(IIIICO-TfiJON SERIES. 217 



to the hypothesis of fossils washed out of earlier beds and redeposited in 

 younger strata to account for the commingling of Cretaceous and Tertiary 

 types in the Chico-Tejon series. In correcting their opinions Dr. White 

 and I have simply taken advantage of tlie advances which geological sci- 

 ence has made since their day. 



Dr. White sums up the evidence as follows:^ 



Tlie MaestricUt, Faxoe, and other beds of Europe, altbougb tbey are intermediate 

 between the Upper Cbalk and tbe Eocene, are too closely related l)y specific and ge- 

 neric forms to the Cbalk to be regarded as separate from (be Cretaceous proper. Tbeir 

 faunal relations to tbe Eocene are also too remote to allow of tbeir being regarded as 

 in any proper sense transitional between tbe Cretaceous and Tertiary. lu New Zea- 

 Innd, bowever, it appears probable from tbe reports of tbe government geological sur- 

 veys tbat there is in those great islands a true transition from the Cretaceous to the 

 Tertiary siaiilar to that which occurs in California. 



1 think tbe evidence which has been adduced to show tbe Eocene age of the npper 

 or T^jon portion of tbe Chico-Tejon series is as conclusive as any evidence of that 

 kind can be. Xow, if we apply tbe paleontological standard for indicating the age of 

 formations which is generally accepted by geologists, we necessarily refer tbe fossils 

 of the lower or Cbico portion of that series to the Cretaceous. The question then 

 arises, to what portion of tbe full Cretaceous series, as it is recognized in other parts 

 of the world, is tbe Cbico group really equivalent? If the Tejon group is Eocene, it 

 is plain that tbe Ciiico group represents tbe upper portion of tbe Cretaceous, and it 

 necessarily represents the very latest portion of that period. My opinion, therefore, 

 is tbat it is, at least in part, later than any formation tbat has yet been referred to tbe 

 Cretaceous period either in Europe or iu America, and that it practically fills tbe gap 

 which is indicated by * * * Sir Charles Lyell.' 



An e.xaminatiou of the figures and descriptions of tbe fossils which Mr. Gabbhas 

 referred to the Cbico group, together with bis catalogue of California Cretaceous fos- 

 sils,' shows tbat while a considerable portion of them, especially tbe Cephalopoda, are 

 of types which indicate tbeir Cretaceous age. a large partof them are of genera which 

 are known to range from the early Cretaceous to the present time, and some of them 

 belong to genera which are generally accepted as not older than the Tertiary. There- 

 fore there appears to be no inherent reason why this Cbico fauna, even as it is repre- 

 sented by Mr. Gabb, should not be regarded as belonging to tbe very latest portion of 

 the Cretaceous period. The fact tbat one or two Mesozoic types of cephalopods pass 

 up from these strata into those of the Tejon portion does not necessarily prove tbat tbe 

 latter ought also to be referred to tbe Cretaceous, any more than tbe discovery of Am- 

 vtonifes in tbe Carboniferous of Texas and of India ought to require us to refer those 

 strata to the Mesozoic. 



' Bull. U. S. Geol. Survey No. 15, pp. 16, 17. 

 2 See Lyell's Elements of Geology, 1871, p. 281. 



■' See Geol. Survey California, Pahvontology, vols. 1 and 2, for the figures aud descriptions, aud vol. 

 2, pp. 909-254, for the catalogue. 



