6 BULLETIN OF THE LABORATORIES 



and northwestward than at present, but all the strata have suffered de- 

 nudation to an enormous extent, and we would not know of any- 

 northwestern connection, but for the Mackenzie river deposits. It is 

 possible that portions of the Hamilton formation were derived from 

 uplifted beds of the Hudson group and other formations east of the 

 Hudson valley, and the Adirondacks may have contributed its share. 

 It is obvious that the sediments could not have been derived from 

 either the west or the southwest, and since according to Dana's deter- 

 mination the Champlain outlet was closed it is apparent from the rela- 

 tive thickness in the Catskill region, Pennsylvania and Nova Scotia, 

 that the parent rocks may have been what is at present the bed of the 

 western north Atlantic ocean, but it is entirely hypothetical. The 

 lithological aspect of the formation is very suggestive as to its origin, 

 especially when taken in connection with the organic remains. In 

 eastern New York the strata are silicious with interspersed beds of 

 shale, and containing land plants very similar to those described by 

 Dawson from St. John. Lepidodendra as drift material, together 

 with Psaronius actually growing and covered by the deposits. Farther 

 westward the strata become thinner and more argillaceous, indicating 

 quiet marine conditions, and greater distance from the source of the 

 sediment. Certainly, however, there was an open connection with 

 the eastern Canadian basin, by means of which an active inorganic 

 and to a lesser extent faunal relation was sustained. It is also appar- 

 ent that the strata in the Gaspe region were much nearer the original 

 source of the sediment. I have rarely noticed very thin conglomerate 

 beds in the Schoharie valley suggesting shore-line deposits — the pre- 

 cursors of greater strata which were deposited in the Chemung and 

 Carboniferous strata. 



Scarcely any subject in Palaeozoic stratigraphy with the exception 

 of the Taconic question has caused more discussion than the relation 

 of the Chemung, Catskill, and Waverly formations. Alexander Win- 

 chell would have had us believe that the Waverly and Catskill were 

 in the same basin of deposition and coexistent. Another author con- 

 tends, and very probably, that the Chemung and Catskill are equiva- 

 lent formations with only a lithological difference due to different phy- 

 sical environments, while the Chenung and Portage are related but 

 distinct formations. Prof. J- M. Clarke from palaeontological evi- 

 dence links the Portage with the underlying beds. Prof. J. J. Steven- 

 sen on the other hand uses Chemung for a generic term with the divis- 



