342 



SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 57 



SUMMARY OF MOUNT BOSWORTH SECTION 



STRATIGRAPHIC SECTION 



Formations 



Character 



P 



Sherbrooke 



TGray, partly cherty limestones . ... 

 i Oolitic limestones and shaly band, 

 t Arenaceous dolomitic limestone. .. 



Feet 



590 

 610 



p ^ ^ Massive-bedded liluish-gray limestone 



^^^ i Oolitic limestone with bands of shale 



Bosworth 



fGray, arenaceous, dolomitic limestone 

 I Shaly and thin-bedded dolomitic lime- 



j stone with two bands of shale 



LShales 



60 



300± 



600 -|- 1 



987 I 

 268 I 



<\ 



rSiliceous and arenaceous limestone . . 788 



Eldon 1' Bluish-gray limestone ' 95 



L Arenaceous limestone 1,845 



r Thin-bedded, dark and bluish-gray 



Stephen -j limestone 315 



L Alternating limestones and shale ' 325 



r 



f Thin-bedded limestones 



Alount 



Whyte \ Sandstone 



St. Piran 



224 



31 



I Siliceous shale ■ 115 



LGray limestone | 20 



f Sandy shales and quartzitic sandstones 

 I as exposed at Lake Agnes 



Lake Louise ^ Compact siliceous shale as exposed at 

 ■ ) Lake Louise 



f Quartzitic sandstones as exposed at 

 I Lake Louise 



Fairview 

 Total thickness of sections examined 



Feet 



1.375 



3604- 



1,855 + 



2,738 



640 



^5 I Cathedral.... ] Arenaceous dolomitic limestone ' i,595 ' i,595 



12,353+ 



COMPARISON OF ROBSON SECTION WITH 

 BOSWORTH SECTION 



The Mount Bosworth section ' has been much more carefully 

 studied than the Robson section, but with the data available the two 

 sections show a general similarity and yet there is such variation as 

 to prevent the correlation of the various formations of the two 

 sections ; therefore, the same formational names cannot now be used. 



In the following table the formations are arranged so as to present 

 a rough correlation between the two sections. The data for further 

 comparison are to be found in the summaries of the two sections 



^ Smithsonian Misc. Coll., Vol. 53, No. 5, 1908, pp. 204-217. 



