

Barris. The paleontology was by Meek and Worthen. In this report 

"Lower Carboniferous" is substituted for " Subcarbon iferous " of the 

earlier reports. In the volume are described a number of invertebrates 

from the Devonian, Kinderhook, and other deposits of Illinois, and 

there are descriptions of sections for several of the counties in the west-> 

ern part of the State.

The fourth volume was published in 1870. Bradley and Green too

the place of Engelmann and Freeman. The paleontology of vertebrate 

was -by Newberry and Worthen; of plants, by Lesquereux. " Lowe: 

Carboniferous" and "Carboniferous system" are used to cover th 

upper and lower divisions of the Carboniferous. I

The fifth volume was published in 1873. A. H. Worthen and James 

Hall were the geologists, and Messrs. Meek and Worthen the paleontologists. In this report the nomenclature is "Carboniferous system"] 

and " Lower Carboniferous system."

The sixth volume was published in 1875. The geologists were Messrs. 

Worthen, Broadhead, and Cox; the paleontologists, Messrs. Orestes St. 

John, Worthen, and Meek. V

The seventh volume was published in 1883. Mr. Worthen, the geologist; paleontologists, Messrs. Worthen, St. John, and S. A. Miller. 

Addenda appear in this volume, written by Messrs. Wachsmuth and 

Barris.

I have noticed no particular change in the geological nomenclatur

Mm. Jour. Sci., vol. 33, pp. XI-XH.
WILLIAMS.] - ENGLEMANN. 163

in either of the last two volumes. They are devoted to the elaboration 

of the details of geology in the counties and to paleontology.

Mr. Henry Bnglemann,1 in 1868, described the Lower Carboniferous 

formations of southern Illinois as follows :

Underlying the Coal Measures in central Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri, 

were distinguished the following formations:

1. The Ferruginous sandstone. 

S!. The St. Louis limestone, 

o. The Warsaw limestone.

4. The Keokuk limestone.

5. The Encrinital or Burlington limestone.

Farther south the "Kaskaskia or Chester limestone" was found between the Coal Measures and the Ferruginous sandstone; and heavy 

masses of sandstone ("Millstone grit") were observed next below 

the Coal Measures, and also beds of sandstone intercalated with the 

Chester limestone.

The author discovered that in the extreme southern part of Illinois 

this upper division of the Lower Carboniferous attains a much greater 

and more varied development, while the lower subdivisions seen farther north are lost or merged into one. He subdivided the series as 

follows:

A. Coal Measures.

B. Millstone grit, reaching a thickness of 500 feet, with a seam of coal far above 

the middle dividing it into Upper and Lower Millstone grit.

C. Strata corresponding to the Chester limestone and Ferruginous sandstone, and 

consisting of alternations of siliceous, Archimedes and Pentremital limestones, of 

hales, and sandstones, attaining a maximum thickness in Johnson County and adjoining counties of 1,000 feet.

The different layers of limestones and sandstones are described in 

detail.

D. The St. Louis limestone, with a thickness of 200 feet or more.

Some of the layers have an Oolitic structure. Underneath this are 

shales, siliceous slates, and some black laminated slate,2 considered by 

good authorities as of the age of the Clieinung group. Below these are 

well marked Devonian strata.

The general features of the geology of Tennessee were defined in 

the various reports of Gerard Troost, and some of the names which 

have been preserved were proposed by him.

In 1869 appeared Safford's "Geology of Tennessee," which elaborates 

the work begun by Mr. Troost, and presents a systematic classification

'Englemann, Henry: On tbe Lower Carboniferous system as developed in southern Illinois. St. 

Louis Aoad. Sci., Trans., vol. 2,1868, pp. 188-190.

a This ;japer was written later than the publication of the first Keport of the Geological Survey of 

Illinois, in which, as is quoted on a previous page, the name " Chester group," was proposed to include 

the formations which had previously gone under the names "Kaskaskia limestone," "Ferruginous 

sandstone," and " Chester limestone."

Dr. Engloinann, who was at the-time Of writing this paper (18G8) one of the geologists on the survey 

of Illinois, elaborates- the facts as exhibited in southern Illinois.
164 THE DEVONIAN AND CAKBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

of the formations in unison with the correlations and nomenclature of 

neighboring States.

In Mr. Safford's 1 report the upper Paleozoic terrane of Tennessee is 

sharply defined above and below. It rests, with very slight unconformity, but with unmistakable interval, upon Upper or Lower Silurian 

rocks, and is capped, with more distinct interval, by the Cretaceous or 

later rocks. The classification proposed by the author is as follows:

10. Cretaceous.

( Upper Coal Measures. 

9. Coal Measures ...... ...... ...... ...... .... .... ...... < Conglomerate.

( Lower Coal Measures.

8. Lower Carboniferous...... ...... ............ .... ....

7. Black shale.

Silurian either "6. Lower Helclerberg; 5. Meniscus limestone, Dyestone group; 

or 4. Nashyille," as the case may be, etc.

The lowest member of this upper Paleozoic terrane is the "black 

shale," a bituminous black shale with grains or nodules of pyrite, 

which is widely distributed, and, whenever present, is a valuable stratigraphic bench mark. In the eastern part of the State it rests on the 

"Nashville, or Dyestone, or Meniscus formation;" farther west, on the 

opposite side of the central basin, the subjacent formation is "Meniscus, 

Dyestone, or Lower Helderberg." West of the Cumberland tableland 

it is not solely a black shale; it thins on going westward, and at its top, 

in a lighter colored shale, is a thin layer of argillaceous fetid concretionary bodies called " Kidneys," and taking the place of the lower layer 

is a stratum varying from 1 to 15 feet of dark gray fetid sandstone, containing the same Lingula seen in the typical black shale. This character of the formation is seen in Wayne and Hardin Counties. The 

author considered this to be the equivalent of the Devonian, and particularly of the Genesee shale of the Hamilton Period of New York.2

The highest rocks seen underlying this were referred to the Lower 

Helderberg division of the Upper Silurian. The black shale throughout the book is spoken of under this name and not as Devonian. The 

black shale formation is in some places associated with a sandstone 

layer containing the same Lingula,, varying from a few inches to 15 

feet. (Wayne County.)3 Above the black shale is also seen in places 

a layer of "kidney concretions." It is defined as "a thin layer of 

argillaceous, very fetid, concretionary bodies called 'kidneys.'" They 

are in a bluish shale and vary in size from an inch or less to 2 feet in 

diameter. In the more eastern sections this black shale rests on the 

"Nashville" (Sumner County) "Niagara or Dyestone group" (De Kalb 

and Maury Counties) ; farther west, on the " Meniscus limestone" or Helderberg (Wayne and Hardin Counties). Wherever it occurs it is overlain by the "Siliceous group," or else is the top rock. The place of 

unconformity is thus shown to be below the black shale formation.

1 Geology of Tennessee, by James M. Safford, State geologist, Nashville, 1869. 

* Ibid., p. 157. 

8 Ibid., p. 331.
WILLIAMS.] SAFFORD'S GEOLOGY OF TENNESSEE. 165

The u Lower Carboniferous," or " Formation VIII," is primarily defined 

as "the great group of strata intervening between the black shale and 

the Coal Measures," with a maximum thickness of 1,200 feet. 1 This is 

subdivided into (8a) the "Siliceous group" and (81) the "Mountain 

limestone." This, as the author remarks, " is the most useful division 

that can be made, so .far at least as the consideration of the topographical and agricultural features of the State are concerned."

The Coal Measures are classified by the author in three divisions: 

(a) the " Lower Coal Measures," varying from a few feet to 300; (b) the 

"Conglomerate;" (c)the "Upper Coal Measures,"from 200 to2,000feet 

thick.

It is evident that this classification is primarily a natural classification 

of the rock formations according to their prominent petrographic features. To take them in detail: Safford's " Siliceous group" (Sa) embraces about the same rocks as were previously defined by Troost under

the name Siliceous stratum." The name is suggested by the fact of the 

predominance of siliceous material in the rocks in the form of "chert, 

fine sandstone, silicocalcareous rock or siliceous shale." The " Siliceous 

group " as it appears in Middle Tennessee, is subdivided, into " a lower," 

the "Protean member? and an upper or " Lithostrontion bed." From 

a study of the characters distinguishing the two it is evident that the 

presence of the Lithostrontion in the upper member is chiefly relied 

upon, the lithologic characters not presenting any constant distinction, 

and the author states that no division is practicable in East Tennessee.2 

Two characters are mentioned as pertaining to the "Lithostrontion 

bed " the fossiliferous character of the cherts and the liberation of oxide 

of iron in the decomposing of the cherts. The author also thinks the 

two members become one below Huntsville, on the anticlinals of Alabama,3 being characterized throughout by LitJiostrontion Canadense. 

He correlates the "Protean member" in general with the " Lower Carboniferous limestone below the St. Louis limestone " of the Iowa and 

Illinois and Missouri classification, and the " Lithostrontion bed" he 

correlates with the " St. Louis limestone." The " Mountain limestone" 

is "a heavy group of limestones and shales, the latter constituting in 

the aggregate about one-fourth of the mass," including a sandstone near 

the base which in the northern part of the State is 40 or 50 feet thick. 

This formation reaches its maximum thickness in the southern part of 

the State (720 feet), decreasing going northward until near the Kentucky line it is reduced to 400 feet.4 The limestones are often argillaceous, sometimes oolitic, but rarely cherty. The fauna is considered 

equivalent to that of the Kaskaskia limestone (Hall) of the Northwestern 

States (==the Chester limestone of Worthen). Thus the name " Mountain limestone " is used in a restricted sense. 

The author's classification is primarily a lithologic classification of the

1 Geology of Tennessee, by James M. Safford, State geologist, Nashville, 1869, p. 338. 

»Ibid., p. 347. »Ibid., p. 340. «Ibid., p. 352.
166 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL.80.

strata represented within the State. Above the Silurian they are as 

follows :

1. Black slate formation, at the base,

2. Siliceous formation, or the series of cherty limestones,

3. The Argillo-liraestone formation, called the Mountain limestone,

4. The Lower Coal Measures, separated by

5. The conglomerate from the

6. Upper Coal Measures.

Fossils were reported and were used in correlating the several formations, but the subdivisions were much less finely drawn than in Illinois, Missouri, or Iowa, where fossils were more abundant in the Mississippi an series.

The classification of the Lower Carboniferous formations into two 

groups, the "Siliceous" and the "Mountain limestone," is worthy of 

attention, but until the faunas are thoroughly studied this can not be 

considered as final. A comparison of the various faunas reported from 

the "Subcarboniferous," or "Lower Carboniferous" formations of the 

interior had already demonstrated considerable diiference in the association of species in different parts of the area, but of the marine faunas 

the line which appears generally more sharply drawn is that between 

(a) the St. Louis (and, where present, the Warsaw,) and (6) the fauna 

next below, as the Keokuk and Burlington.

In the reports of the second survey of Iowa,1 some modification of the 

classification proposed by James Hall in 1858 is seen. Mr. White reported in volume 1 the following classification:

Feet. 

fUpper ............................. 200

Coal Measures.......^ Middle ............................ 200

[Lower ............................. 200

Carboniferous.... < f St. Louis limestone ................ 75

I Subcarboniferous.....; Keokuk limestone .................. 90

I Burlington limestone.. _.......... 190

I IKinderhook beds ................... 175

Devonian ..........Hamilton .............Hamilton shales and limestone...... 200

Silurian...................................Niagara limestone..................

Mr. White referred all the Devonian strata of Iowa to a single formation, the Hamilton group of New York, and did not recognize any 

representative of either Upper Helderberg or Chemung. The Carboniferous system is present in only the two members, which he called 

"Subcarboniferous" and "Coal Measures." He used "Subcarboniferous group" as synonymous with the old terms " Carboniferous limestone," " Subcarboniferous limestone." and " Mountain limestone." In 

the subdivision of this group and its nomenclature he evidently follows 

the first and second Illinois reports.

Mr. F. B. Meek2 wrote a report on the Spergen Hill fossils in 1873.

1 Report on the Geological Survey of the State of Iowa to the Thirteenth General Assembly, for 

1870, containing results of examinations, etc., made 1866,1867, 1868, and 1869. By Charles A. White, 

M. D. Vol. 1, 1870.

3 Meek, P.. B.: Spergen Hill fossils identified among specimens from Idaho. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d SOT., 

vol. 5,1873, pp. 383,384.
wlLUAMs.1 FIRST MINNlSSO'TA ftEPORT. 167

The Sporgeii Hill fossils found at Bloomington, lud., at about the horizon of the Lower Carboniferous series, are miniature representatives 

of known larger species, belonging for the most part to the genera of 

.Corals, Blastoidea, Brachiopoda, etc. They are crowded together in 

immense numbers, but finely preserved, in this locality, and a few have 

been found at the same horizon in Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri, but 

none in such numbers, or in any locality west of Missouri or Iowa, until 

Mr. Meek discovered hundreds of these little fossils in a small, darkgray mass of crumbling limestone, brought by Professor Bradley from 

Idaho. The fossils belong to about 17 species of the same genera found, 

at Spergen Hill, and of the species about one-half were undistinguishable from the Spergen Hill forms.

In the first annual report of the Survey of Minnesota 1 a chart 2 is pre. 

sented with some modifications in the classification and correlations of

the MiHsisippian series.

The Carboniferous system is represented on the chart, although nothing representing it is recorded for Minnesota, and is divided into the 

following groups:

Permian. 

Coal Measure.

Carboniferous conglomerate. 

Snbcarboniferous. "'

The Subcarboniferous group is made up as follows for North America:

(Chester limestone. 

(Mississippi formation ( St. "" Louis ^ u '°-'^^ limestone.

1 ; Keokuk. limestone.

Subcarboniferous...... <^ ^Burlington limestone.

^Marshall formation... -Marshall sandstone.

The "Mississippi formation" is the equivalent of the "Mountain 

limestone " of Europe and Tennessee.

The " Marshall formation " is the equivalent of the " Kinderhook " of 

Iowa and Illinois and of the " Old Eed sandstone " of Europe.

The Devonian system is made up as follows :

System. Groups. Formations. Strata of North America.

Huron shale. - i i Hamilton..........Hamilton. 

Hamilton limestone. 

- 

f Corniferous.. $ Corniferouslimestone. 

Upper HelderbeiJ I Oaondaga limestone.

... S Canda-galh grit.

1 Oriskany sandstone.

The usage of " Mississippi n as a name for the limestones of the Sub1 The Geological and Natural History Survey of Minnesota, by N. H. Winchell, State Geologist, 

1873. '

* Chart of geological nomenclature, intended to express the relation of Minnesota to the great geological aeries of the earth, and the probable equivalency of some of the names the formations have 

received in the various States and in Europe, opp., p. 40.
168 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

carboniferous is according to the proposal of Alexander Winchell in 1870, 

(see ante, p. 135). The " Marshall formation " is also according to the 

classification proposed by Alexander Winchell. As the whole Carboniferous and all of the Devonian except beds with a very meager fauna 

are wanting in Minnesota and the author does not explain the reasons 

for his departures from ordinary usage, it is useless to make further comment.

In 1873 two reports 1 were published upon the geology of Missouri, 

under the directorship of Mr. Eaphael Pumpelly.

In the first of these reports the work consists of material previously 

unpublished, mainly details of county surveys made before 1861, the 

maps and charts having been struck off prior to 1861. Pages 1 to 110 

are by G. C. Broadhead, 111 to 188 by F. B. Meek, and 189 to 323 by B. 

F. Shumard. The nomenclature is substantially the same as that of the 

first and second reports of G. 0. Swallow, 1855.

In Mr. Shumard's report on Sainte Genevieve County,2 a classification 

is given which deserves attention.

Opposite page 292 is an engraved chart entitled "Vertical section of 

strata observed in Saiute Genevieve County, by B. F. Shumard."

The part of this chart referring to the present discussion is as follows :

Carboniferous system.

Dovonian.

e.

Archimedes 

group.

Coal Measures.

fe.

ji1 . 

ffft".

t. Encrinita

Chemung 

group.

Archimedes limes

Archimedes lime 

St. Louis liinesto 

( Oolitic limesto 

( Archimedes lin

j. Chouteau lim 

k. Vermicular sa

lestoiie or Warsaw limestone......

AQ^rtTl A

Feet. 

10

.... 25-40

30

200

80

50

150

20

.... 80-100

.... 200-300

90

.... 25-30

25

25

As explained in the text, the upper Archimedes limestone (h) is the 

equivalent of Hall's "Kaskaskia limestone;" the "Sandstone" (/) is 

the " Ferruginous sandstone " of the earlier reports.

1 Reports on the geological survey of the State of Missouri, 1355-1871, by Or. C. Broadhead, F. B. 

Meek, and B. F. Shumard, published by authority of the legislature, under the direction of the Bureau 

of Geology and Mines, pp. 323, and index, 1873.

Preliminary report on the iron ores and coal fields from the field work of 1872. Part I, pp. 1-218, 

part II, pp. 1-402, bound iu one volume. "Raphael Pumpelly, director. 1873.

Part n. Geology of Northwestern Missouri, by G. C. Broadhead, and of Lincoln County, by "Wm. 

B. Potter.

2 Pages 292-293.
WILLIAMS.J THE MISSOURI GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. 169

The name " Ste. Genevieve limestone" is proposed for the second 

Archimedes limestone (h') of the table (p. 293).

The "third Archimedes limestone" (h") is the "second Archimedes" 

or "Warsaw limestone" of Hall's section (p. 294).

The classification of the formations between the top of the Encriuital limestone and the base of the Coal Measures into a distinct group 

under the name "Archimedes group" is worthy of particular notice. 

Although the author made little account of it, and as far as I have 

ascertained no further notice has been taken of it, recent studies have 

convinced me that the primary subdivision of the Mississippian series, 

based upon affinity and difference in the faunas, calls for a line of 

demarcation at the place here indicated. The faunas of the Chester, 

St. Louis, and most of those referred to the Warsaw formations a.re paleontologically more closely allied than they are to the faunas of the Keokuk and Burlington i. e., the Encrinital of the Missouri geologists 

and considering the variations in the lithologic characters of these formations in different parts of the Mississippi province I believe the 

division of the Mississippian series into three groups defined upon 

paleontologic grounds will greatly facilitate the understanding of the 

relations of the various formations, whose differentiation hitherto has 

been made upon lithologic character. This will avoid the necessity, as 

the finer details of the geology are developed, of forced correlation with 

already named formations, which is the only alternative to proposing 

new names where the local stratigraphy is dissimilar to that of the typical section^

For the uppermost of these groups, which is that called Archimedes 

group by Dr. Shumard, I would propose the name Genevieve group, as 

it was first defined in the county of Ste. Genevieve, by Shumard, and 

along the eastern border of this county is well represented, as is shown 

in Shumard's Report. 1

To apply this classification I propose the following scheme, which 

expresses the subdivisions into groups indicated by the fossil faunas 

of the Mississippian series:

f ( Chester.

I Genevieve group...< St. Louis.

I .( Warsaw (in part).

Mississippian series. | °8aSe group....... J U^H"^,,.

f Cliouteau limestone and the " VermicChonteau crvonn 1 nlar" and "Lithographic" formations Ubouteau group.... < a8 proposedbv G c Broadhead in the

X (. following report:

In 1874 Mr. G. C. Broadhead published a detailed report of surveys 

made by him as State geologist during the years 1873 and 1874.2

1 Geol. Surv. Missouri, 1855-71, pp. 292-294.

2 Report of the Geological Survey of the State of Missouri, including field work of 1873-'74, with 

81 illuMtrations and an atlas, by Garland C. Broadhead, State Geologist. Printed by the authority and 

under the direction of the Bureau of Geology and Mines. Jcfforsou City, 1874 (pp. 734 and index).
170 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. f BULL. 80.

The classification he proposed is slightly different from that given in 

Mr. Worthen's first report of the Geological Survey of Illinois (1866).1 

It is as follows:

Carbon if er-< 

ous system.

T Upper coal. 

I]

Lower Carboniferous

Devonian system

TT -, «. ^ , Middle coal. Upper Carboniferous or Coal<j Lower coal

[^ Clear Creek sandstone and lower coal.

( Chester group .. \ Che8ter Iime8tone and Fer' 

( ruginous sandstone.

St. Louis group, j St " Louis limestone »nd 

< Warsaw limestone.

Keoknk group.. \ Encrinital and Burlington 

( group. 

( Chouteau limestone.

Vermicular sandstone and Chouteau group. <( ghale

^Lithographic limestone.

( Hamilton. 

< Onondaga. 

Upper Silurian.............,.............---...-.--...----..--- ...Oriskany.

In the use of Chester, St. Louis, and Keokuk groups he follows 

Worthen (1866).

He proposes the name " Chouteau group " to take the place of the 

«< Chemung group " of Swallow's Keport of 1855,2 which included 

1. Chouteau limestone, 100 feet.

2. Vermicular sandstone and shale, 75 feet.

3. Lithographic limestone, 55 feet.

" The Chouteau limestone," he reported, " in the upper part is a 

coarse gray limestone resembling the lower beds of the Encrinital limestone. In fact it is a bed of passage, as it often contains fossils common to both." « At the base of the group in northeast Missouri a few

feet of black slate are occasionally seen." The volume adds very little 

to the development of the correlations of this region. The " Chouteau 

group " is a very appropriate addition to the nomenclature. The classification of these formations as a group had been early recognized, but 

the erroneous correlation fixed upon it a name which no one had heretofore replaced. The " Kinderhook group " of Meek and Worthen is 

synonymous from a stratigraphic point of view, but the fauna and lithology of the Chouteau group on the western margin of the Ozark uplift 

present sufficient differences to make the retention of the name desirable.

As we conclude this review of the development of the correlation and 

classification of the Mississippian series, the problems appear simple, 

but they were complex and confusing to those who elaborated them.

1 Keport of the Geological Survey of the State of Missouri, including field-work of 1873-'74, with 

91 illustrations and an atlas, by Garland C. Broadhead, State Geologist. Printed by the authority and 

under the direction of the Bureau of Geology and Mines. Jefferson City, 1874, pp. 20, 24,

* Ibid., p. 26.
WILLIAMS.] CORRELATION OF FORMATIONS EAST AND WEST. 171

In New York State, which had given the most perfect section of upper 

Paleozoic formations, there appeared a complete series of deposits 

distinguished by easily recognized differences in their lithologic characters and in the fossils. The Coal Measures in Pennsylvania formed 

an easily recognized datum above, and below the Devonian the sections 

led by regular stages downward.

As the eastern geologists went westward they attempted to correlate 

the deposits discovered with the familiar standards of the Appalachian 

province, the New York and Pennsylvania systems. The geologists 

who began their investigations in the Mississippi Valley and westward 

correlated the formations with European standards, finding little to 

help them in the eastern sections, and in the finer subdivisions classified them independently, as the New York geologists had already done 

with their strata.

On comparing notes, the geologists found that there were unmistakable differences in the rocks which occupied the same general intervals, 

which were more extreme the more distant the contrasted sections 

were from each other, and they assumed (a conclusion which was natural at that stage of progress in the science) that like differences 

might be allowed for the faunas.. This error was fatal and delayed for 

years the acceptance of the correct interpretation which those who 

depended upon evidence of fossils alone made in the early part of the 

discussion.

With the recognized variation in the composition of the strata, a 

black shale which was present in a great number of the sections across 

the country, and certainly below the Coal Measures and above Silurian 

rocks, was seized upon as a common horizon by means of which the 

sections of separate States might be tied together. The problem regarding the black shale consisted in the fact that in the standard sections of New York there were two black shales, the Marcellus and 

Genesee., with the rich Hamilton fauna between them. When correlations were followed across the States it was seen that no black shale 

appeared in the northern part of the Mississippi Valley, but a Hamilton fauna was found, and in the more southern sections little or no 

trace of Hamilton faunas, but a single black shale.

In the solution of this problem a study of the fossils alone finally 

brought out the truth.

A third problem came up, particularly concerning the sections of Ohio, 

Michigan, and western Pennsylvania, With 'slight differences in the 

characters of the deposits, on passing westward from the typical upper 

Devonian of New York, there appear slight changes in the character 

of the faunas. The question was, Is this a geographical modification, 

or is it a change coordinate with sequence of time'? For the Chemung 

faunas do not extend westward under the Waverly, nor do the Waverly 

faunas extend eastward over the Chemung. This problem is being 

gradually settled by a minute study of the fossils, and the discovery of
172 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. . [BULL. 80.

the characteristics of species coordinate with temporal sequence. It is 

the light which evolution has thrown upon the history of organisms 

that is doing more to clear up the correlations involved than all the 

minute stratigraphy which has been applied to their interpretation. 

The true position of the fauna in the chronologic scale was, moreover, 

first clearly discerned in the Mississippian series by Meek and Wortheu, 

who, in 1861, proposed the name "Kinclerhook group" for the erroneously identified Chemung rocks of Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri. The 

fundamental correlation involved had been announced as early as 1847 

by M. de Verneuil, but Mr. Meek was the first American paleontologist 

to insist on the correctness of the interpretation, and to carry it out in 

the classification of the rocks of the country.

Another problem which chiefly concerns the various members of the 

Mississippian series is that regarding the subdivision and correlation of 

the parts of the series as exhibited in separate sections.

So far little advance has been made beyond the interpretation given 

by Dr. D. D. Owen in 1852, chiefly on structural grounds.

In the geological reports of Iowa and Illinois, and in separate publications elsewhere, the faunas have been largely described, but the 

materials have not been studied with sufficient attention to their biological character to determine the true relations of the faunas to each 

other and to chronologic sequence. The evidence now in hand enables 

us to point out where to draw the paleontologic lines to indicate the 

three general faunas above named, 1, Chouteau; 2, Osage group; and 3, 

Genevieve group; but the full content of each fauna and the precise 

points at which the stratigraphic lines should be drawn in local sections 

is not in all cases clear.
CHAPTER VIII.

THE WAVERLY PROBLEM : THE HISTORY OF THE DISCUSSION 

CONCERNING THE CORRELATION OF THE WAVERLY, MARSHALL, GONIATITE LIMESTONE, KINDERHOOK AND CHOUTEAU 

FORMATIONS.

In the second stage of development in the history of geologic correlations, American geologists did not rely solely upon fossils, but prominent stratigraphic units of each new province surveyed were identified, 

partly by their petrographic, partly by their paleontologic characters; 

and local and independent classifications and nomenclatures were constructed, using these stratigraphic units as datum levels. Thus the 

Coal Measures, with actual coal beds, formed the most conspicuous 

datum plane for the correlation of the interior; then the limestones 

below were correlated with the Carboniferous limestones of England. 

Going still finer, the Black shales (often called " black slates") assumed 

a prominent rdle in determining the division line between the Carboniferous and Devonian.

The Coal Measure Conglomerates have also played a prominent part 

in marking the base of the Coal Measures, although in actual age, as 

represented by the evolutional history of organisms, I am inclined to 

believe that in different parts of the country the whole length of the 

Carboniferous limestone period transpired between the times when the 

lowest Coal Measures of the several regions began, and that, therefore, 

Conglomerates which mark the elevation preceding such Coal Measures 

vary greatly in age. The Oriskany sandstone played a similar part in 

the more.eastern sections. The Catskill sandstone, as the supposed 

equivalent of the Old Red sandstone, formed a conspicuous landmark 

and division plane between Devonian and Carboniferous in the northern 

Appalachian province.

The influence of the belief in the continuity of such stratigraphic 

units was, and is still, one of the stumbling-blocks in the way of a correct interpretation of the relation between the Waverly formations of 

Ohio, and the more eastern strata of New York and Pennsylvania and 

those of Indiana and the Mississippi province farther west.

In the more minute application of correlation methods the same influence predominates. In attempting to classify the formations across 

State boundaries, the prevailing custom has been in the case of each 

prominent limestone or sandstone to seek the corresponding limestone

173
174 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

or sandstone in the nearest State already surveyed with which to correlate it. This custom is satisfactory in some cases, and in others it 

fails because of the inconstancy of the conditions of sedimentation; 

and, using the criterion of fossils, whenever considerable distance intervenes, there is clear indication of difference in the time of beginning 

and ending of a formation which in its general characters may indicate 

equivalency of age. Doubtless the same principles of correlation have 

been applied in the interpretation of the formations below and also of 

those above the Upper Paleozoic. Of these others may speak. This 

custom having prevailed during the last fifty years, it is in the discussion regarding the correlation of the dominant stratigraphic units that 

we find best expressed the methods and usages employed.

During the last half century a large number of papers have been 

written, having as a common theme some form of the problem regarding the deiuarkation between the Devonian and Carboniferous systems. 

These papers and discussions have gathered mainly about the interpretation, taxonomic value and position of the Waverly group, the 

Kinderhook group, the Marshall group, the Black shale and Groniatite 

limestone formations, the Catskill, the "Old Eed sandstone," and the 

variously named Conglomerates.

The determination of the demarkation between the Devonian and 

Carboniferous systems presented itself under different names to each 

of the State surveys of the States in which the transition is seen. In 

New York and the States of the Appalachian Basin it appeared in the 

discussion regarding the Catskill formation and the Conglomerates; 

in Ohio it was regarding the Waverly formations; in Michigan it was 

the Marshall group; in Indiana it was about the Goniatite limestone and 

the Black shale; in Kentucky and Tennessee it was the Black shale and 

the Siliceous group; in Illinois it was the Kinderhook group; in Iowa 

and Missouri it appeared first under the name "Chernung group," later 

as Kinderhook group in Iowa and as Chouteau group in Missouri. In 

each of these various States the difficulties were similar: the absence 

of any satisfactory definite standards of delimitation, either in stratigraphic or paleontologic terms, between the Devonian and Carboniferous systems.

In New York State the highest pure marine fauna in the Chemung 

is equivalent in a general way to the upper Devonian fauna of North 

Devonshire. But some of the species recorded in the upper Devonian 

of Europe are more conspicuous in formations stratigraphically above 

the Chemung horizon in America. Again, the Catskill formations in 

New York, containing estuarian faunas, carry also plants, which on 

the one hand indicate close affinities with the Carboniferous, but are 

stratigraphically well below true Carboniferous deposits of the Appapalachian province.

When, however, New York series are taken as the standard, the terminal part of the Devonian presents no parallel, either stratigraphically
WILUAJIB.] STEATA IN MICHIGAN. 175

or paleontologically, even in Ohio; still less in the States farther west. 

In each case it is a comparison of allied but dissimilar series.

The Oatskill and Conglomerate problems are discussed in a former 

chapter, Some of the problems associated with the Kinderhook and 

Chouteau groups have been considered in the chapter on the Mississippian series. In the present chapter I propose to consider the problems associated with the correlation of the Waverly, the Marshall, the 

"Black shale" and the Gouiatite limestone formations, and secondarily 

the Kinderhook and Chouteau. In the first chapter is discussed the 

development of opinions and nomenclature concerning these formations 

up to 1843, and in the chapter on the general correlations of the formations westward from New York to the Mississippi Valley, this development is traced onward to about the year 1851.

The succession of strata in Michigan as published in 1S38-'41, arranged ill descending order, as compiled from Dr. Houghton's Annual 

Keports, is as follows : l

XXXI. Recent Alluvium. 

XXX. Ancient Alluvium. 

XXIX. Erratic Block and Diluvium. 

XXVni. Tertiary Clays. 

XXVII. Brown or gray sandstone. 

XXVI. Argillaceous iron ore. 

XXV. Coal strata.

XXIV. Red or variegated sandstone. 

XXIII. Gray or yellow sandstone. 

XXII. Shales and coal, Lower Coal Measures. 

XXI. Blue compact slaty sandstone. 

XX. Gray limestone or upper lime rook. 

XIX. Fossiliferous ferruginous sandstone. 

XVUI. Kidney iron formation.9 

XVII. Sandstone of Point aux Barques. 

XVI. Clay slates and flags of Lake Huron. 

XV. Point au Gres and Manistee limestone. 

XIV. Soft, coarse-grained sandstone. 

XIII. Black bituminous, aluminous slate. 

XII. Limestone of Lake Erie.

D. Corniferous limestone; C. Thunder Bay and Little Traverse Bay 

limestone (/-a); B. Black bituminous limestone; A. Blue limestone. 

XI. Mackinac limestone. 

X. Polyp iferous portion of Upper Limerock. 

IX. Pentanierus portion of Upper Limerock. 

VIII. Lower limerock and shale. 

VII. Sandy limerock. 

VI. Upper gray sandstone. 

V,. Lower or red sandstone and shale. 

IV, Mixed conglomerate and sandstone. 

III. Conglomerate. 

II. Metamorphic rock. 

I. Primary rocks.

1 First Biennial Report of Progress of the Geological Survey of Michigan, etc., Lansing, 1861, pp. 12, 

18,14,15. 

» Ip this classification No. XVUI is made the lowest bed of the Carboniferous.
176 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEEOUS. [BULL. 80.

In 1851 Charles Whittlesey* gave an exhibit of the strata in New York, 

Ohio, and Kentucky, reckoning from the Conglomerate downward to 

the "Cliff limestone:"

NEW YORK (after Hall). Cbautauqua County.

Classified by fossils.

1. Old Red sandstone, very thin.

2. Chemung group, 1,200 to 1,500 feet.

3. Portage group, 1,000 feet.

4. Genesee slate, 23 to 150 feet.8

5. Tully limestone.

6. Hamilton group.

7. Marcellus shale.

8. Corniferous limestone. v

9. Onondaga limestone.

, OHIO. Chagrin Falls, 18 miles east of Cleveland*

Classified by external characters. 

Conglomerate.

1. Ash-colored shale, 110 feet.

2. Thick bedded argillaceous sandstone, 13 feet.

3. Black shale, 13 feet.

4. Grindstone grit, 38 feet. 2

5. Fine-grained sandstone, thin and thick bedded ("Waverly"), with red, blue, and 

green shales interatratifled flags and ripple marks strips of ironstone and iron 

rust with fossils. Lower part "black slate "of Ohio Reports: thickness to 

Cliff limestone probably 400 feet. (This embraces 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the NewYork column.)

6. Cliff limestone.

KENTUCKY. Falls of Ohio, by Dr. Yandell and Shumard.

Arranged by fossils.

1. Carboniferous limestone (Mammoth Cave).

2. Button Mould Knobs.

3. Bituminous black slate, 104 feet; in Tennesse e (Owen and Shumard), 8 to 51 feet,

4. Encrinital beds, 8 feet.

5. Water-lime beds, 12 feet.

6. Shell beds, 16 feet.

7. Coralline beds 3 (upper and lower), 40 feet.

8. Catenipora beds, = "Niagara."

9. Pentamerus beds, " Blue limestone," " Clinton," " Carodoo."

According to Hall in the New York Eeports, No. 5 of the Ohio section is the equivalent of the Chemung, Portage, Hamilton, and Marcellus. The author suggested the name "Protean group"* for rocks in

- ' Whittlesey, Charles. On the equivalency of the rocks of northeastern Ohio, and the Portage, Chemung, and Hamilton rocks of New York. Am. Assoc.', Proo., vol. 5,1851, pp. 207-221.

2 No. 4 is seen at Euclid, Newburg, Independence, etc.

3 7. M. "Verneuil placed the division point separating the Silurian and Devonian between the upper 

and lower Coralline beds. (See Ibid., p. 215.)

4 The name '' Protean group'' had been already used by L. Vanuxem for a series of rocks at the base 

of the Upper Silurian in Now York in 1838. (See New York Geological Survey, second Ann. Kept., 

p. 285.) This was afterward restricted to the Saliferous group and the name abandoned. Fourth 

Ann. Kept., pp. 53 and 374, and Final Keport on Geology, Third district, pp. 79 and 90. The name 

"Protean member " was afterward proposed by J. M. Saftbrd for the lower part of the Siliceous group 

of Tennessee. (See ante, p. 165.)
WILLIAMS I WJNCHELL ON THE MARSHALL GROUP. 177

Ohio occupying the interval between tlie "Grit" No. 4 and the "Cliff 

limestone" No. 6.

In the same year J. W. Foster reported the absence in Ohio of the 

representative of the conglomerates of New York State. The "Cliff 

limestone" he thought should be divided on biologic grounds. The 

sandstone formerly known as the " Waverly" should for like reasons 

be divided into three parts. The fossils have more Carboniferous than 

Devonian affinities.

The rocks of the Ohio coal field consist of sandstones, shales, limestones, seams of coal, and buhrstoue. The limestones and sometimes 

the shales contain exclusively marine faunas, while the sandstones contain a Carboniferous flora. The alternations of marine and terrestrial 

remains were noticed in a vertical distance of 700 feet. The faunas 

and floras contained in each formation were described in detail. 1

In 1862 James Hall 2 began to see the incorrectness of his correlation 

of the Waverly group and wrote:

The Waverly sandstone group of the Ohio Reports, at one time regarded as entirely 

equivalent to the Portage and Chemuug groups, may in its upper members constitute 

a distinct group, though we do not yet know any line of demarkatiou between them.

From 1862 to 1870 Alexander Winchell wrote several papers bearing 

upon the correlation of the Marshall group of Michigan. The fossils in 

this group proved to be closely related to those of the Waverly fauna, 

and thus the problems of the Marshall group of Michigan became intimately associated with those of the Waverly group of Ohio. In 1862 

he briefly described the rocks of this group in lower Michigan, and their 

fauna. 3

The following is a synoptical view of the strata described:

Feet. 

Carboniferous limestone....................................................... 66

Michigan Salt group .......................................................... 184

Napoleon group........................................... ......... ..... 123

Mar&hall group ............................................................... 173

Huron group.................................................................. 210

Hamilton group .............................................................. 55

The rocks chiefly interesting him in this paper were a series of fine, 

friable, ferruginous sandstones not over 300 feet in thickness, whose 

upper portion, more grayish, firmly cemented, and homogeneous than 

the lower, is remarkably destitute of organic remains and is separated from the lower by 15 feet or more of shale containing a large 

amount of ferruginous matter. The lower portion of the sandstone is 

rich in fossil remains belonging to the genera Qoniatites, Nautilus, Orthoceras, Itellerophon, Nucula, Solen, Myalina, Ghonetes, etc. The upper

1 On the alternations of marine and terrestrial organic remains in the Carboniferous series of Ohio. 

By ,T. W. Poster. Am. Assoc., Proc., vol. 6, pp. 301-304.

2 " On the Catskill group of New York." By James Hall. Canadian Naturalist and Jour, of Science, 

new series, vol. 7,1862, p. 381.

8 Notice of the rocks lying between the Carboniferous limestone of the lower peninsula of Michigan 

and the limestones of the Hamilton group, with descriptions of some cephalopods supposed to bo new 

to science. By Alexander Wincliell. Am. Jour, Sci., vol. 83,1862, pp. 352-366.

Bull. 80 12
178 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

sandstones were called the "Napoleon group" and the lower the "Marshall group." Mr. Winchell traced the course of the outcrops of these 

groups to the northeast and west and spoke of their being overlaid by 

the Michigan Salt group at Grand Eapids and vicinity and underlaid in 

the southwestern counties by a considerable thickness of argillaceous 

strata. In Huron County the "Huron group" of gritstone, green shales, 

and bituminous shales is found beneath the Marshall sandstone, and 

farther north the Hamilton limestones precede this group.

The descriptions of supposed new Oephalopods comprise ten species of 

Orthoceras, seven of Nautilus, one of Oyrtoceras, and eight of Goniatites.

In a paper 1 published in 1863 Mr. Winchell stated his conviction that 

a comparison establishes " fully the equivalency of the Ohemung, Marshall, Ohio [i. e., Waverly], Kockford [i. e., Goniatite limestone], Burlington [i. e., Kinderhook], and Chouteau strata."2

Further investigation modified this conviction, as we shall see beyond.

In 1864 appeared another paper.3 This was devoted to a description 

of certain western rocks near the line between the Devonian and Carboniferous systems and their contained faunas. "The paper shows an 

extended net-work of identification among the fossils from States west 

of Pennsylvania." Theauthor identifies also " four western species with 

those in the supposed Carboniferous conglomerate of western New 

York," two of which species are regarded as being at the top of Chemuug 

rocks of western New York. He inclined to the view that since there 

appears no close resemblance between the Chemung of New York and 

western rocks, the "Carboniferous conglomerate" of western New York 

may be the eastern prolongation of the western sandstones and shales, 

at least of the fossiliferous portions of them, and that the Chemuug of 

New York must be classed with the Devonian rocks. " Ninety-four 

species are described in this paper, of which thirty-six are described as 

new species, and two are made the types of new genera." This brief 

outline is followed by descriptions of the species.

The view that the so-called "Chemung" of the States west of New 

York should be correlated with the "Carboniferous conglomerate" 

system was expressed by Meek and Worthen in 1861.4

In 1870 Winchell completed his studies of the correlation of the Marshall group,5 and published an elaborate memoir upon the subject. In 

the appendix are cited ninety papers on the geology of the rocks under 

consideration. He opened the paper by a reference to the " controversy 

which has long existed in reference to the age and equivalents of the 

strata lying between the Corniferous limestone and the limestone of the

'Winchell, Alexander, on the identification of the Catskill Red Sandstone group with the Chemung. 

Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 35,1863, pp. 61-62.

