60 Trans. Acad. Sci. of St. Louis. 



In March, 1899, the writer spent some time in the field 

 studying the Kinderhook section at Burlington, in order to 

 differentiate the fossil faunas of that age there represented, 

 and the following section, which seems best adapted to bring 

 out the faunal succession, has been adopted as the result of 

 observations made at that time. It differs from Hall's and 

 from Keyes' sections only in dividing their No. 3, recognizing 

 as a distinct bed the thin band of impure or oolitic limestone. 

 It differs from White's section only in joining his Nos. 2 and 

 3, and in dividing his No. 1, the upper sandy, fossiliferous 

 portion being recognized as a distinct bed. 



Feet. 



7. Soft, buff, gritty limestone 3-5 



6. White oolitic limestone 2-4 



5. Fine grained, yellow sandstone 6-7 



4. Fine grained, compact, f ragmen tal gray limestone 12-18 

 3. Thin band of hard, impure limestone filled with 

 Chonetes, sometimes associated with a thin 



oolitic band \-\ 



2. Soft, friable, argillaceous sandstone, sometimes 

 harder and bluish in color, filled with fossils in 

 the upper portion, the most abundant of which 



is Chonopectus fischeri (N. & P.) 25 



1. Soft blue argillaceous shale (exposed) 60 



The correllation of the Kinderhook beds at Burlington, as 

 recognized by Owen, Hall, White, Keyes, and the writer, is not 

 a difficult matter, the preceding sections being but different 

 interpretations or different arrangements of the same series 

 of strata. In the following table these ^ye sections are 

 arranged side by side, in such a manner as to correlate the 

 divisions recognized in each, the divisions of the several 

 authors being indicated by numbers only. 



