112 JULES MARCOU ON THE TACONIC OF GEORGIA 



also do we not find that great number, at least two hundred species of fossils (Levis, Phil- 

 ]ipsburgh,Fort Cassin,Wappinger valley) — having forms considerably similar to the forms 

 of the second fauna — which do not exist in any of the Champlain typical localities of ]^ew 

 York and Canada? Why have we, in some of those strange fossiliferous localities of 

 the "Black slates" of Dr. Emmons, mixed with forms of the second fauna, fossils of the 

 primordial fauna, such as Oleiidhcs, DUceUocephalus, Conoceplialites, Camerella, etc.; or 

 fossils which have not yet been recognized with certainty in any typical localities as be- 

 longing to the second fauna, as for instance the genus Bathyurusf Why do we have 

 recourse to explanations entirely erroneous to explain the mixture of the primordial with 

 forms of the second fauna at Pointe Levis? For the two faunas fouiid there do not occur, 

 one in the matrix and the other in bowlders, as it is stated by the director of the Geo- 

 logical Survey of Canada, Mr. Selwyn, but in the same lenticular mass of dolomitic lime- 

 stone; the conglomerate which exists there, just behind the village of Pointe Levis — 

 Colline de la Croix — being absolutely bare of fossils. Why, finally, at Charlebourg (Plate 

 13, fig. 8) behind the church, on the Tresplat, is the classical Trenton, with Black Kiver 

 limestone, found horizontally covering the "black slates" strongly dipping east-east- 

 south, at an angle of 45", showing a discoi'dance of stratification absolutely inexplicable 

 by overlapping fault, or any other mechanical process? 



No! the truth is that, after the inexcusable mistake made by the state paleontologist of 

 New York of placing the ^^rimordial fauna at the top and above the second fauna, and 

 the complete ignorance of the existence of almost twenty-eight thousand feet of strata, 

 we are now contending against another mistake, not so great to be sure, but no less an 

 error. 



Section from Lal'e Champlain to ParA'er''s house. — Returning now to the section of 

 Georgia, Plate 13, fig. 2, I continue to regard the black slates on the lake shore as be- 

 longing to the Phillipsburgh and Swanton groups. Then occur in discordance of strati- 

 fication over the slates, dolomitic limestones, which are numbered 1, 2 and 3 in Mr. 

 Walcott's section. lie gives them a thickness of 700 feet. Their dips are not given; 

 but, taken on his section, they are 21° east. He found only a single fossil, a rare Hijo- 

 lithelhis{?). 



I did not find any fossil there, nor did I measure the thickness of the limestone. The 

 dip I found only from 6° to 8° east; and I have marked on my section three shallow val- 

 lej^s separating those masses or groups of sandrocks in which I thought I saw some 

 slates, but I am not sure of them, except the first one near the lake, where there is a 

 brook of running water. In the two others, however, there is stagnant water, indicating 

 the existence of marly slates beneath. 



Nnmbei's 1 and 5 of Walcott's section are reddish-pink dolomitic limestone and gray 

 arenaceous limestone containing fossils: Olenellus Thoinj)Soni, Conocephalitcs Adatnsi, 

 Kutorgina, Oholella; thickness, 290 feet; dip 12" east. This part of Mr. Walcott's work 

 corrects my section published in 1880. I accept it entirely, and I repeat Avith pleasure 

 it is a beautiful and difficult discovery and rectification. 



Mr. Walcott considers all those dolomitic limestones from No. 1 to No. 5 inclusive, as 

 a great lenticular mass of one thousand feet in thickness, l^elonging to the lower part 

 of the Georgia formation. In my section I place also his numbers 1 and 5 — or the last 

 eastern knob of limestone — in the Georgia slates; and in my geological map of 1880, the 