3 Ibid., p. 62.

8 Descriptions of new species of fossils from the Marshall group of Michigan and its supposed 

equivalent in other States, etc., by Alexander Winchell, Phil. Acad. Sci. Proc., vol. 17,1865, pp. 109-133.

« Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 32,1861, pp. 167-177,288.

* The Marshall group: A Memoir on its geological position, characters, and equivalencies in the 

United States. Proo. Am. Phil. Sue., vol. 11,1869, pp. 57-83, and vol. 12,1870, pp. 385-418.
WILLIAMS.] WINCHELL ON THE MARSHALL GROUP. 179

Lower Carboniferous system." 1 He next gave a brief synopsis of 

opinions under the Leading of "History of discovery and opinions," 

beginning with Hildreth's paper, 1836,2 and citing the views of the chief 

contributors to the discussion up to 1869. Then follows a tabulation of 

the rock sections, as then interpreted, in the several States, including 

the corresponding sections of the States of New York, Michigan, Ohio, 

Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee. He then 

proceeded to discuss "the parallelism of the formations on purely 

structural and lithological grounds," and remarked that " the identity 

of tho black shale can not now be mistaken." He referred to' its 

demonstrated position above the Hamilton group inMichigan, Kentucky, 

and Ohio, and below the Eockford Goniatite beds in Indiana. He 

thought it was unrepresented in Missouri. In Michigan it may be the 

lower part of his Huron group, and in New York he confined the typical 

equivalent of the black shale to the Oenesee shale on paleontologic 

grounds.

The Carboniferous conglomerate was next taken as marking "a 

superior horizon which can not ordinarily be mistaken." The Parma 

conglomerate of Michigan the author considered as "stratigraphically 

equivalent to the carboniferous conglomerate." Lithologically he 

found no means of distinguishing the coal conglomerate of Ohio from 

the Chemung and Catskill conglomerates of New York. On paleontologic grounds, however, he separated the " Chemung" and Catskill 

conglomerates, which he made equivalent to the "Marshall group" of 

Michigan, from the " Parma conglomerate," which he placed higher in 

the scale above the carboniferous limestones of the interior; and after 

discussing the fossils underlying or associated with the conglomerates, 

he said:

"For these reasons I ah all, for the present, regard the three conglomerates 3 in 

western New York, with the associated strata, as belonging together in the horizon 

of the Catsktll group."

Later investigations, particularly those of the Second Pennsylvania 

Survey, have thrown clearer light on the relations of these several 

conglomerates.4

Tho third conspicuous formation which Winchell sought to. correlate 

was the " Carboniferous limestone series" of the Mississippi Valley. 

In a foot-note 5 the author proposed the name "Mississippi limestone 

series or Mississippi group" for the " Carboniferous limestones of 

the United States, which are so largely developed in the valley of the 

Mississippi." My adaptation of this name and proposal of the name

1 The Marshall group: A Memoir on its geological position, characters, and equivalencies in the 

United States. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., vol. 11,1869, p. 57.

2 Am. Jour. Soi., vol. 29, 1836, pp. 133-136.

3 Viz, the " Chemung conglomerate," the " Catskill conglomerate," and the so-called " Carboniferous 

conglomerate," near Panama.

4 See Second Pennsylvania Survey Keports HI, by J. IT. Carll, 1880, and Report E, by C. A. Ashburner, 1680. 

* Proc. Am. Phil. Soo., vol. 11, p. 78.
180 THE DEVONIAN AND CAEBONIFEROUS. [nuu.80.

" Mississippian series " for the formations grouped under the names Subcarboniferous or Lower Carboniferous are given in a previous chapter.

This " Mississippi limestone series " of Winchell includes the rocks 

in the Mississippi Valley from the " Burlington" up to the "Kaskaskia" 

of Iowa, and in his usage it does not include the " Kinderhook" or 

" Waverly." But to be of practical use the series should extend from 

the base of the Carboniferous, i. e., including the u Goniatite beds," the 

"Chouteau series," the " Kinderhook," the "Marshall," the "Waverly," 

upward to where the marine fauna ceases at the approach of the conglomerates or similar deposits heralding the appearance of coal.

In discussing this group, Wiuchell only identified, with little argument, the "Carboniferous limestone" of Michigan, the "Knobstones" 

of Indiana and Kentucky, and the " Siliceous group" of Tennessee, 

with the "Carboniferous limestone" of the Mississippi Valley, not 

including here, however, the formation next to be considered.

The rocks between the " black shale " and the " Mississippi limestone" above presented greater difficulties, because of the radical 

lithologic differences of the various outcrops representing them. The 

several formations are the " Waverly " and " Gritstone" series of Ohio, 

the Chemung and Portage groups of New York, the " Marshall sandstones" of Michigan, the "Yellow sandstones," called in the earlier 

report " Chemung group," of Iowa, the " Eockford limestones" of Illinois, and the "Chouteau limestones, Vermicular sandstone and shale, 

the Lithographic limestone " of Missouri.

The general equivalency between the Waverly and Gritstone series 

of Ohio and the Portage and Chemung of New York had been asserted 

by James Hall, and, following his authority, had been the usage of 

geologists for years. From this position Winchell both departed and 

advanced. In Michigan he recognized below the Marshall sandstones, 

and above what he regarded the equivalent of the Genesee shale of 

New York, some 500 or 600 feet of argillaceous rocks, more arenaceous 

and flaggy to the north. These, which he called the " Huron group," 

he considered as the equivalent of the Portage and Chemung of western New York.

In Ohio, below the Waverly series, he found the extension of his 

Huron group [what is now called the " Erie shales"], equivalent to the 

Portage and Chemung of New York. On similar grounds, which are 

lithologic and stratigraphic, he identified the argillaceous beds above 

the black shale in Kentucky with his Huron group. He also referred 

to a similar horizon the " bluish, slightly micaceous sandstones of the 

yellow sandstone series of Iowa, the blue shales below the lithographic 

limestones of Missouri, and possibly the Illinois shales doubtfully 

referred to the Genesee by Prof. Worthen; " and having thus, on physical grounds, found what he thought to be equivalent formations to 

represent the Chemung and Portage of New York, he presented a 

lengthy argument for regarding the Waverly series of Ohio and the
WINCHELL ON THE MARSHALL GKOUP. 181

Marshall group of Michigan on paleontologic grounds, the equivalents 

of the Catskill rocks of New York.

In the paleoutological part of the paper is given a catalogue of the 

known fossils of the Marshall group and its supposed equivalents in 

the United States, with references to the place of publication of the 

descriptions of the spe'cies. Four hundred and sixteen species are 

enumerated. No attempt is made to determine or eliminate synonyms. 

The distribution of the species by States is indicated. As the author 

takes up his argument he first speaks of the fauna of the Huron group, 

and concludes from a comparison of the species that it is equivalent to 

" the Portage and Chemung groups, or to some portion of them," and 

then proceeds to determine whether the overlying Marshall group 

should be included with the Huron shales as equivalent to the upper 

part of the Portage-Chemuog of New York, His first argument for 

equivalency was that furnished by the lists of species identified in two 

or more States, By this means he correlated 

(1) The Marshall group of Michigan with (2) the Gritstone aud Waverly clown 

to the Chocolate shales of Ohio; (3) the Goniatite limestone of southern Indiana 

and its equivalent sandstone in northern Indiana; (4) the Kiuderhook group of 

Illinois; (5) the yellow sandstone series of Iowa, at least down to the bluish shales; 

(6) the series known in Missouri as the CUouteau limestones, the Vermicular sandstone and shales, and the lithographic limestones, and (7) the Silico-biturniuous 

shalen at the base of the Siliceous group of Tennessee.

These correlations had been practically demonstrated for all except 

the Marshall group by previous writers.

A long discussion of species then follows, to show that the species 

contained in these formations have " a Carboniferous aspect," a fact 

which M. de Verneuil had long before pointed out upon his first glance 

at the species then known of the Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and 

Missouri localities.

The next section announces that " the fauna of the Chemung group 

presents a Devonian aspect." This fact had been recognized for thirty 

years, and the Chemung of New York had been the recognized typical 

upper Devonian for all correlations in North America.

Section VI proposes the question " Can the Marshall and Chemung 

be synchronized 1?" Elaborate citations of principles of paleontologic 

science are made and prolonged argument to prove that this is not 

reasonable, and to reach the conclusion that the Chemung must remain 

"within the limits of the Devonian system, where it has been placed 

by the nearly unanimous judgment of paleontologists," and that " the 

Marshall group must be admitted within the boundaries of the Carboniferous system according to the present nearly unanimous judgment 

of western geologists."

The one point which is the gist of the whole argument is made in the 

last section, headed "Parallelism of the Catskill and Marshall." The 

author's theory is that the Catskill group of eastern New York instead 

of thinning out or disappearing by lack of sediments in western New
182 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL.80.

York is absent in consequence of subsequent denudation; that the 

" Old Red" is not necessarily all Devonian in age; that in the Marshall 

are some species which are considered as "having near analogues in the 

Old Bed of Scotland;" that the Catskill, although identified as the 

equivalent of the Old Red sandstone of Scotland and Wales, is younger 

than that part of the Devonian represented in New York by the Chemung 

and its equivalents in Europe, and as the Marshall has been shown 

to be not the equivalent of the Chemung in New York, it must be, the 

author argued, the representative of the Catskill.

At the close a table of geological equivalents .is given. The part of 

it of chief value here is that expressing the author's interpretation of 

the equivalents of the Marshall group of Michigan, which consists of the 

following, immediately overlying the Huron group, in ascending order:

(1) Huron gritstones, bluish or greenish gray, fine grained, regularly bedded, 15 feet.

(2) Marshall sandstone, reddish, yellowish, olive, obliquely laminated, highly ferruginous; the iron often a rudely concentric, concretionary arrangement; in, 

places calcareous, highly fossiliferous, 160 feet.

(3) Napoleon sandstone, pale buff, often conglomeratic, obliquely laminated, thick

bedded, 123 feet. 

Followed above by the Michigan salt group.

According to the table the equivalents to these are, in New York, 

upper part of Catskill group, including " Carboniferous conglomerate" 

and "Chemung conglomerate;" in Ohio, "Waverly series, in part" 

(the "Chocolate shale series" and the " base of the Waverly series" are 

correlated with the Chemung and Portage of New York); in Indiana, 

the "Rockford limestone" and "Williamsport gritstone;" in Illinois, 

the "Kinderhook group;" in Iowa, the "Yellow sandstone series;" in 

Missouri, the "Chouteau limestone," "Vermicular sandstone," and 

shales, and "Lithographic limestone;" in Tennessee, part of the 

" Siliceous group" and the a Siliceous shales," and in Europe the " Old 

Red sandstone" of Scotland, "Yellow sandstone" of Ireland, and the 

" Westphalian schists."

In 1871 appeared the Report of Progress of the Geological Survey of 

Ohio. 1

Two of the chapters have matter of interest in the present discussion: 

One by Mr. E. B. Andrews,2 ; a second by Mr. M. C. Read.3

The formations discussed in Mr. Andrews's article are the " Ohio black 

shale" or " Huron shale," the " Waverly sandstone," the " Maxville 

limestone," the "Conglomerate" of the Coal Measures, and the Coal 

Measures.

The Waverly sandstone is divided into three parts. The middle is 

coarse and often a conglomerate; the division above, a fine-grained 

sandstone, and that below sandstones and shales, with interstratified

1 Geol. Survey Ohio, Eep. Progress in 1870; Columbus, 1871.

2 Keport of Labors in the Second Geological District daring the year 1870 in Coal Measure 

district, pp. 55-251. 

* Sketches of the Geology of Geauga and Holmes Counties, pp. 463-484.
WTLLTAMB.I ANDREWS AND BEAD. 183

saud.y shales. The fine-grained sandstone lying above the Waverly 

conglomerate was first investigated in the vicinity of Logan, Hocking 

County, and thence received the name of " Logan sandstone." The 

whole thickness of the Waverly formation is about 640 feet. Fucoid 

stems are abundant and in the Logan sandstone in addition to these are 

found three varieties of an unnamed vegetation.

The Maxville limestone, lying directly above the Logan sandstone, is 

overlaid by a few feet of soft, coarse sandy shale and 40 to 50 feet of a 

soft laminated sandrock. Above this is a coarse sandrock rich in impressions of Lepidodendra. A considerable collection of fossils was 

obtained from the Maxville limestone at Newtonville, Muskingum 

County. A list of species and genera is given, of which eight species 

are Chester types and two are identical with species from the St. Louis 

limestone, leading the author to conclude that this Maxville limestone 

represents the Chester grrfup of the Lower Carboniferous limestone 

series, while there may be some representation of the St. Louis limestone at some of the outcrops. These local patches of Maxville limestone never exceed 15 to 20 feet in thickness, and are generally no more 

than 8 to 10 feet thick, while in Kentucky the limestone is found nearly 

100 feet thick.

The true Coal Measures Conglomerate is seen resting upon the Logan 

or Upper Waverly over limited areas. In general where there is Maxville limestone there is no Conglomerate.

In Viuton County a section is given showing the Waverly Conglomerate and the Logan sandstone extending up to the coal.

No true Coal Measures Conglomerate is found, but the coal, with its superincumbent shales, rests directly upon the Logan sandstone. This valuable section 

tends to verify deductiona made elsewhere in regard to the Waverly conglomerate, 

and also in regard to the entire absence over certain large areas of the true Coal 

Measure Conglomerate. At this place no Maxville limestone was found resting upon 

the top of the Logan group.

Mr. Bead reported that in Holmes County the lowest rocks observed 

belong to the Waverly sandstone, the ravines sometimes cutting down 

fully 200 feet into it. The Conglomerate appears above the Waverly 

in Prairie Township, and has a maximum thickness of 18 feet, with 

fossils which Mr. Meek determined to belong to the Carboniferous formation, pointing to the deposition of a Subcarboniferous limestone which 

has been cut out or removed by the agencies which brought in a deposit 

of the Conglomerate. Generally in the county the Conglomerate is wanting, and is represented in places by a thin layer of coarse sandstone 

without pebbles, sometimes by hard, compact, white siliceous rock a 

few inches in thickness and filled with Stigmaria, and sometimes the 

Coal Measures rest directly on the Waverly.

In the second volume of the Ohio Eeports 1 the Carboniferous system 

of Ohio is classified.

'Report of the Geological Survey of Ohio, vol. 2, pt. 1, Chapter xxxi, by J. S. Newberry, chief 

geologist, 1874.
184 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS.

The following is a tabular expression of the classification:

Feet. 

Upper Barren Measures (?) .................................................... 300

Upper Coal Measures.......................................................... 350

Lower Barren Measures........................................................ 400

Lower Coal Measures.......................................................... 400

Conglomerate.................................................................

Maxville limestone (near Newtonville, Mnskingura County, 15 to 20 feet thick, and

8 to 10 feet thick in the counties south). 

Cuyahoga shale......................................... 150-250"j

Berea grit .............................................. 60 ! _.

Bedford shale...................... ..................... 75 fWaverly group.

Cleveland shale ....................... .................. 21-30 J

Erie shale (Chenmug)...................................

The " Cheinung" of New York is considered to have thinned westward 

and to be represented in the Erie shale. The Catskill, according to the 

author's view, thins out and does not appear in Ohio. The Vespertine 

of Pennsylvania changes its character on passing westward, and is the 

Waverly group in Ohio. The Unibral of Pennsylvania thins, disappears, or is blended with the Yespertine. The Carboniferous Conglomerate is traced as far as central Ohio. The "Maxville limestone" 

of Andrews furnished fossils which were submitted to Mr. Meek, who 

identified them as Chester and St. Louis species.

In the year 1878 Mr. L. E. Hicks published two papers concerning 

the Waverly group. In the first he stated that considerable discussion 

had arisen in attempting to synchronize sections in southern and central Ohio with a section at Cleveland, upon which dewberry has based 

his subdivisions.

The Cleveland section, in descending order, is as follows:

Feet. 

Cuyahoga shale ........................... ......................... 150 to 250

Berea grit. .............................................................. 60

Bedford shale ... ....................._....-.......................... 75

Cleveland shale ........................................................ 21 to 60

The Cleveland shale is the only formation which retains its typical 

characters in central and southern Ohio. It holds a distinct fauna and, 

in some places, bears a close resemblance to the Huron shale. "But the 

two never exist together in immediate contact." The persistency of the 

Cleveland shale has been demonstrated by its discovery in Delaware 

County, southern Ohio. 1

In the second paper Mr. Hicks reported that in central Ohio five distinct members of the Waverly group are found, in descending order, as 

follows:

Feet. 

5. Licking shales ......................................................... 100-150

4. Black Hand conglomerate, or Granville beds ............................ 35-90

3. Raccoon shales......................................................... 300

2. Sunhury black slate.................................................... 10-15

1. Sunhury Calciferous sandrock .......................................... 90-100

'Discovery of the Cleveland shale in Delaware County, Ohio. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., voL 16, pp. 70, 71. 

The Waverly group in Central Ohio. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 16, pp. 216-224.
WILLIAMS.] ORTOH Otf THE WAVE&LY. 185

The upper limit of this series is determined to be the Conglomerate of 

the Coal Measures by the presence of Subcarboniferous fossils below. 

The lower limit is very sharply defined by stratigraphical relations.

No. 5 consists mainly of soft, fine-grained shales, well exposed on 

Licking Kiver. No. 4, best seen at Hanover and Black Hand, consists 

of coarse sandstones and conglomerates containing fucoids, with compact drab sandstones and shales at the base. No. 3 occurs along Raccoon Creek^in Franklin and Delaware Counties, and is composed of 

blue and gray shales filled with nodular masses of iron ore. No organic 

remains except fossil sea-weed have been found in this deposit. No. 2 

contains fossil remains of fish and corresponds very closely with beds 

in northern and southern Ohio. No. 1 is made up of compact and shaly 

sandstones, with alternating shales and limestones, and is well exposed 

on Eattlesnake and Walnut Creeks.

In regard to the determination of this series of rocks as Devonian or 

Carboniferous, the author concludes that there is "good reason for retaining the Cuyahoga sub-group in the Carboniferous, whatever may 

be done with the rest of the Waverly."

Mr. Edward Orton,1 in 1882, in a paper on the bituminous matter of 

the black shales, further discussed the classification of the Waverly.

From the author's examination of the various black shales outcropping in Ohio and neighboring States, he concludes that the Huron and 

the Cleveland shales of Newberry, separated in the eastern part of 

Ohio by the greenish Brie shales, form a continuous series farther west 

and constitute a mass from 250 to 350 feet in thickness, which must be 

regarded as all of Devonian age. For this shale he proposes to retain 

the name " Ohio, Black shale," applied to it by N. S. Shaler in the Geology of Kentucky. The author recognized a second shale of similar 

nature in Ohio, situated about a hundred feet above the top of the 

former, called by Andrews the " Waverly Black shale." It was farther 

defined by Meek, who separated it from the Cuyahoga shale by its 

fossil contents and called it the "Berea shale." It immediately overlies the Berea sandstone and forms the roof of most of the quarries of 

this famous sandstone. These three black shales, the Huron and Cleveland of Newberry and the Berea of Meek, are alike in being of marine 

origin and in being strongly bituminous. Analysis shows them to contain 8 to 20 per cent of organic matter, and frequently they have taken 

fire, from burning brush heaps, and cases are recorded of their continuing to burn for weeks when once thus kindled. The bituminous 

matter in them was supposed by Newberry 2 to have originated from 

the decomposition of the " vegetation which lined the shores and covered the surface of a quiet and almost land-surrounded sea," like a 

Sargasso sea.

1 Orton, Edward: A source of the bituminous matter in the Devonian and Subcarboniferous black 

shales of Ohio. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 24, pp. 171-174. 

»Geol. of Ohio, vol.1, p. 156.
186 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80

Since the writing of that report, the author had discovered several 

microscopic forms of vegetation occurring in these bituminous shales 

in great abundance. Dr. Dawson had previously observed these 

bodies, and recognized them as the spore cases of some lycopodiaceous 

plant, and named them Sporangites Huronensis.1

The author supposes that the great accumulations of gas and oil that 

have been found in the Devonian and Subcarboniferous formations of 

Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio are to be traced to the further 

distillation or decomposition of the bituminous matter, particularly the 

spore cases origin ally deposited with these black shales, a theory which 

was first outlined by Newberry,2 although the presence of the spore 

cases was then unknown. To the spore cases the author would attribute the chief supply of bituminous matter.

In 1883 H. S. Williams 3 reported the discovery of a fauna in the 

midst of the upper Devonian rocks of New York, having a decided 

carboniferous aspect, but closely related to a fauna heretofore known 

in America only at the base of the Mississippian series In Iowa.

At the base of the Cheinung group at Ithaca and High Point, Naples? 

New York, the author found a fauna which is strikingly similar to a 

fauna found at Lime Creek, near Rockford, Iowa. Although the general aspect of the fauna is Carboniferous, yet the occurrence of several 

of the species in the Chemung rocks requires consideration. The Lime 

Creek fauna was ascribed to the Hamilton group in 1858 by James 

Hall, but it was afterwards, in 1873, by him and by E. P. Whitfield 

referred to the " Chemung group."

By a close comparison of the faunas and minute and accurate examination of the specific relations of these faunas to each other, the author 

is convinced that the deposits of Lime Creek, Iowa, and all deposits 

carrying a like fauna, are not Lower Carboniferous, but are " geological 

equivalents of the Chemung of the East."

Mr. S. Calvin 4 took exception to the conclusions of Williams concerning the "strikingly Carboniferous aspect of the Lime Creek fauna," 

claiming, after an examination of the fossils, that they exhibit rather 

a Devonian and Silurian aspect, and Williams 5 replied.

The importance of the discovery consisted in the recognition of traces 

of the fauna, which is Carboniferous in its aspect, in America before the 

close of the Devonian in New York. The recognition of the same in 

Iowa proved the appearance there of a fauna of true upper Devonian 

age; that is, more recent than the Hamilton and older than the typical 

Kinderhook faunas of the Mississippian area.

1 On spore cases in coals; by J. W. Dawson, LL. D., P. E. S. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 1, pp. 256-263

2 Agricultural Report of Ohio in 1869.

8 Williams, Henry S.: On a remarkable fauna at tbebaseof theCbemung group in New York. Am. 

Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 25, pp. 97-104.

4 Calvin, S.: On the fauna found at Lime Creek, Iowa, and its relation to other geological faunas. 

Am. Jonr. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 25, 1883, pp. 432-436.

8 Williams, Henry S.: Equivalency of the Lime Creek beds of Iowa. Am. Jour. Soi., 3d aer., voL 

25, 1883, p. 311.
WILUAMB.] HALL, ORTON, HERRICK. 187

James Hall,1 in a paper before the American Association, discussed 

the limitations between the Chemung and Waverly groups, according 

to paleontological evidence, Spirifera disjuncta is considered as characteristic of the upper part of the Chemung. Concerning the sandstones and conglomerates which had been considered as of Carboniferous 

age, it has been found by a study of the fossils that they represent the 

upper member of the Chemung group. Above them occurs a series of 

non-fossiliferous shales of unknown thickness. The correlation of this 

series of rocks was studied by Mr. C. B. Beecher, who prepared a section 

exhibiting about 1,500 feet and a list of fossils characteristic respectively 

of the Chemung group and of the Waverly group following it.

From the record of a well in Cleveland, Ohio, Edward Orton 2 determined the thickness of the shales below the Berea grit.

This well was commenced about 760 feet above tide-water and about 

75 feet below the Berea grit. The first rock met was Bedford shale, 

followed by the Devonian shales, classified by Dr. Newberry as the 

Cleveland, Erie, and Huron divisions, and having a thickness of 1,300 

feet.

In the years 1885 to 1888 C. L. Herrick 3 applied to the solution of the 

Waverly problem the new methods of correlation previously elaborated 

by Williams in the interpretation of the upper Devonian, formations. 

(See chapter on the Cheinung-Catskill problem.)

This paper is a fine illustration of what can be done in the way of 

dissecting out the individual faunas, showing their composition, and 

determining their affinities with faunas of other regions by a minute 

study of local geology.

Although the study was primarily of a local series of faunas, the 

author has made abundant use of material from other regions for comparison. The result is that we have a valuable series of the successive 

faunas of the Lower Carboniferous formations of central Ohio, which 

will serve as standards in all future work in correlation.

The great mass of the paper is devoted to specific descriptions; the 

final results of the study are given in volume iv.4

The section is divided into three parts or divisions by two conglomerates ;.; these are subdivided into ten zones, and at the close a list of 321 

species is given with the particular position or range in this scale of 

each species.

1 Hall, ifames: Note on the intimate relations of the Chemung group and Waverly sandstone in 

northwestern Pennsylvania and southwestern New York. Am. Assoc., Proc., vol. 33,1884, pp. 416- 

419.

2 Orton, Edward: The record of the deep well of the Cleveland Boiling Mill Company, Cleveland, 

Ohio. Am. Assoc. Proc., vol. 34, 1885, pp. 220-222.

8 Herrick, C. L.: A sketch of the geological history of Licking County, accompanying an illustrated 

catalogue of carboniferous fossils from Flint Ridge, Ohio. Denison Univ., Bull., vol. 2, pp. 5-68,144- 

148; vol. 3, pp. 13-110; vol. 4, pp. 11-60,97-123,1885-1888, with numerous plates illustrating the fossils.

"Ibid., pp. 96-114.
188 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. fnuu..80.

The foliowin/r classification 1 modified from that of Mr. Edward Orfcon, 

is given by the author :

Feet.

fr $ Keokifk...... ? inn 1t-n Logan.............. | Bnrlingtoil... j-.-- 100-150

Cuyahoga or WaverJy series... < (Conglomerate II.)................. )

Kinderhook ........................ V.... 50-60

t(Conglomerate I.) .................. )

f Waverly shale ........................... 40

Berea or Transition Series | Eerea shale .............................. 200-400

(Western equivalent of upper ^ Berea grit................................ 50-60

Chemung). Bedford shale ............................ 50

LCleveland shale (local) ................... 50

Erie shale. Eastern or typical Chemung, lower part....................... 100

The classification adopted in his tables is as follows :

III. Eeolcuk and Burlington groups, Upper Waverly (Upper Logan), separated into

three zones in the table, but into five on p. 100 of the text, and there amounting to

80 feet of thickness, or not over 125 feet. 

II. Kinderhook (part or all), middle Waverly,

This is subdivided into two zones in table, but into four zones on p. 101; the uppermost of which is Conglomerate II; the thickness, 52 feet, without the Conglomerate, which is but a few inches or feet in the specific cases given. 

I. Transition gone. Devonian, in part equivalent to Cheniung and .Portage.

The upper zone of this division is the Conglomerate 1,18 inches thick in one of the 

sections. In the table five zones are mentioned, on pages 100 and 101; seven zones 

are given, about 350 feet in thickness and not over 500 feet.

Below this is the Bedford shale, 51 feet (Hamilton facies in Chemung association), 

with the Blade or Hamilton shale next below.

He concluded that his middle Waverly " is representative of the Oatskill," but is not strictly equivalent to it.

The " Berea shale" is more than Orton's black shales, so named, but 

" the greater part of the shales below the Kinderhook."

He did not consider it necessary " to conclude from the fact that the 

Erie shales are of Chemung, age that all which lies strati graphically 

above the Erie is certainly later faunally than the top of the Chemung 

as seen in New York strata." 2

Above the Waverly group traces of the higher faunas were seen in 

the "Maxville limestone," east of Rushville. This " Maxville limestone" fauna is correlated with the Chester limestone of the interior.3

The latest systematic classification of the rocks of Ohio is reported 

in the sixth volume of the Geological Survey of Ohio.4 This will exhibit the present state of development of correlations for the State:

18. Glacial drift......................................

17. Upper Barren Coal Measures......................

16. Upper Productive Coal Measures..................

15. Lower Barren Coal Measures...................... 500 \ Carboniferous.

14. Lower Productive Coal Measures..................

13. Conglomerate group......._....................

1 Herrick, C. L.:" A sketch of the geological history of Licking County, accompanying an illustrated 

catalogue of carboniferous fossils from Flint Kidge, Ohio. Denison TJuiv., Bull., vol. 4, pp. 105-106 

2 Ibid., p. 111. 

»Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 21-23. 

4 Vol. VI., Economic Geology, by Edward Orton. Columbus, 1888.
Devonian.

WILLIAMS.] ORION'S CLASSIFICATION OF OHIO ROCKS, 189

12. Subcari>ouiferouslimestone, Maxville, Newtouville,

etc.............................................. 25

I lie. Logan group.............. 0-350 

lid. Cnyahoga shale............ 150-450 }> Subcarboniferous. 

lie. Berea shale................ 20-50 

11&. Berea grit................. 3-160 

lla. Bedford shale.............. 50-150

{

I0c. Cleveland shale. 1 

10&. Erie shale. >....... 250-3,000 

10a. Huron shale. J 

9. Hamilton shale, Oleutangy shale.................. 25

8. Devonian limestone, Upper Helderberg or Coruiferous, including West Jefferson sandstone'......... 75 j

7. Lower Helderberg limestone, etc.

In this classification the Logan group is the equivalent of the Olive 

sliaJes of Bead, the Logan sandstone and the Waverly Conglomerate of Andrews. The " Berea shale" is a name proposed by Mr. 

Meek for the " Waverly black shale " of the reports. The " Waverly 

group" is differently delimited from the original Waverly group of the 

first and second reports, by the addition of the Logan group at the 

top and the exclusion of the Cleveland shale at the' bottom. The reason, for including the Cleveland shale in the Devonian was explained 

by Dr. Orton in previous papers. It is because of structural consideration which led to associating the three shales of Newberry in one 

formation, though there were recognized fossils in some of them which 

have been regarded as strictly belonging to the higher fauna. 1

The correlation of the Goniatite limestone of Kockford, Indiana, involved a number of disputed questions, in all of which the fossils 

pointed to the right interpretation, while the apparent stratigraphy 

was misleading.

The elements of the problem were these: At Kockford a limestone, 

rich in Goniatites, was found above the black shale, and stratigraphically below arenaceous deposits and shales, which in other places were 

followed by the Mississippian limestone. In I860,2 a number of Gouiatites and other fossils were described, and the author, Mr. James Hall, 

reported the lim estones as Marcellus black shale. He had previously 

interpreted the black shale of the Southwest as Marcellus, and as the 

Marcellus shaleof New York in calcareous layers was rich in Gouiatites, 

he inferred that the bed at Kockford was the equivalent.

In this paper he said:

The parallelism of these localities is inferred from the fact that the stratum containing the Goniatites is clearly above the limestone' of the age of the Upper Helderberg group, and below the sandstones which are recognized as of the age of the 

Chemung group of New York. The exposures at the immediate locality are obscure; 

but the black shale, which I regard as the continuation of the Marcellus shale, occurs 

in the immediate neighborhood. 3

1 Vol. VI., Economic Geology, by Edward Orton Columbus, 1888, p. 29.

- Thirteenth Report to the Regents on the State Cabinet of Natural History, Albany, N. Y.

8 Ibid., p. 05. (See Cristy's paper on the Goniatite limestone 1851).
190 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL.80.

In 1861, Messrs. Meek and Worthen replied, and gave their interpretation of the correlation. This paper, like that of M. de Verneuil, 

was based upon the evidence of fossils, and it augmented the arguments of the learned French paleontologist. The following is an 

abstract of the paper.

Messrs. Meek and Worthen,1 after carefully comparing fossils in the 

Illinois State geological collection with specimens from the Goniatite 

bed of Eockford, Indiana, came to the conclusion that this bed was also 

represented in Illinois, Missouri, and Iowa, and that its stratigraphic 

position is much higher than that given it by Hall. They found that 

the black slate always occurs beneath the limestone, and that the 

latter is of the same age with the Chouteau limestone of Swallow, 

which had been placed on a parallel with the Ohemuug group, because 

it contained many fossils found in other beds in the West referred by 

Hall to the Chemung group.

A section is given showing the position of the Chouteau limestone 

with regard to the other Western formations, beginning with the Burlington limestone, which is acknowledged to be Carboniferous, and 

extending down to the Hamilton group, thus:

Feet.

1. Burlington limestone attaining a thickness of...........'...... 200

2. Chouteau limestone .......................................... 100

3. Vermicular sandstone and shale............................65 to 100

4. Lithographic limestone (rather local)......................... 60

5. Black slate ................................................30 to 40

6. Hamilton group.............................................. 120

Numbers 2,3, 4, are included by Swallow in the " Chemung." The 

Black slate is shown to come in everywhere above all the well-defined Hamilton group beds, and the authors assert that as the Chouteau limestone comes directly beneath the Burlington limestone and

considerably above the horizon of the Hamilton group beds of the West 

as well as above the Black slate, therefore its representative in Indiana, 

the Goniatite bed at Eockford, can not be referred to any part of the 

Marcellus shale at the base of the Hamilton group. Neither can the 

Black slate be said to represent the Marcellus shale, as that lies at the 

base of the Hamilton group, and the Black slate is always found above 

the Hamilton. The position of the Black slate, they maintain, is more 

nearly that of the Geneseo slate as suggested by M. de Verneuil.

The fossils of the Eockford limestone, including the Goniatites, were 

considered by the authors as more nearly allied to the Carboniferous 

forms than to those of the New York rocks; examples are given to 

prove this statement, and a section to illustrate the close relations 

between the Chouteau limestone (equivalent to the Eockford limestone) 

and the Burlington beds in Illinois. Eeference is made to a paper of

'Meek, F.B., and A. H. "Worthen. Bemarks on the age of the Goniatite limestone at Sockford, 

Indiana, and its relations to the " Black slate " of the Western States and to some of the succeeding 

rooks above the latter. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 32,1861, pp. 107-177, 288.
WILUAMB.J MEEK AND WORTHEN. 191

Mr. C. A. White, iu which he " shows that, out of a list of 102 described 

species occurring in the Burlington limestone, 15 commenced their 

existence iu the beds below, referred by Hall to the Cheinung, which, 

as is well known, represents the Chouteau limestone of Swallow."

After noting the intimate connection between these beds and the 

Carboniferous rocks above and remembering that the Chemung group 

in New York and Pennsylvania is covered by another Devonian formation (the Old Eed sandstone) between 2,000 and 3,000 feet thick, the 

questions arose, should these Chouteau beds be referred to the Chemung Horizon ? Is it possible that a great formation like the Old Eed 

sandstone, with its own fauna, is wanting here between the Chouteau 

and Burlington limestones'? The authors say, if asked what is to bo 

done with the fossils of these rocks apparently identical with the Cheinung forms,-that they do not consider this identity proved, and find, 

if some are undistinguishable from Cheinung species, there are numerous other fossils totally distinct from them, closely allied with Carboniferous forms, and even identical with them. Mr. C. A. White had inferred from the presence of these " Chemung " species " that they originated at the east and were migrating westward during the time that the 

bottom of the Chemung seas was sinking and receiving upon it the 

deposit of the Old Bed sandstone, thus making these Devonian rocks 

equivalent to the Chemung of New York, and contemporaneous, at 

least in part, with the Old Eed of the Oatskill Mountains." But the" 

authors add that in that case they should not refer the rock in which 

the Chemung forms occur to the Chemung, but either to the Old Eed 

or to the Carboniferous, as in using these names they refer to a period 

of time, as well as to a group of strata, and they consider that the 

entire group of fossils is far more nearly allied to the Carboniferous 

than to the Old Eed.

In conclusion they affirm " that the relations between the Chouteau 

and Burlington limestones in Missouri, Iowa, and Illinois, where both 

occur together, as well as of the affinities of the fossils found iu the 

former in the States mentioned, and at Eockford. Indiana, show that 

it should probably be referred to the Carboniferous system, or, at any 

rate that it is much more recent than the Chemung, and not equivalent 

to any New York rock."

In a note on p. 288 of vol. 32, the authors propose the name " Kinderhook Group " for <f the beds lying between the Black slate and the 

Burlington limestone which have heretofore been considereiTthe equivalents of the Chemung group of New York."

Messrs. 0. A. White and E. P. Whitfield dissented from the views 

expressed in the above paper in an article published in the Proceedings 

of the Boston Society/ the same year. Their chief objection was to

1 " Observations on the rooks of the Mississippi Valley which have been referred to the Chemung 

group of NQ-W York, together with descriptions of new species frouvthe same'horizon at Burlington, 

Iowa." bv C. A. White and B,. P. Whitfleld. Boston, Soc. Nat. Hist., Proc., vol. 8, pp. 289-306. K«- 

viewed by "Anon." Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol.33,pp.422-426.
192 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80,

the correlation of the beds lying between the horizon of the " Black 

shale" and the base of the Burlington limestone as carboniferous. 

Their argument was as follows: On passing westward from New 

York, the representative of the Chemung in Ohio offers considerable 

change in the paleontologic characters, and between the correlated 

faunas of Ohio and Michigan a still greater difference is seen. Yet 

we feel warranted in regarding them " as of the age of the Chemung 

group of New York, and, so far as we know, no one has questioned it.1 " 

They were u confident that some of the species found at Burlington 

and other places in the west of the same geological horizon are identical with some of those found in the Chemuug rocks of Ohio, which 

rocks can be traced continuously to New York," and, " notwithstanding their carboniferous character, we think their reference to the 

Chemung of New York legitimate and proper.2 " Tbey accounted for 

M. de VerneuiFs correlation of the " Chemung " of Ohio as carboniferous 

by supposing that he was ignorant of the tendency to change on passing westward, which they believed belonged to the faunas. They further maintained that " a direct continuity of the strata of the Chemung 

Eocks of New York can be traced from that State to those of Ohio," 

and that Hall considered that but for the Cincinnati axis the continuity could be traced to the Mississippi Valley. They noticed the 

difference in faunas, but believed with Hall that a stratigraphic continuity had been established.

When we examine the argument critically, we find that the error was 

at the start, on passing from Chautauqua County, New York, to Ohio. 

It was supposed that continuity of strata had been traced, and, in spite 

of the difference observed between the species in the Ohio rocks and 

those of the New York Chemung, the belief in the identity of strata led 

to a theory to account for the difference of fossils.

This is one of the best illustrations we have seen of the principle that 

correlations by lithologic characters cannot be relied on, even when the 

continuity is affirmed by a careful geologist after a special survey. 

Whereas the 'testimony of fossils can always be relied on to the extent 

and with the precision which our ability to interpret them will permit, 

and the reason is not far to seek. Petrographic characters have no relation to age. The characters of fossils are intimately associated with 

the time and environment of the living organisms they represent.

1 " Observations on the rocks of the Mississippi Valley which have been referred to the Chemung 

group of New York, together with descriptions of new species from the same horizon nt Burlington, \ 

Iowa," by C. A. White and E. P. Whitfield. Boston. Soc. Nat. Hist., Proo., vol. 8, pp. 289-306. Reviewed by " Anon." Am. Jour. Soi., 2d ser., vol. 33, p. 200.
CHAPTER IX.

THE PERMIAN PROBLEM OF KANSAS AND NEBRASKA, 1858-1886.

The determination of the upper limit of the Paleozoic rocks of America 

was a problem which did not trouble the students of the geological formations east of the Mississippi Kiver until it had been suggested by 

studies farther west. The Carboniferous period in the Appalachian 

province was terminated by an uplift, which may have taken place 

during the Permian epoch, as suggested by Messrs. Fontaine and White, 

but strati graphically the system was terminated by cessation of deposition, the result of the permanent elevation of the great mass of the 

'Paleozoic deposits above ocean level. West of the Mississippi, at the 

western boundary of the outcrop of the. Carboniferous system, in Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas, and around elevated masses in Dakota and 

New Mexico, the Permian problem arose for solution.

The first aunoucementf of the discovery of Permian fossils was made 

in 1857, in a^tteFTxifF. Hawn, dated September 3, 1857, written by 

F. B. Meek, regarding the identification of some fossils sent by the 

former to the latter for that purpose. Mr. Meek's identification of the 

forms was recorded in written memoranda in the Smithsonian Institution January 19, 1858. Mr. Hawn had sent similar fossils to Mr. Swallow, who reported their identification with Permian forms to the St. 

Louis Academy of Science in a letter dated February 18,1858, which 

was read February 22. Mr. Meek communicated a paper announcing 

the discovery of fossils " indicating Permian rocks in Kansas " to the 

Albany Institute, March 2,1858, and also in a letter to the Philadelphia 

Academy of Natural Science, of the same date. 1 Following these announcements came fuller descriptions and other discoveries in other 

parts of the outcrop of the same terrane, made by J. Or. Norwood, B. 

F. Shumard, and others.

At the beginning of 1858, F. Hawn was United States geologist in 

Kansas; G-. C. Swallow was State geologist of Missouri; F. B. Meek 

was assisting ar paleontologist in the explorations of F. V. Hay den, 

United States geologist in the Territories; J,, G. Norwood was State 

geologist of Illinois, and B. F. Shumard was assisting G-. C. Swallow 

in Missouri.

The Coal Measures had been studied- and pretty thoroughly classified for all the States east of the Mississippi. Their marine fossils had 

been gathered in most of the States, and partially identified.

1 Am. Jonr. sci., 2d ser.,TOl. 44. pp. 38.39.

193

Bull. 80 13
194 THE DEVONIAN AND CAEBONIFEROUS. [BULL.80.

The Permian system had been named and defined by Murchison in 

the report on the geology of Eussia.1

William King's monograph of the Permian fossils of England was 

published in 1850.

