that occur immediately above the Foremost horizons at 
Medicine Hat range from 72 to 73 million years. None 
of this amber has as yet been available for analysis. 
Amber collected by ‘Tyrrell was studied by Harring- 
ton (1891) and named chemawinite. Klebs (1896), 
apparently unaware that Harrington had described it, 
analyzed the same type of amber from Cedar Lake and 
called it cedarite. Schmid (1980), in his review of fossil 
resins, classifies them as (a) ‘‘ Bernstein which yields suc- 
cinic acid on distillation, the principal type being succin- 
ite, (b) those resembling Bernstein, including cedarite, 
and (c) those quite different from (fern stehende) Bern- 
stein, including chemawinite.’” Walker has already 
pointed out, ‘‘the two Canadian minerals, cedarite and 
chemawinite, are identical, as appears probable both from 
the chemical and physical data recorded by Harrington 
and Klebs, and from the localities from which the ma- 
terial was obtained.’” Harrington (1891) made the most 
complete chemical analysis of this amber. ‘The hardness 
was 2.5; the specific gravity 1.055 at 20° C. The mean 
percentages of constituents from elemental analyses 
were: C, 79.96% ; H, 10.46% ; O, 9.49% and ash 0.9%. 
The ash contained silica, alumina, iron, calecilum and 
magnesium. 20.01% of the amber dissolved in absolute 
alcohol and 24.84% in absolute ether. Small fragments 
heated in a closed tube began to soften at about 150° C. 
Heated to 800° C, the resin did not melt into a flowing 
liquid but had become soft and elastic and darkened 
from partial decomposition. Harrington concluded that 
this Canadian amber was more resistant to heat than 
Baltic amber. Succinic acid, so characteristic of Baltic 
amber (Succinite), is absent. These facts, in addition to 
the presence of more carbon and less oxygen than Baltic 
Succinite, led him to conclude that the Canadian amber 
‘is closer to Walchowite and to some of the more recent 
copals from India. ”’ 
[ 88 ] 
