146 bulletin: museum of comparative zoology. 



It is not necessary to repeat the details, elsewhere stated in this re- 

 port, of how the original gravel beds of Barrett at Bowden became the 

 "Yellow Limestones" of Etheridge and Duncan and Wall through their 

 miscorrelation by the latter with 'the entirely different " Yellow Lime- 

 stones " of Brown in the western part of the island, which we have de- 

 scribed as the Cambridge beds and " White Limestones " of some other 

 writers. By easy stages this error grew into a great chain of misinter- 

 pretations. Through Etheridge, Barrett's conglomerates became ^' an 

 outcrop at the base of the White Limestone " ; ^ next the '• Miocene " 

 and the " Yellow Limestone," ^ as contradistinguished from the ^' White 

 Limestone," then the " Miocene Limestone " of Woodward,^ and finally 

 the White Limestone, in general, of the whole Antillean region. It was 

 in this manner, through literary imitations, that the restricted molluscan 

 fauna of a single bed of Jamaican gravel became the fauna of the White 

 Limestones. 



Guppy * refers back to the articles above cited, and also to the paper 

 of Duncan and Wall,^ in which, as we have previously shown, the rela- 

 tions of the beds are erroneously given, and wrongly states that "the 

 formation from which the Mollusca to be described consists of shales, 

 sands, and marls exposed in several parts of Jamaica."^ 



Concerning the localities of a few Miocene fossils identical with the 

 Bowden forms which have been accredited to " Clarendon " and " Upper 

 Clarendon," it can be stated that these probably came from a point on 

 the seacoast at Round Hill, near Bath, in the extreme southwest corner 

 of the district of Vere, the fossils of which, collected by Sawkins, were 

 said by him to be " nearly all the same genera and species as those 

 found at Bowden, Port Morant, St. Thomas-in-the-East.""^ The refer- 

 ence to " Upper Clarendon " was no doubt an error originally made by 

 Etheridge in citing the field workers. The only allusion made by the 

 latter concerning this locality was in connection with the occurrence of 

 older formations. 



Dall has lately published a paper ^ which belongs to a more recent 



^ Jamaican Reports, p. 311. 



2 Ibid., p. 311. 



8 The Geologist, London, 1862, Vol. V. p. 373. 



* Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. London, 1866, Vol. XXIL pp. 281, 282. 



6 Ibid., 1865, Vol. XXI. pp. 1-14. 



6 Op. cit., p. 282. 



7 Jamaican Reports, pp. 162, 163. 



^ Descrii)tions of Tertiary Fossils from the Antillean Region. Proc. U. S. Nat. 

 Mus., Vol. XIX. No. 1110, Washington, 1896. 