Murchison's idea of the "Permian" was, that it was a system equivalent in rank to the Silurian or Carboniferous, and that it was characterized " by one type of animal and vegetable life." The question as to 

whether this idea was a correct one did not come definitely before the 

American geologists till a later period. When they discovered above 

the Coal Measures fossils indicating a Permian fauna, the question was 

as to whether or not the Permian system was present in the American 

geological series.

Those who took the most active part in the discussion were Messrs. 

Meek, Hayden, Swallow, Sh.uia.ard, Hawii, Marcou, Geinitz, Norwood, 

Newberry, and C. A. White.

The typical sections whence the fossils came were along the Kansas 

Eiver in northeast Kansas, and in Nebraska and south and west of 

these (at that time) Territories. In Swallow and Hawn's paper on 

"The Eocks of Kansas" 2 is given the typical Kansas section made by 

F. Haw 11, consisting of 3

Feet. Strata Nos. 

System I. Quaternary ....................................... 169 1-3

System II. Cretaceous........................................ 72 4-5

System III Triassic(?)........................................ 42<H(?) 6-25

System III. Permian:

Upper Permian............................... 263 26-31

Lower Permian............................... 557 32-70

System IV. Carboniferous:

"Coal Measures, probably above tbe upper Coal

Measures of Missouri"....,................ 1,073

The section made independently by Messrs. Meek and Hayden, including about the same section of rooks, is published in their paper on 

" Geological Explorations in Kansas Territory." 4

The section is entitled "General section of the rocks of Kansas Valley from the Cretaceous down, .so as to include portions of the Upper 

Coal Measures." Forty strata are given, numbered from above downward, 1 to 40. The point whero, they, draw the line between the Upper 

Coal Measures and what may be called the Permian is at the top of their 

stratum No. 11. No. 10 above contains well authenticated Permian 

<j fossils; the locality of both sections is on Cottonwopd Creole, in the 

fr neighborhood of Fort Eiley. Most of the fossils reported as Permian 

j by Swallow and collected by Hawn were from the Valley of the CottonI wood and from Smoky Hill Fork.

1 Mnrchison, Verneuil, and Keyserlingin 1845. The first announcement of the system was made in a 

letter from Murchison dated Moscow, September, 1841, and published iu the Philosophical Magazine, 

vol, 19, p. 419.

"Trans. St. Louis Acad. Sci., vol. 1, pp. 173-197. ^

p * Ibid., pp. 174-175. vf t c/ > "7

\f «Proc. Aoad. Nat. Sci., Phil., vol.^, pp. 8-30. : ^ I
WILLIAJU.I MEEK, HAYDEN, SWALLOW, HAWN. 195

In the early discussions Meek and Hay den recognized only " the Upper 

Permian" of Swallow as equivalent to the Permian of Europe; the 

u Lower Permian" of Swallow they considered as intermediate, and 

called it" Permo-Carbouiferous." After a thorough study of the fossils 

in 186.5 and later, Mr. Meek dropped the term u Perino-Carboniferous," 

and included all the rocks, except the upper zone of Swallow and the 

barren rocks above and their equivalents, in the Upper Coal Measures.

The facts emphasized by Mr. Meek were the gradual coming in of the 

Permian faunas at the top of the Coal Measures, followed above by a 

series of barren ferruginous beds and magnesiau limestones with gypsum, and these followed by the Cretaceous. But all along this southwestern border of the Carboniferous there was a gradual passage from 

the Coal Measures lithology to that of the Permian type above, with no 

stratigraphic break, and a gradual change in the faunas, the Permian 

types coming in during the prevalence of Upper Coal Measure types, 

and by degrees increasing in dominance till the latter had nearly ceased.

There was nothing to suggest a distinct system except the European 

classification, and in ignorance of European Geology no one would have 

thought to draw a line of higher value than separating two 6tages, between the two sets of rocks.

The correlation with the European Permian was made on purely pale, 

outological grounds.

A letter from G-. C. Swallow to B. F. Shumard was read before the 

St. Louis Academy of Science,1 announcing the identification of fossils 

collected by Hawn from Kansas. The letter states:

All of the described fossils, with perhaps two exceptions, are identical with Permian species of Kussia and England, while all of the new species appear to bo more 

nearly allied to Permian forms than to any other.

At the same meeting a paper was read by Messrs. Swallow and 

Hawn.2 Mr. Swallow considered the evidence of identity of fossils as 

sufficient to justify the decision that " the rocks are Permian." 3

Messrs. Meek and Hayden 4 announced to the Philadelphia Academy 

of Science, March 2,1858, by letter, the identification of fossils sent Mr. 

, Meek by Mr. F. Hawn from near the junction of Solomon's and Smoky 

Hill Forks of Kansas River, ''indicating the probable existence of Permian rocks in Kansas Territory."

The fossils were in the form of casts in a yellowish magnesian limestone, were "unlike any forms known to them from the Carboniferous i

1 Swallow, G. C.: Discovery of Permian Rooks in Kansas. Read February 22,1858. St. Louis Acad. 

Sci., Tranii., vol. 1, 1800, p. 111.

Shumartl, B. F.: Discovery of the Permian formations in Mexico. Road March 8, 1858. St. Louis 

Acad. Sci., Trans., vol. 1, I860, p. 113.

Swallow, Gr. C., and F. Hawn: The Eocks of Kansas. St. Louis Acad. Sci., Trans., vol. 1, I860, pp. 

173-175. This paper was communicated to the Society February 22, 1858.

2 "The Books of Kansas, with descriptions of Now Fossils from the Permian formation in Kansas 

Territory." This was published in full later, in the same vol. 1, pp. 173-197.

8 The same announcement appeared in the American Journal of Science, March, 1858. (Vol. 25, 

p. 305.)

«Proo. Phila. Aoad. Sci., vol. 10, pp. 9,10.
196 THE DEVONIAN AND CAEBONIFEEOUS. [MULL.80.

system," and were "very nearly allied to types considered characteristic of the Permian of the Old World." The letter states that when 

Major Hawn was informed of the identification, several months previous, he reported that the bed from which the fossils were obtained 

was above the well marked Coal Measures, " and seems to have been 

deposited upon an uneven surface."

On the same day that this announcement was made to the Philadelphia Academy, a paper entitled " Description of new organic remains 

from, northeastern Kansas, indicating the existence of Permian rocks 

in that Territory," by Messrs. Meek and Hayden, was read before the 

Albany Institute.1

In this paper, which was read before the Albany Institute March 2,

1858, the authors announce that fossils had been examined by them,

AS received from Maj. F. Hawu " from near the mouth of the Smoky Hill,.

Fork* of the Kansas River, in a hard, rather compact, yellowish, brittle

I magnesian limestone." They differed "from forms known to us in any

[ part of the Carboniferous system, yet were more nearly like Upper

Carboniferous than Triassic or Jurassic types. * * * Suspecting

this rock might represent the Permian system of the Old World,.a

hasty comparison was made * * * which almost established the

conviction (six or eight months ago) that they belonged to that epoch."

" From the unquestionable relations of some [of the species] and the 

apparent affinities of others, taken in connection with the lithological 

characters and the strati graphical position of the rock in which they 

occur, we think there is scarcely room to doubt that it is of Permian 

age." z

These announcements of the Permian character of the fossils discovered by F. Hawn in Kansas were followed later by the recognition of 

Permian fossils by B. F. Shuuiard from the white limestones of the 

Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico, March 8, 1858, collected by G. G. 

Shumard.3

J. G. Norwood, April 5,1858, announced to the St. Louis Academy 

that comparison of fossils found in the upper part of the sections in 

Bureau, La Salle, and Henry Counties, Illinois, with those identified by 

Messrs. Swallow and Meek, had convinced him that the upper beds of 

his sections were of the same age as those belonging to the Permian 

rocks of Kansas.4

1 Trans. Alb. Inst., vol. 4, pp. 73-88. Also, Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 25, pp. 440,441.

/ 2 The following species are described: Monotis Hawni (p. 76); Hyalina (Mytilus) perattenuata (p. 

77), Sakevellia parva (p. 78), Leda (Nucula).substitute (p. 79), Edmondia ? Galhouni (p. 80), Pleu- 

\ rophorus ? ocridcntalis (p. 80), P. (Oardinia) subcuneata (p. 81), Lyonsia (Penopaia) concava (p. 82), 

i Penpcea Oooperi (p. 83), Nautilus eccentricus (p. 83).

. 'See Trans. St. Lonis Acad. Sci., vol. 1, p. 113; also March 23,1858, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., vol. 10, p. 14. 

The description of these fossils is published in the transactions of the St. Louis Academy of "Sciences, 

vol. 1, pp. 387-403.

4 Trans. St. Louis Acad. Sci., vol. 1, p. 115. See also Norwood, J. G.: The Permian in Illinois, Am. 

Jour. Sci., vol. 26, 1858, pp. 129,130.

Hayden, F. V., and;F. B. Meek. [On the probable existence of Permian rocks in Kansas.] (Bead 

March 2,1858.) Philadelphia Acad. Sci., Proc., vol. 10, 1859, pp. 9,10.
WILLIAMS.] SWALLOW, HAWN, MEEK, HAYDEN. 197

Messrs. Swallow and Hawn,1 in "The Rocks of Kansas," 1858, gave a 

section with 820 feet of "Permian rocks" above the Coal Measures, and 

still higher, 420£ feet of Triassic(?). They enumerate 72 species as Permian ; 30 of these are identified with species before described; others 

are doubtfully referred to described species or are given new names.

In the article in the American Journal of Science, Swallow2 acknowledged that Mr. Meek first discovered the Permian character of the Kansas fossils, and communicated it to Hawn September 3, 1857, and verbally to a friend at the Sinithsonian January 17,1858, and to Leidy the 

IGth of March, 1858, and he stated that Hawn first received the idea 

from Meek.3

Messrs. Hayden and Meek4 found upon more thorough study of section 

and fossils, and comparison with the Nebraska section, that only Swallow's Upper Permian of Kansas is equivalent to the European Permian, 

and Swallow's Lower Permian, with several hundred feet of what he regarded as the top of the Coal Measures, in which Monotis was discovered 

by Meek, they call transitional and name " Permo-Carboniferous," or, 

if it must be placed one side or the other of the line, suggest that it be 

put in the Carboniferous.5

In a paper6 read in May, 1857, Meek and Hayden presented a section 

of the rocks of Nebraska in which the base, of unknown thickness, is 

called " Carboniferous." It is seen along the Missouri River at De Soto; 

and at Council Bluffs, at low stages of the river, fifteen or twenty feet 

of it are exposed. This part is a yellow limestone, with Fusulina cylindrica and other Coal Measure fossils.

Above this the section for five members is called " Cretaceous."

No. 1 is described as yellowish and friable sandstones with alternation 

of dark and whitish clays, seams and beds of impure lignite, fossil wood, 

impressions of dicotyledonous leaves, Solen, Pectunculus, Cyprina, etc. 

This bed is "not positively known to belong to the Cretaceous system." 

The authors correlate this No. 1 with / of the New Jersey sections furnished by G. H. Cook, " mainly resting the opinion upon stratigraphic 

and lithologic evidence." Its correlation in the Alabama section is 

with E of Alexander Winchell's section. (See Table, beyond.)

In the same paper is given a section of the rocks of Kansas furnished 

by Hawn. It is a compiled section, based upon his observations made ~

1 Reviewed Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 26, p. 115, and substantially the same paper read before the Am. 

Assoc. Adv. Sci., at Baltimore, lacking the descriptions, and printed in the Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 26, p. 182.

2 Vol. 25, p. 188.

,, 3 See also Hayden's paper, Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 44,1867, pp. 32-40. . 

^^Ara. Jour. Sci., vol. 27, 1859, pp. 31-35. » / . 

f ° See also notes explanatory of a map and section illustrating the geological structure of the country, 

bordering ou the Missouri River, from the mouth of the Platte River to Fort Benton, in latitude 47ot ' 

30' N., longitude 110° 30' W., by F. V. Hayden, M. D., Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., vol. 9,1857,109-116. L J <? 

6 Descriptions of new species and genera of fossils collected by Dr. F. V. Hayden in Nebraska Terri- (/ ' 

tory, under the direction of -Lieut. G-. K. Warren, "0. S. Topographical Engineer; with some remarks on rXv" V 

( the Tertiary and Cretaceous formations of the Northwest, and the parallelism of the latter with those o\S^.1 

i of other portions of the United States .and Territories, by F. B. Meek and F. V. Hayden, M, D., Proc. ^ t < Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., vol. 9,1857, pp. 117-148.

:\ A. . /> i^-x

^ ,2
198 THE DEVONIAN AND CAKBONIFEROUS. [BUM,. 80.

in the country east of the sixth principal meridian and between the 

northern boundary of Kansas and the Kepublican JJork of the Kansas 

"f Biver. In this section the lowest bed, m, a siliceous limestone, is re- 

< garded as Carboniferous. The strata c to Z, next above, are considered 

as equivalent to No. 1 of the Nebraska section. The lower part of these 

beds,/ to Z, is correlated with the Triassic of Marcou; the higher part 

a to e, with Marcou's Jurassic. The Pyramid section of New Mexico, 

according to Mr. Marcou, is given, p. 132. The lower members of this 

section, c, $, and e, called Jurassic by Marcou, and /, called Triassic by 

him, are correlated with No. 1 of the Nebraska section.1 

/ In a second paper by F. Y. Hayden,2 a strip of Permian is colored in 

Kansas between the Carboniferous and the Cretaceous, a little west of 

Nebraska City and west of Fort Eiley, in what in the first map was colored Cretaceous. This change is based upon facts reported by Hawn.3 

It appears from this paper that the insertion of No. 1 of the Nebraska 

section of the Cretaceous was made upon the report of Hawn as to the 

species contained in it or below it, which belonged to genera characteristic of the Cretaceous.4 Upon examination of fossils derived from No. 

1 they were found by Meek to be of Permian or Carboniferous types. 

The presence of the leaves of dicotyledonous trees was the evidence 

upon which the authors (Meek and Hayden) relied as positive indication 

of the Cretaceous system. These occurred above No. 1. The evidence 

for this correction apparently did not reach the authors in time to adjust 

the body of the paper.

Meek and Hayden. 

Nebraska section.

Tertiary Miocene. 

Cretaceous No, 5..

No. 4..

No. 3..

No. 2..

Permian or CarCarboniferous ....

Hawn. 

N. E. Kansas.

a

?&

c-l

m

Marcoa. 

Pyramid Mountain, 

New Mexico.

<n"\

c f Jur. 

d\

J /Trias.

Winchell. 

Alabama.

A

B. C. D.

E

Cook. 

New Jersey.

/

In the Judith Kiver section a bed called "No. 1 (?) is denned, and 

its true position was uncertain to F. V. Hayden in May, 1857.5 

B. F. Shumard, in a paper 6 read before the Academy of Science, in

1 Description of new species and genera of fossils collected by Dr. F. V. Hayden in Nebraska Territory, under the direction of Lieut. G. K. Warren, U. S. Topographical Engineer; with some remarks on 

the Tertiary and Cretaceous formations of the Northwest, and the parallelism of the latter with those 

of other portions of the United States and Territories, by F. B. Meek and F. V. Hayden, M. D., Proc. 

Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., vol. 9, p. 129.

2 Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil., vqLJLO^pp. 139-158. s See note, Ibid., p. 144.

4 See note, Ibid., p. 145,146, foot-note. s Ibid., vol. 9. p. 116.

c " Observations upon the Cretaceous strata of Texas, " by B. F. Suurnard, State Geologist, Trana., 

vol. 1, No. 4, p. 582.
WILLIAMS.] MEEK AND HAYDEN, NEWBERRY. 199

St. Louis, in I860, correlates the lower Cretaceous beds ("Arenaceous 

and Eed Eiver groups") with No. 1, of the Nebraska section; in it 

are recorded characteristic Cretaceous fossils.

Messrs. Meek and Hayden1 having examined the fossils and other 

 geological specimens collected by Lieut. G% K. Warren, topographical 

engineer in and near the Black Hills, Nebraska, gave the succession of 

geological formations indicated by them.

The main body of the Hills is granite, and superimposed upon it is 

(1) A group of highly metamorphosed sedimentary formations.

(2) A sandstone equivalent to the Potsdam, sandstone of the New York series.

(3) Limestones containing fossils which are a mingling of Coal Measure and Lower 

Carboniferous types.

(4) Two red beds containing specimens of fossils closely allied to Coal Measure 

forms. These red beds may be of Permian age, though the fossils point rather to the 

Upper Carboniferous series. It ia not improbable that the upper bed may be Triassic 

or even Jurassic.

(5) Strata containing fossils of Jurassic type. The strata are argillaceous shales 

and various colored sandstones.

(0) Beds regarded as belonging to the older Cretaceous, though a large portion of 

them may be Jurassic*

Above all these formations are in regular succession, No* 2, No. 3, 

No. 4, No. 5, of the Cretaceous series of Nebraska.2

Mr. Swallow examined a collection of fossils from the Upper Coal 

Measures of Kansas Territory, made by Mr. Hawn, compared them 

with Permian fossils from Russia of Verneuil, and decided that the 

Kansas fossils are also Permian.

On his journey to New Mexico, J. S. Newberry 3 found Permian fossils 

in Kansas, and the beds described by Meek and Hayden as between 

the Lower Cretaceous and the Permian, which they state may be either 1 

Jurassic or Triassic. He also saw the same red or brown sandstone 

from which these gentlemen collected the fossil leaves which Heer and 

/ Marcou pronounced to be Miocene, but which Newberry says are the 

same which mark the base of the Cretaceous in New Jersey, Nebraska, 

and Kansas. And farther southwest he found this same sandstone 

overlaid by the same Cretaceous seen by Meek and Hayden surmounting it in Nebraska, these Cretaceous beds containing well known and 

admitted Cretaceous fossils, and also the very Gryphcea relied upon by 

Marcou to prove the existence of the Jurassic, proving, if Marcou and 

Heer are right, that the Miocene is older than the Cretaceous and 

Jurassic.

In New Mexico Mr. Newberry discovered facts sustaining the presence of the Trias there, as in the red gypsum-bearing marls containing 

cycadaceous plants, similar to those of the Keuper (Upper Trias) of 

Europe.

In the letter 4 from B. F. Shuraard, read by Joseph Leidy, to the

1 Meek, F. B., anil P. V. Hayden: Fossils of Nebraska. 'A.m. Jour. Sci., vol. 25,1858, pp. 439-441.

2 Swallow, G. C.: Ou Permian strata in Kansas. Am. Jour. Sci., 2il series, vol. 25,1858, p. 305. 

\f 8 Nowberry, J. S.: Explorations in New Mexico. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 28,1859, pp. 298-299. 

4 On Permian rocks of New Mexico. By B. V. Shumard, Phil. Acad. Sci., Proc., vol. 10,1859, p. 14,
200 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

Academy of Science, Philadelphia, the undoubted occurrence of Permian fossils in the white limestone of the Guadalupe Mountains, New 

Mexico, was announced. The collection consists of forty species, part 

of which are identical with the Permian forms of England and Eussia. 

Below this limestone is a sandstone containing the same fossils found 

in the same formation in Missouri, Iowa, and Illinois, " but in New 

Mexico scarcely a single species ranges from the Coal Measures into 

the Permian."

Sir Roderick Murchison,1 in a letter to the editors of the American 

Journal, expresses his surprise at the statement made by Mr. Marcou 

with regard to the term Permian, as given by Murchison, for the strata 

of the government of Perm, which term he considered a very improper 

one, and also that Murchison has included in his Permian a part, if 

nqt the whole, of the Trias.

Considering this a serious charge, Murchison asked an explanation 

of Marcou of the grounds upon which it was made, and this was finally 

given in the memoir noticed in this letter. Murchison objected strongly 

to criticisms upon his work by one who had never been in Eussia, 

spoke of the absolute distinction between the fossils of the Permian 

group and those of the Trias, whether we refer to the reptiles, fishes, 

and shells, or to the plants, but Mr. Marcou unites these two deposits 

in one natural group under the name of New Eed sandstone.

The author concludes by requesting the editors to translate into English the last page of Mr. Marcou's memoir, considering it the best 

argument against the adoption of that gentleman's views that could 

be produced.

The editors gave the summary referred to, in which Mr. Marcou regards the New Eed sandstone, comprising the Dyas and Trias, as a 

great geologic period equivalent to the Paleozoic epoch, the Carboniferous, Mesozoic, etc., and says that he restricts the limits ordinarily 

given to the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, and gives them proportions more 

in harmony with those of the Tertiary and recent epoch, in order to 

have a well balanced and natural classification. He considers the Carboniferous forms of life found in the lower beds of the " New Eed" as 

a kind of rear guard to the preceding organisms, and the forms found 

in the upper beds as precursors or advance guard of the Mesozoic populations.

In 1859, Messrs. Meek and Hayden acknowledge their mistake 2 in 

having placed certain rocks of Kansas on a parallel with No. 1 of Nebraska section, having ascertained by their fossils, which are similar 

to the Permian of the Old World, that these rocks should be placed 

lower, and the same was done with the lower 200 feet of Mr. Marcou's

1 Murcliison, Sir Roderick J.: Notice of a memoir by M. Jules Marcou, entitled "Dyas and Trias, 

or the New Red Sandstone in Europe, North America and India." Arn. Jour. Sci., vol. 28, 1859, pp. 

256-259.

2 Meek,F. B., and P. V.Hayden: On the so-called Triasaic rocks of Kansas and Nebraska. Am, 

Jour. Sci., vol. 27,1859, pp. 31-36.
WILLIAMS.] MEEK AND HAYDEN, NORWOOD. 201

Pyramid Mountain section (New Mexico), referred by him to the Trias. 

These 200 feet the authors consider equivalent to the Kansas deposits 

between the base of No. 1 and the beds containing Permian fossils, 

and the rest of the Pyramid section, which he referred to the Jurassic, 

as equivalent to the Cretaceous formations, Nos. 1, 2, 3, of Nebraska.

The authors refer to their having considered No. 1 as a Cretaceous 

formation from the presence in it of dicotyledonous leaves (Ettingshausiana, etc.), while Major Hawn pronounces this formation in Nebraska, 

Kansas, and New Mexico, to be Trias, and they give Newberry's opinion after having seen the whole collection, affirming the correlation 

with the Crelaceous formations. They also speak of the beds between 

the base of No. 1 and those from which Permian fossils are obtained 

in Kansas, as possibly Jurassic or Triassic, or both, but do not attempt 

to define their age with certainty. With regar d to the Permian rocks 

of Kansas, as classified by Swallow and Hawn, they are inclined to the 

opinion that the lower Permian of these gentlemen should be considered as intermediate in age between the Permian and Upper Coal Measures of the Old World, while the Upper Permian only, of their section, 

really represents the Permian rocks of Europe, and they propose the 

name of " Permo-Carboniferous n for this intermediate series, but if 

this be not adopted, think it should be placed with the Carboniferous 

rather than with the Permian.

In conclusion, they state that there is no unconformability among 

all the rocks of Nebraska and northeastern Kansas, from the Coal 

Measures to the top of the most recent Cretaceous.

Mr. J. C. Norwood,1 writing to B. F. Shurnard, President of the St. 

Louis Academy of Science, March 31,1858, spoke of having found in 

1855-'5G organisms new to him in the upper beds of the La Salle coal 

field, which he supposed to belong to the true Carboniferous era. But 

after the announcement of the existence of Permian rocks in Kansas 

by Professor Swallow and Messrs. Meek and Hayden, he reviewed 

some of these fossils found in Buipau, La Salle, and Henry Counties, 

and became satisfied that the upper beds, at least, of the La Salle rocks 

are of the same age as those considered Permian in Kansas. The beds 

are composed of sandstones, conglomerates, maguesian limestones, 

slates, and red and blue gypseous marls, all of them resting unconformably on the underlying beds. Thin seams of coal also occur, showing 

that if this formation belongs to the Permian period, the great probability is that the upper beds of coal in several sections of the State are 

of the same age. A section of the rocks at La Salle accompanies the 

letter.

In 1864 M. Jules Marcou2 wrote upon the section at Nebraska City and

1 Norwood, J. C.: Discovery of Pormiau rocks at La Salle, Illinois. St. Louis Acacl. S«i., Traus., 

vol. 1, 1860, p. 115.

3 Marcou, Julcs: Uno reconnaissance geologique au Nebraska. Soc. g6ol. France, Uull., 2" a6r., vol. 

21, 1864, pp. 132-146.
202 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

vicinity. He regarded the section TT as representing in America " la

c

partie supe"rieure du Dyas d'Europe." 1 Of the section of the bluff at 

Plattesmouth he said: "elles appartiennent a la partie infe"rieure du 

Dyas." 2

In Missouri he reported islands of Carboniferous in the midst of the 

Dyas. Two members of the Dyas were recognized, viz, the Eothliegende and the Zechstein.

In regard to Brachiopods as a means of correlation, he remarked:

Les plus ruauvais fossiles dont on puisne se servir comrae fossiles charact6ristiques 

des forrnatious, et qu'en r^alitd ils ne sont mfime pas du tout des Leitmuschel * * * 

plus bas rufime dans la s^rie qae les coraux. 3

Had he appreciated better the value of Brachiopods in making correlations his conclusions might have been more accordant with those 

of other geologists.

This paper of Mr. Marcou was criticised in 1865 by Mr. Meek,4 who 

took issue with him upon almost every point made. Although the discussion was of interest at the time, its rehearsal here may be omitted 

without loss.

In 1866 Mr. H. B. Geinitz published his description of the fossils collected by Mr. Marcou from the localities in Kansas and Nebraska named 

in the paper above referred to.5

There are mentioned in the work 99 species, 2 of them plants. Of 

these, 67 were found at the typical Nebraska City section, the zones of 

which were called, from below upward, A, B, C, D, by Marcou. Sixtythree of the 67 species were from the zone C. Twenty-three species of 

invertebrates and one plant from the Nebraska City section were 

identified with already described " Dyas" species of Europe. The 

author says: "Die bei Nebraska-City vorkommenden Versteinerungen 

gehoren einer Zone an, welche den untersten bis mittleren Schichteu 

den deutschen Zechsteinformation (Oberen Dyas) entspricht." 6

The Plattesmouth and Kock Bluff sections were thought to represent 

a lower horizon, the ".Fusulinenkalk" or "oberen Kohlenkalk."

The bulk of the work, pages 1 to 72, is devoted to the description of 

the fossils and their comparison with typical species of the Carboniferous 

and Permian formations. Although the correlations of the author 

were based upon this paleontological study, it is impracticable here 

to discuss the merits of the identifications of species.

In the following year (1867) Mr. Meek made an extended review of

'Marcou, «Tnles: TTne reconnaissance geologique au Nebraska. Soc. geol. France, Bull., 2f s6r., vol21, 1884, p. 137.

3 Ibid., p. 138. s lbid., p. 146.

4 Meek, F. B.: Remarks on the Carboniferous and Cretaceous rocks of eastern Kansas and Nebraska, 

and their relations to those of the adjacent States and other localities further eastward; in connection 

with a review of .1 paper recently published on this subject by M. Jnles Marcou, in the Bulletin of 

the Geological Society of France. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 39, 1865, pp. 157-174.

8 Carbouformation uucl Dyas in Nebraska, von Dr. H. B. Geinitz, 1806, pp. i-xii and 1-01, Plates I-V.

6 Op. Cit., p. 89.
MEEK ON GEINITZ. 203

Mr. Geinitz's paper.1 As a preparation for his criticisms Mr. Meek liad 

thoroughly studied the species obtained from the same localities, and 

before completing the article had gone over the sections from which they 

were obtained and examined the stratigraphy of the whole region where 

the rocks in question were exposed, from Iowa across Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas, collecting fresh materials. He also had access to the 

numerous collections of the Smithsonian, among which were a considerable number of European Permian fossils. He had the advantage of Mr. 

Geinitz in lliis thorough knowledge of the Carboniferous marine fossils of 

the Mississippi Valley, comprising the fauna with which the fauna above 

had to be immediately compared. With such preparation he made a 

careful and critical review of the identification of species and genera 

made in Gdnitz's work. The author differs respecting the identification 

both of genera and species from Geinitz, and suggests as explanatory 

of the unsatisfactory identifications made by Mr. Geinitz that the latter 

was ignorant of the Coal Measure fossils of America, and was therefore not in a position to see the close relationship between the faunas 

below and those which follow. Mr. Meek had previously noticed in 

the rocks called Permian by Swallow a mingling of Coal Measure and 

Permian types, and calls attention to the frequent alternation of beds 

containing these two types of fossils through considerable thickness of 

strata which must be regarded as typical Upper Coal Measures. He 

also remarks that Mr. Geinitz had only descriptions of species already 

described in America, and had not access to the originals. In his 

remarks regarding two schools of observers among paleontologists and 

zoologists he defines the two classes as, il first, those who give wide 

latitude to genera and species, and second, those who restrict both 

genera and species within more precise limits." In commenting on 

Astarte Nebrascensis (p. 179) he remarks: "At any rate, specific identification and even generic references of such shells can be admitted 

only provisionally until the hinge and interior is known." On page 

183, commenting on Rhynchonella, angulata LinusBus of Geinitz, he 

writes :

I hope I shall he excused for adding here that the practice of positively identifying species from widely distant parts of the earth upon such merely superficial points 

of general reaemhlance, and thus complicating and vitiating all conclusions respecting the geographical and geological range of species, can not be too carefully 

avoided.

The conclusion reached in this paper regarding the Permian problem 

is to the effect that the rocks in Nebraska from which the so-called 

Permian fossils have been obtained contain also a much larger number 

of characteristic Coal Measure fossils, and therefore that the rocks 

above the mouth of the Platte River called by Marcou " Mountain 

limestone," those of Plattsmouth and .Rock Bluff called " Lower Dyas"

1 Remarks on Professor G-einitz's views respecting the Upper Paleozoic rocks aud fossils of south- 

; eastern Nebraska. By F. B. Meek, Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 44, 1867, pp. 170-187, 282-283, 327-339. I ' '
204 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

by Marcou, and by Geinitz placed in part in the upper " Mountain 

limestone," and in part in the Upper Coal Measures and the "Upper 

Dyas " rocks of Marcou and Geinitz at Wyoming, Bennett's Mill, and 

Nebraska City, with possibly the exception of C and D of the latter 

place, belong to the horizon of the Upper Coal Measures. C and B 

he thinks may be equivalent to the " Penno-Carboniferous" of the 

Kansas section.

All through this region the fossils of the Upper Coal Measures are 

found either associated in the same stratum with those of Permian 

type, or in strata intercalated between beds holding the other fauna j 

and the Coal Measure fauna becomes by degrees less conspicuous and 

the Permian types more dominant on passing upward. Mr. Meek 

maintains that the critical study of the fossils confirms the view published by Hayden and himself in 1858 regarding the rocks of Nebraska 

and Kansas, that 

f there is in this region a gradual shading off from an Upper Coal Measure to a Permian 

. fauna through a considerable thickness of strata forming a somewhat intermediate 

; group, which is called the " Permo-Carboniferous series;" also there is no defined break 

! between the intermediate series and the Permian above, or the Coal Measures below. 1

 i He further adds:

I Under such circumstances it must be evident that all attempts to correlate partic- 

\ ular unimportant beds here with minor subdivisions adopted in Europe, where a different state of things obtained, must necessarily fail.

Mr. Meek recognized in his early studies in the section along the 

Kansas River certain beds containing a fauna which he identified then, 

in 1858, with the Permian, i. e.: Stratum 10 of the Cottonwood section. 

Above this were some more or less Barren Measures of 100 to 200 feet 

thickness, containing gypsum, followed by rocks of unmistakable Cretaceous age. In his early studies the rocks immediately below this 

unmistakable Cretaceous bed he had, in conjunction with Mr. Ilaydon, 

called "PermO'Carboniferous." This paper of 18C7 which refers beds in 

Nebraska to the Upper Coal Measures evidently considered only these 

"Perrno-Carbouiferous" rocks of his early classification. The question 

in dispute was as to whether the rock should be divided, making a Permian system distinctly separate from the Carboniferous below. This 

Meek positively objected to, his argument being that there was a gradual 

mingling of the higher faunas with the Upper Coal Measure faunas, 

and a gradual transition of the deposits from the lower horizon to the 

upper without break, and without any marked change in paleontology 

or lithology.

Mr. Marcou, 2 in 1868, wrote that in Nebraska the u Dyas rocks" form 

the blutts on the Missouri Eiver in the counties of Nemaha, Otoe, and 

Cass. The rocks differ from those of the Carboniferous upon which 

they rest. They consist of clays of red, green, and blue colors; of

'Remarks on Professor Geintz's views respecting the Upper Paleozoic rocks and fossils of southeastern Nebraska. By F. B. Meek, Am.Jour.Sci.,2d ser., vol. 44,1867, pp. 338-339.. 

3 0n the Dyas in Nebraska, by Jules Marcou. St. Louis Acad. Sci., Trails., vol. 2,1868, pp. 562-564.
WILLIAMS. [ HAYDEN. 205

whitish, gray, and yellowish limestones; of dolomites, and yellow and 

gray sandstones.

A section of the Dyas taken at Nebraska City is given.

The fossils collected were determined by Mr. Geiuitz, of Dresden, 

Saxony. Many of them are said to be identical with species found in 

Europe in the Zechstein or Magnesian limestone, as Serpulaplanorlites, 

Schizoclus Rossicus, Allorisma elegans, etc., and the new species are very 

nearly allied toDyassic species of Saxony, Russia, and England. The 

author speaks also of Carboniferous species, the Brachiopods espe 

dally, which pass into the Dyas.

F. V. Hayden, in a paper on the Geology of Kansas, reviewingSwallow's Preliminary Report of the Geological Survey of Kansas,1 

objects to Swallow's statement that " the lower Permian strata rests 

unconformably upon the upper Coal Measures." Ete questions the 

accuracy of Swallow's determination of species, in the paper of 1858,

and ho states that Mr. Swallow has identified fossils coming from a 

single stratum as equivalent to species of the Carboniferous, Permian, 

Trias, and Lias, and holds that the community of genuine Carbonifer- ous fossils with those of Permian type indicates that no break, such as 

unconformity would presume, occurs.

Haydeu remarks further that in the few cases of Permian types 

occurring down in the genuine Coal Measures in Kansas "they appear 

in particular layers similar to the Permian rocks in composition, and 

alternating with the other beds containing only carboniferous fossils, 

much like Barrande's 'Colonies' in the Silurian rocks of Bohemia." 

lie remarks upon the 'claims to discovery of the Permian in Kansas, 

and defends Meek, whose announcement of the fact was first mentioned 

in the records of the Smithsonian Institution, the date being January 

19, 1858.

Again Mr. Swallow, remarking on Meek's notes on the Geology of 

Kansas,2 goes at some length to show that he first discovered and 

published as a conclusion the fact that certain rocks were Permian, 

and makes much point of the fact that Meek claimed only that the 

fossils sent by Major Hawn "indicated the existence of Permian 

rocks," and it is stated that at the Baltimore meeting Meek "still 

doubted whether there really is any Permian system."

This caution on the part of Mr. Meek shows that he saw the true 

state of the discovery, and maintained that the presence of certain 

fossils of Permian type did not indicate certainly that there was a representative of the Permian system in Kansas and Nebraska, while 

Swallow had no doubt that the fossils must indicate the presence of 

the system. The fact is conspicuous that during this discussion Mr. 

Meek speaks almost every time of "rocks containing fossils of Per- , mian type," or words to that effect, rather than "Permian rocks," j

1 Am. Jonr. Sci., 1867, 2d sor., vol. 44, pp. 32-40. 

V ' Traua. Acad. Sci., St. Louis, vol. 2, pp. 507.
206 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. IBULL.SO.

[indicating his clear perception of the difference between identity or 

resemblance of fossils", and absolute correlation of horizon. It may

1 be noted in passing that the solution of this problem, as in other different cases, was by United State geologists j the wide comparative methods of Hayden and Meek led to clearer views than those attained by 

the local State geologists, Swallow and Shuinard, although the latter 

had closer familiarity with the country and opportunity to get a better 

view of the local facts.

Swallow reported his section along the south side of Kansas Eiver 

as follows (according to Meek and Hayden):

; Cretaceous.............................................. .. = Cretaceous.

ITriassic Gyps. Sb. Marls, 383 feet............ ............. = ?Triassic.

! Upper Permian, 141 feet................................... "So-called Permian."

\ Lower Permian, 563 feet ................................... =Permo-Carboniterous.

\ Carboniferous............................................. = Carboniferous.

Swallow stated that if his lower Permian is not Permian there is no 

Permian in Kansas, etc. (p. 521), and defended the " uneonformability." 

He stated that Messrs. Marcou, Agassiz, Heer, Geinitz, Shumard, 

Swallow, Hawn, D'Archiac and others differ from Messrs. Haydeu and 

Meek on the point in question (p. 522). The whole article is controversial and adds little to the settlement of the problem, but brings out 

clearly the attitudes of the disputants.

The appearance of Permian types in the midst of rocks in which the 

majority of the forms are typical Coal Measure forms, is taken by Meek 

and Hayden as evidence of the earlier appearance of Permian types 

in these regions of America than in those of Europe.

In the final report of the Hayden survey of Nebraska, 1 Mr. F. B. 

Meek gave a description of the fauna and fully described the correlations of the Permian in Nebraska.

He holds in this paper, in opposition to the view of G-eiuitz, that the 

rocks of eastern Nebraska do not belong either to the Lower Cretaceous 

or to the Permian. The terms Upper, Middle, and Lower Coal Measures are used to express parts of the Coal Measures not clearly divisible by fossils. He does not use the term " Lower Coal Measures " as 

meaning below the Mountain limestone.2 He proposes the name " Platte 

Division " for the upper part of the Coal Measures as exhibited about 

. the mouth of the Platte Eiver, at Bellevue, Plattesmouth, Eock Bluff, 

and Nebraska City. This he estimates to be two or three hundred feet 

thick. His Division B outcrops at Nebraska City, Bennett's Mill, and 

Wyoming; Division C at Nebraska City, and he says that between C 

and B there is no paleontologic or constant lithologic break. The 

rocks of the Bellevue section were referred by Marcou to the mountain

1 Meek, F. B. Keport on the Paleontology of Eastern Nebraska with some remarks on the Carboniferous rocks of that district (pp. 81-261), constituting Pt. II. of "Final Keport of the U. S. Geol. 

Survey of Nebraska and portions of the adjacent territories, made tinder the direction of the commission of the General Land Office" by F. V. Hayden, TT. S. Geologist, Washington, 1872.

2 Ibid..page84.
WILLIAMS.] MEEK. 207

limestone series. The Plattesmouth section Marcou called New Bed. 

The section at Rock Bluff follows that of the Plattesmouth section 

from 1, 2, 3, upward: this latter section Marcou had referred to the 

Lower Dyas or New Eed. The Cedar Bluff section the author correlated 

with the part of the Rock Bluff section lying above No. IX. This was 

called u Upper Permian " or " Dyas " by Marcou and Geinitz, Meek 

thinks that both Marcou and Geiuitz determined the Dyas, in some 

cases at least, on lithologic instead of paleoutologic grounds.

Meek uses the names " Lower Carboniferous," " Millstone grit," and 

" Coal Measures " to indicate the three grander divisions of the Carboniferous System, with "Permian" and "Dyas" for the still higher 

member. " Mountain limestone " is used also for Lower Carboniferous. 

The name " Permo-Carboniferous " is applied by Hayden and Meek to 

rocks in Kansas, equivalent to Division C at Nebraska City. All 

the Other sections along the Missouri he regards as certainly belong- r 

ing to the Coal Measures. In Kansas, the division between Permian 

and Carboniferous is arbitrary, not founded on physical or paleontologic break. Permian rocks in Kansas were first announced in the 

Transactions of the Albany Institute, vol. 4,1858. Later investigations led the authors to consider the so-called Permian as merely transitioual from the Uppe r Coal Measures.1 Meek thinks that facts indicate that these fossils belong in the Carboniferous or Coal Measures, \ 

and that there is no abrupt break between the Carboniferous and 

Permian. j

Mr. Meek's Eeview of Professor Geinitz's paper, 1867, and this 

Nebraska Report of 1872 practically closed the debate on the Permian 

problem of Kansas and Nebraska.

Mr. F,, B. Meek had been for several years associated with Mr. Hayden in the collection, study, and description of the fossils of these and 

neighboring Territories. Messrs. Swallow, Shumard and others had 

examined and reported their identification of fossils from Kansas, which 

they defined as new species or referred to European species of the 

Permian age. A collection made by Mr. Marcou had been sent over to 

Mr. H. B. Geinitz, of Dresden, and there figured and described by him. 

But Mr. Meek had examined the sections thoroughly in connection 

with Hayden, and had made an exhaustive study of the fossils, comparing them with European specimens, and studying fully the literature of tlie whole subject. His paleoutological work exhibits a degree 

of precision of observation, broadness of thought, and thoroughness 

of study surpassing any of his predecessors in America, and all combined with scrupulous honesty.

Leaving out of the question the dispute as to the real discoverer of , 

the Permian, which provoked considerable discussion and, apparently, 

ill feeling, the Permian problem was more purely than any that had

1 See Meck'a paper, Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 44, p. 170 and p. 331, in regtird to the misidentif) cation of 

Geinitz.
208 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

J

previously arisen in America a paleontological one. The discovery of 

some fossils by F. Hawn in Kansas, some of which were sent to G. C. 

