770 THE JOURNAL OF GEOLOGY. 
Comparison of the Neosho formation with Swallow’s section.— 
The Neosho formation includes the upper 25 feet of bed No. 79 
of Swallow’s section and extends to the base of No. 62—the 
“fifth cherty limestone.’’* 
These beds all belong in Swallow’s Lower Permian, and he 
gave the thickness as ranging from III feet 7 inches to 148 feet 
7 inches. Swallow’s bed No. 76, which he described as a “‘soft 
blue and gray coralline limestone, 3 feet, containing Monotis 
Fal, and Americana, Productus Norwoodi, Synocladia biserials, 
Thamniscus dubius (?), Edmondia Hardni, Phillipsia Cliftonensis,” 
49 feet above the top of the Fusulina limestone, is clearly No. 
10 of our section, 45 feet above the Cottonwood limestone. 
Again, bed No. 68 of Swallow, described asa ‘‘hard blue and 
buff magnesian limestone, containing numerous Permian Aceph- 
ala” from 72 feet 7 inches to 77 feet 7 inches above the Fusulina 
limestone, is probably No. 12 of the Crusher Hill section. Six 
feet above this limestone Swallow noted a “light buff and drab 
argillo-magnesian limestone’’—No. 66 —containing “‘Monotis and 
Bakevellta,’ and the limestone noted at the top of our No. 13, 
eight feet above No. 12, probably belongs to the lower part of 
Swallow’s bed No. 66. The limestone— No. 64 of Swallow—is 
near the horizon of our No. 15, and below the cherty limestone. 
Swallow described shales containing ‘‘ Synoclada biserialis, Prod- 
uctus Norwood, Orthisina Shumardiana,’ which are the same as 
the shales with the Cottonwood fauna called No. 16 of the 
Crusher Hill section. It will be seen that there is a close agree- 
ment between the thickness and lithological characters of the 
section west of Strong City and the beds of Swallow’s section, 
the upper ones of which he described from exposures near Fort 
Riley on the Kansas River. 
Comparison with Meek and Hayden The Neosho formation 
on the Kansas River includes the upper 22 feet of Meek and 
Hayden’s No. 23 and terminates at the base of their No. 18, to 
which Meek and Hayden assigned a thickness of 96 feet.3 Below 
tPrel. Rept. Geol. Surv. Kans., pp. 14-16. 
2Tbid., p. 15. 
3 Proc. Acad. Sci. Phil., Vol. XI., p. 17. 
