And the “ Great Carolina Marl Bed.” 
43 
COMPARISON OF MARLS, HAVING PHOS. 
PHATE-ROCKS OVERLYING THEM AND 
MARES tA ARE WITHOUT SUCH GOV- 
ERING. 
These analyses are by Professor Shepard, Senr. 
Nos. 1 and 2 are overlaid by Phosphate-rock. 
Nos. 3 and 4 are not so overlaid. 
CARBONATE PHOSPHATE | CARBONATE 
OF OF OF 
LIME. LIME. MAGNESIA. 
Per cent. ; Per cent. | Per cent. 
1 Ashley Marl, (Clement’s)............ 58.00 8.80 trace. 
ois bag SoD (Hanckiells))ie..ce anos 44.40 7.00 9.58 
Notaleaemsesecierostaeeecs 92.40 15.80 9.58 
a Pony one Marlee ccecesarscsaselisss- sce 58.56 2.47 Digytb) 
Am xongamlVidtlecsssenestercoesceetacce sens 63.50 2.00 7.00 
112.06 4.47 9.12 
Marls Nos. 1 and 2 (covered) average} 46.20 7-90 4.79 
“Nos. 3. and 4 (uncovered) 56 03 25213 4.56 
It follows therefore, as indicated by the above table, 
that Marls associated or covered by Phosphate-rocks as 
Nos. 1 and 2, are comparatively rich in Phosphate of 
Lime, (say 7.90 per cent.) but poor in carbonate of 
Lime, (46.20.) Whereas those not so associated or 
covered, as Nos. 3 and 4, are poor in Phosphate of 
Lime (2.23,) but rich in Carbonate of Lime (56.03.) 
The Carbonate of Magnesia being nearly the same in 
both. 