Swallow among Carboniferous species for identification, and others of 

the same species among Cretaceous forms to Mr. Meek, led to the dist covery by both Swallow and Meek of their Permian character. Mr. 

Swallow appears to have made the first printed announcement of the 

"Permian rocks," although Mr. Meek had previously announced the 

identification in private letters, and a few days later Messrs. Meek and 

"Hayden defined the same fossils as "indicating Permian rocks" in 

papers read at both Albany and Philadelphia.

The fossils in question were identified and described by Swallow, 

Geiuitz, and Meek separately; and the argument for the presence of 

the Permian system of rocks in Kansas and Nebraska and New Mexico, 

made by Swallow and seconded by Geinitz, Marcou, and others, was, 

that in the rocks were found a number of species identical with species 

characteristic of the Permian rocks of Kussia, Germany, and England.

Mr. Meek, supported by Mr. Hayden and others, maintained that 

the rocks lying above unmistakable upper Coal Measure rocks in this 

Territory, contained fossils of Permian type, in a few cases showing 

possible specific identity with European Permian species; but that 

there was a gradual passage, both lithological and paleontological, 

from the Coal Measures to the beds containing these Permian types. 

After obtaining abundant material and giving it exhaustive study, Mr. 

Meek found the identifications of Swallow, of Marcou, and of Geinitz 

unsatisfactory. He recognized many species of Permian types, but 

only a few that he was able to regard as identical with the Permian 

fossils of Europe. In his report of 1872 he identified from the so called 

Permian of the southwest seven genera which had not hitherto been 

reported below the Permian of Europe, but in the same beds he identified sixteen genera not otherwise known above the Carboniferous. He 

called attention, however, to the fact, that of the seven genera several 

are closely related to forms occurring below; secondly, he found several 

of the species, which are confessedly of Permian type, still lower and in 

association with unmistakable upper Coal Measure faunas. In his list 

of the species in question in Nebraska, amounting to one hundred and 

twenty-two, only thirteen are named which have not been discovered 

in the Coal Measures of some of the other States. Besides this mingling of species and genera, and their passage upward in such large 

numbers, he found evidence neither of sudden change in the lithologic 

character of the strata, nor of stratigraphic break, and his conclusion 

is, that these rocks belong to the Coal Measures, "and that here we 

have no abrupt break between the Carboniferous and Permian" (p. 

 133); "that all these strata under consideration aloog the Missouri, 

that have been referred in part to the Mountain limestone, in part to 

the Permian or Dyas, and in part to the Coal Measures, really belong
WILLIAMS.] J. W. DAWSON. 209

to the true Coal Measures," with the exception that the Permo-Carboniferous may be recognized in Bed C of Nebraska City.

This practically closed the debate, although it did not solve the 

Permian problem. The debate was ended, because the evidence was 

perfectly clear that the rocks and fauna referred to the Permian, were 

separable from those below by no stratigraphic or paleontologic break, 

and petrographically only by differences such as are recognized in two 

formations almost anywhere in the geologic series. The question 

whether they be called "Permian" or "Coal Measures" would be settled one way by those who considered it of chief importance to establish uniformity in the geological nomenclature of America and Russia; 

and it would be settled the other way by those who sought to establish 

a natural classification of American rocks.

The application of the name "Permian" to these rocks was purely 

artificial, and as was stated several times during the debate, the classification thus implied would not have been thought of if the rocks of 

this region alone had been considered.

The general question as to whether the Permian shall be ranked as 

a system separate from the Carboniferous, is still an open one, and bids 

fair to continue so until a natural method of classification for the timescale be devised, which shall be independent of the lithologic character 

of the rocks.

The correlation of the Permian in the Acadian and Appalachian 

provinces is a distinct problem from that in the Mississippian province. 

In tlie former plants enter into the question, and as I have previously 

stated the correlative value of plants is not attempted in the present 

essay.

In chapter iv the Appalachian representatives of the Permian are 

considered.

The correlations of the Upper Carboniferous and Permian of the 

Acadian province are discussed in Chapter xn, but a few words may 

here be said regarding Dr. J. W. Dawson's correlations in the "Acadian 

Geology," second edition, 1868.

Dr0 Dawson considered the Permian as absent in the Acadian district. 

The Trias rests unconformably upon the Upper Carboniferous, and the 

author held that the time represented by the Permian in Europe was 

a period of disturbance in Acadia, with land extending.over the greater 

part of the region.

The limestones of Colchester and Hants contain some fossils which 

were regarded by Davidson as allied, if not identical with Permian 

fossils1 and Mr. Meek suggested that these may have constituted a 

colony, in the Barrandian sense, of Permian forms in the Carboniferous age. The author, however, thought the deposits undoubtedly Carboniferous, and Lower Carboniferous, but that they assume some of the

'Pp. 278-285.

Bull. 80 14
210 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

modifications more characteristic of the true Permian faunas of Europe.1 

In regard to the conditions of deposition, he interpreted the series as 

follows:2 Marine limestones indicate lowest depression j coal beds were 

formed during the greatest elevation, and the condition of Millstone 

grit and the newer coal formations was intermediate between these two. 

Tidal currents were recognized in the Carboniferous, cutting out channels called " tidal channels."3 The author also recognized that Devonian 

and Silurian rocks were above the water during the deposition of the 

rocks of the Coal Measures of Nova Scotia, so that the coal deposits 

are more or less separated from each other.

The flora was regarded as identical throughout the whole Middle 

Coal Measures, and the Lower, Middle, and Upper may be distinguished 

by their plants. Dawson also held that the flora of the Lower Coal 

Measures of Nova Scotia is wholly Carboniferous, and that the flora of 

the Chemung, Vergent, and Pouent, IX and X, of Lesley, is decidedly 

Devonian.

The author recognized, not 25,000 feet for Nova Scotia Coal Measures, 

but Logan's measure of 15,570 feet for the Jogging, and for the Middle 

Coal Measures, 1,000. He mentioned the fact that in England it is the 

usage to apply the term Lower Coal Measures to the lower part of what 

he called the Middle Coal formation, that is, above the Millstone grit. 

He quoted Geinitz in identifying the divisions of the coal formations 

by plants. His Lower Coal formation is the Lycopodiaceous Zone or 

Culm of Europe; his Middle Coal formation is the Sigillaria and Stigmaria Zone; the Upper Coal formation is the Zone of Calamites of 

Geinitz.

Mr. C. A. White wrote in 1874 that Dr. L. G. De Koninck had identified many of the species from the Coal Measures of Springfield, Illinois, 

with Lower Carboniferous species of Europe, and Geinitz had identified 

species found in the Upper Carboniferous of Nebraska as Permian. 

The mingling of faunas thus indicated, the author held, is due to the 

fact that while the region in which true Coal Measures were being 

deposited were little invaded by the seas during the whole Carboniferous period, America was occupied in some places by the sea, which fact 

accounts for the wide distribution of marine faunas as compared with 

those of Europe. Chronological development is also proved by the 

similarity of the floras of the two countries, as has been pointed out 

by Dr. Newberry and Mr. Lesquereux.

The next four papers give additional information upon the Permian 

and Permo-Carboniferous formations of Kansas and Nebraska. 4

Coal belonging to the Lower Coal Measures is found in marketable 

quantities in Osage County. It is well exposed on the southern side 

of Neosho Valley, running through Miami County. Upper Coal Meas-.

' Pp. 283-285. ; - - .

*P. 133. 

»P. 125.

4 Broadhead, Gr. C.: The Carboniferous roclpj pf southeastern Kansas. £m. Jour, Sci., 3d ser., 1881, 

vol. 22, pp. 55-57. ' "
WILLIAMS.] BROADHEAD. 211

ures also occur west of the Verdigris Elver, and are soon covered by 

Permian rocks. The western limit of the coal is along the line between 

Greenwood and Woodson Counties.

The Permian rocks are found along a ridge running through Cowley 

and Chautauqua Counties and southern Kansas, which is known as 

the " Mint Hills," having an elevation of 1,600 feet above sea level. 

The Permian rocks rest conformably on the Carboniferous, rendering it 

difficult to draw any absolute line between them. It is estimated that 

the Permian has a total thickness of 1,500 feet in southern Kansas, 

while the Upper Coal Measures are about 500 feet in thickness, consisting mainly of sandstones and limestones.

In a second paper1 the same author further reported: The valley 

traversed by the Neosho Kiver is in the lower part of the Middle Coal 

Measures, which are only productive in the southern extension, but 

northwardly, in Osage County, coal is mined belonging to the Lower 

Measures, showing "an uplift of Lower [Middle 1?] Coal Measures, 

flanked to the east and west, as we proceed northwardly, by the Upper 

Coal Measures."

In Neosho, Wilson, Labette, and Montgomery Counties we find sandstones in even, flag-like layers, 50 feet thick at Thayer, Neosho County, 

where coal is extensively worked. Many fossil plants are found in the 

coal, including Galamites, Lepidodendron, etc.

In Johnson and Wyandotte Counties limestones and calcareous shale 

beds of the Upper Coal Measures with molluscan remains are recognized, corresponding with similar beds in Cass and Jackson Counties, 

Missouri} and at Eudora, Douglas County, is found the Plattsburg 

limestone of Missouri, containing many beautiful Bryozoans. Above 

this is a gray limestone abounding in 8yntrielasma hemiplicata, its interior lined with clear crystallized calcite. A little higher is a limestone containing Fusulina cylindrica.

The Productive Coal Measures are found in the eastern tier of counties south of Miami County and include valuable coal beds.

In Miami and Anderson Counties the upper limestone is surmounted 

by an oolitic limestone. In Woodson and Greenwood and the northeast part of Elk Counties there are about 50 feet of coarse brown sandstone, almost without fossils, with only occasional fragments of fucoids 

and Gordaites.

In the southeast, near the line of Cowley and Chautauqua Counties, 

are the " Flint Hills," so called from the numerous fragments of flint 

strewn over the surface. These hills include the Permian rocks of 

Kansas, reaching a thickness of about 500 feet. A section of the rocks 

is given, showing 19 divisions of strata, the upper 12 of which are of 

Permian type, and the remaining 7 belong to the Upper Coal Measures. 

Several of the Permian layers abound in Fusulina* They are mostly

1 The Carboniferous rocks of eastern Kansas, by Q, C. Brpadliea^. St,T/ouis 4Wflt Soii ( Tran^, vol.- 

f pp. 48M93, 1888,
212 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. \BVLL. to.

limestone, shaly, magnesian, or cherty, while the lower layers are more 

arenaceous.

The highest coal series is seen in Greenwood County, its position 

being about the base of the Permian or top of the true Upper Coal 

Measures.

One thousand five hundred feet of Permian beds in southern Kansas 

are assumed. In this region it is the newest rock below the Quaternary. It rests conformably on the Coal Measures, and there is no 

decided line of separation between the two.

The Permo-Carboniferous was identified in southern Kansas by Mr. 

F. W. Oragin, in 1885.1

% The most interesting feature of this region is the occurrence of a large 

stratum of gypsum. This is considered as a Permo-Carboniferous deposit. This horizon is entirely different from that of the gypsiferous 

deposits represented ia Barber and eastern Comanche Counties, which 

is considered as Mesozoic.

In 1886, commenting upon the Carboniferous and Permian rocks of 

Nebraska, in the American Naturalist,2 L. E. Hicks describes a series 

of limestones and marls in Nebraska evidently distinct from the Coal 

Measures. They are blue, yellow, and buff in color, and have a total 

thickness of about 200 feet The dip at Big Blue Eiver from Beatrice 

to Homesville is southeast; at Indian Creek it is west. Of the 123 

species described by Meek from the Coal Measures, not more than 10 

or 14 entered into the Permian. The author uses the term "Permian" 

provisionally for these limestones and marls.

1 Cragin, F. W.: Notes on the geology of southern Kansas. Washburn College Lab. Bull., vol. 1,1885, 

pp. 85-91 and 112.

"Hicks, L. E.: The Permian in Nebraska. Am. Nat., vol. 20,1886, pp. 881-883; abstract in Am. 

Assoc. Proc., vol. 35, pp. 216, 217.
CHAPTER X.

DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS CORRELATIONS IN THE WESTERN AND NORTHERN PROVINCES.

In the Eocky Mountain region and the western part of the United 

States and in British North America are large tracts of territory which 

have been roughly surveyed, and in places with sufficient detail for the 

correlation of the grand geological divisions; but in little of this region 

have the details of either the stratigraphy or the paleontology been 

worked out with sufficient minuteness to permit of fuller correlations than 

with the systems of other parts of the world or their upper or lower 

parts without precise reference to limits. The literature concerning these 

correlations will be reviewed chronologically in the present chapter, beginning with the Hayden reports of 1868, prior to which date little of 

interest for this essay can be gleaned.

In 1808, Mr. F. V. Hayden, in the American Journal of Science,1 gave 

a brief report of the results of his examinations of the geology of the 

Eocky Mountains, in which some generalizations are made based upon 

his wide knowledge of the region. The object of this paper was to 

show that quite marked lithological and paleontological changes occur 

in the rocks of the Eocky Mountains as we proceed from the north 

southward. The nucleus of the mountains at any one point along the 

eastern range is composed of massive granite rocks; then follows a series 

of metamorphic rocks. Upon these the Silurian period is represented 

by the Potsdam sandstone; the Devonian is wanting; then follow the 

Carboniferous, Eed Beds, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary.

There is no marked change in the Tertiary from the North to the 

Arkansas Eiver, but many changes were observed in the Cretaceous. 

The Jurassic thins out to the southward, as do the Eed Beds or supposed Triassic. In the far north the Carboniferous rocks are often 500 

to 1,500 feet in thickness, and from 500 to 1,000 feet thick as far south 

as the Eed Buttes, and are quite distinct from the Ked Beds, but the 

latter prevail farther south. The Carboniferous rocks become of a red 

arenaceous character, with a few layers, from two to ten feet in thickness, of a whitish or yellowish limestone. Dr. Hayden could find no 

break to separate the Eed Beds from the Carboniferous, and concluded 

they might possibly all be of that formation. The Potsdam sandstone

1 Hayden, I\ V.: Remarks on the geological formations along the eastern margins of the Kocky 

Mountains. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 45, 1868, pp. 322-326.

213
214 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BLUL.SO.

thins out entirely south of the Bed Buttes on the North Platte. The 

Carboniferous seemed to rest directly, though not conformably, upon 

the metamorphic rocks.

The conclusions drawn from the observations made were that all the 

formations of the west undergo more or less change in both their mineral and fossil contents in their extension toward the west and south, 

and that the Potsdam sandstone and Jurassic beds present more remarkable changes than any of the others.

In 1868 Mr. P. B. Meek examined several lots of fossils collected in 

British America, some of which he found to be new 5 these he described 

and figured. Others he identified with already known fossils, and by 

these correlated the formations in which they occurred with formations 

in other parts of the country. The localities are on the Olearwater 

Biver, near its mouth into the Athabasca; on Laird's Eiver, near Port 

Resolution j on Slave Lake, and several localities along the Mackenzie 

Eiver Yalley to old Port Good Hope, and one locality on Porcupine 

Kiver.

Prom the study of the fossils the following conclusions were reached: 

That along the Mackenzie Biver and its tributaries, between the Olearwater and the Arctic Ocean, " no Carboniferous or characteristic Silurian 

formations are seen," and that there is "a continuous stretch of Devonian rocks, mainly of the age of the Hamilton group, extending from 

Eock Island, 111., in a northwesterly direction to the Arctic Ocean, a 

distance in a right line of nearly 2,500 geographical miles."

The great general similarity with frequent specific identity in the 

faunas from the extreme ends of this line, the author considers, 

"strongly corroborates the generally accepted opinion that climatic 

conditions, if not uniform over the whole world, were at least little, if 

at all, influenced by differences of latitude during paleozoic epochs." 1

P. H. Bradley reported in 1872 2 the discovery of a few small trilobites of Quebec group age, in the base of the mass of limestones overlying the central granites of the Teton Eange in Idaho. These limestones continue up to the typical Carboniferous. The Quebec group is 

about 400 feet thick, partly argillaceous, blue, and mostly pebbly. 

Above this group are 600 feet of a magnesian limestone, drab to buff 

color, which Bradley correlated with the "cliff" limestone of the Mississippi Valley; and over this he found the true Carboniferous.

In August, 1872, Professor Tenney 3 found corals in the Wahsatch 

Mountains, southeast of Salt Lake City, in a dark bluish limestone, 

nine or ten thousand feet above the sea. His own opinion that the 

corals were Devonian was confirmed by E. P. Whitfield, who referred

1 Meek, B. !\: Remarks on the geology of the valley of Mackenzie Kiver, with figures and descriptions 

of fossils, etc. Chicago Acad. Sci., Trans., vol. 1,1869, pp. 61-114, and plates.

2 Bradley, F.H.: On Quebec and Carboniferous rocks in the Teton Range. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d series, vol. 4,1872, pp. 230, 231.

8Tenney, Sanborne: On Devonian fossils in the W«ihsatch Mountains. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d scries, 

vol. 5,1873, pp. 139,340.
WILLIAM.] RICHARDSON, GILBERT. 215

them to Zaphrentis and Syringopora, one species of the latter and two of 

the former. They were the first fossils of the Upper Helderberg period 

brought to light from the range of the Wahsatch.

Mr. James Eichardson,1 in 1874, reported a few fossils from, and gave 

a section, of Ballinac Island, consisting mainly of epidotic rocks, diorite, 

and reddish limestones, carrying well preserved fossils of encrinites, 

corals, and brachiopods. He considered that the " age of these rocks 

is either Carboniferous or Permian, most probably the former."

In the third volume of the report upon the geographical and geological explorations and survey west of the 100th meridian, Mr. G. K. Gilbert reported identifications of sections made in the canons and other 

regions west of the Kocky Mountains.2

In southern Nevada, the rocks of the Spring Mountain Eange consist 

of fossiliferous limestones, with bands of sandstone of Carboniferous 

age. The strata seem to be conformable throughout the whole vertical 

range. Again, in the Black Hills, Arizona, sedimentary rocks of Carboniferous aspect were seen overlying a crystalline series similar to those 

noted in Bowlder Canon. In Arizona the plateaus consist of Carboniferous limestone (Aubrey limestone, Red Wall limestone). The adjacent ranges show the Tonto sandstones. The exploration of the Colorado plateau system showed that the rocks which compose it range 

from Eocene Tertiary to the Tonto group, which underlies the Carboniferous rock of the Grand Canon of Colorado. The next bench below 

that, named by Powell the "Shinarump Mesa," is capped by a Carboniferous limestone extending from Paria Creek southwest to Aubrey 

Valley. Through this section the Grand and Marble Canons have cut 

their way. After giving a general topographical description, and at the 

same time referring to the geologic age of the rocks in general, the author 

adds a series of twenty-one vertical sections, indicating physical characters and thickness, together with fossil remains. These sections are 

finally correlated in tabular forms, thus giving a view of the whole 

vertical range. Of the twenty-one sections given, Upper Carboniferous 

rocks occur in the following :

SECTION V. Jacob's Pool. The rocks consisting of massive sandstones, alternating 

with gypsiferous cherty clay-shale and chocolate shale and cherty limestones, containing Productus Meekella, Pseudomonotis, Jlemipronitis, Aviculopevten, etc. Total 

thickness, 3,750 feet.

SECTION VI. Kanab Creek. Physical character of rocks similar to those of Section 

V; additional fossils in cherty limestone. Fenestella (?) Spirifera linealus, Orthis, 

Clionetcs, etc. Total thickness, 4,200 feet.

SECTION VII. Grand Canon. Eocks similar to those of Section VI. Total thickness, 4,825 feet.

SECTION VIII. Aubrey Cliff, 15 miles southeast of Bill Williams Mountain, Arizona. 

Rocks, limestones and yellow-red friable sandstones. Total thickness, 2,100 feet.

1 Richardson, James: Report on geological explorations in British Colombia. Geol. Survey Canada; 

Report of Progress for 1873-'74. 1874, pp. 94-102.

2 Report on the geology of portions of Nevada, Utah, California, and Arizona, examined in the years 

1871 aud!872, by Q-. K. Gilbert, A. M., pp. 17-187 of report upon the geographical and geological explorations and survey west of the one hundredth meridian. 1875.
216 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. IBULL. 80.

SECTION IX. Aubrey Cliff, at Canon Creek, north Arizona. Rocks consist of alternating sandstones, limestones, and shales. Total thickness, 2,360 feet.

SECTION X. Carrizo CrceTc, north Arizona. Rocks consist of yellow sandstone and 

dark gray fossiliferous limestones. Total thickness, 1,420 feet.

SECTION XI. North from and near Camp Apache, Arizona. Physical characters similar. Total thickness, 2,260 feet.

SECTION XII. Spring Mountain, Nevada. Total thickness, 2,395 feet.

SECTION XIII. Ophir City. Fossils numerous. Thickness, 1,975 feet.

The occurrence of Lower Carboniferous and Devonian rocks is somewhat questionable, except at Ophir City. The author also reported the 

discovery at the top of the "Aubrey limestone" of a few fossils suggesting the Permo-Carboniferous of the Mississippi Valley.

The Carboniferous formations of northern Arizona and in the Grand 

Canon were classified as follows:

Feet. 

Aubrey limestone Aubrey Valley, north Arizona.......................... 820

Aubrey sandstone (no fossils except in an intercalated limestone below the

middle a few.Coal Measure fossils)...................................... 1,000

Red Wall limestone named from the red appearance of escarpments in Grand

Cafion................... .............................................. 2,500

The above names were proposed by Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Marvine.

The middle of the Eed Wall limestone furnished fossils which Mr. 

Meek doubtfully referred to Lower Carboniferous. The upper portion, 

by its fossils, was correlated with the Coal Measures.

It is stated that Mr. Marcou, in the Geology of Korth America, had 

called the Aubrey limestone " Permian," the sandstone " Coal Measures," and the Eed Wall limestone " Carboniferous limestone or Mountain limestone." Mr. Gilbert referred to the local character of the sedimentation in the Grand Canon j that 75 miles westward he was unable 

to correlate the series in detail. Mr. A. E. Marvine, in the same volume, reported the identification of beds between the Black Mesa and 

the Sunset tanks as " ? Permo-Carboniferous." l

Mr. A. J. Brown reported in Pancake Mountain a vein of coal which 

was regarded by the author as probably the first carboniferous coal 

discovered west of the Eocky Mountains, unless some of the Utah coals 

belong to this age. This vein is worked at the north end of this range 

of hills, about 14 miles west of Hamilton. It has a thickness of from 

5 to 6 feet, with a dip of 40° to the west.2

In 1876, Mr. J. W. Powell presented a classification of the sedimentary rocks of the Plateau Provinces.3

In this classification the Aubrey group of Mr. Gilbert is divided into 

the upper and the lower Aubrey groups. The upper Aubrey group 

consists of sandstone and cherty limestone of 1,000 feet thickness, seen

1 Report on the geology of route from St. George, Utah, to Gila Eiver, Arizona, examined in 1871, 

by A. K. Marvine, pp. 189-225.

2 Carboniferous coal in Nevada, by A. J. Brown, Trans. Am. Inst. Mining Eng., vol. 3,1875, pp. 31-33.

*Department of the Interior. TT. S. Geol. and Geogr. survey of the Territories, 2d division. J. W. 

Powell, geologist in charge. Keport on the geology of the eastern portion of the Uintaj Mountains 

and a region of country adjacent thereto, by J. W. Powell. Washington. 1876.
WILLIAMS, i POWELL, KING. 217

along Marble, Cataract, Grand, Green, Horseshoe, and Split Mountain 

Oaiions. In its upper part it is " Bellerophon limestone," and in its 

lower part the " Tampa sandstone."

The lower Aubrey group consists of massive and shaly limestones 

and sandstones 1,000 feet in thickness.

The " Red Wall group," which is most conspicuous in the Grand 

Canon and those adjacent, has a thickness of 2,000 feet, and consists 

of two distinct members, the upper part of massive saccharoid limestones, the lower of indurated limestones, very irregularly stratified. 

This division was also recognized in the Uinta Mountains. Below this 

is a series of sandstones and shales, termed the u Lodore group," and 

supposed by the author to be the equivalent in the Uinta Mountains 

of the Tonto group in the Grand Cation. It forms the base of the Carboniferous formation, but is considered by Mr. Gilbert as probably of 

Silurian age. The total thickness of the Carboniferous series amounts 

to 4,460 feet. It rests upon the " Uinta group," which is not seen at 

Cataract Canon, but is well displayed in the Uinta Mountains. This 

formation in turn overlies uncomformably the " Eed Creek quartzites," 

which are believed to be of Eozoic age.

In his geological report on the Santa F6 Expedition, J. S. Newberry 

reported Carboniferous, Perino-Carboniferous, and true Permian.4

The " upper and lower Maguesian limestone " of his report, seen near 

Cottonwood Creek, he correlated with C and B of the Nebraska City 

formations, as described by Marcou and Swallow. His correlation was 

substantially as follows:

Nebraska City. Swallow. Meek & Hayden. Newberfy.

C. Upper Perm. Permian. Upper Magnesian limestone.

B. Lower Perm. Porino-Carb. Lower Magnesian limestone.

.Jr. Clarence King 1 gave a preliminary account of the results of the 

survey along the fortieth parallel in 1876.

The area described in this paper extends from the eastern base of the 

Rocky Mountains to the eastern boundary of California, along the 

fortieth and forty-first parallels, and is a little over 100 miles from north 

to south. The object of the paper is " to announce the stratigraphical 

divisions established in the field and their relation to the Paleozoic 

subdivisions as established in New York and in the Mississippi Basin."

In the region of the Rocky Mountains the entire Paleozoic series, 

including Coal Measure beds and strata bearing Potsdam fossils, is 

found within a section of from 900 to 1,200 feet thickness, the whole 

entirely conformable and resting discordantly upon the Archean rocks. 

Going westward the series expands from 1,000 to 32,000 feet. The 

Rocky Mountain region represented Archean islands and shallows, 

around and over which sediments were deposited, while to the west4 Report of the Exploring Expedition from Santa F6, New Mexico, to the junction of the Grand and 

Greon Rivers of the great Colorado of the West iu 1859, under command of dipt. J. N. Macoral), 4°, 

pp. 9-143. Map and plates. Washington. 1870.

'King,Clarence: Paleozoic subdivisions on the 40th parallel. Am. Jour. Sci.,3d aer.,vol. 11,1876, 

pp. 475-482.
218 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEEOUS. [BULL. 80.

ward the Paleozoic ocean deepened over a broad basin, which probably 

continued to a great depth until it reached the western shore, in longitude 117° 30'. It is a striking fact that no unconformity has been found 

in the exposures studied between the members of the series, from the 

Primordial to the summit of the Coal Measures.

The author remarks that the key to the subdivision of the whole 

Paleozoic is obtained in the Wasatch Range, where he observed a 

single section, of about 30,000 feet thickness, of conformable rocks, extending from the Permo-Carboniferous strata, conformably underlying 

the red sandstones of the Trias, down to low exposures of the Cambrian, and he notes in their order, from the base of the Cambrian upward, the important stratigraphic divisions, with their position in the 

New York scheme.

The lowest division of the series is composed of three prominent 

terranes, the lowest a series of siliceous schists and argillites, from 

800 to 1,000 feet in thickness j next is a series of quartzite and quartzofeldsitic strata, with limited beds of slate interspersed through it, and 

dark micaceous zones near the top, the whole in Cottonwood Canon 

reaching a thickness of 12,000 feet,* the third terrane is a narrow zone 

of variable argillites, calcareous shales, and thin, slightly siliceous 

limestones, whose extreme thickness is 75 feet. The only fossils found 

in this division occur in the shaly zone and are of Primordial type.

The author includes the uppermost beds in the Potsdam epoch of 

the Primordial period, and considers the whole underlying conformable series as Cambrian down to the Archean. This Cambrian formation varies in thickness, not reaching an exposure of over 100 feet at 

the extreme east of the field, while in middle Nevada the uppermost 

thin, shaly member of this terrane in the Wasatch Eange is an immense body of dark limestone, 3,000 feet in thickness, carrying Primordial fossils throughout. A list of fossils obtained from the Cambrian 

series is given.

Above the shales of the Cambrian is a bed of limestone, having a 

maximum thickness of 2,000 feet in the Wasatch, which the author 

calls the " Ute limestone," and which has y ielded only fossils of the Quebec 

group. In western Nevada the calcareous shales of the Potsdam and 

the Quebec limestone have' greatly thickened, and represent from 4,000 

to 5,000 feet of continuous limestone, yielding fossils of the Lower 

Helderberg, Niagara, Quebec, and Primordial.

Overlying the Ute limestone is a quartzite from 1,000 to 1,500 feet 

thick, called by the author the " Ogden quartzite," from its exposure 

in the Ogden Canon ; it is seen in western Nevada between the Upper 

and Lower Helderberg horizons, and is included provisionally within 

the Devonian system, being considered as the probable equivalent of 

the Schoharie and Cauda-galli grits.

Next above is the "Wasatch limestone," reaching 7,000 feet in thickness in the Wasatch and over 8,000 in middle Nevada. Its lower
WILLIAMS.] KING.

1,200 or 1,400 feet belong to the Devonian, having fossils of the Upper 

Heklerberg and Chemung groups. The fossils obtained from the Upper 

Helderberg horizon are mentioned, and those also from the upper members of the Devonian. The Geuesee and Chemung faunas of the Wallsatch limestone are followed by beds whose forms closely resemble 

those of the Waverly group, but Messrs. Hall and Whitfield considered 

them Upper Devonian. A gap of barren limestones occurs between the 

Waverly and this fossiliferous zone, so that the thickness of the Waverly is not definitely known, but in the Oquirrh Eange the combined 

thickness of the Waverly and Subcarboniferous can not be less than 

1,000 feet. The remaining 4,000 feet of the Wahsatch limestone contain at intervals beds with distinct Coal Measure forms. The Wahsatch limestone, therefore, represents 4,000 to 4,500 feet of Coal Measures, 1,000 to 1,200 feet of Subcarboniferous and Waverly [Mississippian], and 1,000 to 1,400 feet of Devonian.

Above the Wasatch limestone is found a bed of siliceous material 

called the " Weber quartzite," from its typical exposure in the Weber 

Canon. It is about 6,000 feet in thickness, with a few red sandstones 

at the base, occasional limited fine beds of shale interspersed at three 

or four different horizons, and varied by thin sheets of conglomerate 

and rounded quartz pebbles. It is referred to the middle Coal Measures, though no fossils are found in it in this locality. Six thousand 

feet is its minimum thickness; it reaches 9,000 to 10,000 feet in the 

Oquirrh. The great terrane of sandstones, with intercalated shales 

and conglomerates, forming the body of the Uinta Eange, is referred 

to this member of the series.

Overlying it is a terrane of about 2,000 to 2,500 feet of limestones, 

chert beds, calcareous and argillaceous shales, and beds of calcareous 

sandstones and arenaceous limestones, a very variable series, and 

throughout carrying Coal Measure forms j and above this is another 

variable terrane of argillaceous and calcareous shales and mud rocks, 

with limited beds of limestone and sandstone, containing many ripple 

marks. It contains forms referred by Meek and Hall and Whitfield to 

the Permo-Carboniferous. Its maximum thickness is 500 feet.

"Aside from the intimation of a local shallowing at the close of the 

Wahsatch limestone in western Nevada, the evidences are all of deepwater deposits till near the close of the Upper Coal Measure series, 

when ripple-marked shales make their appearance, and the Permian 

depositions thereafter seem all to be of a shoal-water character." 1

In the year 1878 Mr. Clarence King's3 first volume of the U. S. Geological Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel was published.

1 The details of this series of correlations is given in Volumes I, II, and IV of the reports of the 

"United States Geological Exploration of the 40th parallel, Clarence King, Geologist in charge, Washington, 1877 and 1878."

Vol. I. Systematic Geology, by Clarence King.

Vol. II. Descriptive Geology, hy Arnold Hague and S. .F. Eramons.

Vol. IV. Part I, Paleontology, hy F. B. Meek; Part II, Paleontology, by James Hall and R. P. Whitfield.

y "Systematic Geology," by Clarence King, U. S. Geologist, Washington, 1878.
220 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BUM,. 80.

A chart of " Paleozoic subdivisions, Wahsatch and Middle Nevada," 

is given on page 248, expressing the nomenclature used and the correlation.

Above the Silurian formations the sections were as follows:

Wahsatch section. Middle Nevada section.

'Permian, 650 feet, clays, marls, and limestones..(absent)

Upper Coal Measures, limestone..............2,000 feet

Carboniferous, 15,000feet.. < 

Weber quartzite.............................6,000 feet

Wahsatch limestone ...................... ....7000 feet

Waverly. ~ 

Devonian, 2,000 feet..................................... Ogden quartzite, 1,000 feet

Fossils were collected from which correlations were madeof Devonian, 

including Upper Helderberg, Chemung, and Genesee horizons in the 

lower Wahsatch limestone, of Waverly faunas above, and then of Subcarboniferous forms in the lower 2,200 feet. The upper 4,500 feet were 

characterized by abundant Coal Measure forms. The Weber quartzite 

separates the lower from the upper Coal Measure limestone. The upper 

Coal Measure limestone contains some of the same species seen in the 

upper part of the Wahsatch limestone, but over 20 species were named 

that did not occur below the quartzite. "In the Wahsatch and Uinta 

exposures a series of argillaceous and calcareous shales, with muddy 

marls, overlying the upper Coal Measure limestones n reached the thickness of 650 feet and carried if from summit to base a characteristic 

Permo-Carboniferous fauna." l The species are Lamellibranchs, several 

of them identical with Meek's species described in the faunas of Nebraska and Kansas.

In 1879, at a meeting of the Philosophical Society of Washington, 

Capt. C. E. Dutton announced the discovery of the Permian system in 

southern Utah.2

The discovery was made by C. D. Walcott of well marked Permian 

fossils in the red sandstone beds at Kanab, southern Utah. The beds 

were known before,'but had not yielded fossils. Heretofore they were 

regarded as Triassic. In the author's opinion this established the Permian age for the lower part of the red beds of Colorado, Wyoming, the 

Uiuta Mountains, and New Mexico, the variegated marls of Newberry 

in Arizona and New Mexico, and the Shinarump of Powell (pp. 6, 7).

Mr. C. D. Walcott published an account of the facts in 1880.3

1 Pago 245.

Z 0n the Permian formation of North America (abstract), Washington Phil. Soc. Bull., vol. 3, pp. 67. 

C8; Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection, vol. 20.

3 The Permian and other Paleozoic groups of the Kanab Valley, Arizona. Am. Jour. Sci.,3d aer., 

vol. 20, pp. 221-225.
wiLLiAH8.1 DAWSON, BOLL, WALCOTT. 221

The following table exhibits the essential facts of the paper: *

SMnarump conglomerate. 

Unconformity.

| Upper gypsiferous and arenaceous shales, marls, and limestones. ..710 feet 

. I Unconformity. 

ermian< Lower) cuiefly massive limestones="Pernio-Carboniferous" of

[ Gilbert........................................................145 feet

Unconformity.

Upper Aubrey limestone .................'.............................. ....835 feet

Lower Aubrey sandstone.................................................1,455 feet

Red Wall limestone........................................................970 feet

Unconformity.

Devonian, sandstone and impure limestone .................................. 100feet

Mr. G. M. Dawson2 in 1879 reported: " Between Kataloops and 

Little Shuswap Lake, on both sides of the South Thompson, rocks belonging to the Nicola series, with older rocks referable to the Cache 

Creek group, occur." The occurrence of Fusulina in the Nicola limestone series proves it to be of Carboniferous age. This same fossil, 

along with Foraminifera, named by the author Loftusia Columbia, was 

found in the limestones of Marble Canon, situated in the section between Lillovet and Bonaparte River.

Mr. Jacob Boll3 in 1880 reported upon the geology of Texas, saying that 

the rocks examined appear to be of Permian age, judging by the fossil 

contents. After giving a description of their miueralogical characters 

he notes that no coal deposits have yet been found in the Permian. In 

the south of the Permian region genuine coal is found belonging to the 

Coal Measures.

Mr. C. D. Walcott4 in 1880 gave account of his correlations in the 

Kanab Valley, Arizona, as follows:

The Permian rocks are unconformable with the Shinarump Conglomerate, which 

is considered as the base of the Mesozoic group. They consist mainly of gypsiferous 

and arenaceous shales, marls, and limestones, 710 feet in thickness, called Upper 

Permian, and 145 feet of Lower Permian, consisting chiefly of massive limestones. 

The Permo-Carboniferous of Mr. Gilbert is the equivalent of the author's (L. P.) 

" Lower Permian."

The Carboniferous rocks here have a total thickness of 3,260 feet, and are subdivided into three parts, the Upper Aubrey beds (835 feet), the Lower Aubrey (1,455 

feet), and the Red Wall limestone (970 feet). The latter consists mainly of red 

sandstones, calciferous sandrock, and limestones interstratified with layers of chert.

The Devonian beds are made up of sandstones and impure limestones, having a 

thickness of 100 feet, and are slightly unconformable with the overlying rocks.

Mr. 0. A. White,5 during the year 1880, contributed two papers re1 Am. Jour. Soi., 3d ser., vol. 20, page 223.

* Dawson, G. M.: Keport on explorations in the southern portion of the interior of British Columbia. 

Geol. Survey Canada; Keport of Progress, 1877-78,1879, pp. 16-1736.

8 Boll, Jacob: Geological examinations in Texas. Am. Nat., vol. 14,1880, pp. 684-686.

4 "Walcott, C. D.: The Permian and other Paleozoic groups of the Kanab Valley, Arizona. Am. 

Jour. Sci,, 3d ser., vol. 20, 1880, pp. 221-225.

'Remarks upon certain Carboniferous fossils from Colorado, Arizona, Idaho, Utah, and "Wyoming, 

and certain Cretaceous corals from Colorado, together with descriptions of new forms, by C. A. White 

TT. S. Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories, F. V. Hayden, Bull. vol. 5,1880, pp. 209, 221.

The subject of the Permian formation in North America. (Abstract.) Washington Phil. Soc. Bull., 

vol. 3, pp. 104-105. By C. A. White.
222 THE DEVONIAN AND CAEBONIFEROUS. [BULL.80.

garding these correlations. In the first paper he reported the correlation of " Subcarboniferous, Carboniferous, and ? Permian" by the 

fossils examined, but he thinks " there are no true Permian strata in 

Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, or Idaho, but may be farther west." In 

the second paper he accepted the evidence of the fossils (".BaJcewellia," 

etc.) reported by Mr. Walcott from the red beds above the Aubrey 

limestone as proving them to be "correlatives of the Permian of 

Europe." " It does not follow that the periods were strictly coeval in 

the two continents."

Mr. Gilbert, in the Philosophical Society,1 stated that " the contact 

of these beds is frequently, and perhaps generally, unconformable in 

the vicinity of the locality where the fossils are found, but there was 

no such break separating them from the Trias beds above." And Mr. 

J. W. Powell, discussing the same paper, remarked that "the stratigraphic evidence, as well as the fossils, confirmed the correlation of the 

beds as Permian from the Great Basin of Uinta and Arizona." The 

fossils found were substantially the same as those found by Mr. King.

In 1880 Mr. E. T. Cox2 reported that the rocks about Tucson contain 

fossils of Devonian, Subcarboniferous, and Coal Measure species. The 

rocks are semicrystalline, coarse grained, and easily decomposed.

The most exhaustive study of the Paleozoic formations of the Great 

Basin province of the west was made by Mr. Arnold Hague in the 

Eureka district, an abstract of the report upon which was published 

in 1883.3

All the identification of fossils for this report were made by Mr. 

Charles D. Walcott, who prepared a report in 1882 to go with Mr. 

Hague's report, but subsequently enlarged it, adding results of his 

study of new collections and of the sections themselves, and published the final results as an exhaustive memoir in 1884.4

This Eureka section, Nevada, as reported by Mr. Hague, is 30,000 

feet thick, made up of 7,700 feet Cambrian, 5,000 feet of Silurian, 8,000 

feet of Devonian, and 9,300 feet of Carboniferous.

The nomenclature and classification adopted for the Upper Paleozoic 

is as follows:

Feet. 

f Upper Coal Measures (limestone)........................... 500

Carboniferous J WeberConSlomerate - --- ----- 2,000

j Lower Coal Measures (limestone).......................... 3,800

[Diamond Peak quartzite......... ....................... 3,000

Devonian .... 5 White Pine shale........................................... 2,000

\ Nevada limestone.......................................... 6,000

Silurian.... ....Lone Mountain limestone, etc.............................. 1,800

'"Permian-Carboniferous overlap in the west, "/(abstract), by G.K.Gilbert. Washington Phil. Soc. 

Bull., vol.3, pp. 105-106.

*Cox, E. T.: The Geology of Southern Arizona. Am. Nat.,vol. 14,1880, pp. 541,542.

* Abstract of Report on the Geology of the Eureka District, by Arnold Hague. 3d Ann. Kept, of 

the IT. S. Geol. Survey for 1881-'82,1883, by J. W. Powell, Director, pp. 241-288.

