28 CROSS 



significance as some geologists and paleontologists have been inclined 

 to assume. The new observations are of special interest as affecting 

 beds of the Laramie Plains, from which a considerable portion of the 

 supposed "true Laramie" flora has been obtained. The point 

 emphasized by Mr. Veatch in the cited articles is one of nomencla- 

 ture — as to the importance of the newly discovered stratigraphic 

 relations of the Carbon section in determining what shall be the 

 future use of the term Laramie. He attaches first importance to 

 those relations, while I wish to express my conviction that they are, 

 under the circumstances of this case, of subordinate importance. 

 Mr. Veatch believes it necessary to tie the definition of a geologic 

 formation to a type section and argues that the geographic name 

 applied to the formation should refer to that type section. While it 

 is no doubt desirable to follow these rules wherever practicable, it 

 is unfortunately a fact, of common experience to geologists, particu- 

 larly to those working in the western United States, that in many 

 cases the name most closely connected with the locality of a key 

 section is preoccupied as a formation name or is unsuited to such 

 use; and in some instances there is no name attached to the type 

 locality. The real essentials for an adequate definition of a forma- 

 tion appear to me to be: clearly expressed stratigraphic relations, a 

 statement of lithologic character and paleontologic data, and refer- 

 ence to type sections, the more the better. It is fortunate if the name 

 can refer to a completely typical locality. If, however, the definition 

 of a formation is clear as to stratigraphic relations and the unit with 

 those relations is a natural one, the name becomes in time more 

 intimately connected with the definition than with the strata of any 

 locality, for the first known sections are not always the best. A 

 term thus becomes denotive rather than connotive. The require- 

 ment that the name should be derived from "the type locality" 

 becomes unreasonable and impracticable when the unit named is a 



Geol. Survey, Bull. 316, Contributions to Economic Geology, 1906, Part II, 

 Coal, Lignite and Peat (M. R. Campbell in charge), pp. 246, 250. 



Schultz, A. R.: Coal fields in a portion of central Uinta County (Wyo.), 

 Ibid., p. 214. 



Gale, H. S. : Coal Fields of the Danforth Hills and Grand Hogback, in 

 Northwestern Colorado, Ibid., p. 267. 



Veatch, A. C. : GeographyandGeology of a Portion of Southwestern Wyom- 

 ing, etc., U. S. Geol. Survey, Prof. Paper No. 56, 1907. 



