KENTUCKY GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. 17 



become customary to avoid the duplication of formation names. 

 As a rule the formation to which the name was first applied 

 retains it. Those which were later called by the same name 

 are given new names. The practice has its disadvantages. 

 Sometimes it compels giving a formation a name other that of 

 its typical locality. As the names Madison and Warren had 

 been used elsewhere prior to their use for Cincinnatian forma- 

 tions, Foerste has substituted for the former Saluda 4 and for 

 the latter Arnheim. 5 



VERSAILLES. Foerste has pointed out that it is not possible 

 to distinguish the Whitewater and Liberty formations in south- 

 ern Indiana and in Kentucky. With this the writer's observa- 

 tion agrees. The two are easily distinguishable at Richmond, 

 Indiana, and for some distance away; but it may be that the 

 Whitewater is a somewhat local development and loses its dis- 

 tinctive features within 40 miles away from Richmond. For 

 the middle division of the Richmond Foerste proposes the name 

 Versailles. 



MAYSVILLE. In the Ohio Geological reports the upper beds 

 show r n at Cincinnati were designated the Hill Quarry beds. 

 Later these beds, with additions above and below, were identi- 

 fied as the equivalent of the Lorraine of New York. While they 

 are probably synchronous, it seems better to restrict the term 

 Lorraine to the New York formation. Foerste has 1 proposed 

 the name Maysyille for these formations. It is a good name as 

 the vicinity of Maysville presents the finest section, perhaps 

 the only complete one. 



EDEN. The- name Eden was given by Orton to the beds at 

 Cincinnati, finely exposed at that time along the west slope of 

 Eden Park, extending from the River Quarry beds to the Hill 

 Quarry beds. Later these beds w r ere considered equivalent to- 

 the Utica shale;? of New York, overlying the Trenton limestone. 



4 American Geologist, 30, p. 369, 1902. 



5 Science (n. s.) 22, p. 150, 1905. 



G Report of Ohio Geological Survey, 1, p. 370, 1873. 