* Monographs of the U. S. Geol. Survey, vol. 8,1884. Paleontology of the Eureka District, by Charlef 

Doolittie Wajcott, pp, 1-298., Pla. J-
W1LUAM8.) HAGUE, COMSTOCK. 223

The boundary line between the Silurian and Devonian is said to be 

arbitrarily drawn, as the passage from the lower to the upper limestone 

is gradual, " with poorly defined lithological distinctions, and without, 

as yet, any paleontological evidences " for making sharp distinctions.1 

But below the Lone Mountain limestone (Silurian) is a plane of unconformity.

The Nevada limestone, although so thick (6,000 feet), offers no litho- \ 

logic or paleoiitologic evidence by which to divide it sharply into subdivisions. The fauna is rich and often well preserved, and contains 

species of the Upper Helderberg, Hamilton, and Chemung formations 

of New York. While there is recognized a lower and upper fauna, 

many of the species show a remarkable range, and some of them " have 

reversed their relative positions in the group as they have been known 

heretofore. Among the Brachiopods Orthis tulliensis, of the Tally 

limestone of New York State, is found at the summit of the Devonian 

limestone, and Orthis impressa, a Cheraimg species of New York, at the 

base, associated with eastern Upper Helderberg limestone species.'7 2

The White Pine shale, in the White Pine district, carries a fauna 

which combines species ranging from Middle Devonian to Lower Carboniferous in the east. The Devonian fauna described contains 102 

genera and 225 species, and 94 genera and 79 species of these are identified as common to Nevada and New York. Two species described 

from the Mackenzie Eiver Basin were identified among the Eureka 

Devonian fossils. The Carboniferous age of the Diamond Peak Quartzite is determined by the occurrence of a Carboniferous Productus in an 

intercalated limestone stratum 500 feet from its base. The lower limestone contains evidence of proximity of land in the presence of fragments of plants and pulmoniferous mollusks, but the fossils throughout 

the carboniferous deposits of Nevada are of marine species, and no 

beds of coal occur in them. The whole series of formations of the 

upper Paleozoic presents strong contrast to anything seen in the eastern part of the continent, and the stratigraphy as well as the paleontology furnishes striking example of the unreasonableness of attempts 

to unify the geologic classifications of the world.

Mr. T. B. Comstock 3 in 1883 reported on the rocks of San Juan 

County, Colorado.

The Devonian rocks of this region are " exposed near the summit of 

the divide between Bear Creek and Cascade Creek and along a line 

running parallel wise with the Animas Caiiou, forming the cliffs along 

the side of Lime Creek." The outcrop occurs again at Silverton and 

near the head of Cunningham Gulch. Although the Devonian is not 

sharply distinguished from the rocks below, the fossils in the upper 

part of the limestone point definitely to a Devonian horizon.

'Abstract of report, etc., p. 265. 

» Walcott: Paleontology of the Eureka District, p. 4.

 Comstock, T. B.: Kotos on the Geology and Mineralogy of San jTuan QQonty, 

Amer. Inst Min. Eng., vol. 17,1683, pp. 165-1?},
224 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

The Carboniferous rocks occur mainly in the southwestern part, along 

Lime and Cascade Creeks and branches of Mineral Creek. These belong to the Lower Carboniferous, and consist of argillaceous, arenaceous, and calcareous beds, having a thickness of some 1,200 feet, while 

those of the Upper Carboniferous are made up of red sandstones, 2,000 

feet in thickness.

Mr. C. D. Walcott1 reported identifications in the Grand Canon as 

follows:

In the Grand Canon of Colorado is found the Ked Wall limestone of 

Gilbert forming the base of the Carboniferous series, and at the mouth 

of the Kanab C anon about 1,000 feet of the Lower Aubrey sandstone 

are well exhibited. Evidences of Devonian rocks were noted resting 

upon the Tonto group (Cambrian), but in some places they were not 

recognized at all, and where they were seen they did not exceed 100 

feet in thickness. :

Mr. Frank Springer2 reported that Burlington geologists, contrary 

to the ideas of others, have been inclined to divide the Burlington limestone into two parts upon paleontological evidence. This view is farther demonstrated by finding a similar occurrence in Lake Valley 

mining district in New Mexico, thus showing its extended range.

Mr. A. C. Peale 3 in 1885 placed on record the first positive identification of Devonian strata in the Eocky Mountain region of Montana. 

Fossils were collected by the Hayden survey in 1872 from several localities in the Territory which Mr. Meek found to have a Devonian aspect, 

but he regarded them as belonging to the Lower Carboniferous, as they 

contained no strictly Devonian types of corals, crinoids, or lamellibranchs. The author visiting the region in 1884, in company with Dr. 

Hayden, obtained a collection of fossils which he submitted to Mr. 

Charles D, Walcott,4 who identified them as undoubtedly Devonian.

Mr. Walcott says:

Of the twenty-three species of fossils given in lists 1 and 2, twelve are identical 

with species occurring in the Upper Devonian of the Eureka district, Nevada. Of 

the others, two are Upper Devonian species in New York State, and Athyris hirauta 

occurs at the base of the Carboniferous in the Eureka district.

The remaining forms resemble closely those of the Lower Carboniferous of the Eureka district.

Mr. A. McCharles5 gave account in 1887, of the occurrence of Devo1 Walcott, Charles D.: Pre-Carboniferous strata in the Grand Canon of the Colorado, Arizona. Am 

Jonr. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 26,1883, pp. 437-442,481.

3 Springer, Frank: On the occurrence of the lower Burlington limestone in New Mexico. Am. 

Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 27,1884, pp. 97-103. 

* Peale, A. C.: Devonian strata in Montana. Science, vol. 5,1885, p. 249.

4 Two lists of the fossils prepared by him are given, including in the first, Discina lodensis Hall (?), 

Streptorhynchus chemungensis Conrad, Orthis Vanuxemi (?) Hall (?), Ghonetes mucronata Hall, Productus speciosus, Spirifera disjuncta, etc., and in the second are Streptorhynchus chemungensis Conrad, 

Rhynchonella Horsfordii Hal) (?), etc.

5 McCharles, A.: The footsteps of time in the Ked Eiver Valley, with special reference to the aalt 

spring and flowing wells to be found in it. Manitoba Hist, and Sci. Soc., Trans., No. 27, 1887, p. 18. 

Description of occurrence of Archeau, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Cretaceous, and Quaternary.
WILLIAMB.] MCCHARLES. 225

nian and other Paleozoic formations in the valley of the Red River, 

British America-. In the western part of the Red River Valley occurs 

a narrow belt of Devonian rocks, but their exact extent is not yet 

known. Devonian fossils belonging to the lower part of the system 

were found in river bo wlders, probably transported from a distance by 

ice.

Bull. 80 15
CHAPTER XI.

THE ACADIAN PROVINCE : THE CORRELATIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE UPPER PALEOZOIC FORMATIONS IN THE 

ACADIAN PROVINCE.

The name "Acadian province" is applied geologically to the territory 

including the New England States, and the maritime provinces of 

Canada, i. e., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Cape Breton, and Prince 

Edward Island. Although at certain periods of geological time this 

region was little other than the northern extension of the great Appalachian province, it may be considered as distinct during the Devonian 

and Carboniferous ages. Its western limit may be arbitrarily fixed as 

the Green Mountains and the elevated hills just east of the Hudson 

Eiver. The name is an adaptation of Sir William Dawson's term 

"Acadia." l The rocks under consideration find their typical representation in the region described in the "Acadian Geology."

The Carboniferous and Devonian systems are both represented in 

this region by extensive deposits. The author had devoted much 

time to a personal examination of the formations and had made a 

special study of the plant remains. The second edition presents some 

slight modification of the first in the classification. The classification is an expression of the general features of the Upper Paleozoic for 

this part of the continent at the time when it was written (1868). In 

 chapter x and the following chapters, beginning at page 128, the 

classification and description of the Carboniferous system are given:

a. Upper coal formation, 3,000 -f- feet.

6. Middle coal formation, 4,000 feet.

c. Millstone grit series, 5,000 to 6,000 feet.

d. Lower Carboniferous marine formation or Carboniferous limestone, variable in

thickness, characterized by marine invertebrates (Prodiictus cora, P. semireticulatus, etc., with associated beds of gypsum and marls, and in some districts

entirely represented by conglomerates. 

e. Lower Coal Measures, holding some of the flora and fauna of the middle coal

formation, but no productive coal beds; flora differing from that below in the

Devonian, upon which it lies unconformably.

These last two divisions, "e" and "d," are considered as representing 

the Lower Carboniferous or " Subcarboniferous" of the western geologists.2

 Acadian geology : The geological structure, organic remains, and mineral resources of Nova Scotia, 

New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, by John William Dawson, etc. 1st edition 1856, 2d 

edition 1868.

* Page 131.
WILLIAMS.] J. W. DAWSON. 227

The top of this series is followed by the Triassic, resting uncomformably upon it.1

No Permian formations were known to the author, unless possibly 

the " upper coal formation may synchronize with the Permian of 

Europe" or " unless represented by the lower part of the sandstones of 

Prince Edward Island." 2

Below the Carboniferous the following series of rocks of the Devonian 

system are reported from near St. John, New Brunswick : 3

Feet. 

Mispeck group Sbales, sandstones, and conglomerates....................... 1,850

Little River group Upper part, conglomerates, sandstones, grits, and shales... 2,350 

Little Eiver group Middle and lower part, including the Cordaite shales in

part and the Dadaxylon sandstone, shales, sandstones, and flags........ 2,800

Bloomsbury group Conglomerates, tuffaceous rocks, and sandstones and

shales ................................................................ 2,500

The upper part of the Devonian, correlated with the Cheinung and

Portage of New York, is reported in the " Gaspe" sandstones" of eastern 

Canada. The typical section of the Carboniferous for this province is 

the famous South Jogging section along the coast of western Cumberland. It was measured and tabulated by Sir W. E. Logan in 1845; 

was examined and further reported by Lyell and Dawson in 1852 and 

1853. Mr. Logan estimated the total thickness at 14,570 feet 11 inches. 

Mr. Dawson quotes it (pp. 156, et seq.) in detail. An abstract of the section is as follows:

Feet. 

Division 1. Upper coal formation............................................ 1,617

2. Upper coal, lower part .......................................... 650

3. Middle coal formation, upper part, including 23 coal groups...... 2,134

4. Middle coal, lower part, with 49 coal groups...................... 2,539

5. Upper Millstone grit series ...................................... 2,082

6. Middle Millstone grit series...................................... 3,240

7. Lower Millstone grit series ...................................... 650

8. Upper part, Lower Carboniferous formation...................... 1,658

Immediately under these are beds of the marine limestone, containing 

Productus com, etc. This correlation of the section is Mr. Dawson's. 

In an article read before the Philosophical Society in Philadelphia Mr. 

J. P. Lesley, having examined the coal field of Glace Bay, objected to 

the great thickness and to the correlation of the lower measures claimed 

by Mr. Dawson.4 Mr. Lesley, chiefly upon lithologic grounds, urged 

that division 5 of the Joggins section is to be compared with the Lower 

Carboniferous on Vespertine No. XI of Pennsylvania, and that the 

deposits below (6, 7 and 8) would be Devonian. Mr. Dawson replied, 

and the substance of the debate is quoted in this volume,5 claiming 

paleontologic evidence for his interpretation and, further, that the 

plants of the " Chemung of New York, of the Vergent and Ponent of 

Pennsylvania are decidedly Devonian."

1 Acadian Geology, 2d ed., p. 128. 

 2 Ibid., pp. 19, 126. 

8 Ibid., pp. 503, 504. 

«Proc. Am. Pliil. Soc., Phila., 1802. 

5 Acadian Geology, 2d edition, pp. 142-149.
228 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

The correlations of the Carboniferous and Devonian deposits of this 

Acadian province are based so greatly upon the evidence of plants 

that I will not here attempt to discuss the merits of the arguments, as 

the whole subject of the value of fossil plants as means of correlation 

is being considered by an expert paleobotanist. There are sufficient 

evidences of marine fossils to make clear that the base of the great 

series of arenaceous deposits overlying the Silurian in the Northeast is 

of Lower Devonian age and that the massive beds of limestone underlying the Coal Measures are Lower Carboniferous in age. The details 

are chiefly matters of classification within the Acadian province, and 

in any correlations that are made the fossil plant remains must be the 

chief witnesses.

As in the development of the geology of the Mississippian province, 

so in the development of that in the Acadian province, the coal beds 

were the guides to the general correlation, and the details were elaborated by degrees as the formations were studied.

In the following pages I have arranged in chronologic order brief 

abstracts of the results as they have been published, beginning with 

the year 1843, the few papers bearing upon this particular province 

prior to that date having been reviewed in the pages of the first chapter 

of this essay. x

In the year 1843 there appeared in the Quarterly Journal of the 

Geological Society, vol. 1, two articles on the geology of Nova Scotia 

and neighborhood, the first by Richard Brown. 2 In this paper the 

following formations were recognized: Coal Measures, Millstone grit, 

Mountain limestone, and the "Gypseous series." The latter were 

identified as occurring below the Carboniferous or Coal Measures. 

The second article is by J. W. Dawson, 3 and it has maps and sections 

and a description of the geological characters of the rocks, The Gypseous formation is referred to the Lower Carboniferous. Above them 

the author reported newer coal formations, and in the Bed sandstone 

of Truro he reported another terrane, which was considered as "newer 

than any part of the coal formation."

In 1844 Lyell 4 in a short paper announced his opinion that these beds 

belong to the Carboniferous system.

In 1845 Dawson communicated a paper 5 to the Geological Society of 

London regarding the geology of Nova Scotia. In this paper the Carboniferous and Devonian formations are defined.

On East River, Pictou, occurs a series of Carboniferous rocks having

'In the preparation of these abstracts I have been assisted by Mr. V. F. Marsters, a graduate oJ 

Acadia College and now instructor in' geology at Cornell University, whose assistance is hereby 

acknowledged.

2 The Geology of Capo Breton, pp. 23-26 and 207-213, accompanied by a map.

8 The Lower Carboniferous Rocks or Gypseous Formation of Nova Scotia, pp. 26-35.

4 0n the probable age and origin of a bed of plumbago and anthracite occurring in mica-schists 

near Worcester, Massachusetts. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 47, pp. 214, 215.

5 0n the newer coal formations of the eastern part of Nova Scotia. By Dr. J. W. Dawson. Qnar. 

Jour. Geol. Soo., vol. 1, pp. 322-330.
jWILLIAMS.] J. W. DAWSON, CHARLES LYELL. 229

a thickness of some 5,000 feet and forming the "older coal formation." 

Above it is a coarse Conglomerate, which is in turn followed by the 

"newer coal formation." This Conglomerate occurs at New Glasgow, 

where it dips to the north on West River, and at Mengonish Harbor. 

Above the Conglomerate occurs a gray fossiliferous limestone, followed 

by a small bed of coal, whose outcrop can be traced parallel with that 

of the Conglomerate at Mengonish, having a dip of 25°. Eed sandstones are prominent in the lower part and gray sandstones in the 

upper part of this series. Fossilized wood is abundant, consisting 

chiefly of Oalamites and Lepidodendra. In Eogers's Hill occurs a Conglomerate apparently identical with the New Glasgow deposit. This is 

followed by reddish sandstones and shales.

The author gives a coast section of the newer coal formation from 

Cape John, consisting of reddish sandstones and shale with gray beds 

and limestones containing ferns, etc., and associated with conglomerates and gypsum. A section is given of French Eiver at Tatmagouche 

(6£ miles), showing the relation of the newer coal formation to rocks 

bearing scales of HoloptycMus, probably of Devonian age. This series is seamed by Trappean rocks.

The newer series of the coal formation was formerly considered as 

part of the " New Eed sandstone," and as including also part of the 

gypsiferous deposits and the nonfossiliferous red sandstone on the 

shores of the Bay of Fundy.

The author also adds a section showing the contact of the Carboniferous rocks with the Silurian rocks at Maccara's Brook. Their separation is well shown by the unconformable superposition of the Carboniferous series. This section is also considerably disturbed by intrusive 

rocks.

In the American Journal of Science1 Charles Lyell gave an account 

of " The Coal Formation of Nova Scotia, etc." In regard to its position, he considered it the equivalent of the Carboniferous, but as lying 

below the productive Coal Measures. The general rocks consist of red 

sandstone, red marl, with subordinate beds of gypsum and marine 

limestone, and occa sionally coal grits and shales with thin seams of 

coal.

Mr. Lyell 2 in 1845 discussed the Devonian and Carboniferous systems.

The Hamilton group (7), which the author considered as concluding 

the Silurian series of North America, ranges chiefly along the eastern 

and southeastern flanks of the Alleghanies, while the Devonian and 

Carboniferous series appear farther west. The Devonian rocks of 

North America the author considered as the equivalent of the Old Eed 

sandstone series of North Britain and Herefordshire.

The coal fields of the United States, consisting of the Appalachian,

1 Vol. 45, pp. 356-359.

2 See also Travels in North America in the Years 1841-'42; with Geological Observations on the 

United States, Canada, and Nova Scotia, in which he defends his determination of the age of the 

gypsiferons strata as the "Lower Carboniferous." By Charles Lyell. Vol. 2, chap. 26.
230 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

the Illinois, and the Michigan fields, the fields in Canada, in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Cape Breton, are of great 

importance.

The Carboniferous series of Nova Scotia are conveniently divided 

into three parts: " (1) An upper series, composed of shales and sandstones bearing fossil plants; (2) a middle series, containing the productive Coal Measures; (3) the lower series, consisting of red sandstones 

and marls, with gypsum and limestones."

The Albion mines, near Pictou, show the greatest thickness of coal 

(some thirteen yards or more). An admirable section of the whole 

series is also seen on the South Joggins River, containing numerous 

fossil plants.

Mr. Eichard Brown1 reported in 1846 the finding, in the Sydney coal 

field of Cape Breton, in a stratum of arenaceous shale, of erect fossil 

trees, showing attached rootlets. This stratum, which has a thickness 

of 5 feet, occurs below the main seam of coal. Vast quantities of 

Sigillaria stems, Calamites, and Lepidodendra were also recognized, as 

well as a great variety pf fern's.

In 1847 the same author reported upon the gypsiferous strata of 

Cape Dauphin.

Mr. Lyell had shown that the gypsiferous deposits of Nova Scotia 

and Cape Breton are closely connected with the older Carboniferous 

series, and are representatives of the Carboniferous limestones of 

Europe. The author proves this statement by giving a section from 

Cape Dauphin,2 in which the gypsiferous deposits are separated from 

the red granites only by a small deposit of conglomerate and limestones. 

In this series the Millstone grit is represented by 200 feet in the Sydney 

coal field, but in places it reaches 2,000 feet. The thickness of the

gypsum beds can not be easily ascertained. Their minimum thickness

seems to be about 8 feet. No organic remains were noticed in the 

gypsum.

In 1850 Eichard Brown3 described the section of the lower Coal 

Measures of the Sydney coal field.

The series is grouped under four divisions, viz:

4. The Productive Coal Measures.

3. A thick deposit of sandstone.

2. Limestone and shales, occasionally containing beds of gypsum.

1. A coarse conglomerate.

The first division, u probably representing the Old Eed sandstone of 

Europe," outcrops " from beneath the Carboniferous limestone, west 

of Sydney Harbor." The second division, having a thickness of 820

'Brown, Richard: On a group of erect fossil trees in the Sydney coal field of Cape Breton. Quart. 

Jour. Geol. Soc., vol. 2,1846, pp. 393-396.

2 Brown, Richard: On the gypaiferous strata of Cape Dauphin, in the island of Cape Breton. Quart. 

Jour. Geol. Soc., vol. 3,1847, pp. 257-260.

3 Brown, Richard: Section of the lower Coai Measures of the Sydney coal field in the island of Cape 

Breton. Quart. Jour., Geol. Soc. vol. 6, 1850, pp. 115-133.
WILLIAMS.] J. W. DAWSON. 231

feet, consists chiefly of shales, sandstones, and limestones, and contains a few bracliiopods, fish scales, and plant remains. The third 

division consists of sandstones, probably equivalent to the Millstone 

grit of England, and has a thickness of 1,800 feet. The fourth division, containing the Productive Coal Measures, shows on Boulardrie 

Island a thickness of 5,400 feet, but at other exposures only 1,000 or 

2,000 feet. The coal measures begin at Stubbord's Point and end at 

Cranberry Head. The dip is 60° east, at an angle of 7°. The author 

adds a tabulated section of each stratum, giving thickness and physical character, after which several sections are. appended, showing erect 

fossil trees from various parts of the section.

In 1852 J. W. Dawson1 gave an account of his studies of the red 

sandstones of Nova Scotia.

The author, by further examination, has been enabled to trace the

" New Eed sandstone " from the mouth of the Shubenacadie Eiver by 

broken patches nearly to the mouth of the Avon, and at some points 

it was found in very close contact with Lower Carboniferous rocks. A 

continuation of the sandstone is seen iu the Cornwallis Valley, as at 

Petite River, of which he gives a cut, showing the black slate, shales} 

and limestones lying immediately below the red sandstone, and dipping at a high angle. A similar exposure of red sandstone is also 

seen at Salter's Head, near the mouth of the Shubenacadie River. The 

shales referred to above are identical with those of Horton Bluff and 

Noel, both exposures containing Lepidodendra.

The New Red sandstones of Shubenacadie River rest uncouformably upon shales of Carboniferous age.

In 1853 J. W. Dawson2 gave an account of the Albert mine, Hillsborough. The author regards these deposits as belonging to " the 

lower part of the Lower Carboniferous series," and nearly equivalent 

to "a band of pseudo-Coal Measures occurring in the Carboniferous 

limestones of Nova Scotia."

A section from the Joggins Coal Measures to the Albert mine is 

given, in which the rocks consist of gray sandstones, reddish sandstones, limestones, and gypsums, conglomerates, and the calcareo-bituminous shales of the Albert mine. No shales resembling those of the 

Albert series have yet been recognized in the higher members of the 

Carboniferous system. Fish remains are abundant in the Albert shales. 

The plant remains, though rare, bear very close resemblance to those 

of Horton's Bluff.

The shales in contact with the coal are much contorted and folded. 

No Stigmaria were seen. Underclays were noticed as associated with 

the coal. The coal bed has a general dip of N. 15° E. The peculiar 

position of this deposit is explained by faulting. Concerning its origin,

1 Dawson, J. W.: Additional notes on the red sandstones of Nova Scotia. Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc., 

vol. 8, 1852, pp. 398-400.

2 Dawson, J. W.: On the Albert mine, Hillsborough, Now Brnnswick. Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc., vol. 

9,1853, pp. 107-114.
232 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

it may have originated, first, "from a hardening of bitumen," or, second, by the"bitummization of woody matter under continued pressure."

In 1853 Dr. Dawson1 reported upon the South Joggins as follows:

In this region is represented a series of rocks, 14,000 feet in thickness, 

extending from the "massive limestone of the Lower Carboniferous 

series to the top of the Carboniferous formation."

The author gave a detailed account under twenty-nine divisions of a 

section in the middle of the formations, some 2,800 feet in thickness. 

The rocks consist of shales and clays containing plant remains, black 

carbonaceous shales intercalated by thin beds of coals, and sandstones 

showing ripple-marks and erosive effects previous to the deposition of 

the superimposed strata. Trunks of trees in situ, covered with Spirorbis.> were found embedded in these sandstone strata, which contained 

Catamites and Sigillaria. Stigmaria, Cypris, and Modiola were quite 

numerous in the underclays. Some new facts are noticed showing the 

relation of Stigmaria and Sigillaria, and attention is called to the occurrence of Coniferous trees, Calamites, and Poacites, together with 

animal remains, consisting of scales, teeth, jaws, spines, and coprolites. 

An abstract is added of Mr. Logan's section of South Joggins Coal 

Measures. (See p. 239-241.)

Messrs. Poole 2 (Henry) and Dawson (J. W.) in 1854 compared the 

Albion Coal Measures with the section at the Joggins.

The thickness of the Albion Measures varies. While, according to 

Mr. Logan, the Joggins section showed seventy-six coal seams aggregating 44 feet, and Mr. Brown's section at Sydney, thirty-one seams 

showing 37 feet, at Pictou there are only two seams 60 feet in thickness. At the Albion mines the argillaceous beds are very thick, while 

the sandstones and shales seen at the Joggins and Sydney are absent. 

The coal beds with their associated rocks seem to be unconformable 

with the coal formation immediately below. This is explained by unequal deposition.

In the Albion mines occurs a thick, reddish conglomerate above the 

Coal Measures, which has no equivalent in the other mines of Nova 

Scotia. Its outcrop extends across the valleys of East, Middle, and 

West Kivers, Pictou, and dips toward the north. This is considered as 

the base of the "Newer Coal Formation."

A detailed account of the great bed is added.

In 1856 Mr. Dawsou 3 gave his views regarding the classification of 

the rocks of Nova Scotia in a paper before the American Association.

Nova Scotia is occupied by rocks of the Silurian, Devonian, and Carboniferous series, and sandstones superseded by traps. The Carbon1 Dawson, J. W.: On the Coal Measures of the South Joggins, Nova Scotia. Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc., 

vol. 10, 1854, pp. 1-42.

8 Poole, Henry, and Dawson, J. W.: On the structure of the Albion Coal Measures. Quart. Jour. 

Gcol. Soc., vol. 10, 1851, pp. 42-51.

3 Dawson, J. W.: On the parallelism of the rock formations of Nova Scotia with those of other parfa 

of America. Am. Assoc. Proc., vol. 10, Pt. 2,1856, pp. 18-25.
WILLIAMS.] J. W. DAWSON. 233

iferous rocks are especially, well developed and lie nnconformably upon 

the Devonian rocks. The author proposes to outline the equivalency 

of these Canadian geological changes and formations with those of the 

American Paleozoic and Mesozoic in the United States.

After enumerating instances of modern changes of level evidenced by 

submerged trees and stumps in situ, found along the Bay of Fondy and 

near Fort Lawrence, and probably connected with those in progress in 

Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, and the coast of New England, 

together with an outline of the distribution of bowlders and direction 

of transportation, he described the New Bed sandstone immediately 

underlying the above series, which are well developed in Nova Scotia 

and Prince Edward Island, the latter not associated with traps.

The Carboniferous series was described in descending order under 

five stratigraphic divisions.

(1) " Upper or New Coal Formations,", consisting ot several thousand 

feet of sandstones, shales, gray beds with fossil plants, but without 

workable coal or massive limestones.

(2) The "Productive Coal Measures," presenting three different types 

of structure; (a) a large number of alternating beds of coal and stiginaria under clays ; (ft) the coal accumulated in a few large seams, but 

destitute of marine limestone and with erect trees; (c) presenting the 

aspect of the first series, but without coal and its accompaniments.

(3) A very thick series of " gray and red sandstones," barren of coal 

plants, corresponding in part to the "Millstone grits" of England and 

the "Conglomerates" of the Appalachian and Western coal fields.

(4) The " gypsiferous series," consisting of red sandstones, red and 

green marls, limestones with fossils, and beds of gypsum ; this series 

is wanting in the Appalachian, but is well developed in the West and 

South. It was noted that when the Carboniferous beds of limestone approached the older ridges of rocks the limestones diminished and were 

replaced by conglomerates marking ancient sea beaches, while the deposition of limestone took place in deeper waters, thus presenting an analogy to similar facts observed in the United States.

(5) At the base of the system occur "estuary deposits" of dark calcareous shales and sandstones, with coal plants and fish scales, to which 

series the author refers the fish-bearing shales of the Albert mine in 

New Brunswick.

He noted the great similarity of the coal flora of Nova Scotia to that 

of the Southern and Western States and of England, while the marine 

fauna seemed to be more closly allied to that of western Europe.

The features of the Devonian and Silurian rocks were outlined. Before 

the dawn of the Lower Carboniferous period violent disturbances had occurred, elevating and fracturing the rocks. The first fossiliferous beds 

of great thickness were supposed by Prof. Hall to belong to the 

Clinton and Oriskany sandstone of New York. In some parts the organic life is remarkably like that of the English Upper Ludlow. These
234 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

beds, occurring about the horizon, of the Niagara group, are interstratified with beds of greenstones, the whole series being cut by dikes, similar to regions of the same age in New England. The older Silurian 

rocks consist of nonfossiliferous rocks made up of quartzites and clay 

slates of great thickness, passing in places into mica, chert, and gneiss, 

destitute of calcareous, magnesian, and metallic minerals, with tbe exception of iron pyrites, but including no representative of the Silurian 

limestones of the United States and Canada, though occurring but a 

short distance from the Province of New Brunswick.

Isaac Lea,1 in 1859, compared the " Trias " formations of the eastern 

border of the United States with the older rocks of Prince Edward Island.

Mr. Dawson, in referring to the older rocks of Prince Edward Island, 

had said that they " either belong to the top of the Carboniferous system or to an overlying deposit of the Permian or Triassic age." Mr. 

Lea remarked that the rock in the bed of Deep River, North Carolina, 

formerly considered by Prof. Emraons as Trias, was in 1856 by him 

divided into two groups, Permian and Trias. He considered that, the 

Chatham series of North Carolina, the Newark series of New Jersey, 

and the Greenfield series of the Connecticut Valley represent one epoch, 

the Permian. The Groyuedd series and that of Phcenixville are evidently of the same horizon with the above mentioned. Prof. Eramons agrees with Mr. Lea in referring these rocks to the Permian epoch, 

identified as they are in North Carolina by the same Saurian forms, 

plants, fish scales, and the Posidonia.

Charles H. Hitchcock,2 in I860, made the following correlations of the 

coal beds of New England:

By means of the fossil plants Mr. Lesquereux had been able to systematize the Carboniferous coals. From comparison of his identifications Mr. 

Hitchcock concluded that the New England coal basins of Wreutham, 

Valley Falls, Portsmouth, and Newport, Rhode Island, belong to the 

lower series, probably below the Mahoning sandstone, and if the upper 

Coal Measures of other basins were ever deposited there they have been 

obliterated by denudation.

In a letter to Mr. B. Silliman, jr., Mr. O. C. Marsh 3 corrected a mistaken report that the Saurian vertebrae from Nova Scotia (discovered 

by Marsh in 1855) had been recently found by Agassiz. Mr. Marsh had 

postponed announcing the discovery, hoping to obtain further remains, 

but failing to do so, makes it public in this letter, saying that he found 

the bones beneath 5,000 feet of coal strata; that they resemble the 

vertebrae of an Ichthyosaurus; and he proposes for the species the 

name Eosaurus Acadianus.

In 1863, in the "Geology of Canada," the Devonian system was recog1 Lea, Isaac: On Age of Trias of Eastern United States. Phila. Aoad. Sci., Proc., vol. 10,1859. pp. 90-92. 

2Eltchcock, C. H.: Synchronism of Coal Beds in the New England and Western United States Coal 

Basins. Am. Assoc., Proc., vol. 14, 1860. pp. 138-143. 

sMarah, O. C.: On the Saurian Vertebrae from Nova Scotia. Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 33, 1862, p. 278.
WILUAMB.J LOGAN. 235

nized by Logau in Canada West. Acknowledgments were made of the 

services of James Hall in tracing out in 1856 with Mr. Murray the 

boundary of the Upper Devonian rocks in a part of the western peninsula.

In the report 1 Logan recognized the Oriskany, Corniferous, Hamilton, 

Portage, and Ohemung formations of the New York system. Keference 

is also made to the correlation of the higher Carboniferous rocks in 

Michigan and their relation to these Devonian rocks.

The Oriskany sandstone is reported from Waterloo, on the Niagara 

River, and extending westward at Oneida and North Cayuga, but is 

not recognized beyond the township of Windham. It is from 6 inches 

to 25 feet thick, but is frequently missing between the Wateiiime and 

Corniferous formations.

The Corniferous formation is estimated at 160 feet. It presents various characters, cherty limestone, calcareous shales, light or dark, bituminous and hydraulic beds being reported at different localities.

A series of shales and shaly limestones is reported as "Hamilton 

formation." At Bosanquet the following section is seen:

Feet. 

Gray Encrinal limestone....................................................... 2

Soft shales.................................................................... 80

Solid Eucrinal limestone .......'............................................... 2

Gray calcareous shales ( Spirifcr mucronatua) .................................... 4

Gray calcareous beds........................................................... 25

At Austin Mill, 50 or 60 feet below the Eucrinal limestone, occurs a 

solid arenaceous limestone, 7 inches thick, under which are black shales 

doubtfully referred to the Marcellus shales. The soft marly beds, with 

thin beds of limestone intercalated, containing Spirifer mucronatus, are 

also referred to the Hamilton formation. The thickness of the formation is estimated at 300 feet. In several localities (Cape Ipperwash, 

Kettlepoint, Bosanquet) a black, fissile, bituminous shale, 12 to 14 feet 

thick, weathering gray and holding spheroidal concretions, is correlated 

with the Genesee shale. The author expresses the opinion that the 

363 feet of rocks in Michigan called "Chemung" and "Portage" by 

Winchell lie above the " Black shale."

In a paper2 describing his studies of the Coal Measures on the coast 

of Cape Breton, J. P. Lesley3 called in question the reported thickness 

of the Coal Measures. He said: " The geologists, Sir William Logan, 

Sir Charles Lyell, Professor Dawson4 and other geologists who have 

described the Coal Measures of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick agree 

in assigning to them an almost incredible thickness."

'Geological Survey of Canada: Report of progress from its commencement to 1863; illustrated by 

498 wood cuts in the text. Montreal, 1863, 8vo., xxvii and 983 pp., by W. E. Logan.

2 This discussion is referred to at the opening of the present chapter. The original papers were 

published in the American Philosophical Society Proceedings.

3 Lesley, J. P.: Siction of Coal Measures on the Cape Breton coast. Am. Phil. Soo. Proc., vol. 9, 

1863, pp. 93-109,167-170 ; Am. Jour. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 36, pp. 179-196 (Kevised).

* Dawson, J. "W.: Note on Lesley's paper on the Coal Measures of Cape Breton. Am. Phil. Soc. 

Proo., vol. 9,1883, pp. 163-167,208,209.
236 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. IDULL.SO.

The section of which Mr. Lesley gave a full account is situated between Luigan and Great Glace Bays on the east coast of Cape Breton. 

It includes the " Productive Coal Measures" of Cape Breton with five 

workable beds. In the North Sydney measures Mr. Brown has recorded thirty-four seams, but only four of them are workable, varying 

from 3 to 7 feet in thickness.

The author concluded that Mr. Brown's estimate of 10,000 feet for the 

Productive Coal Measures is too great. He added an analysis of 

Logan's "Joggin's section" having "a vertical thickness of 14,570 

feet," and containing "seventy-six beds of coal, and ninety distinct 

Stigmaria underclays," and " twenty-four bituminous limestones."

In Dr. Dawson's reply he took exception to Mr. Lesley's views under 

the following heads: (1) It is not safe to make comparisons between 

the greatly developed Coal Measures of Nova Scotia and the thinner 

beds of the west; (2) The Coal Measures were deposited on the sides 

of the Silurian and Devonian hills in separate areas and not over the 

hilltops; (3) It is useless to make comparison between even the Joggins section and those of Wallace and Pictou. "A fortiori, detailed 

comparison with Pennsylvania and more distant localities must fail;" 

(4) " The whole of the Coal Measures in the Jogging section belong to 

the Upper and Middle Coal Measures. It is quite incorrect to indentify No. 6 of Logau's section with the Lower Coal Measures;" (5) " The 

flora is identical throughout the whole thickness of the Middle Coal 

Measures j" (6) The flora of the gypsiferous deposits and marine deposits of Nova Scotia is certainly Carboniferous, while the flora of the 

so-called " Chemung " is as decidedly Devonian.

In a letter1 to the editors of the American Journal of Science, Dawson 

combats the action of some geologists in referring certain rocks, hitherto 

regarded as Upper Devonian, to the Carboniferous period, and gives 

facts derived from his own study of fossil plants which, he thinks, bear 

strongly against this view. Of all the species of Devonian land plants 

that have come under his observation, both of America and Europe, 

only an exceedingly small number are Carboniferous. In the Carboniferous system, in spite of numerous differences between the plants of 

the lower, middle, and upper divisions, "there is a grand unity of the 

fossil flora throughout." But when the Devonian is reached, there are 

new genera and a distinct assemblage of species. The author speaks 

of but one exceptional case, which is that of beds at Akron and Bichfield, Ohio, regarded as equivalent to the Upper Devonian of New York. 

In a small collection from these places he saw two species which were 

identical with Lower Carboniferous forms, while the others, though 

having a Devonian aspect, were not identical with any New York or 

Gaspe" species.

While it may be, he says, that in the Paleozoic period the range in 

time of marine forms exceeded that of terrestrial life, it would be an

'Dawson, J. W.: On American Devonian. A.m. Jour. Sci., vol. 35, 2d ser., 1863, pp. 309-311.
WILLIAMS.] J. W. DAWSON. 237

anomaly to have a stratum of rocks include one flora and a part of 

another almost entirely distinct and characteristic of another period. 

But he thinks the gap greater in Eastern America between the Devonian and Carboniferous periods than it is elsewhere. The Ohio plants 

mentioned indicate passage beds, but in that case the author would 

suppose them to be newer than the Chemuug group, and wanting or 

represented by barren deposits in New York.

In another paper, 1 which is copied into the American Journal of 

Science, from the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society (with the 

exception of Part n, containing desci iptions of species, which is omitted), 

Dr. Dawson speaks of the large number of species of the Devonian ilora, 

more than 60, which he has had the opportunity of examining, from the 

collections of Messrs. Matthew and Hartt, Professor Hall, and Professor 

Hitchcock, and notices the geological character of the localities in which 

they are found, with lists of the fossils found in each. The localities

are in the States of New York and Maine, in Canada and New Brunswick. The rocks of St. John in New Brunswick, from which a copious 

flora has been obtained, are described in detail, and a summary given 

of the deposits.

At the close conclusions are drawn from the observations recorded in 

the preceding part of the article as follows : (1) That the Devonian 

flora resembles the Carboniferous in its general character in the prevalence of Gyrnnosperms and Cryptogams, and the generic types of the 

two periods are nearly the same. Of thirty-two genera described, only 

six are peculiar to the Devonian period, though some are much better 

represented in the Devonian than in the Carboniferous, and several 

Carboniferous genera are wanting in the Devonian. (2) A majority of 

the species of the Devonian do not reappear in the Carboniferous, but 

a few species extend from the Upper Devonian into the Carboniferous, 

establishing a passage from the earlier to the later flora. But this 

connection is less close than that between the Lower Carboniferous and 

the true Coal Measures. (3) A large part of the difference between 

the two floras is owing to the different geographical conditions. (4) 

The conditions were less favorable to the preservation of plants in the 

Devonian than in the Carboniferous period. (5) The Devonian flora 

was not of lower grade than that of the coal period, but we find in it 

more points of resemblance to the floras of the Mesozoic period and of 

modern tropical and austral islands than in that of the true coal formation. (6) The fades of the Devonian flora in America is very similar 

to that of the same period in Europe, but the number of identical species in the coal fields of the two continents is greater. These conclusions do not differ materially from those of Goeppert, linger, and Eronn, 

after consideration of the Devonian flora of Europe.

In a letter from Leo Lesquereux2 the following points regarding cor1 Dawson, J. "W.: On the Flora of the Devonian period in Northeastern America. Am. Jour. Sci,, 

vols. 35, 36, 1803, pp. 311-319, 41, 42.

2 Lesquereux, Leo: On the character of the Millatone grit or Subcarboniferoua conglomerate in tho 

far West. Am. Phil. Soc., Proc., vol. i>, 1803, pp. 198-204.
238 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [HULL.80.

relations of Nova Scotia formations are recorded, reviewing the paper 

above mentioned:

The first section described is situated 14 miles southwest of Fayetteville, in Washington County, Arkansas, and the second was made from 

the base to the top of the Boston Mountain, in Johnson County. The 

Millstone Grit Measures seem more persistent and greater in thickness 

in Arkansas than in the East, and may be greater than has been made 

out at Horsehead Mountain. From an examination of these sections, 

the author thinks that the " Nova Scotia basin is a separate member 

of our great American coal field," and agrees with Dawson that the 

flora of both countries is apparently the same. But while Dawson 

finds abundance of coniferous trees, and English geologists find them 

abundant in the Coal Measures of England, the author claims, in comparing sections of the East and West, that he finds none in his western 

section. The increased thickness of the sandstones and shales of the 

eastern deposits, in comparison with those of the West, and the local 

variations, the author accounts for by the fact that they are shore formations, and hence Dawson's sixth objection is not applicable to western 

deposits. The author in conclusion shows from Dawsou's own statements that there is a gradual change throughout the flora of the Coal 

Measures, and even from Devonian to typical Carboniferous plants, 

while Dawsou would claim there was a much less intimate connection 

between Upper Devonian and Lower Carboniferous than is apparent 

throughout the whole Carboniferous system.

G. F. Matthew1 in 1865 commented on the " Fern ledges " of Lancaster, New Brunswick, in the following way:

The Middle and Upper Devonian rocks are known under three groups: 

The " Bloomsbury group," No. 4 of Dawsou's list; " Little Elver group," 

Nos. 2 and 3, Dawson's list; " Mispeck group," No. 1, Dawson's list. 

