PART I CHAZYAN AND RELATED BRACHIOPODS—COOPER 67 
beds, but thin tongues of limestone contain the characteristic fossils of the forma- 
tion. These red beds are well displayed near Heiskell and at Rose Hill near 
Maynardville. They also appear in the belt running through Clinton, Tenn. 
The Hogskin member seems to be a time equivalent of the Lincolnshire which 
it displaces to the south and west. The faunal content generically is like that of 
the Lincolnshire, but some of the species are different. 
In belts south of Knoxville some parts of the Sevier, as at Miser and south 
of Athens, contain fossils similar to those of the Hogskin. The species, how- 
ever, appear to be different, and that part of the Sevier is related to the Benbolt 
rather than the Hogskin because the Sevier beds referred to overlie the Arline 
Christiania beds. The latter are related to the Ward Cove which in turn over- 
lies the Hogskin. It is evident, therefore, that these Sevier beds have nothing to 
do with the Hogskin but merely simulate its facies and repeat its generic types. 
Brachiopods are numerous in the Hogskin formation, as follows: 
Atelelasma obscurum Cooper Murinella biconvexa Cooper 
A, platys Cooper M. semireducta Cooper 
Camerella bicostata Cooper M. speciosa Cooper 
C. quadriplicata (Willard) Oligorhynchia angulata Cooper 
Cyrtonotella bella (Schuchert and Cooper) O. subplana Cooper 
Dactylogomia concentrica Cooper O. subplana gibbosa Cooper 
D. magna Cooper Oxoplecia recta Cooper 
D. parva Cooper Paurorthis magna Cooper 
Dinorthis willardi Cooper Petrocrania cicatricula Willard 
Dorytreta reversa Cooper Plectocamara costata Cooper 
Glyptorthis sp. 2 Protozyga microscopia Cooper 
Macrocoelia duplistriata (Willard) Rhipidomena mesleri Cooper 
Mimella costellata Cooper R. tenuitesta (Willard) 
M. similis Cooper Schizotreta sp. 1 
M. tumida Cooper Sowerbyites triseptatus (Willard) 
Multicostella semisulcata Cooper 
Holston limestone.—This is another of the Appalachian names that has lost 
its usefulness by application to a lithology that occurs in many formations of 
different ages. The name was originally proposed not as a formation name but 
as applied to marble beds in the Chickamauga limestone. The name was later 
used as a stratigraphic term for marbles in Tennessee and Virginia that were 
thought to occupy a particular horizon, i.e., just above the “Lenoir.” Recent 
work in Tennessee is reviving the term to be applied to the marbles in each of 
the belts in the vicinity of Knoxville. It has not yet been satisfactorily demon- 
strated that the marbles of these belts are actually the same. Furthermore, Prouty 
(1946, p. 1156) proposed the name Farragut for the marble in the Concord belt 
and recommended that the use of Holston be discontinued. 
It should be evident from the nature and origin of calcarenite beds that they 
are likely to have only a local development and meaning. They are the product 
usually of the concentration of animal debris and therefore may occur at any 
level and have much the same lithology at each level. They may represent the 
debris accumulated by the continued occupation of a site by a crinoid-cystid 
plantation, It is probable that close study of all the marbles will reveal criteria 
