CLASSIFICATION OF UPPER PALZOZOIC ROCKS. 697 
“Analyses of Kansas building stones” prepared by Dr. S. W. 
Williston for the Columbian Exposition.’ 
Professor Swallow claimed that the main reason for drawing 
the line of separation between the Carboniferous and Permian at 
the base of the ‘‘dry bone limestone” was the fact “that the 
Permian fossils come down in force to this line and but few go 
below, while a few species only of Carboniferous fossils are found 
above it.” * In beds, Nos. 82, 83 and 84, I have found but few 
fossils and those are not especially Permian types, while it will 
be shown that in the Cottonwood shales of the succeeding forma- 
tion there are abundant specimens of characteristic Carbonifer- 
ous species. The small Sfzvifer mentioned by Professor Swallow 
in this limestone on the Cottonwood: is S. cameratus, Morton 
which I have not found at a higher horizon. 
Comparison with Haworth and Kirk.—I\n the paper describing 
the Neosho and Cottonwood River sections by Professor 
Haworth and Mr. Kirk, this limestone is called No. 12, and its 
extent is well shown along the Neosho River from five miles 
above Emporia to Dunlap. It is also accurately noted on the 
Cottonwood from the vicinity of Ellinor to Strong City, but it 
was not recognized on its reappearance three miles farther west.4 
THE COTTONWOOD FORMATION. 
Succeeding the Wabaunsee formation is a massive yellowish 
to light gray limestone with a maximum thickness of six feet 
capped by yellowish calcareous shales fourteen feet thick which 
together have been called the Cottonwood formation.$ 
Geologic section of the Cottonwood formation.—The thickness of 
the formation is about twenty feet, and it is well exposed in the 
instance, over 5 per cent. of magnesia.” This statement is not correct for the lime- 
stones of the Permian, but well expresses the chemical composition of the lower lime- 
stones. 
* Mineral Resources, U. S., for 1893, pp. 563-565. 
? Prel. Rep. Geol. Sury., Kansas, p. 44. 
5 [bid., p. 16. 
4Kan. Univ. Quart., Vol. IL, pp. 112, 113 and PI. IV., Figs. 2 and 3. 
5 PROSSER : Bull. Geol. Soc., Amer., Vol. VI., p. 40. 