These groups, lying unconformably on the Siiuriau, and in some places

upon the Laureutian rocks, occupy a great part of the district towards 

the head of the Bay of Fundy. They contain numerous plant beds, 

and seem to be connected with those of Perry, Me. St. John County 

is largely covered by Devonian rocks, and detached pieces occur throughout Charlotte County. Dawson says that "the plant remains combine 

the features of the Hamilton and Portage groups." Professor Hitchcock also reports Devonian areas in northern Maine. The thickness of 

the Devonian sediments below the plant beds is about 5;000 feet.

The Lower Carboniferous rocks extend over Kings, Albert, and 

Westmoreland Counties, being about 100 miles in length, with varying 

width. They also occur along the Keuuebeccasis Bay and in detached 

areas along the Bay of Fuudy. They consist mainly of limestones, 

shales, and sandstones, associated with pyroschists resembling those

1 Matthew, George F.: On the Devonian plant locality of the "Pern ledges," Lancaster, New Brunswick, with a detailed section and notes on the fossils.

Observations on the Geology of southern New Brunswick, by L. W. Bailey fet al.], pp. 131-140. Fredericton, 1865.
WILLIAMS.) J. W. DAWSON. 239

of the Albert mine, and yielding Lepidodendrons, Cyclopteris, and. other 

Carboniferous forms. The Carboniferous rocks, consisting of gray sandstones and shales, cover the central and eastern part of New lirunswick. There is a slight nonconformity between the Lower Carboniferous and the Coal Measures of about 15°. They also appear in Westmoreland County, and extend along the north.shore of the Bay of Fundy.

Dawson1 in 1866 gave an interesting discussion of the conditions of 

deposition of coal, in which the classification and thickness of the Acadian formations are stated.

According to the estimates of Logan the Coal Measures at the Joggins are 14,570 feet in thickness, the deposits of Pictou 16,000 feet, and 

those of Cape Breton, according to Mr. Brown, 11,000 feet, excluding 

the Lower Carboniferous deposits.

The author arranged the Carboniferous series in the following groups:

(a) Upper coal formation, consisting of sandstones, shales, conglomerates, and

thin limestones, bearing numerous plant remains.

(&) The middle coal formation, or Coal Measures proper, containing all the coal 

beds, but no limestones. Plant remains are quite abundant.

(o) The " Millstone grit," including the sandstones and shales, lying just below the 

Coal Measures. It contains the trunks of coniferous trees.

(d) The Lower Carboniferous marine formation.

(e) The Lower Carboniferous Coal Measures, or Lower Coal Measures. "The last 

two groups are equivalent to the ' Subcarbouiferous' of American geologists." But 

the author did not find in Nova Scotia any reason for applying auy more explicit 

term than "Lower Carboniferous."

There seem to have been three distinct conditions of deposition during the middle coal formation: (1) Deposition of coarse sediments, 

alternating with clays, sands, and gravels; (2) precipitation of limestone and growth of corals and shellfish; (3) deposition of fine sediments and accumulation of vegetable matter between bituminous 

irnestones and shales.

The condition of the Devonian rocks shows that there was considerable 

igneous action at the close of the Devonian period, and before the 

deposition of Carboniferous rocks, from the fact that they are partially 

metamorphosed by the effects of injection of igneous matter.

The author thinks that the time of greatest depression was during the 

deposition of limestones; the time of greatest elevation took place 

during the formation of the coal beds, and the condition for the formation of the "Millstone grit" was intermediate. These remarks apply 

to New Brunswick as well as to Nova Scotia. The local differences are of 

the same character as those of the Appalachian and western fields and 

those of Great Britain.

There is marked evidence of a disturbance during the Carboniferous 

period, producing synclinal and anticlinal folds, similar to those of the

'Dawson, J. W.: On the conditions of the deposition of coal, more especially as illustrated 'ay the 

coal formation of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Quart. Jour. (xeol. Soc., vol. 22,1866, pp. 05-166, 

plate,
240 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

Devonian period, and hence causing irregular deposition and local 

denudation, a condition very common in Nova Scotia.

The author has been unable to account for the separation between 

the lower and middle coal formations, but thinks " it may include much 

of the ' Lower Coal Measures' of Eogers in the Pennsylvania coal field." 

He maintains that the order of sequence noted in the Carboniferous 

period has its parallel in each of the other periods of the Paleozoic 

age," each of which was characterized by a great subsidence and partial 

reelevation, succeeded by a second very gradual subsidence."

A detail account was given of the stratification of the South Joggins 

section and discussed under three divisions :

(1) Logan's section, 1,617 feet in vertical thickness on the shore of 

Shoulie Eiver.

(2) Eagged Eeef and vicinity, 650 feet in thickness, forming the lower 

part of the upper coal formation.

(3) From Eagged Eeef to McCavins Brook, 2,134 feet in thickness, 

including 1,009 feet of sandstone, 912 feet of shales and clays, and 22 

coal beds. This is probably equivalent to the " Upper Coal Measures" 

of American geologists and includes also the u Middle Coal formation."

In 18671 the same author announced some recent discoveries in the 

Acadian provinces of British America. He said the discovery of a laud 

flora in a series of rocks near St. John, New Brunswick, underlying 

uuconformably the Lower Carboniferous, has proved the presence of 

rocks of the Devonian age. For this discovery we are indebted to 

Messrs. Matthew, Hartt, and Bailey. With the flora were found six 

species of insects which have been described by Mr. Scudder. They 

are the first insects found below the Carboniferous. Below the Devonian shales and sandstones occurs a thick series of rocks embracing a 

fauna of Silurian aspect. This division is termed the "Acadian series." 

The labors of Mr. Davidson, Mr. Hartt, and the author have brought 

to light fossils closely allied to Permian species.

The announcement of the correlation of Devonian rocks in Maine 

was made by C. H. Hitchcock 2 in 1867.

A series of slaty deposits in Washington County, Maine, was referred 

to the "Lower Helderberg" and " Upper Devonian." In the northern 

part of the State occur the representatives of "(Oriskany) Cauda-galli 

grit" and other fossiliferous zones of Devonian strata.

A reconnaissance made for the government of New Brunswick 3 by 

Messrs. Matthew and Bailey, in connection with C. F. Hartt, brought 

to light a wide distribution of Devonian rocks along the shore of St. 

John Eiver. After describing the occurrence of the lower metamorphic

1 Dawson, J. W.: On recent geological discoveries in the Acadian provinces of British America. 

Am. Assoc. Proc., vol. 16,1867, pp. 117-119.

3 Hitchcock, Charles H.: Explanation of a geological map of Maine. In Am. Asa. Proo., vol. 18, 

1867, pp. 123.

3 Matthew, George F., and Bailey, L. W.: Remarks on the age and relations of the metamorphlo 

rocks of New Brunswick and Maine. Am. Ass., Proc., vol. 18,1869, pp. 179-195.
WILLIAMS.] HARTLEY. 241

rocks, the authors gave a detailed account of the Siluro-Devonian 

formatiou occurring on each side of the granite ridges to the sonth of 

the Carboniferous. These sediments they divide into a lower and upper 

division, each of which is subdivided into two series. These occur 

chiefly in St. John, Charlotte, and Queen Counties. A gradual passage 

from the granites to undoubted Siluro-Devonian rocks is well exhibited in the Nerepis Valley and on the eastern shore of the St. Avise 

River, Charlotte County. A similar series occurs in Perry, Maine. 

The granitic rocks at the base are not considered as Siluro-Devouian.

The lower division consists of two series: First, limestones, ielsites, 

etc.; second, gray sandstones, black slates, and Dadoxylon sandstones. 

These are followed by a series known as the "Mispec rock," consisting 

of diorites, conglomerates, and slates, which are followed by the green 

" Cordaite " slates.

The authors state that further investigations indicate that the Nerepis granites, formerly considered as Devonian, must be regarded as of 

Upper Silurian age, if not older.

Mr. Edward Hartley made a report 1 of a part of the Pictou coal field 

in the year 1870. The region reported upon lies " between the Eewst and 

West Eivers of Pictou, and extends laterally from Conglomerate ridge, 

a prolongation of Eraser's Mountain, on the north of New Glasgow, to 

the Eox-brook Road, between the coal mines and Hopewell Village." 

The rocks are described under the following divisions:

1. Pre-Carboniferous.

2. Millstone grit.

3. New Glasgow Conglomerate.

4. Productive Coal Measures.

The rocks here called " pre-Carboniferous " were observed by Mr. 

Dawson, and in his " Acadian Geology " are said to be " probably of 

Devonian age." They consist of metamorphic rocks, mainly siliceous 

slates and conglomerates, and in one locality, Waters' Quarry, a limestone of 20 feet thickness. Comparing his section with the classification of the Carboniferous published in Dawson's Acadian Geology, viz, 

"(5) Lower Coal Measures, (4) Carboniferous limestone, (3) Millstone 

grit series, (2) Middle Coal formation, (1) Upper Coal formation," the 

author considered all but the (3) "Millstone grit series" and the (2\ 

"Middle Coal formation" to be wanting; and in some places he found 

the Devonian rocks followed by the Middle Coal formation without even 

the Millsone grit.

The section at McLeod's Brook 2 represents 3,773 feet of sandstones 

and conglomerates; on East River, above Albion mine, 1,402 feet of 

sandstones; both of these are referred to the Millstone grit. Impure 

limestone beds are seen in the lower part of the formation in the East

"Hartley, Edward: Keport on a part of the Pictou coal field. Geol. Survey Canada; Report of 

Progress for 1866-1869, 1870, pp. 55-107.. 

* Ibid., p. 60.

Bull. 80 16
242 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

Biver section. On the west bank 'of East Eiver, at New Glasgow 

bridge, occurs the New Glasgow conglomerate, 430 feet thick. The 

pebbles are of Millstone grit and Devonian-, and in some cases the 

cementing matter is calcareous. A section of these conglomerates, at 

Alma Mills bridge, of 1,372 feet, is reported. This conglomerate, intermediate between the Millstone grit and the Productive Coal Measures, 

is the base of Dawson's Middle Coal formation. Tracing it westwardly 

it was found in places to lie directly upon altered Devonian rocks.

In describing the Productive Coal Measures the author gives a 

detailed account of the Measures at the Albion and Acadia mines, in 

which fourteen coal seams are mentioned, the total thickness of the 

Albion being 2,452 feet 11 inches. To show the variation in the character of the rocks in this section an account is given of the Forster Pit 

section. The Productive Measures are situated between three faults: 

one on the north passing through New Glasgow, one in the west bringing the Devonian series and Millstone grit in contact with the Coal 

Measures, and the third on the south side of the area. In this area are 

two synclinal folds running in an east and west direction, and designated as the Albion and Bear Creek synclinals; both are limited by 

the west fault.

Charles Eobb, in 1870, 1 made a report on part of New Brunswick.

The Lower Carboniferous rocks of New Brunswick " lie between the 

southern boundary of the county of York and the uncouforinable 

altered slates to the northwest." They consist mainly of sedimentary 

deposits derived from the neighboring metamorphic hills. These deposits are occasionally invaded by igneous intrusions. The sandstones 

are of a reddish color, and at places contain considerable micaceous 

and calcareous matter. The author considers them to be about 1,000 

feet in thickness. No fossils were observed.

The Upper Conglomerate coftsists of siliceous material, not calcareous, followed by gray sandstones containing Catamites, Cordaites, and 

other vegetable remains, with an occasional seam of coal.

The following classification of the Pictou coal field was made by Sir 

William B. Logan in 1870: 2

Pre-carboniferous or Devonian.. ..1. Conglomerates, quartzites, and compact slates.

}

2. Greenish gray and red sandstones, with conglomerates and impure 

limestones. 

« « 3. Red coarse conglomerates. 

4. Productive Coal Measures.

The rocks of the first series form parts of McGregor's and McLellan's 

Mountains. The author called them "pre-Carbouiferous," and assigned 

them to the Devonian age on the authority of Mr. Dawson, who gave 

them that position in his "Acadian Geology." The author considered

"Robb., Charles: Report on the geology of a part of New Brunswick. Geol. Survey of Canada; 

Eeport of Progress for 1860-1869, pp. 173-209, reap.

2 Logan, W". E.: Report on a part of the Pictou coal field. Geol. Survey of Canada; Eeport of Progress for 1866-1869,1870, pp. 3-17, map.
WILLIAMS.] HITCHCOCK, BAILEY AND MATTHEW. 243

them as pie-Carboniferous, but found no direct evidence of their age. 

He identified them as occupying the same place in the series with similar rocks reported on the west side of East Kiver by Mr. Hartley.

The second series, which he identified with the "Millstone grit" of 

Dawson's Acadian Geology, and with "Bonaveuture formation" of 

Gaspe", and the "Millstone grit" of England, occurs on the east side of 

East Biver in a triangular area, and near the foot of Eraser's Mountain. Thin, impure limestones, carrying fossils, among them Spirorbis 

carbonarius, were noted at McLellan's Brook. Eor this formation he 

proposed the name " Grindstone grit."

The third series, named by Dawson the u New Glasgow Conglomerate," has a total thickness of 1,600 feet. It covers the south flank of 

Eraser's Mountain. In a white arenaceous limestone, 3 miles eastward 

of New Glasgow, occurring in the midst of a series of sandstones, 

shales, and other concretionary limestones, was discovered a number 

of minute coiled shells, referred to a new species of tipirorbis, and described by Dawson under the name of Spirorbis arietina.

The fourth series, the " Productive Coal Measures," is well represented by a section along McLellan's Brook, between McLellan's and 

McGregor's Mountains, but the upper part of the series is not shown in 

this section.

In 1871 Prof. Hitchcock 1 announced the discovery of Helderberg corals 

in Littleton, New Hampshire. The limestone containing the corals was 

traced for about 3 miles, and appeared to be duplicated by a synclinal 

fold. It overlies the metamorphic Quebec group on one Hide, and 

probably the Coos group on the other, and appears to be overlaid by a 

clay slate carrying a few worm trails. The corals were obscure, and 

were submitted to the examination of E. Billings, of Montreal. He 

recognized Favosites basilica and a Zaphrentis. The rock appeared to be 

identical with the Canadian limestone 55 miles to the northwest, supposed to range from the Lower to the Upper Helderberg.

Messrs. Bailey and Matthew, in 1872,2 presented their preliminary 

report on the geology of southern New Brunswick. In this article the 

Devonian rocks of St. John County, New Brunswick, are described 

under the following classification:

Bloomslury conglomerate. Coarse reddish gray rock, red shales interstratified; 

thickness 500 feet.

Dadoxylon sandstone. Sandstone and grits, with dark green shales; 2,800 feet; 

containing fossils, plants, Crustacea, and wings of insects.

Cordaites shales and flags. Two thousand four hundred feet, containing numerous 

plant remains.

Mispeo conglomerate. One thousand eight hundred feet.

The Devonian rocks of Lepreau Harbor are separated from those of

1 Hitchcock, C. H.: Helderberg Corals in New Hampshire. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d series, vol. 2,1871, pp. 

148,149.

'Bailey, L. W., and Matthew, G. F.: Preliminary report on the geology of southern New Brunswick. 

Geol. Survey Canada: Report of progress for 1870-'71,1872, pp. 13-240.
244 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEEOUS. [DULL. 80.

St. John Harbor by a ridge of Laurentian gneiss. A similar division 

was also noted east of the same harbor. " The northern limit of Devonian rocks in the eastern part of St. John County may be traced from 

Carleton Heights across the harbor of St. John, through the southern 

part of the city of the same name." They occur again at Little Eiver, 

and farther west at Black Eiver, near Bloomsbury Mountain; thence 

south to Milligan's Lake, thence northeast toward Quaco Hills. In 

the western part of St. John County they overlie the Laurentian and 

Huronian series, but occupy only isolated patches, which, however, 

have been traced as far east as Charlotte County.

Eeference was also made to the occurrence of sedimentary rocks ' at 

Oak Bay and in the Nerepis Hills, which may correspond to the 

'Dadoxylon sandstones' of St. John County." Also in northwest 

Charlotte occurs a series of argillites and sandstones resembling in 

appearance the "Corda ves group" of St. John County, but including 

a greater thickness of ai >aceous beds.

The "Perry sandstone fo roup," which is typically represented at 

Perry, Maine, is also seen at St. Andrews, New Brunswick. Although 

this sandstone contains plants of the Upper Devonian type, the author 

is inclined to consider it as lying at or near the base of the Lower Carboniferous, and characterized by an Upper Devonian flora. Similar 

conditions were also noted at Point Lepreau. The author gave a list 

of the fossil plants found in the Perry sandstone.

The " Lower Carboniferous rocks " of eastern and central New Brunswick occupy the Belleisle and Kennebeccasis Valleys, Kings County, 

extending along Petitcodiac Eiver through Albert and Westmorland 

Counties, around the margin of the central coal field, through Queen's, 

York, Northumberland, and Gloucester Counties to Bay Chaleur. 

Isolated areas also occur in Victoria and Carleton Counties. The 

" Carboniferous rocks " proper occupy by far the largest territory of 

any series in New Brunswick. They cover the counties York, Queen's, 

Sunbury, .Kent, and Northumberland. Their most northerly limit is 

at Bathurst, Bay of Chaleur, the most southerly at Shediac, Westmoreland County. They consist mainly of sandstones, shales, and conglomerates of gray color and coarse texture. A list of the fossil plants 

of this series was also given.

Mr. L. W. Bailey,1 in 1872, recorded the occurrence of undoubted 

Carboniferous rocks bearing plants in the eastern part of Kings County 

belonging to the Upper or Middle formation. There is also evidence 

of nonconformity between the Coal Measures and the Lower Carboniferous formation.

Mr. Charles Eobb,2 in 1872, reported that the Carboniferous rocks of 

northwestern New Brunswick consist mainly of arenaceous shales and

 Bailey, L. W.: Keport on geological investigations in New Brunswick. Geol. Survey Canada: 

Report of progress for 1871-72,1872, pp. 142-144.

2 Kobb, Charles: Supplementary report on the geology of Northwestern New Bruuswick. Geol. 

Survey Canada: Keport of progress for 1870-'71, 3872, pp. 241-251.
VVILUAMB.] J. W. DAWSON. 245

gray, yellowish, and purple sandstone, 180 feet thick. They are locally 

calcareous and arenaceous. Southwest of Miramiche Eiver the calcareous conglomerate is much disturbed by eruptive masses. Reference is also made to the Brighton outlier, which is situated between 

the north and south branches of Beccaguimac River, and contains 

Devonian plants. Althougli fossils of Devonian type have been found 

in this formation, in its physical characters it resembles the Lower 

Carboniferous rocks. Other small areas were noted to the northwest 

in Windsor Settlement.

Dr. Dawson reports the following correlation and classification for 

Canadian Carboniferous rocks in 1873 : l

The Carboniferous rocks of Canada lie unconformably upon the Devonian and Upper Silurian formations. The author classifies them as 

follows:

(1) Horton Bluff series, or Lower Carboniferous Coal Measures, consisting of hard 

sandstones, calcareous shales, with conglomerate and grit, bituminous shales, and 

uuderclays, with plants and coal seams, with fishes and footprints of Batrachians.

(2) Windsor series, or Lower Carboniferous limestone and gypsiferous beds; 

marine and holding shells of the Lower Carboniferous period, containing limestones, 

marls, clays, and gypsum.

(3) Millstone grit series, consisting of conglomerate, shales, sandstone, and thin 

beds of coal, containing Naiadites. Thickness 5,000-6,000 feet.

(4) (ft) Middle coal formation, and the (6) upper or newer coal formation.

The Lower Carboniferous deposits of Gaspe" and Bay Chaleur, New 

Brunswick, consist mainly of sandstones and conglomerate, with few 

fossils, while in southern New Brunswick the bituminous shales attain 

a great thickness, as also does the Millstone grit. On Salmon River, 

West, Idast, and Middle Rivers of Pictou, the Millstone grit consists 

of chocolate sandstones and shales holding plants. Beneath the Millstone grit of Pictou, known as the " New Glasgow Conglomerate," 

occurs a hard sandstone holding fossils, which Mr. Dawson regarded 

as of Devonian age.

The author gave the following list of equivalents of the divisions proposed for the Canadian rocks, viz:

I. Equivalents of the Lower Carboniferous Coal Measures, or Horton series:

(1) The "Vespertine group" of Rogers in Pennsylvania.

(2) The " Kinderhook group " of Worthen in Illinois.

(3) The "Marshall group" of Winchell in Michigan.

(4) The " Waverly sandstone" (in part) of Ohio.

(5) The " Lower or False Coal Measures" of Virginia.

(6) The "Calciferous sandstone" of McLaren, or "Tweedian group " of Tate in 

Scotland.

(7) The " Carboniferous slate" and " Coomhala grits" of Jakes in Ireland.

(8) The "Culm " and "Culm Grauwacke " of Germany.

(9) The " Grauwacke" or "Lower Coal Measures" of the Vosges, as described 

by Schimper.

Dawson, J. W.: Introductory sketch ol the geology of the Lower Carboniferous Coal Measures, and 

Millstone grit, with the equivalent formations abroad. Geol. Survey Canada: Keport on Fossil Plants 

of the Lower Carboniferous and Millstone grit of Canada. Montreal, 1873. Pp. 6-14.
246 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

I. Equivalent of the Lower Carboniferous Coal Measures, or Horton series Continued.

(10) The "Older Coal formation" as described by Eichwald.

(11) The so-called " Ursa Stage " of Heer includes this, but he has united it with 

Devonian beds, so that the name can not be used except for the local development of these beds at Bear Island, Spitsbergen.

II. Equivalents of the Mill&tone grit are:

(1) The "Serai Conglomerate " of Rogers in Pennsylvania, etc.

(2) The "Lower Coal formation," "Conglomerate," and "Chester" groups of 

Illinois (Worthen).

(3) The " Lower Carboniferous sandstone " of Kentucky, Alabama, and Virginia.

(4) The "Millstone grit and Yoredale rocks" of North England and the " Culmiferous rocks " of Devonshire.

(5) The " Moor Rock " and " Lower Coal Measures " of Scotland.

(6) "Flagstones and lower shales "of the south of Ireland and " Millstone grit" 

of the north of Ireland.

(7) The " Jungste Grauwacke" of the Hartz, Saxony, and Silesia.

The author also gave a short account of the distribution of the Carboniferous rocks in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The equivalent 

of the " Millstone grit" of Logau's section at " the Joggins " has a 

thickness of 5,972 feet. This series is also found on the flanks of the 

Cobequick Mountains, and running eastward connects with the Pictou 

coal fields. Another noted area lies south of Mira's Basin, which is 

called the " Horton Bluff series," and similar outcrops were noted at 

Walton, Noel, Windsor, and Shubeuacadie.

The »< Millstone grit series " is also well developed on Salmon Eiver, 

West, East, and Middle Eivers, Pictou. Beneath it, in Pictou County, 

occur hard sandstones holding obscure plants which the author regards 

as of Devonian age. Carboniferous rocks similar to those of the " Horton Bluff group " were noted in Autigouish County, and also in Cape 

Breton.

Mr. Alexander Murray reported in 1873 1 that the boundary of the 

Carboniferous area of Newfoundland " may be traced from a little north 

of Cape Bay along the northwest flank of the Long Eange of Laurentian 

Mountains up to the head of St. George's Bay, where it was supposed 

to cross over and, making a further stretch beneath the marshes to the 

north, finally sweeps around in a westerly direction and crosses Harry's 

Brook below Spruce Brook," where it rests on Lower Silurian rocks. 

It is there interrupted by the Indian Head range, but farther west it 

again comes to view on the coast of Port & Port Bay, Long Point, and 

in the valley of the Coal Eiver. The total thickness is about 6,450 feet.

Messrs. Matthew, Bailey, and Ells reported2 that the Carboniferous 

rocks of Queens, Sunbury, and part of York Counties are to be considered under three main divisions: "(1) Lower Carboniferous formation; 

(2) Middle Carboniferous formation; (3) Upper Carboniferous formai Murray, Alexander: The Carboniferous series of Newfoundland. Geol. Survey Newfoundland: 

Report of progress for 1873. Montreal, 1873. Pp. 14-35,42.

z Bailey, L. W., G. F. Matthew, and R. W. Ells: Report on the Carboniferous system of New 

Brunswick, iii the counties of Queens, Sunbury, and a portion of YTork. Geol. Survey of Canada: 

Report of progress for 1872-'73,1873, pp. 180-230.
WILLIAMS.] EOBB, HTJNTINGTON AND HITCHCOCK. 247

tiou." In addition to the general outline and distribution of this series 

of deposits previously described 1 the authors, as the result of more 

recent studies, remarked that the Lower Carboniferous rocks of the 

coast series show many important differences from the same deposits 

of the above-named counties. The gray Carboniferous rock of Dawson's "Lower Coal Measures," though seen in the Kenuebeccasis Valley, 

is not known in the central Carboniferous area. The limestones so prominent in Nova Scotia are much limited-to small areas in New Brunswick. But the "red sandstones and conglomerates" are numerically 

prominent in both provinces.

After giving a full account of the distribution and physical characters of the Lower Carboniferous, the authors treated of the Middle and 

Upper Carboniferous series of the same region in the same manner, describing numerous areas and giving sections of the same, together with 

notes on the fossil remains. The total thickness of the middle and 

upper formations is about 600 feet. The total area of the same is about 

28,540 square miles. One-third of this area is covered with coarse gray 

beds forming a part of the "Middle Carboniferous formation." The 

total area of coal seams is about 112 square miles. This area is probably much larger than the above estimate.

Mr. Charles Eobb,2 in 1873, reported that the Sydney coal field covers 

about 200 square miles. It is bounded by the Atlantic coast on three 

sides, and on the fourth (southwest side) by Lower Carboniferous 

rocks.

Messrs. Huntiugton and Hitchcock,3 in 1873, reported that the fossiliferous rocks of northwestern Maine were first noticed by Dr. Jackson, near Parlin Pond, and bowlders of this formation were found 

scattered to the south as far as the mouth of Kennebec Eiver. Fossils 

were also noticed at Lake Brassua. The fossils obtained were recognized by Billings as characteristic of the Oriskany sandstone, and subsequently the Cauda-galli grit was recognized on the shores of Moosehead Lake.

In concluding the authors observed that: (1) The Oriskany sandstone, 

which can not be traced toward the White Mountains, was elevated 

before the deposition of the Devonian 5 (2) the thickness of the Oriskauy is five times that represented in Pennsylvania, about 2,000 feet; 

(3) the discovery of Helderberg limestone in new localities indicates 

an extended submergence of eastern America in Upper Silurian and 

Middle Devonian times.

Mr. Charles Eobb,4 in 1874,xattempted to clear up some of the dim"-

'Bailey, L. W., G. F. Matthew, and E. "W. Ells: Report on the Carboniferous system of New 

Brunswick, in the counties of Queens, Sunbury, and a portion of York. Geol. Survey of Canada: 

llcport of progress for 1872-'T3, 1873, pp. 204-200.

2 Eobb, Charles: Eeport on the coal mines of the eastern or Sydney coal field of Cape Breton,Nova 

Scotia. Geol. Survey Canada: Eeport of progress for 1872-73, 1873, pp. 238-290. Map.

"Hitchcock, C.H., andJ. H. Huntington: Geology of the northwest part of Maine. Am. Assoc., 

Proc., vol. 22,1873, part 2, pp. 205-214.

4 Eobb, Charles: Eeport on explorations and surveys in Capo Breton, Nova Scotia. Geol. Survey 

Canada: Eeport of progress for 1873-74,1874, pp. 171-178.
248 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

culties in regard to the relation of the members of the Productive Coal 

Measures in various parts of the Sydney field. Accordingly a section 

extending from the supposed limit of the Lower Carboniferous formation at Point Edward and Sydney to its base is indicated. The rocks 

consist of red and gray shales, with marls containin g nodules of limestone and iron ore. The limestones often hold marine fossils of Lower 

Carboniferous types, also plant remains, fish scales, teeth, spines, and 

coprolites. The estimated thickness is about 4,637 feet. On the shore 

opposite Point Edward the rocks are of the Millstone grit formation. 

These rocks rest upon massive beds of conglomerate and sandstone, 

which are prominent in Cape Breton coal fields. In constructing sections of a minute character the author finds that the difficulties are 

caused by faulting. The rocks at Great Bras d'Or entrance appear to 

be analogous to the Millstone grit of the English coal fields, consisting of sandstones highly colored by oxide of iron, and occasionally a 

bluish gray, shaly, and bedded limestone.

In Mr. Brown's section, on the northwest of Sydney Harbor, the coal 

seams appear to run into the Millstone grit.

Mr. Scott Barlow,1 in 1874, reported that the rocks of the Spring Hill 

coal field of Nova Scotia consist mainly of alternate beds of sandstones, 

blue argillaceous shales, fire clays, and coal seams. On the west slope 

of the Spring Hill Mining Company a section was run having a total 

thickness of 516 feet, about 12 feet of which are coal seams. A section 

is also given to the north of Spring Hill Mining Company's west slope, 

which has a total thickness of 918 feet 11 inches, of which 25 feet are 

coal deposits. The characters of the rocks are similar to those of the 

former section. In the Old Pit, belonging to the same association, the 

same physical characters already mentioned are maintained, the total 

thickness found at this point being 624 feet 6£ inches, 36 feet of which

are coal seams.

Mr. Walter McOuat,2 in 1874, reported on the coal fields of Cumberland County. The section specially examined by the author extends 

from the Chiegnecto and St. George Mines to the post-road from Amherst to Truro. As a result of his observations the following classification was arrived at, exclusive of the Lower Carboniferous rocks, as 

seen at Black Eiver, given in descending order:

Feet.

1. Millstone grit, red shale, flaggy sandstone (gray and greenish) ........... 1,800

2. Conglomerate, coarse sandstone, reddish and brawnish shales ............ 1,500

3. Middle coal formation, gray sandstone and shale, probably the same as at

the Joggins....... ...................................^................ 4,500

4. Upper Coal Measures, gray sandstone with false bedding. ................ 1,000

5. Red shale, greenish sandstone, conglomerate, and arenaceous gray limestone ................................................................. 5,000

Total................................................................ 13, OOP

1 Barlow, Scott: Report on the exploration and survey of the Spring Hill coal field, Cumberland 

County, Nova Scotia. Geol. Survey Canada: Report of progre8S for 1873-'74, 1874, pp. 147-160. Map.

z McOuat, Walter: Eeport on a portion of the coal field of Cumberland County, Nova Scotia. Geol. 

Survey Canada: Report of progress for 1873-74, 1874, pp. 161-170. Map.
WILLIAMS.] DAWSON, ROBB. 249

Dr. Dawson,1 after giving various views that have been held in regard 

to the rocks of Prince Edward Island, in 1874 declined to separate the 

."Red beds" of the lower series from the "newer coal formation." 

Prof. Geiuitz, however, thinks that the fossils show "a decidedly Permian aspect." The author, after a more extended examination of the 

rocks of East Eiver of Pictou, and in sections west of Caribou Harbor, concludes that " the beds which overlie the coal field of Pictou 

and extend into Prince Edward Island, and which constitute the upper 

part of the upper coal formation, have such strong points of resemblance to the lower part of the European Permian that they may be 

called " Per mo-Carboniferous."

In 1876 Mr. Charles Eobb reported upon the area recently explored 

by him, lying along the Atlantic coast and including Cow Bay, Glace" 

Bay, Sydney Harbor, and Bras d'Or basins. The rocks are referred to 

the following formations:

I. Carboniferous limestone.

II. Millstone grit. 

III. Coal Measures.

The section of Sydney Harbor extending from South Bar to Sydney 

has a total thickness of 879 feet 7 inches, "and is a continuation of the 

"Millstone grit series" from Victoria Mines to South Bar, Sydney 

Harbor, having a total thickness for the Millstone grit of 3,275 feet. 

The rocks consist mainly of fine and coarse sandstones, marls, and limestones, micaceous sandstones, and bituminous calcareous limestones, 

containing Sigillaria, Lepidodendron, fish scales, and Naiadites.

The " Lower Carboniferous rock" from Point Edward, Sydney Harbor, 

to Morrisou Brook, consisting of yellow micaceous sandstones, red and 

green marls, calcareo-bituminous shales, and thin arenaceous limestones, has a total thickness of 4,591 feet 10 inches. Sigillaria and 

Lepidodendronwwe found in the shales, while Brachiopods and Encrinites 

appeared in the bluish gray limestones.

The section of "Millstone grit" from South Head to Mira Bay has a 

total thickness of 5,706 feet 8 inches. The rocks are of the same character as in the section given above. The Millstone grit of North Head, 

Cow Bay, is 537 feet 7 inches in thickness. Plant remains occur in the 

shales, mainly Cordaites, Aster ophyllites, Neuropteris, 8tigmaria.

The section of Millstone grit from Stubbart Point to Limestone Creek 

has a total thickness of 4,228 feet 5 inches. The rocks have the same 

physical characters, except that the coarse conglomerates are more ferruginous than in other sections. Coal seams were noted in the North 

Head section, varying from a few inches to 8 feet in thickness; the 

latter includes 18 inches of superior coal. The Millstone grit'between 

Lorway and Sydney Harbor, consisting of argillaceous sandstones, 

shales, and thin coal seams, has a thickness of 2,619 feet 2 inches.

'Dawson, J. W.: On the Upper Coal Formation of Eastern Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island 

in its relation to tbo Permian. Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc., vol. 30, pp. 209-219; Canadian Nat., vol. 7,1874, 

new aer., pp. 303,304.
250 THE DEVONIAN AND CAEBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

No definite division line is drawn between the Coal Measures (III) 

and the Millstone grit. The limit of the Coal Measures in the south, 

however, "is indicated by the occurrence of angular blocks of coarse 

sandstone scattered over the surface. The rocks consist of argillaceous 

shales containing numerous fossil plants, and even large tree trunks; red 

and green marls containing a few plant impressions and Naiadites; sandstones, probably derived from the underlying Millstone grit, containing 

casts of Catamites, Cordaites, Sigillaria, etc., and forming the most persistent member of the series; and lastly, underclays charged with Stigmaria ficoides, and limestones full of organic remains, of which there are 

some sixteen layers, with thickness varying from one-half inch to 2 feet."

The fossils of the limestones are similar to those of the Joggins section,1 and are of the genera Naiadites, Cythere, and Spirorbis.

The total thickness of the coal seams in the different subordinate coal

basins is as follows :2

Ft. iu.

Cow Bay coal basin ....................................................... 27 5

Glac6 Bay basin.................................".....,.................... 39 6

Luigau tract....:......................................................... 47

Sydney mines.............................................................. 30 5

Boulardrie................................................................ 28 9

Cape Dauphin ............'................................................ 15 5

In 1877, Mr. Hugh Fletcher 3 reported on explorations made by him 

in Cape Breton. 

The Carboniferous rocks referred to in his report are divided as follows:

1. Carboniferous conglomerates.

2. Carboniferous limestone.

3. Millstone grit.

The " Carboniferous conglomerate," which the author considers as 

corresponding to the " Bonaventure formation " of Gaspe, is the "Basal 

conglomerate" of New Brunswick and Newfoundland, rests upon the 

Lower Silurian slates and sandstones, and has near the Ooxheath Hills 

a vertical thickness of 1,890 feet 11 inches, while from Watson Creek 

to the above hills it attains a thickness of 2,525 feet, maintains its general character of brick-red color, and is somewhat friable. It consists 

of reddish, micaceous, friable, and argillaceous sandstone, with bauds of 

marl intermixed, reddish friable conglomerate with interstratified finegrained pebbly sandstone. . No distinct line can be drawn between the conglomerate and the lime 

stone. The latter occupies a narrow strip along Sydney Eiver, widens 

toward Point Edward, extending into the valleys of Ball and Leitch 

Brooks. A section of this formation from the banks of the Sydney 

Eiver is given. The maximum thickness is 1,041 feet, 6 inches.

1 See Acadian Geolopy, pp. 173-181.

2 Kobb, Charles: Beport on explorations and surveys in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. Geol. Survey 

of Canada: Keport of progress for 1874-75, 1876, pp. 16C-2C6, map.

3 Fletcher, Hugh: Report of explorations and surveys in Cape Breton. Geol. Survey Canada: Report of progress, 1875 '7C, 1877, pp. 36D-418, map.
WILLIAMS.] BAILEY AND ELLS, FLETCHER. 251

Iii the Millstone grit, consisting of two synclines, and underlying the 

Coal Measures to the west of Sydney Harbor, no workable seams of 

coal have been discovered. The rocks consist mainly of greenish gray 

and white pebbly sandstone, sometimes falsely bedded with small areas 

of conglomerate containing Calamites and other plants.

Mr. L. W. Bailey and Mr. E. W. Ells,1 in 1878, reported on the Carboniferous belt of Albert and Westrnoreland Counties, New Brunswick.

The formations of this area are divided as follows :

1. Metamorplric rocks of pre-Carboniferous age with intrusive syenite.

2. Lower Carboniferous formation, including the " Albert shales."

3. Millstone grit, formation, or lower member of the Carboniferous system.

The u Lower Carboniferous rocks " of Albert County are but the extension of those in Kings County, where they are folio-wed by patches of 

uncouformable gray-rock of the Millstone grit series. The section in 

Albert County consists of: (1) The " Basal Conglomerate," which is 

sometimes wanting (thickness unknown); (2) calcareous, bituminous 

shales, including the "Albert shales;" (3) gray, bituminous, and micaceous oil-bearing sandstone; (4) red and gray argillaceous beds, 

alternating with conglomerates; (5) red and gray conglomerate, limestone, and gypsum ; total thickness, 1,950 feet.

Sections are also given from Pollet Eiver, Mapleton, Baltimore, Albert mines, Beliveau, and Taylorville, showing the relation of the different series and the system of faults. The series of Albert shales 

bears strong resemblance to the Horton Bluff series in its fossil contents, stratigraphical arrangement, and rock materials. The general 

structure of the Albert mine is outlined, with an account of the physical and chemical characters of albertite, and the proofs given of tbe 

vein structure of the Albert mine.

The "Millstone grit formation" is recognized by its gray, and rarely 

pale purple color, and slight dip. It occurs in the southern part of 

Albert County, running parallel to the inetamorphic hills, and showing 

evidence of denudation, even before the deposition of the succeeding 

strata. The gypsum beds, which are quite extensive and pure, vary 

in thickness from 30 to 50 feet.

Mr. Hugh Fletcher,2 in 1878, grouped the rocks of Victoria, Cape Breton, and Eichmond Counties in the following manner:

Laureutian $ *' Syenitic, gneissoid, and other feldspathic rocks.

'""""< 2. George River limestones.

3. Lower Silurian rocks.

S

4. Carboniferous rocks.

5. Carboniferous limestone.

6. Millstone grit.

'Bailey, L. W. and Ells, R. W.: Report on the Lower Carboniferous bolt of Albert and Westmoreland Counties, Now Brunswick, including the "Albert shales." Geol. Survey Canada: Report of 

progress, 1876-'77,1878, pp. 351-395, map.

a Matcher, Hugh : Report on the geology of part of the counties of Victoria.Capo Breton, and Richmond, Nova Scotia. Geol. Survey Canada: Report of progress, 1876-'77,1878, pp. 402-450, map.
252 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEEOUS. [BULL. 80.

Division 4 occurs most largely developed "in the southward extension of the Sydney Harbor basin, and on the Boisdale and Washabeck 

Hills." Division 5, which attains its greatest thickness on the Washabeck peninsula, is characterized by prominent beds of limestone and 

gypsum, accompanied by marls, sandstone, and conglomerate. Division 

6 is " found on Sydney Eiver and the eastern shore of Forks Lake, 

divided from similar deposits in the valleys of the Gaspereaux and 

Salmon Eivers by the East Bay anticline." Sandstones of this series 

are found on Boulardrie Island. Plant remains are reported from the 

sandstones.

Mr. Fletcher, in 1879, 1 reported a series of rocks, supposed to be of 

Devonian age, as u extending from Loch Lomond to St. Peter's, and reappearing on Isle Madame and in Guysborough and Antigonish Counties." They " bear a very close lithological resemblance to the Cordaite 

shales and Dadoxylon sandstones of New Brunswick." This series is 

also accompanied by intrusion of trap, such as Mount Granville and 

Campbell Hill.

The u Carboniferous conglomerate" was found at Mira Bay overlying the "pre-Silurian felsites." This is followed by limestones, and in 

turn is overlaid by the Millstone grit. The Carboniferous conglomerate 

and limestone were observed also at Belfrey Lake, Salmon Eiver, and 

Grand Eiver Falls, but only as small outliers.

The Millstone grit was recognized near Salmon Eiver, having a dip 

S. 46° E. 80°. A coal seam was found in these rocks near Catalogue 

Gut.

According to Messrs. Bailey, Matthew, and Ells in 1880,2 the Devonian rocks of southern New Brunswick occupy the following areas : 

(1) A basin east of St. John Harbor extending through the Mispec 

Yalley and northeasterly across the Black Eiver; (2) outcrops on 

Coal Creek, Canaan Eiver, and North Fork; (3) Suiall areas about 

St. John and Carletou, with possibly Partridge Island; (4) area east 

of Spruce Lake; (5) an area extending from Musquash Harbor to 

Lepreau Harbor, and including the Belas Basin, and a small area from 

Chance Harbor to Dipper Harbor; also an area in the north of Charlotte County and extending into Queen's County.

The estimated thickness of the Devonian rocks of the St. John Harbor 

series is 7,500 feet. Fossil remains of plants and insects occur in them. 

The Lower Carboniferous rocks occur around the head of Grand Lake 

and in the counties of Sunbury and Queens, on the south edge of the 

coal basin. They also form the greater part of the valley of the Kennebeccasis Bay and Eiver. Although these beds contain foseils of 

Devonian types, they still lie unconformably upon the true Devonian

'Fletcher, Hugh: Eeport of explorations and surveys in Capo Breton, Nova Scotia. Geol. Survey 

Canada: Report of progress, 1877-78.1879, ~F, pp. 32. Map.

2 Bailey, L. W., G. F. Matthew, and R. W. JJlls: Report on the geology of southern N"ew Brunswick' 

embracing the counties of Charlotte, Sunbury, Queens, Kings, St. John, and Albert. Geol. Survey 

Canada: Report of progress, 1878-'79,1880, pp. ID-26D. Map.
WILUAMB.J BARTON AND CEOSBY, DAWSON. 253

formation, and their physical characters resemble the Lower Carboniferous rocks, consisting of red and gray conglomerates, brownish red 

shales, bituminous sandstones, and limestones.

Of the Middle Carboniferous there is considerable evidence that if it 

had ever attained any degree of development it has since been carried 

away by denudation, leaving only a shallow deposit in the great Carboniferous basin which underlies the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and which 

is bounded by the southern shore of the Gaspe" peninsula on the north 

and by the Cobequick Hills and coast ranges of western Cape Breton 

on the south and east. Coal in thin seams has been discovered in this 

formation by borings, extending over quite an area. It was found in 

the Newcastle, Coal Creek, and Salmon Eiver coal basins, having a 

usual thickness of from 18 to 20 inches. Other small areas were found 

in South Albert, as far west as Herring Cove j also about Quaco and 

Gardener's Creek rocks resembling Millstone grit were noticed overlying Lower Carboniferous rocks. A small area was also noted in the 

north part of Charlotte County.

Messrs. Barton and Crosby,1 in 1880, reported that the Carboniferous 

rocks of Massachusetts are an extension of the Khode Island series, 

and are mainly found in Narragansett Basin, which lies wholly within 

Norfolk County. This was determined by President Hitchcock.

These rocks are well developed on the island Of Aquidneck, and also form a broad 

semicircular belt reaching from Warwick and Providence northerly by Valley Falls 

to Wrentham, in Massachusetts, and thence easterly through Attleborough and Mansfield into Bridgewater.

The rocks of this series consist of a very thick, coarse conglomerate, 

conglomerates passing into green sandstones about 600 feet in thickness, a series of carbonaceous slates including the true Coal Measures, 

with few sandstones and red rocks. Yery close connection can be 

traced between the Norfolk belt and those at Wrentham. From a 

close examination of the Norfolk Basin the author is very doubtful 

whether coal will be found within its limits.

Dr. J. W. Dawson,2 in 1882, classified the Paleozoic floras as follows:.

I. Carboniferous flora :

(1) That of the Permo-Carboniferous is best seen in eastern Nova Scotia, and 

is represented by Dadoxylon, Pecopteris, and Calamites.

(2) The coal formation contains the greatest number of species, and is especially 

rich in Sigillaria and ferns. One hundred and thirty-five species have 

been catalogued from this formation.

(3) Millstone grit: Here the species are limited. Dadoxylon acadianum is a 

characteristic conifer of this formation.

(4) Lower Carboniferous: The floras of this period consist mainly of Dadoxylon, 

Lepidodendron, and Aneimites.

1 Crosby, W. 0., and G-. H. Barton: Extension of the Carboniferous formation in Massachusetts. Am. 

Jour. Soi., 3d ser., vol. 20,1880, pp. 416-420.

2 Dawson, J. W.: Comparative view of the successive Paleozoic floras of Canada. Am. Aasoc., Proc., 

vol. 31, pp. 415-417; Canadian Nat., new ser., vol. 10,1882, pp. 372-378.
254 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

II. Erian or Devonian flora:

(1) Upper Eriau (CatsTdll): The subflora is characterized by the genera Archwopteris and Cyolopteris (ferns).

(2) Middle Erian, corresponding to the Hamilton and Chemung of New York, 

contain mostly Dadoxylon, ferns, and Lepidodendron. Sigillaria is rare, but 

Cordaites is abundant.

(3) The Lower Erian is characterized by the genera Prototaxitea, Arthrostigma, 

and Psilopliyton.

The author also discusses Silurian floras.

Mr. J. F. Whiteaves,1 in 1882, reported that fish remains had been 

discovered on the north shore of the Eestigouche Eiver, opposite Dalhousie, which prove to be Devonian species. Previously to 1879 these 

rocks had been considered as Lower Carboniferous.

Mr. E. W. Ells,2 in 1883, speaking of the geology of Gaspe" peninsula, 

reported that at Grand Pabos, Province of Quebec, Lower Carboniferous rocks are found lying upon Silurian rocks, and east of Little 

Pabos having a breadth of 2£ miles. Another small area occurs also 

between Grand Kiver and Brech a Manon. At White Head Carboniferous rocks were noted lying upon Devonian rocks. Eocks of Devonian aspect were found in the vicinity of Black Cape, and also on 

Bonaventure Eiver. Near P6rc6 Upper Devonian beds of some magnitude were recognized, lying nearly horizontal. Examination showed 

that there were three series of Devonian beds: (1) The upper deposit, 

made up of conglomerates and sandstones; (2) the middle deposit, 

made up of sandstones, shales, and some conglomerates; (3) the lower 

deposit, made up mainly of calcareous beds. The upper series has an 

estimated thickness of 3,000 feet. In a former report (1874) the thickness of the lower member of the Devonian is reported as about 7,036 

feet. The series abounds in brachiopods, trilobites, etc., of which a long 

list is given.

Mr. Edwin Gilpin,3 in 1884, comparing the Nova Scotian coal fields, 

says that in the three coal fields of Nova Scotia prominent east and 

west synclinal folds are noticeable. They are not complicated by faults, 

except when they come in contact with pre-Carboniferous rocks, as 

occurs on the south side of the Cumberland coal field. In the Sydney 

field it appears that the disturbing currents ran in a north and south 

direction, the materials being derived from the Lower Carboniferous 

rocks. In the Pictou field a distinctive feature was the formation of a 

barrier-reef of shingle formed from Millstone grit, back of which accumulated large amounts of argillaceous and carbonaceous sediments. The 

coal beds, fifteen in number, are situated in the lower part of the section, attaining a maximum thickness of 119 feet, while at Springhill, in

1 Whiteaves, J. F.: Recent discoveries of fossil fishes in the Devonian rocks of Canada. Am. Assoc., 

Proc., vol. 31,1882, pp. 353-356.

2Ells, R. W.: Report on the geology of the Gasp6 peninsula. Geol. Survey Canada: Report of 

progress for 1880-'81-'82,1883, pp. 1DD-32DD.

3 Gilpin, Edwin: A comparison of the distinctive features of Nova Scotian coal fields. British Assoc. 

Report 54th Meeting, 1884, pp. 712,713.
WILLIAMS.] DAWSON, PERRY, ROUTLEDGE. 255

the lower 1,000 feet of the Coal Measures, with twelve beds of coal, they 

attain only a total thickness of 51 feet. The author naturally asks the 

question whether or not the Cape Breton coal fields may not have had a 

total thickness equal to the Cumberland and Plctou fields'?

Sir W. Dawson,1 in 1884, commented on ancient land .floras, showing 

how the floras of the Devonian or Brian period and of the Carboniferous period present many points of likeness, and are very distinct from 

those of succeeding times. The conspicuous families are Bhizocarpece, 

Uquisetacece, Lycopodiacece, Filices, and Coniferce. The changes which 

have occurred since the Carboniferous consist mainly in the degradation of the three first families, and in the introduction of new Gymuosperms and Pha3nogams, the latter event marking the later Mesozoic 

age.

In 1885 Perrno-Carbouiferous rocks were reported by Mr. Ells 2 as occurring between Cape Bald and Bay Verte. Their similarity to rocks 

of Prince Edward Island was noted. Bocks of the same character, consisting mainly of soft red beds, sandstones, shales, and calcareous conglomerate, were recognized at Cape Brule aud between Shediac and 

Cocagne Head, The Carboniferous area of New Brunswick is made up 

of four anticlinals. One is situated between Bathurst and Miramichi; 

the second from Grand Lake to Eichibucto Head and Miminegash; the 

third passes from Shediac and touches the island near Cape Egmontj the 

fourth from Cape Tourinantine to Cape Traverse, Prince Edward Island.

Specimens of Lepidodendron found by Mr. Joseph E. Perry3 in a graphite deposit in the coal mine at Worcester, Massachusetts, were referred by Prof. Lesquereux to the very rare species Lepidodendron acuminatum of Goeppert, originally from the Carboniferous limestone of 

Silesia, corresponding to the American " Subcarboniferous." The great 

disturbance and working over of the rocks containing the Carboniferous 

deposit has transformed this deposit for the most part into graphite, 

aud in the specimen found the carbon is in the form of graphite, though 

the scars of the plant are distinctly preserved.

The Sydney coal field, Cape Breton, is about 32 miles in length by 6 

miles in width, extending from Big Bras d'Or on the northwest to Mira 

Bay on the southeast. The four basins of which this field is composed 

are as follows, according to Mr. W. Eoutledge 4 (1886):

1. Sydney Mine section, with 25 feet 8 inches workable coal.

2. The Lingan Tract, with 39 feet 5 inches workable coal.

3. Glace" Bay section, with 55 feet 9 inches workable coal.

4. Block House section, with 24 feet workable coal.

'Dawson, SirW.: On the more ancient land floras of the Old and New Worlds. British Assoc., 

Keport 54th Meeting, pp. 738,739.

3 Ells, B. W.: Keport on explorations and surveys in the interior of Gaspe Peninsula and Prince 

Edward Island. Geol. Survey of Canada: Report of progress for 1882-83-84,1885. l8-34", maps. (Separate in 1884.)

8 Perry, Joseph H.: Note on a fossil coal plant at the graphite deposit in mica schist at Worcester, 

Massachusetts. Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., vol. 29,1885, pp. 157,158.

4 Koutledge, W.: The Sydney coal field, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. Am. Inat. Mining, Trans., vol. 

14,1880, pp. 542-560.
256 THE DEVONIAN AND CAKBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

In the region of Cobscook Bay Devonian rocks are reported by Prof. 

N. S. Staler 1 as lying to east of Moose Island, with nearly uniform eastern dips. The section at Perry may contain Subcarboniferous as well 

as Upper Devonian rocks, but apparently the most important section 

is bearing the greatest likeness to Devonian rocks, is on Moose Island. 

Here the black shaly deposits have a thickness of from 1,000 to 1,500 

feet.

Mr. Frank D. Adams,2 in 1887, defining the coal-bearing rocks of 

Canada, says the coal fields of Canada are confined to Nova Scotia 

and Cape Breton, where there are three important basins, situated in 

Cumberland, Pictou, and Cape Breton Counties, respectively. The 

coal basin in the Cape Breton field extends under the Atlantic Ocean. 

On account of the imperviousness of the strata overlying the true 

Coal Measures they can be worked without any difficulty. The deepest 

seam of the Pictou coal field at the Dalhousie Pit is 36f feet in thickness. The coals of Nova Scotia are somewhat less bituminous than 

those of Cape Breton.

Sir William Dawson,3 who has contributed so much to the elaboration of the Devonian and Carboniferous formations, in one of his later 

: papers has given his matured conclusions regarding their classification 

and correlation. He retains the name "Eriau" for the Devonian 

system, following his modified usage of "Erie Division" of the Geoogical Survey of New York. On the eastern coast this is represented 

by sandstones and0 shales, and is compared with the Old Bed sandstone of Scotland and England.

The beds abound in fossil plants and locally in remains of fishes. 

Both plants and fishe s are " generically similar to those of Britain ;" 

they are of "estuarian and littoral" origin j and the author considers 

them divisible into two series, characterized by different genera of 

these organisms.

The only truly marine portion of the system in the Maritime Province is the lower 

part, corresponding to the Oriskany of the interior, and this may perhaps be regarded 

as an equivalent of the Downton sandstones of England.

The subdivisions of the Carboniferous system are described as 

follows:

1. A lower series corresponding totheTuedian of the North of England and Calciferous of Scotland hoth in mineral character and fossils (the Horton series of my 

later papers).

2. A Carhoniferous limestone, associated, however, with gypsum, and marly and 

red sandstones, hut having fossil remains for the most part specifically identical with 

those of England (Windsor series of recent papers).

1 Shaler, N. S.: Preliminary report on the geology of the Cobscook Bay district, Maine. Am. Jour. 

Bci., 3d ser., vol. 32,1886, pp. 35-60.

2 Adams, Frank D.: On the coal-bearing rocks of Canada. Brit. Assoc., Report 56th Meeting, 1886, 

1887, pp. 639-641.

3 On the Eozoio and Paleozoic Rocks of the Atlantic coast of Canada, in comparison -with those of 

 western Europe and of the interior of America, by Sir J. William Dawson, K. C. M. G., etc., 1888. 

Quar. Jour. Geol. Soc., pp. 797-817.

The Erian or Devonian system, p. 813. The Carboniferous system, etc., p. 814.
WILLIAMS.] J. W. DAWSON. 257

3. A Millstone grit series consisting of coarse sandstones and shales with conglomerate, mostly of red colors.

4. The Main or Productive Coal Measures, precisely similar in character to those 

of Britain.

R. A Permo-Carboniferous series, perhaps corresponding in age to the Lower Permian of England, and consisting largely of Red sandstones with species of plants 

characteristic in Europe of the Lower Permian, but including no limestones.

The conditions of the Carboniferous are on the whole similar throughout North 

America, except in the extreme West and locally in the Appalachian region ; but 

in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and New Brunswick they are more nearly allied 

to the British type, except in the abundance of red marls and gypsum'in the lower 

part.

Bull. 80 17
CHAPTEE XII.

CONCLUSIONS.

( When this essay was begun it was thought possible to prepare a 

I thorough paleontologic definition of the systems and series under consideration. The result has demonstrated that the facts are not yet 

[ accumulated to make this possible. In the first place, the formations 

themselves are not delimited on the same basis in different provinces, 

and, secondly, the fossils have been reported under so many different 

names that a thorough revision of the several biologic groups is necessary before the various lists prepared can be scientifically correlated. 

In the meantime such lists as Mr. Miller's "American Paleozoic Fossils" 

will suffice for all practical purposes. At the outset it was thought 

that an exhaustive review of all American literature on the Devonian 

and Carboniferous systems would be profitable. As the research has 

progressed it has become evident that this literature may be divided 

into three classes, viz: (1) Eecords of observations and facts ; (2) discussions of the relations and classifications of the facts; (3) controversial literature. Although all the accessible literature has been consulted, I have concluded that the first class can not be abstracted to 

advantage; that the third class has generally been more concerned in 

the defense of personal opinions than in the elaboration of the truth, 

and in many cases the controversy has been occasioned by imperfect

understanding of the views of others. For the present essay selection 

has been made chiefly from the second class of literature, written in 

most cases by those exhibiting some acquaintance with the immediate 

local problem under discussion, and also with the opinions of others, 

and with the corresponding formations in other regions. Another restriction was found necessary: To go into full details would have made 

a book so large that few would take the trouble to read it, hence whenever practicable formulations of results have been given, leaving the 

student to examine the original works for details. For these various 

reasons a large number of the authors consulted, probably a large majority, are not represented here by quotations or title.

The territory discussed may be classified for our purposes into the 

following geographic provinces: Acadian, Appalachian, Mississippian, 

Michigan, Western, and Northern provinces. The Acadian province is 

geologically isolated from the others, and has a history of its own. The 

facts accumulated for the Northern province, extending from Manitoba

258
WILLIAMS.] CONCLUSIONS. 259

along the Mackenzie Eiver to the Arctic and about the shores of Hudson Bay, are too fragmentary to admit of generalization. The Western 

province has not been worked up with sufficient detail to admit of other 

than broad generalizations. The correlations in these three provinces 

were based upon purely paleontologic data. The other three provinces 

are partly connected at their boundaries and roughly defined are great 

basins, in which the more recent Carboniferous formations are partially, 

at least, surrounded by the older Devonian rocks.

The Appalachian province is separated from the Mississippian 

province by a geological anticline called the Cincinnati axis, extending 

from middle Tennessee in a northeasterly direction to near Sandusky, 

Ohio, and thence across Lake Erie into Ontario, Canada. The Michigan 

province is connected with both the Appalachian and the Mississippian 

provinces by a common band of Devonian rocks running from Toledo 

across to the southern end of Lake Michigan.

In the center of the Mississippian province the Ozark Uplift occupies, 

with Silurian and Archeau rock, the southeastern third of Missouri and 

parts of adjacent Illinois and Arkansas. The western edge of this 

province is terminated by the overlying Cretaceous along an irregular 

westward curving line connecting Omaha and Austin, Tex. The 

northeastern or Acadian province is defined at the opening of the last 

chapter and exhibits an immense thickness of Devonian and Carboniferous shales, sandstone, and conglomerates, with little limestone, estimated at 9,500 feet of Devonian and 16,000 feet of Carboniferous. 

Along the eastern and northeastern borders of the Appalachian the 

thickness may be a third less, but the deposits are still arenaceous, with 

some argillaceous shales and with little limestone. The arenaceous 

deposits decrease on going westward for the whole Devonian until in 

Iowa the total Devonian is estimated at 200 feet of shales and Magnesiau limestone. The Devonian is represented all around the Michigan 

province by considerable limestone in its early stage, running up into 

soft shales, then Lower Carboniferous sandstone and shales, and finally 

a few hundred feet only of Coal Measures. Passing southwestward 

along the Appalachian province, or from Iowa and Michigan southward in the Mississippian province, the Devonian loses the calcareous 

base and the arenaceous top and dwindles down to a black shale, varying 

from one hundred feet or so in Kentucky to nothing in Southern Tennessee and around the western and southwestern margins of the Ozark 

Uplift, With this change from the complex Devonian formation of New 

York to the simple black shale of Tennessee there is a corresponding 

change in the Lower Carboniferous from arenaceous and shaly deposits 

in Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana to limestones of over a thousand feet 

thickness in the Mississippian province, separating the black shale 

from the Coal Measures.

With all these differences in the stratigraphy there are corresponding 

differences in the faunas and floras, and as the geologists have surveyed
260 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BOLL. 80.

the rocks and brought the facts to light the difficulties of exact correlation have been as great as the complexity of the facts.

In the historical development of the geology the northern part or the 

Appalachian province was first developed; afterward, and by other 

men, the Mississippian province was surveyed and interpreted.

Among the numerous problems which American geologists have had 

to solve, I have selected a few to show the methods employed in correlations and the reasons why one method has led to erroneous and another to correct results. The object of correlation is and has been to 

bring newly discovered formations into their proper places in already 

established systematic classifications. Hence in studying the principles of correlation it has been necessary to deal mainly with the classifications. The original classifications may have been founded on wrong 

principles, and in such cases, however correct the methods of correlation may have been, the results were unsatisfactory. In the first stage 

of the history this was the case. The Weruerian classification was 

based on the supposition that the stratigraphic order of deposits and 

the lithologic composition of the separate members had some natural 

relation to each other. This is not the fact. It was on this account 

that all the work of Amos Eaton, in New York State, though based 

upon careful observation and accurate record of the facts, was a failure 

so far as the correlations were concerned. After he had perfected the 

Weruerian system, thoroughly adapted it to our facts, and provided an 

American translation, so to speak, of the German method, the fallacy 

of the method was exposed and the whole of his scheme was abandoned. 

The New York rocks were admirably adapted to the construction of 

a correct classification of the Paleozoic systems, except for the highest 

member, For that the adjoining State, Pennsylvania, furnished what 

New York lacked. For nearly half of the State the dip of the rocks is 

scarcely greater than 50 feet to the mile, and they are so regular that 

numerous sections could be easily examined running through the same 

series of deposits, the local variations noted, and, most important of 

all, great quantities of fossils were obtained. The result was that the 

New York rocks for the Silurian and Devonian systems furnished the 

standard classification for North America, and after 1843 (the date of 

the completion of the final reports of the geological survey of the State 

of New York) whatever imperfections might have been detected were 

easily corrected by reference to the strata themselves. All mistakes 

in correlations of these formations thereafter were the fault of the 

method of correlation, not of the classification used.

The Carboniferous rocks of Pennsylvania are mainly arenaceous and 

argillaceous, and marine fossils are rare in them. The classification 

that was developed was therefore one based chiefly upon stratigraphic 

and lithologic characters. Heroic attempts were made to trace the 

various lithologic units of the system beyond the State; but even from 

county to county in Pennsylvania the modifications were so constant
WILLIAMS.] CONCLUSIONS. 261

tbat correlation became a problem of dip and thinning of the rocks, or 

of number and thickness of coal-beds or of sandstone strata. The result was that almost every State having Coal Measures had its own 

classification of details, with the apparent symmetry of a lower, a middle, and an upper division. As far as a local coal bed could be traced 

so far there was correlation. This method of correlation led to the 

theory of "persistent parallelism of strata," which was applied very 

considerably in the second Pennsylvania survey, and to some extent 

in all the Coal-Measure areas. In Pennsylvania this theory was applied, and the resulting correlations were unsatisfactory in proportion 

to the distance the correlations were carried. It was not, strictly speaking, correlation. It was rather an actual tracing of the strata from 

outcrop to outcrop by geometrical processes. The correlations were 

unsatisfactory because in the clastic rocks which there prevail the 

details of lithologic characters, as composition, fineness, or coarseness 

of grain and thickness of strata, are not uniform, but vary considerably 

even in a short distance. Occasionally there were fossiliferous strata 

in the Coal Measures which gave a clew to the true position in the 

standard stratigraphic scale.

In the Mississippian province the first attempts at correlation were 

with European standards. In this case there were two fundamental 

data upon which the correlations were based. These were the '-Coal 

Measures " and the "Mountain Limestone." The presence of coal beds 

in association with underclays and sands was taken as evidence of the 

Coal Measures of the English geologists, and the finding of limestones 

below these Coal Measures containing fossils determined to be identical 

with those described from the Mountain limestone of Derbyshire, in 

Martin's "Pefrilicata Derbieusia," was the reason for calling the limestone " Mountain limestone." As far as the general correlation was concerned the determination was correct, but when attempt was made to 

push the correlation to details it was found impracticable to fit either the 

standard English scale or that already developed in the Appalachian 

province to these rocks of the Mississippian province. The result was 

that as the details were accumulated by geological surveys the geologists 

developed a classification and nomenclature of their own, in the same 

way that the New York geologists had done for their State. The chief 

work accomplished in this province was the elaboration of the series between the Devonian and the base of the Coal Measures, called " Subcar. 

bouiferous " and " Lower Carboniferous," which is so characteristic of 

this region that I propose to give it the name u Mississippian series." 

The discussion of the facts determining the upper limit of the Coal Measures, as seen in the chapter on the Permian Problem of Kansas and 

Nebraska, may also be considered as one of the results of the study of 

this Mississippian province.

One of the most instructive illustrations of the principles of correlation is seen in the determination of the base of the Mississippian series.
262 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

In this determination two distinct methods of correlation were exhibited. The geologists familiar with the standard sections of the New 

York system, and of the Appalachian province in general, applied the 

principle of "persistent parallelism of strata," and, having gone carefully over the ground, believed they had established beyond dispute the 

correlation of rocks at the base of the Mississippian series with the upper 

member of the New York Devonian, i. e., the Chemung group.

The "Chemung group" of Iowa and Missouri was originally thus determined, and was defended on this basis for a number of years against 

the counter evidence of fossils. When the fossils were studied and compared with the fossils of the Chemuug of New York they were found to 

closely agree generically, but specifically there were very few cases of 

identity. To correct this discrepancy a gradual modification of the 

species or combination of species constituting the local faunas was assumed to have taken place coordinate with difference in longitude on 

passing westward. The fallacy in this assumption deceived some of the 

ablest geologists of the country, and for nearly twenty years general 

reliance upon their authority stood in the way of the acceptance of the 

truth.

On the principle of establishing correlation of horizon by identity of 

the fossils all the evidence went to prove that the so-called " Chemuug" 

rocks of the Mississippi Valley were of Carboniferous age. M. de Verneuil so identified the specimens he saw when on a visit to this country 

in 1847. D. D. Owen, one of the earliest geologists to study the rocks 

of this province, and others who followed him, recognized the "Carboniferous aspect" of the fossils. But these identifications of the fossils were not generally accepted as outweighing the other evidence of 

supposed correlation with Chemung rocks until the year 1861, when 

Messrs. Meek and Wortheu. established the Kinderhook group,

The Kinderhook group was the result of pure paleontologic correlation, in which the fauna at the base of the " Carboniferous limestones," 

often in sandy or shaly strata, was distinctly recognized, by comparison 

with authentic Carboniferous species of Europe, as of Carboniferous age. 

The identifications upon which the name was applied were of Illinois 

fossils; the correlation included led to the correct correlation of the 

"Goniatite beds" of Indiana, and later of the Waverly group of Ohio, 

and the recognition of the "Black shales" of the Mississippi province 

as the termination of the Devonian series. Although the correlation 

included the faunas of the Chemung of Iowa and Missouri, the application of the name "Chemung" there had become locally fixed to the 

particular rocks, irrespective of their supposed equivalency, and the 

name was not immediately dropped. The fundamental error in the 

Chemung correlation was made near the eastern end, on passing from 

Chautauqua County, New York, across to Cleveland, Ohio. Passing 

westward from Ohio the error was not noticeable, so that the identity 

of many Ohio Waverly species with those found in the Western Che-
WILUAMB.] CONCLUSIONS. 263

mung helped to keep up the misinterpretations. Mr. Meek's success 

iii correlations appears to have been due to his minute knowledge of 

the characters of fossils and their relations to each other, and perhaps 

still more to Ms firm faith in fossils as the one reliable guide to true 

correlation.

The principle of "persistent parallelism of strata" is defective in 

several ways: (1) Although it has been often observed that a stratum 

continues for a long distance with but slight variation in thickness and 

character of material, the constancy of lithologic and stratigraphic 

character can not be assumed to be the case, even for short distances, 

unless actually so observed. From this we deduce the law that "parallelism of strata" is not a safe means of correlation, although, the correlation once being established, the parallelism of strata is a valuable 

aid in the recognition of the correlation for detached sections. (2)

The errors made by this method of correlation occur a.t points 

where the evidence is lacking, therefore it is impossible by merely 

going over the field a second time to correct such errors. (3) Even 

when there is apparent continuity of a single stratum or of a series of 

similarly formed strata, for tens or hundreds of miles, this alone is not 

evidence that the deposits at the two extremes were formed synchronously. The correct interpretation of the continuity, in case the 

material is purely clastic, is more likely to be found in a gradual shifting of the shore line by rising or sinking of the land than in synchronism of deposition. On the other hand, the correlation of geologic 

formation by their fossil contents is (1) Always made upon actual 

evidence, any errors of interpretation of which can be corrected by 

critical review of the evidence5 (2) the particular form assumed by 

any organic structure appears to be determined almost entirely by two 

factors, i. e., heredity and environment; hence we may deduce the law 

that, given thf. locality and the conditions of environment, the fossil has 

in itself the e1 ri lence of its geologic age.

The precis! >n with which correlations may be made upon paleontologic evidenct is letermined by the knowledge possessed of the relations 

of the elements oi' organic form to geologic age, so that a fragment of a 

fossil in the hands of one who knows how to interpret the evidence 

may furnish, a more correct diagnosis of the age of the formation than 

a bushel of fossils in the hands of one ignorant of i-he laws of organic 

life determining the form of the structures producec ,

The lowest member of the Mississippian series in L Unois having been 

defined as the Kinderhook group, it was a matter of simple paleontologic correlation to fix the lower limit in Iowa at the base of the 

"Oheinung group," in Missouri at the base of the formations later called 

Chouteau group, in Indiana at base of the Goniatite beds, in Ohio at 

the base of the Waverly, and in Michigan at the base of the Marshall 

group. Immediately underlying these formations or their evident equiv-
264 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

alents in several of the States of the interior a black shale is conspicuously constant. While the black shale was generally correlated as 

Devonian, its precise age has not up to the present time been certainly 

fixed.

That the black shale has not been satisfactorily correlated is shown 

by its retention of that general name in spite of its frequent correlation 

with other black shales of definite age, as the Marcellus and the Genesee formations of New York.

As the terrane separating Silurian from Carboniferous thins out to 

the southwest, it is finally restricted to a few feet of black shale, but it is 

not proved paleontologically precisely what part of the expanded series, 

called Devonian in New York and Ohio, is represented by this shale.

In the later work of the geologists of Ohio a certain symmetry in 

correlation is sought by uniting the black shales, up to and including 

the Cleveland shale, into a single group and calling it the Ohio shale, 

correlating this as the upper member of the Devonian system.1

Prof. Newberry, in his monograph on " The Paleozoic fishes of North 

America," 2 classifies the deposits above the last prominent black 

shale as Carboniferous, thus conforming with the general principle 

of making the black shale the top member of the Devonian system. 

In the case of Prof. Newberry this correlation is not new, and was 

first advanced to make the classification conform to a theoretical order 

of deposits explained under the name " circles of deposition." 3 But 

the tendency on all hands has been to accept this structural line of demarkation between the Carboniferous and Devonian formations. Still 

further work upon the structural as well as the paleontologic features 

of these black shales will be needed to determine their true correlation.

The subdivision of the Mississippian series is a matter of classification rather than correlation proper. All through the province variations in the stratigraphy are seen in the deve lopment of the local 

geologic structure. The structural or lithologic formations distinguishable over most of the province are as follows:

Chester group. Worthen. Burlington limestone, Hall.

St. Louis group, Worthen. Kinderhook group, Meek and

Warsaw limestone, Hall, Worthen ; or

Keokuk group, Worthen. Chouteau group, Broadhead.

These formations have been defined in their typical localities and the 

faunas as locally studied have been described, but in several cases difficulty has been experienced in attempting to extend the classification 

over the whole Mississippian province.

The difficulties have occurred most frequently in distinguishing between Burlington and Keokuk faunas in the formations in western and

1 Geol. Survey of Ohio, vol. 6, by Edw. Orton, 1888.

2 IT. S. Geol. Survey, Monograph, vol. 16,1889.

*See a theory of circles of sedimentation, by J. S. Newberry, Am. As9. Adv. Sci., Proc., vol. 22, pt. 2, 

pp. 185-196,1873, and on circles of deposition in sedimentary strata, Canadian Nat., new series, vol. 7, 

pp. 163-164.
WILLIAMS.] CONCLUSIONS. 265

southwestern Missouri and northern Arkansas, in distinguishing in 

some cases whether a fauna is a Warsaw or a St. Louis fauna. The Chester fauna may be associated with particular conditions of environment.

On considering these several facts, it has appeared to the writer that 

in classifying the formations of theMississippian series the correlations 

from a structural point of view have been carried too far and that an increase in the number of lithologiic formations will better express the 

facts as at present known ; whereas from a paleontologio point of view 

the classification is too minute, and that a combination of some of the 

formations will best express our present knowledge regarding their true 

relations. The practical application of this suggestion will result in 

applying new local names to structural formations whenever the structural characters are so divergent from those of the typical section that 

the correlation depends upon stratigraphic position above or below 

some clearly recognized horizon for its validity.

Recent studies of the fossils, their original grouping into local faunas 

and their association in other parts of the province, have led me to recognize three fairly well differentiated faunas in the Mississippian series, 

the subdivisions of which are believed to be local, and therefore very 

unsatisfactory for purposes of correlation.

The following table sets forth the proposed classification and nomenclature:

Structure scale. Time scale. 

'Chester stage............................. ^|

St. Louis stage ........................... >Geuevieveage.

Warsaw stage ............................ I

Keoknk stage............................. \

Mississippian series.. ^ Burlington stage.......................... f Osage age.

(

Chouteau limestone......... '\ 

Vermicular shale and sand- 

, stone > Chouteau ago. eluding Bioiie.....................

(_Lithographic limestone..... j

The Chouteau age is the age of the Chouteau group of Broadhead. 

The Osage age is the age of the fauna of the Burlington and Keokuk 

formations, which are locally distinguishable, but in the sections on 

the northwestern, western, and southwestern flanks of the Ozark Uplift 

are so blended that it seems impracticable in most cases to differentiate 

them. The name is suggested by the fact that the Osage River drains 

the region in which this confusion of the two faunas is clearly exhibited. The Genevieve age is the age of the fauna of the Archimedes 

group of Shumard.1

The name is suggested by the fact that Shumard first called attention 

to the union of the several formations in which the common fauna prevails in his description of the geology of Ste. Geuevieve County, Missouri. The name he applied was Archimedes group, but this is not a sat1 Kepts. Geol. Survey Missouri, 1855-1871, by G. C. Broadhoad, P. B. Moek, and B. F. Slmmard 

Ibid., 1873, pp. 292-293, by B. F. Sliuinard.
266 THE DEVONIAN AND CARBONIFEROUS. '[BULL.80.

isfactory name, and in the county of Ste. Genevieve and on the eastern 

and northeastern margins of the Ozark Uplift, above and below this 

county, are found the typical outcrops of the individual formations 

included in the group.

This classification is used in reports already communicated to the 

State geologists of Arkansas and Missouri, and I give it here to expose 

the latest results of my attempts at correlation of these formations.

One of the most important results which such a review of the history of 

correlation emphasizes is the fact that all attempts to attain uniformity 

of classification or nomenclature have failed to a greater or less extent.

The exteut of the artificiality of the correlation is in some measure 

proportionate to the distance separating the formations compared; but 

the experience of the geologists of the second geological survey of Pennsylvania shows how difficult it is to make satisfactory correlations even 

between the rocks of adjoining counties.

Amos Baton, seventy years ago, attempted to make the classification and nomenclature of the New York formations uniform with that 

of Germany and England. He succeeded as well as anyone could in 

his time; but some young men, trained in his own school, went into 

the field a few years later to work up the geology of New York State. 

They began with the application of his system, but when they found 

it fettering the accuracy of their observations they cast it aside. They 

recorded the facts as they found them, gave independent names to the 

formations for the purpose of identifying them, and formed a New 

York system.

The classification and nomenclature of this system has been adopted 

as a standard in all respects except where uniformity with European 

usage was attempted.

The name " system " was lost because this is only part of a system; 

the divisions, Champlain, Ontarian, Erian, etc., have been discarded 

because they are purely artificial and have nothing to do with the 

natural classification of the rocks; the grouping of the formations into 

Devonian, Silurian, is still allowed, but it is applied both loosely and 

unsatisfactorily by all except the text-book user. After the New York 

survey was completed, the same men, satisfied with their success, and 

still remembering the philosophy of uniformity, thought it might be 

applied to all American geology. They went westward, tried to fit the 

New York and Pennsylvania systems to the geology of the Mississippian 

province. In the cases where they attempted to classify the Mississippian rocks on the Appalachian model the result proved unsatisfactory, because artificial and not expressing the facts as they are. In the 

cases where the nomenclature and classification have been built up independently and strictly according to the local expression of the facts 

they have been retained.

One after another of these early attempts to produce uniformity in
WILLIAMS.] CONCLUSIONS. 267

nomenclature have been discarded because the facts did not support 

the correlation when precision was applied. In the far West the anomalies were so great that defenders of the traditional geology have stood 

aghast. The Government geologists, who were chiefly concerned in 

developing the facts, have gained the reputation of disregarding precedent, European standards, and even the opinions of their brother geologists ; but after one of these doubters has climbed the Rockies, trailed 

across the plateaus, and looked into the canons, he has come back forced 

to confess that "the half was not told him," and paleontologists and 

geologists alike have been obliged to expand their systems to accommodate these bold geologists of the saddle.

Such has been the result of seeking uniformity for a single continent. 

Like results, we believe, will appear upon comparison of the formations 

of different provinces on other continents. The experience of European 

geologists who have not gone outside Europe has been mainly with the 

details of a single geologic province; a certain degree of uniformity is 

therefore practicable for them. It is no disrespect to the European 

system that has led Americans to think lightly of conformity to any 

uniform standard of geologic classification-or nomenclature. Tlie reason 

for the failure on the part of American geologists to adopt and apply 

the older standards of Europe to their formations is found in the fact 

that the supposed uniformity does not actually exist.

The literature of the first quarter.of the century demonstrated that 

classification can not be based upon uniformity of litliologic constitution. 

The last twenty-five years has made it evident that uniformity of stratigraphy can not be relied on for correlations, and now the modern school of 

paleontologists are demonstrating the fact that the divisional lines 

marking the biologic or time scale do not correspond to those of the 

structural or stratigraphic scale, but are determined by independent 

factors. In the classification of rock formations the character of the 

formations should receive chief consideration, but the particular geologic period in which sediments are deposited has practically no relation 

to the nature of the sediments or their amount or their physical 

arrangement as geologic deposits. It is, hence, a grave question 

whether the development of our science does not demand that geographic factors should take precedence of time factors iu all classifications of geologic formations.

The correlations between form, density, and composition of minerals 

are formulated in systematic mineralogy, the correlations between form 

structure and age are formulated in systematic paleontology, and a systematic geology will be attained when the relations between the composition, the stratigraphic order, and the geographic position of rock 

formation can be adequately formulated.

The experience of geologists in the past shows conclusively that 

composition and stratigraphic order of sequence are intimately associated with geographic locality. Each geographic province has its own
268 THE DEVONIAN AND CAK^NIFEROUS. [BULL. 80.

history and will ultimately require its own nomenclature and classification.

It was Kirwan.,1 ! believe, who classified the rocks as "mountains," 

translating the German word " gebirge" into mountain, instead of formation, as we should do now; thus," Steinkohlen gebirge," " grauwacken 

gebirge," he called "Carboniferous mountains," " Greywalcke mountains."

Although the double sense is at once evident to us, the conception of 

the German geologists expressed in applying the name " Gebirge" to a 

geologic formation is not so far wrong as at first it would appear. It 

was long ago learned that uniformity of nomenclature for mountains of 

different continents is absurd.

Although some relation exists between the position on the continent, 

the distance from coast, and the size of the adjacent sea, as Guyot has 

shown, geographic position of a mountain is the one thing distinguishing it from all other mountains, and no consideration of similarity in 

mountains dispenses with the necessity of separate names for every 

local mountain range. Although covered from sight, and with our 

present knowledge difficult to outline, it is altogether probable that 

geologic formations are as completely separated geographically as are 

mountains. Any classification of formations which does not recognize 

geographic position as of primary importance is artificial, and in the 

nomenclature regard for the geography must find a place if we would 

be scientifically accurate.

Having defined the geologic formations of a province, their correlation with those of another province can be made only by means of the 

fossil contents. This the experienced geologist has demonstrated.

History shows that the correlations which have best endured the test 

of time were made regarding formations whose structural and stratigraphic features were elaborated independently of the correlation, and 

the correlation of which was based upon carefully collected and exhaustively studied fossils. The records of structure, composition, and stratigraphic order, when based upon careful observation, are permanently 

valuable contributions to knowledge, and their value is not increased 

by attempts to fit them into some established classification upon scant 

paleontoiogic data or hasty paleoulotogic comparison.

The classification made by the field geologist should not be warped 

to conform to any standard, not even that of the adjoining county, unless 

there is structural evidence of identity of formations. Correlation by 

physical means, i. e., inference from general dip, altitude, thickness, 

when associated with likeness of composition, is practicable for short 

distances and when made by experienced geologists, but even then the 

determination is not absolute; contradictory paleontoiogic evidence in 

the hands of an equally expert paleontologist should always be given 

precedence.

"'Geological Essays, " Loudon, 1799.
WILLIAMS.] CONCLUSIONS. 269

The undisputed correlations from one province to another, as from 

the European sections to those of New York, from the Appalachian to 

the Mississippian provinces, or from either of these to the Acadian 

province, rest entirely upon biologic evidence coal beds and masses of 

coral and crinoidal limestone are of biologic not geologic origin. Such 

correlations are generally satisfactory so far as they pertain to the general equivalency of systems or series; but all attempts to correlate with 

precision the limits of such divisions or to establish uniformity in the 

subdivisions of two separate provinces has proved forced and artificial, 

and the history of American geology shows that after the determination of the general equivalence of age, in matters both of classification 

and of nomenclature, little attempt has been made to attain uniformity 

with outside standards. Paleontologists have discussed the relations 

between the fossil faunas of America and the European standards, but 

the cases have been rare in which the differences have not been as conspicuous as the agreements.

The principles involved in correlations made by use of fossils are 

purely biologic and are intimately concerned with the laws of structure 

"and growth of the individual, with the effects of environment and geographical distribution, with the laws of heredity and evolution, and 

with the laws of relationship of organisms to each other and to geologic time. The discussion of these matters would be out of place here;,, 

but it may be said that the great advance attained in the accuracy and 

in the general methods of geologic correlation during the last twenty 

years is mainly due to the changed conceptions regarding the nature 

of the organic species.

The Cuvieriau notion of species was entirely consistent with the notion of sharply defined, uniform delimitations and "universal" forma- j 

tions. Each species was supposed to belong to one, and how it could ! 

appear in two formations was not explained. The Darwinian notion of j 

species is not consistent with sharply defined lines in the classification j 

either of organisms or of formations.

According to this notion the modification of organic form is conceived 

as not an arbitrary matter, but as correlated with difference of environment and of genetic relationship, so that the lesser variations of specific form are of as great value to the modern paleontologist for purposes of correlation as is tbe identity of species. Comparison of allied 

species in the same genus exhibits to him the rate and direction of modification taking place in the genetic history of the genus, and in the 

plastic or variable characters he finds a sensitive indicator of the 

stage of development attained by the race when the particular individual lived. Biological study shows him that fossils must contain intrinsic evidence of their geologic age independent of the formations in' 

which they were buried, and his chief work is to learn what this evi-' 

deuce is and how to interpret it. To such evidence the final appeal i 

must be made in all cases of the correlation of geologic formations. /'

INDEX.

A.

Page. 

Acadian province, correlations by J. W.

Dawson.......................... 209,210

definition of ......................... 226

Upper Paleozoic rocks of ............ 226-257

correlations based on plants of.... 228

area of............................... 259

Adams, F. D., ou Carboniferous of Canada............................... 266

Albert mine, Nova Scotia, J. "W. Dawson

on................................ 231,232

Albion coal measures, Nova Scotia....... 232

Alloghany Mountains coal formations,

Edwsird Miller on................ 37

Alluvial class of Werner......'........... 15

America and Europe, do Verneuil's comparison of formations in.......... 67-71

American and European rocks compared,

by J. Hall........................ 72-74

American ^Geological Society, formation

of................................ 24

A merican geologic systems, plan of discussion of........................ 8

Andrews, E.B., on coal plants from Ohio. <J2 

on Waverly in Ohio.................. 182,183

on coal fields of Ohio and West Virginia............................. 91,92

Anvil rock, proposed by D.D. Owen..... 148

Appalachian basin, paleontology of...... 65

Appalachian group, proposed............ 60

Appalachian province, rooks of.......... 77,78

conglomerates and Lower Carboniferous of............................ 108-120

area of............................... 259

Archimedes group....................... 109

Arizona, Carboniferous formations of.... 216

Permian rooks in .................... 221

rocks of Tucson ..................... 222

rocks of Grand Canon ............... 224

Arkansas, L. Bringier on coal in ......... 25

Ashburner, C. A., on rocks of Huntingdon

County, Pennsylvania............ 113,114

correlations of....................... 114

on McKean County, Pennsylvania... 114 

Augusta County, Virginia, section....... 113

Austin Mill, Canada, section ............. 235

B.

Bailey, L. W., on rocks of Now Brunswick............................. 244

Bailey and Ells on Carboniferous of New

Brunswick....................... 251

Page. 

Bailey and Matthew on rocks of New

Bin us wick....................... 243,244

Bailey, Miatthew and Ells on Devonian

rocks of New Brunswick ........ 2*52, 253

Balliuac Island, rocks of................. 215

Barlow, Scott.on coal field of Nova Scotia. 248 

Barton arid Crosby on Carboniferous

rocks of Massachusetts.......... 253

Bath, West Virginia, coal from .......... 99

Beaver County, Pennsylvania, coal measures, I. C. White on............... 93

Beaver Kivor and Conoquonessing Creek,

Pennsylvan ia, section............ 101

Beaver River group, J. P. Lesley on ..... 101

Bigsby, J. J., on classification of rocks of

Lake Huron...................... 28

Bituminous coal formation,subdivision of. 139 

Black Hills, Dakota, rocks of ............ 199

Boll, Jacob, on Permian of Texas ........ 221

Borre, Ami, nomenclature of.............. . 26

Bosanquet, Canada, section............... 235

Bradley, F. H., on Quebec limestones from

Idaho............................ 214

Briggs, C.,classification of Ohio rocks.... 41

Bringier, L.,on coal in Arkansas......... 25

British America,Devonian of............ 224-225

British Columbia, fossils from............ 214

Carboniferous rocks in............... 221

Broadhead, G. C., classification of rocks

of Missouri ...................... 169-170

on Permian of Kansas and Nebraska. 210-212 

Broad Top coal basin, Pennsylvania, J. P.

Lesley on ........................ 86

Brongniart, A. T., on fossils .............. 25

on value of fossils in correlation...... 31

classification of...................... 46

Brown, A. J., on section at Pancake Mountain .............................. 216

Brown, Richard, on rocks of Nova Scotia. 228

on Sydney coal field of Cape Breton . 230-281

Burlington, Iowa, section ................ 152-153

C. A. White,on rocks at.............. 157

Burlington limestone, Niles and Wachsmuth on ......................... 158-159

area and characteristics of........... 160

division of, in New Mexico .......... 224

C.

Calvin, S., on Devonian faunas of New

York........... .................. 186

Cambrian, adoption of name.............. 44-45

271
272 INDEX.

Page.

Cambrian formation in Wasatch Moantains......................... .... 218

Canada, J. W. Dawson, on Carboniferous

rocks of.......................... 245-246

W. E. Logan on formations of........ 253

J. F. Whiteaves on Devonian rocks of. 254 

K. W. Ells, on rocks of ............... 255

Carboniferous rocks of............... 256

Cape Breton, R. Brown on Sydney coal

field.............................. 230-231

J. P. Lesley on coal measures of '..... 235-236

Chas. Robb on rocks of............... 249-250

H. Fletcher on rocks in .......... 250, 251, 252

Cape Dauphin, II. Brown on strata of..... 230

Carboniferous rocks 

Mississippian province .............. 77

Appalachian province................ 77-78

Illinois, classification of.............. 160

Arizona.............................. 216

Colorado............................. 224

Nova Scotia, Charles Lyell on........ 230

New Brunswick, C. Robb, J. W. Dawson, Matthew, Bailey, and Ells on, 244-247 

Canada, J.W. Dawson on............ 245-246

Newfoundland, A. Murray on........ 246

New Brunswick, Bailey and Ells on.. 251 

Massachusetts, Barton and Crosby on, 253 

Massachusetts, J. B. Perry on........ 255

Canada, F. D. Adams on........... 256

Pennsylvania........................ 260-261

Carboniferous conglomerate of Pennsylvania, B. S. Lyman on ............ 86-87

Carboniferous conglomerate, A. \Vinchell

on................................ 179

Carboniferous limestone of Mississippi

Valloy........................... 153-154

Carboniferous system, confusion in members of........................... 77

history of............................ 75-82

original adoption of term ............ 79

members of.......................... 76

Carboniferous and Devonian rocks of

Pennsylvania and Ohio, table.... 119

Carll, J. F., on oil sands of Pennsylvania, 115 

on rooks of oil region of Pennsylvania 115-117 

names proposed by ..'................ 115-117

correlations by . ................ 115-119

Catslull group, A. Winchell on........... 121-122

Catskill and Chemung faunas, E. W. Claypole on........................... 128

Catskill and Marshall groups compared.. 181-182 

Chagrin Falls, Ohio, section .............. 176

Chance, H. M., on millstone grit of Pennsylvania and England............ 100

on rocks of Pennsylvania............ 117-119

classification of coal measure conglomerate........................ 117-118

Chautanqua, New York, section ......... 176

Chemung group, J. Hall on Ohio rocks of, 61-62 

correlated with Choteau............. 147-148

Meek and Worthen on ................ 158

"White and Whitfield on Iowa rocks

of................................ 158

Mississippian province .............. 262

Page. 

Chemung and Choteau groups........... 190-191

Chemung and Waverly, line of separation

between ......................... 187

Chemung-Catskill,problem of............ 121-134

J. Hall on............................ 130

objection to term .................... 131

Choteau group proposed, and described

by G. C. Broadhead.............. 170

Choteau and Chemung................147-148,190

Chester group, flora of.................... 154

Christy, D., 011 Goniatite limestone of

Rockford, Indiana................ 145

Cincinnati axis, condition in Devonian

period............................ 136

cause of difference of sedimentation.. 155 

Cist, Z., on coal mines of Wilkes-Barre,

Pennsylvania.................... 26

Clapp, A., correlations by ............... 47

Classification, early names in............ 18

Classification of New York rocks by various authors.................... 57

Claypole, E. W., classification of rocks of

Pennsylvania.................... 131

on Catskill and Chemuug faunas..... 128

Cliff formation, D.D.Owen on............ 141

Coal fields of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and

West Virginia, compared ........ 89-92

Coal formations of United States, H. D.

Rogers ou........................ 85

Coal measures or Pennsylvania series.... 83-107

Coal measures of Ohio, J. S. Newberry on. 87 

Coal measures and conglomerate of West

Virginia, W. M. Fontaine on... .. 87-88

Cobscook Bay, Maine, N. S. Shaler on

Devonian rocks of ............... 256

Colorado, T. B. Comstock on rocks of San

Juan County..................... 223-224

Comstock, T. B., on rocks of San Juan

County, Colorado......... _.... 223-224

Conrad, T.A., classification by ..........39,45,50

correlation by ....................... 39.49

fossils of transition................... 43

on Silurian and Devonian systems ... 50-52 

on fossils in classification ............ 51

Connecticut River, E. Hitchcock on formations of....................... 26

Counellsville, Pennsylvania, section ..... 95-96

Conglomerate measures, subdivisions of. 109 

Conglomerate series proposed by W. M.

Fontaine......................... 93

Conglomerates and lower Carboniferous

of Appalachian province......... 108-120

Conoquenessiug sandstone proposed..... 101

Conybeare, W. D., on Carboniferous system .......... ............ 75-76

on systems of rocks.................. 78

Conybeare and Phillips on val ue of organic 

remains in determining formations ....'.........-............... 28

Cornelius, E., classification of........... 23

Correlation, principles of .. .11-12,133-134,268-269 

methods of........................... 12

use of fossils in ........... ... . 12,21

early attempts at. ... .......... 18
INDEX. 273

Page. 

Correlation, principles of Continued.

New York with western rocks....... 59

J. Hall, rocks of east and west....... 61-63,

67, 72-73 

H. D. Rogers, rocks east and west.... 63

D.D. Owen,rocks east and west...... 64

American and European rocks by do

Verneuil ........................ 67-71

use of fossil plants in................ 103

Venango, ho/w made ................. Ill

Carboniferous rocks of Pennsylvania

and Obio.....................'.... 119

Pennsylvania survey ................ 113-124

use of lithology and paleontology in.. 126 

Mississippi valley, by J. Hall....... 149-150

various factors in.................... 173-174

Mississippian province... .171-172,261-262,265

American and European Permian.... 195

Nova Scotia coal formations, by L.

Lesquerenx ..................... 237-239

objects of............................ 260

paleontologic evidence............... 263-265

from structure....................... 265

A. Eaton on.......................... 266

Cox, E. T., on rocks about Tucson, Ari- t

zona............................. 222

Cragin, F. W., on Permo-Carboniferous

of Kansas....... ... .._.. 212

D.

Dawson, &. M., on rocks of British Columbia ........................... 221

Dawson, J. "W., correlations in Acadia... 208-210 

 on Carboniferous system of Acadia.. 226-227 

on rocks of Nova Scotia..........228-229, 231

classification af rocks of Nova Scotia,. 232-234 

on comparisons of coal measures of

Nova Scotia and United States... 236 

on species of Devonian and Carboniferous ........................... 236-237

on deposition of coal strata.......... 239-240

on rocks near St. John, New Brunswick ............................. 240

on Canadian Carboniferous rocks.... 245-246

on rocks of Prince Edward Island.... 249

on Paleozoic floras................ 253-254,255

on classification Of Devonian and Carboniferous rooks......._....... 266-257

De la Beche, classification of............. 34

Devonian, Sharp's classification of....... 66-67

de Verneuil on....................... 70

confusion of mem hers of............. 76-77

of Pennsylvania, J. J. Stevenson on. 124-125 

faunas of..........................128-130,186

classification of .............. ..... 131-134

Colorado............................. 223

Montana .............^............... 224

British America...................... 224-225

New Brunswick ..................227,252-253

Maine, C. H. Hitchcock on............ 240

New Brunswick, Matthew, Bailey and

Hartton ......................... 240-241

Canada, J.F. Whiteaves on .......... 254

Maine,N. S. Shaleron ............... 256

Bull. 80 18

Page. 

Devonian fauna of New York ... .127,128-130,186

S. Calvin on............ ............. 186

Devonian period,Mississippi province in. 136-137 

Devonian and Carboniferous, line of separation of ......................174-175,178

western and northern provinces...... 213-225

America, Chas.Lyell on.............. 229-230

J. W. Dawson's classification of...... 256-257

Devonian and Carboniferous plants of

Nova Scotia...................... 236-237

Dewey, C., on rocks of New York ........ 42-43

Doornik, J. E.,on fossil remains.......... 31

Drake, D., on classification ............... 23

Dutton, C.E.,on Permian iu Utah........ 220

Dyas and Trias, J. Marcou on ........... 200

Dyas in America, J. Marcou on .......... 202

E.

Eaton. Ainos, classification of. 19-20,24-25,33,4647

system of naming rocks.............. 27

on Erie canal rocks .................. 27

geological nomenclature of North

America ......................... 29-31

on coal formation in New York . . 32-33 

correlation of New York rocks ...... 34-35

on correlation of coal beds of Penn..

sylvania with those of Europe ... 36 

correlations by....................... 260

Ells, K. W., on rocks of Canada....._... 255

Emmons,E.,classification of............. 56

Eugelmann, H., on Subcarboniferous

groups of Mississippi valley...... 103

Erie Canal rocks, A. .Eaton on............ 27

F.

Falls of the Ohio, sections................ 151,176

Faunas, how modified by conditions...... 127-128

Featherstonhangh, G-. "W., classification of 35-36 

on coal deposits....................... 38

Fletcher, Hugh, on rocks of Cape Breton.250,251,

 . 252

on rocks of Nova Scotia.............. 251-252

Fontaine, W. M., on conglomerate of

"WestVirginia ................... 87

on Coal Measures of West Virginia.. 87-88 

proposes Conglomerate series........ 93

on Vespertine of Virginia ........... 112-113

Fontaine and White, on fossil plants of

Pennsylvania .. ... ........ 102-103

Formations, nomenclature of............. 9

Fossils, use of, in correlations............ 12,31

identification of geologic deposits by. 18 

Fossil plants in correlation .............. 103

Foster, J. W., on rocks of Ohio .......... 177

Frazer, P., on coal from Bath, West, Virginia............................. 99

G.

Geinitz, H. B., on fossils from Kansas and

Nebraska ....................._ 202

on fossils from the Dyas._.......... 205

Genevieve group proposed............... 169
274 INDEX.

Page. 

Geographic provinces, limits of .......... 258-259

Geologic systems, plan of discussion of... 8 

Geological opinion prior to 1835.......... 13-21

Georgetown, Pennsylvania, section ...... 125

Gibson.J.V., classification of............ 36

Gilbert, G. K., on rocks of Kooky Mountains............................. 215-216

on Permian of Rocky Mountain region.............................. 222

Gilpin, Edward, on Nova Scotia coal field. 254,255 

Goniatite limestone of Rockford, Indiana 145,189-

190,191

Grammar, John, on coal mines near Richmond, Virginia................... 23

Grand Canon of Arizona, rocks of........ 224

Granger. E., on vegetable impressions

from Ohio................. ...... 25

Grauwacke.............................. 19

Greenbrier River, Virginia, section ...... 112

Greene County, Pennsylvania, section.... 116

H.

Hague, A., on Eureka district, Nevada... 222-223 

Hale, J. M., on Coal Measures of Pennsylvania ............................ 86

Hall, James, classification of New York

rocks ............................ 40,57

on Chetnung of Ohio................. 61,62

on correlation of rocks of east and

west...... ............61-63,67,72-73,155

on Waveily of Ohio ................62-63,177

on Subcarboniferous in Ohio......... 62-63

review of de Verneuil on strata of

America and Europe............. 68-71

on parallelism of Paleozoic rocks of

Europe and America............. 72-74

on Catskill and Chemnng in New York 121-123 

parallelism of rocks of eastern and

western New York............... 122

on Catskill Mountain rocks.......... 122-123

on work of J. J.Stevenson........... 125-126

on Chemung-Catskillfaunas ... ..... 330

on rocks of the Mississippi Valley .. .149-150, 

152-154,155

on classification of Carboniferous 

rocks of Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri ............................. 154

on goniatite limestones of Indiana... 189 

Hamilton, Pennsylvania, section ......... 124

Hartley, Edward, on Picton conl field .... 241-242

Hawn, section of Permian of Kansas..... 197-198

Hayden, F. V., on Permian of Kansas .... 205

on rocks of Rocky Mountain region.. 213-214 

Ha> den and Meek, on Permian of Kansas. 197,198 

Hayes, G. E., on rocks of western New

York............................. 38

Herrick, C. L., on "Waverly problem in

Ohio............................. 187-188

on classification of rocks of Ohio .... 188

Hicks, L, E., on Waverly of Ohio ........ 184-185

on Permian rocks of Nebraska ...... 212

Hildreth, S. P., classification by .......... 38

Hill, F. A., on coal fields of Pennsylvania, 106

Page. 

Hitchcock, C. H., on coal beds of New

England.......................... 234

on Devonian rocks of Maine......... 240

on corals of New Hampshire......... 243

Hitchcock, Edward, classification by..... 26

on geology of Massachusetts......... 35

notice of address by................. 47-49

Houghton, Douglass, on coal formations of

Michigan ....................... 41

succession of rocks in Michigan ..... 175

Hubbard, 0. P., classification of New York

rocks............................. 43-16

Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, section.............................. 113-114

Huntington and Hitchcock, on rocks of

Maine............................ 247

I.

Idaho, Spergen Hill fossils from.......... 167

Illinois, classification of rocks of......... 159-163

Illinois River, C. U. Shepard on rocks of

the Upper........................ 42

Indiana County, Pennsylvania, fossils in. 97 

Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky formations

compared by D.D. Owens........ 139

Iowa, Subcarboniferous rocks of ......... 146

rocks of, compared with those of New

York............................. 153

C. A. White's classification of rocks in 166 

Iowa and Wisconsin, formations in....;.. 139-140

Ithaca shales fauna in New York ........ 127

J.

Jackson, C. 1., on rocks of Massachusetts 38 

on determining the age of rocks...... 44

Jameson, classification of rocks .......... 16-17

Jewett, E., on Old Red sandstone in New

York ............................ 121

K.

Kanawha Valley, West Virginia, J. J.

Stevenson on coal fields of....... 88-89

Kansas, H. B. Geinitz on fossils from..... 202

G. C. Swallow on fossils .from ........ 205

Permian of....................193-212,207-209

section of Permian rocks in.......... 194

F.V. Hayden on Permian of.......... 205

Kansat River section .................... 206

Kentucky, Owen and Norwood on rocks

of................................ 142-143

King, Clarence, on fortieth parallel rocks. 217-220

Kinderhook group, proposed by Meek and

Worthen......................... 161,191

how established...................... 262

King, H., on rocks of Missouri........... 144-145

Lake Huron, classification of rocks by J.

J. Bigsby......................... 28

Lea, I,, on foot-prints in Pennsylvania ... 86 

on rocks of Prince Edward Island ... 234
INDEX. 275

Page. 

Lehmann on classification of strata ...... 46

Lesley, J. P., on rocks of Virginia ........ 86

on Broad Top coal basin, Pennsylvania............ ................... 86

classification of rocks of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York ......... 90-91

scheme of classification by ........... 92

on geological explorations in Pennsylvania ...... ....... i........... 94

scheme of formations of Pennsylvania............................... 97

on Beaver Elrer group .............. 101

on Pittsburg coal region ............. 104-106

on coal field of Glace Bay, New Brunswick ............................ 227

on coal measures of Cape Breton ..... 235-236

Lesquereux, L., classification of formations............................. 103-104

on correlations of Nova Scotia coal

formations....................... 237-238

Lewis Tunnel, Virginia, section.......... 112-113

Lithologic character of rocks, use of, in

correlation................ 111-112,191-192

use of, in classification............... 165-166

Litton, A., on well boring at St. Louis ... 157 

Locke, John, classification of.............. 41

classification of Ohio rocks ........... 140

Lodore group described.................. 217

Logan, W. E., on Canadian formations.... 235

Lonsdale, classification by fossils......... 20-21

Lower Carbonic, J. J. Stevenson's classification of........................ 120

Lower Carboniferous ot Pennsylvania... 108-120 

Lower Carboniferous formations of the

Mississippi Valley................ 135-172

Lyell, Chas., on rocks ot Nova Scotia.. .228,229, 230 

on Devonian and Carboniferous of

America ......................... 229-230

Lyman, B. S., on Carboniferous conglomerate of Pennsylvania............ 86-87

Lyon, S. S., on rocks of Mississippi Valley. 155-156

M. 

Maclure,"W.,classification by ............ 22-23

remarks on work of .................. 24

on "Werner's five classes ............. 28

eulogized by B. Silliman ............. 49

Maillet.de, theory of ............... ... 14

Maine, Devonian rocks of................ 240,247

N. S. Shaler on rocks of............... 256

Mansfield, Massachusetts, C. T. Jackson

on rocks of....................... 3g

Marcou, J.,on Permian..........'......... 200

on Dyas and Trias ................... 200

on Nebraska City section ............ 201, 202

Marsh, 0. C., on vertebras from Nova

Scotia............................ 234

Marshall group, A. Winchell on.. .178-179,181,182 

Massachusetts, E. Hitchcock on geology

of................................ 35

Barton and Crosby on Carboniferous

rocks of.......................... - 253

J. B. Perry on coal field ot............ 255

Matthew, G. F., on rocks of New Pruns-

........................... 238-239

Matthew, Bailey, and Ells on Carboniferous rocks of New Brunswick .... 246-247

Matthew, Bailey, and Hartt on Devonian

of New Brunswick................ 240-241

Matber, W. W., classification of .......... 40,55

McCharles, A., on Devonian of British

America ......................... 224-225

McKean County, Pennsylvania, rocks of.. 114 

Meade, W., on anthracite of Pennsylvania............................. 29

Meadville group, members of ............ 110

Meek, F. B., on rocks of Missouri ........ 147

on Spergen Hill fossils ............... 165-167

on Permian fossils of Kansas ........ 193

fauna and rocks of Permian in Ne-

 braska........................... 206-207

on fossils from British Columbia ..... 214

review of H. B. Geinitz on fossils

from Kansas, etc................. 202-204

Meek, F. B., and Hayden, F. V., on section

of rocks of Kansas Valley.... 194-195,197

on fossils from Permian of Kansas ... 196 

on Black Hills of Dakota............. 199

on Permian of Kansas................ 200-201

Meek, F. B.and \Vortheu, A.H., ou Chemung............................ 158

classification of...................... 161-162

on Goniatite beds of Indiana......... 190-191

McOuat, Walter, on Nova Scotia coal field 248 

Michigan, coal formations in............. 41

D. Houghton's succession of strata in 175 

A. Winchell on rocks o.f.............. 177-178

Miller, Edward, on coal formations of

Alleghany Mountains............ 37

Millstone grit of Pennsylvania and England compared................... ]00

Minnesota, classification of Carboniferous

rocksin ..... ................... 167-168

Mississippi limestone series of Wiuchell 179-180

Mississippi Valley, T. Nuttall on rocks of 25,137

I>. D. Owen on rocks of ....... 137-144 145-140

Owen and Shumard on fossils of..... 144

 rocks correlated by J". Hall.......... 149-150

rocks of, compared with those of New

York............................. 155

H. Engelmaun on Subcarbouiferous of 163

Mississippian province, rocks of......... 77

sedimentation of..................... 135-137

area of............................... 259

correlations in................... 261-262, 265

Mississippian series,' name proposed..... 135

rocks of.............................. 135-172

classification of...................... 169

divisions of...................... 263-264,265

Missouri, H. King on rocks of............ 144-145

generalized section of rocks of........ 147

F. B.Meek on rocks of............... 147

G. C. Swallow on rocks of............ 151

Swallow cud Meek on rocks of....... 157

B. F. Shumard's classification of rocks

in.......... ...................... 168-169

 G. C. Broadhead's classification of

rocks- in.......................... 169-170

Missouri and Iowa coal field............. 144

Montana, Devonian rocks of .............. 224
276 INDEX.

Page. 

Mountain linestone, subdivisions of...... 139

Morris, S. Fisher, on New Eiver, "West

Virginia, coalfield...... ........ 99

Morse, J. 0., on Wernerian system....... 32

Mnrchison, E. I., classification of........ 43-14

ou Permian.......................... 194-200

Murchison and Sedgwick on Carboniferous system....................... 76

Murray, Alex., on Carboniferous rocks of

Newfoundland.................. . 246

Nebraska,Permian of.................... 193-212

Dyas rocks in........................ 204-205

L. E. Hicks on Permian of............ ' 212

Nebraska City section................... 201--202

Nevada, A. Hague on rocks of Eureka

district .......................... 222-223

Nevada limestone........................ 223

Newberry, J. S., on coal measures of Obio 87 

on Permian rocks of Kansas ......... 199

correlations of....................... 217

on rocks of New Mexico ............. 217

New Brunswick, J. P. Lesley on rocks of 227 

G-. F. Matthew on rocks of............ 238-239

J. W. Dawson on rocks of ........... 240

Devonian rocks of ............ 240-241,252-253

C.Kobb on rocks of.................. 242-243

Bailey and Matthew on rocks of..... 243-244

L. W. Bailey on rocks of ............. 244

C. Eobb on Carboniferous rocks of... 244-245 

Matthew, Bailey, and Ells on Carboniferous rocke of.................. 246-247

Bailey and Ells on Carboniferous in. 251

Now England, C. H. Hitchcock on coal

beds of........................... 234

Newfoundland, Alex. Murray on rocks of 246

New Hampshire, C. H. Hitchcock on

corals in ......................... 243

Xew Mexico, Permian rocks in .......... 199-200

Burlington limestone in.............. 224

New Kiver, West Virginia.Carboniferoua

rocks on ......................... 88

conglomerate on....................... 93

coalfield of.......................... 99

New York, coal formation in............. 32-33

D. Thomas on rocks of............... 34

G. E. Hayes on rocks of western...... 38

C.Dewey on rocks of ................ 42-43

E.Emmons' clabsification of rocks of 56 

0. P. Hubbard's classification of rocka 

of.................................. 45-46

"W. "W. Mather's classification of rocka 

of.................................. 55

L. Vanuxem's classification of rocka of 56 

J. Hall's classification of rocks of.... 57

New York State survey, nomenclature of 42 

work of.......... ................... 48-49

New York system 39, 52,53, 54, 55-57, 58-60,260,266 

correlated with rocks of the west.... 59

D. D. Owen's tabulation of........... 64

de Verneuil on.................:..... 68-69

Nilea and Waehsmuth on Burlington

limestone........................ 158-159

Page.

Nomenclature of formations............. 9

system of New York geologiata...... 54-55

imperfections of...................... 60-61

system of H. D. and W. B. Eogers ... 65-66 

uniformity in ........................ 266-269

basis of.............................. 267

Norwood, J. &., on Permian of Kansas... 196, 201

Nova Scotia, rocks of.................... 228-230

J. "W. Dawson 011 rocks of..... 231-234, 236-237

0. C. Marsh on vertebrae from........ 234

L. Lesquerenx on rocka of ........... 237-233

Scott Barlow on coal field of ......... 248

H.Fletcher on rocks of.............. 251-252

coal field, "W.McOnat on............. 248

coal field, Edwin Gilpin on .......... 254-255

Coal Measures ....................... 210

Nuttall, T., on structure of Mississippi

Valley ........................... 25,137

O.

Ohio, E. Granser on vegetable impressions from ........... ........... 25

classification of rocks of.............. 41

C. "Whittlesey on rocks of............ 43

A.Eoy on coal field of............... 94

classification of Coal Measures in.... 101-102

J. Locke on classification of rocks of. 140 

J."W.Foster on rocks of............. 177

Waverly series in. 177,182,383,184-185,187-189 

M. C.Eead on rocks of............... 183

Carboniferous system in ............. 184

L. E.Hicks on Waverly in .......... 184-185

Edward Orton on Waverly in........ 185-186

C. L. Herrick's succession of strata in. 188

E. Orton'a classification of rocka in.. 188-189

J. S. Newberry on Coal Measures of. 87

Ohio Eiver, section on ................... 138

Oil lake group, members of .............. 110

Oil and gas, Edward Orton on ........... 186

Orton, Edward, on Coal Measures of Ohio. 102 

ou the Waverly of Ohio .............. 185-186

onoilandgas........................ 186

classification of rocks of Ohio ... .. 188-189 

Owen, D. D., classification of ..........41,138-141

on Subcarboniferona............ . 63

correlation of rocks of east and west.. 64 

table of New York System........... 64

on rocka of Mississippi Valley. 137-144,145-146 

on cliff formation.................... 141

section of Subcarboniferous rocks of

Iowa.........---.-.-....-.-...... 146

on Saint Louis limestone ............ 150

Owen and Norwood on rocks of Kentucky.......... ............... 142-143

Owen and Shumard on fossils of Devonian 

and Carboniferous of Miasissippi 

Valley........................... 144

P.

Paleozoic suggested by Sedgwick........ 20

Paleozoic floras, J. W. Dawson's classification of......................... 253-254

Paleozoic for.-nations, classification by J.

Phillips.......................... 20
INDEX. 277

Page. 

Paleozoic formations, etc. Continued.

H.D.Eogera on...................... 65-66

of America, de Vernenil on........... 71

classifications by P. Platt ............ 94-95

of the Mississippi Valley............ 152-154o

of Rocky Mountain .Region .......... 213-225

of Wasatch and Nevada............. 220

Palezoic rocks of Nevada................ 222-223

of Acadian Province ......_........ 226-257

Pancake Mountain, section .............. 216

Parallelism of strata, doctrine of......... 261,263

Peale, A. C., on Devonian of Montana.... 224

Pennine Carboniferous System defined .. 81 

use of term in America.............. 81-82

Pennine Chain, rocks in.................. 78-79

section in ............................ 79-80

Pennine System proposed................ 81

Pennsylvania, "W. Meade on anthracite

from ............................ 29

H. D.Rogers on rocks of............. 42

H. D. Rogers's classification of rocks

of................................ 83-85

Coal Measures of .................... 83-107

I.Lea on footprints in ............... 86

Carboniferons conglomerate of....... 86-87

geological explorations in............ 94

J. P. Lesley's scheme of formations of. 97 

fossil plants of, by Fontaine and

White'........................... 102-103

F. A. Hill on coal fields of ............ 106

I.C. White on rocks of............... 108-112

J. J. Stevenson on Devonian of....... 124-125

E.W.Claypole's classification of

rocks in.......................... 131

Carboniferous rocks of............... 260-261

Pennsylvania Coal Measures, J. M. Hale

on................................ 86

Pennsylvania snrvey, correlations by.... 123-124

Permian, early views as to relations t o

Carboniferous.................... 79

Kansas and Nebraska................ 193-212

table of, in Kansas................... 198

Kansas ....................... .... 207-209

C. A. White on fauna of.............. 210

Nebraska, L. E. Hicks on............ 212

Utah................................. 220,221

Texas................................ 221

Rocky Mountain region.............. 221-222

Kanab Valley, Arizona .............. 221

Permo-Carboniferous of Kansas.......... 212

Perry, J. B., on coal fields of Massachusetts ......................... 255

Phillips, John, classification of Paleozoic

strata. ....................... 20

Pictou coal field, E. Hartley on........... 241-242

Pierce, J., on coal in Virginia ............ 29

Pittsburg coal region, J. P. Lesley on ... 104-106 

Plateau provinces, J. W. Powell on rocks

of................................ 216-217

Platt, r., classification of Paleozoic formations............................. 94-95

on probable sequence of formations 

of well in Greene Connty, Pennsylvania ......................... 69

Page. 

Platt F., classification of, etc. Cont'd.

new names proposed by....... ...... 66

on fossils in Indiana County, Pennsylvania ............................ 97

Poole and Dawson on Albion Coal Measures.................. ............ 232

Portage=Waverly of Ohio.... 1.......... 62-63

Pottsville conglomerate, subdivisions of. 100 

Powell, J. W., sediments of Plateau provinces............................. 216-217

on Permian in Rocky Mountain

region ............................ 222

Primitive rocks of Jameson ............. 16

Prince Edward Island, I. Lea on rocks of. 234 

J. W.Dawson on rocksof............ 249

Quebec limestones from Idaho .

Quinneiuont beds proposed ....

214

R.

Re,ad, M. C., on rocksof Ohio............. 183

Recurrence of faunas, doctrine of ........ 127-128

Red sandstones, position of, in America

and Europe ...................... 27

Red Wall group described ............... 217

Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, etc., B. Silliman on coals of .................. 29

Richardson, J., on rocks of Ballinac Island.............................. 215

Richmond, Virginia, J. Grammar on coal

m ines o f .......................... 23

R. C. Taylor on coal field of .......... 3Z

Robb, Charles, on rocks of New Brunswick ...................... 242-243, 244-245

on Sydney coal field .................. 247, 248

on rocks of Cape Bretou. ........... 249-250

Rocky Mountain region, during Carboniferous time ....................... 153

Carboniferous and Devonian rocks of 213-225 

Rocky Mountain Paleozoic rocks, C. King

on ............................... 217-220

Rocky Mountains, C. A. White on rocks

of................................ 221-222

Rogers, H. D., system of classification. . . . 42

on rocks of Pennsylvania........... 42

correlation of rocks east and west. ... 63

on Paleozoic formations .............. 65-66

scheme of classification of rocks of

Pennsylvania .................... 83-85

on coal formations of United States.. 85 

Rogers, W. B., on passage from Devonian

to Carboniferous fauna. .......... 157-158

on correlation of rocks of Mississippi

Valley ........................... 158

Rogers Brothers, on use of fossils . ....... 49

nomenclature of ..................... 65-66

Routledge, W., on'Sydney coal field...... 255

Roy, Andrew, on Ohio coal field. ......... 94

Saftord, J. M., classification of rocks of

Tennessee....................... 164-166
278 INDEX.

Page.

Saint Genevieve County, Missouri, section 168-169 

Saint Louis limestone.................... 150

Saint Louis, Missouri, well boring at..... 157

Secondary or Floetz limestone of Jameson 16-17

 Sedimentation of eastern and -western

States............................ 171-172

'Sedimentation, variations in.............. 174

 Sedimentation of Permian rocks in Acadia 210 

Sedimentation of Devonian and Carboniferous ................ ............ 259

Selin's Grove, Pennsylvania, section ..... 125

Shaler, N. S., on Devonian of Maine...... 256

Sbaron conglomerate described.......... 109

Sharp, D., classification of the Devonian. 6G-67 

Shenango, members of ................... 109

Shepard, C. U., on rocks of the Upper

Illinois Kiver.................... 42

Sherwood and Platt, correlations by ..... 99-100

S])umard, B. I\, classification of rocks of

Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri. 168-169 

correlation in Kansas..... ........ 198-199

on Per mian of New Mexico.......... 199-200

Silliman, B., on the coals of Ehodelsland, . 

etc............................... 29

on use of fossils in correlation ....... 35

on work of W. Maclure.............. 49

notice of address by ................. 49-50

Silurian, adoption of name............... 44-45

Smith, "W., on fossils in identifying

strata............................. 18

South Joggins, Nova Scotia section.. 227, 232, 240 

Spergen Hill, Indiana, fossils of.......... 166-167

Spergen Hill fossils from Idaho. ..... 167

Springer, F.,on Burlington limestone in

New Mexico..................... 224

State surveys, where and by whom conducted ........................... 48

Stevenson, J. J., on coal fields of Ohio,

Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. 89-90 

on coal fields of Kanawha Valley, West

Virginia......................... 88-89

on formations of Pennsylvania ...... 98-99

correlations by ...................... 99

classification of Upper Carbonic..... .106-107

on Uml>ral and Vespertine strata.... 119-120

classification of Lower Carbonic .... 120

on Devonian rocks of Pennsylvania. 124-125 

Stilsou, W. B., correlation by ............ 24

Subcarboniferous, J. Hall on, in Ohio ... 62-63 

D.D.Owen on ....................... 63,138

use of term.......................... 142

subdivisions of....................... 148

Subcarboniferons, A. H. Worthen on Illinois rocks of................. 148-149,160

Subconglomerate, divisions of............ 109

Swallow, G. C., on rocks' of Missouri ..... 151

on Permian fossils from Kansas .193,195,199,

205, 206

Swallow and Meek on rocks of Missouri. 157 

Swallow and Hawn, Permian section of

Kansas ...................... 194,195,197

tSyduey coal field, C. Eobb on............. 247,248

"W.Eoutledge on..................... 255

System in classification- defined .......... 80

T.

Page.

Taylor, Eichard, on coal deposits and fossils of Pennsylvania ............. 36

Tennessee, G. Troost on rocks of......... 37, 41

J. M.Safford's classification for ...... 164-1C6

Tenney, Sanborn, on corals Iroin Wasatch

Mountains....................... 214

Tertiary of Werner...................... 15

Tertiary deposits of New York, T. A.

Conrad on........................ 39

Texas, Permian in....................... 221

Thomas,D., on rocks of New York ...... 34

Transition rocks of Jameson.... ..%..... 16

Troost, G., on rocks of Tennessee........ 37,41

on organic remains in the Mississippi

Valley ........................... 37-38

Tucson, Ariz.,E. T.Coxon rocksof...... 222

U.

Umbral and Vespertine strata, J. J. Stevenson on........................ 119-120

Upper Carbonic, J. J. Stevenson's classification of........................ 106-107

Upper Carboniferous sections in Eocky

Mountains....................... 215-216

Utah, Permian in........................ 220-221

V.

Vanuxem,L., on value of fossils in correlation ............................ 31-3?

nomenclature of..................... 40

on classification of rocks of New

York............................. 56

Vnnnxem and Mather, classification of... 53 

Venango correlated with Chemung....... 110

J. P. Lesley on ...................... Ill

Verneuil, Edward de, classification by.... 44

correlation of rocks of America and

Europe ............... ........ 67-71

on New York system ................ 68-69

on Devonian of America............. 70

on Paleozoic formations of America.. 71 

on rocks of Mississippi Valley....... 143

Vespertine strata of Virginia, W. M. Fontaine on.......................... 112-113

Virginia, James Pierce on coal in ........ 29

J. P. Lesley on rocks of.............. 86

W. M. Fontaine on Vespertine strata

of................................ 112-113

Volcanic class of Werner................ 15

W.

Walcott, C. D., on Permian in Utah...... 220-221

on Kanab Valley, Arizona............ 221

on rocks of Eureka District, Nevada, 222

on Devonian fossils from Montana ... 224

on rocks of Grand Canon, Arizona ... 224

Wasatch limestone ...................... 218-219

Wasatch Mountains, corals from......... 214-215

section in ............................ 218-220

Waverly in Ohio. 62-63,177,182,183,184-185,187-189 

Waverly problem........................ 173-192

Waverly series, de Verneuil on .......... 70
INDEX. 279

Page. 

Way, J. M., on fish remains from New

York ............................. 121

Waynesburg, Pennsylvania, probable sequence of rooks in well of........ 96

-"Weber qnartzite.......................... 210

"Werner, A. G., system of.................. 14

classification of............ .15-16,19,28,77,260

Wernerian school of geology............. 13

Wernerian system of classification ..... 15,16,19.

28,77,260 

"Wernerian system, remarks on........... 32, 38

"West Virginia, "W M. Fontaine on coal

measures of ..................... 87,88

White, C. A., on rocks at Burlington,

Iowa............................. 157

classification of rocks of Iowa....... 166

on fauna of so-called Permian ....... 210

on rocks of Ro'cky Mountain region.. 231,222 

White, I. C., oa coal fields of West Virginia and Pennsylvania........... 90

on Beaver County, Pennsylvania, coal

measures ..... .................. 93

on formations of Pennsylvania....... 101

on Lower Carboniferous of Pennsylvania............................. 108-112

correlations of........................ 110

White and Whitfiehl on Chemung of Iowa 158 

White and Whitfleld on changes between

rocks of East and West.......... 191-132

Page. 

Whiteaves, J. F., on Devonian rocks df

Canada........................... 254

Whitfleld, R. P., on fossils from Wasatch

Mountains, Utah ................. 214-215

White Pine shale .... ................... 223

Whittlesey, C., classification of Ohio

rocks............................. 43

table of succession of strata......... 176

Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, on coal

mines near ....................... 26

Williams, H. S., on Hamilton fauna in

New York ....................... 127

Winchell, A., on Catskill in New York... 121-122 

correlations of........................ 122

on Mississippi series or group........ 136

on rocks of Michigan ................ 177-178

table of equivalents of strata ........ 182

Winchell, N. H., classification of Carboniferous rocks in Minnesota....... 167-168

Woodward, H. B., on rocks of Pennine

chain ............................ 79

Worthen, A. H., on Subcarboniferous of

Illinois........................... 148,149

on flora of Chester group............. 154

on rocks of Illinois .................. 160-163

correlations of........................ 161

Y 

Young, C. A., on conglomerate of New

River, West Virginia................. 93