GLASSURIGA LION OF UPPER PAL EZOZOlIG ROCKS: 736 
erate to the base of our Marion formation, according to Swallow, 
is 151 feet 7 inches, which indicates that the conglomerate we 
noted in Turkey Creek, south of Abilene, and estimated as 150 
feet above the base of the Marion formation is the ‘calcareous 
conglomerate” of Swallow. From 61 to 124 feet higher is the 
top of Swallow’s Permian; but Professor Mudge stated that all 
of Swallow’s Triassic system, except the two upper beds— Nos. 
3 and 2—should be referred to the Permian.* Calling bed 
No. 4 of Swallow the top of the Permian, the beds of his section 
corresponding to those of the Marion formation have a thickness 
ranging from 334 feet 11 inches to 544 feet 7 inches. 
Comparison with Meek and Hayden.—TYhe conglomerate noted 
on Turkey Creek south of Abilene is apparently bed No. 9g of 
Meek and Hayden which they described as a ‘‘rough conglom- 
erated mass, composed of fragments of magnesian limestone and 
sandstone, with sometimes a few quartz pebbles, cemented by 
calcareous and arenaceous matter ....south side Smoky Hill 
River, ten or twelve miles below Solomon’s Fork, 18 feet.’’? 
From the base of this conglomerate limestone to the apparent 
base of the Dakota sandstone of their section—bed No. 2—is 
388 feet. If their concretionary limestone —bed No. g—which, 
” 
according to the description and locality agrees with the one 
seen south of Abilene, be 150 feet above the base of the Marion 
formation, then making this correction in their estimate of thick- 
ness would give 538 feet as the thickness of the Marion for- 
mation. 
CONCLUSION. 
The length of this paper precludes any complete discus- 
sion of the geologic position of these formations and their corre- 
lation with deposits of similar age in different parts of the world, 
therefore such a review must be deferred until the detailed geo- 
tFirst Bien. Rept. State Board Agri. Kansas, 1878, p. 66 and f. n., where the Pro- 
fessor said, “the other numbers [aside from 2 and 3] of his Triassic belong to the 
Permo-Carboniferous.” Professor Mudge did not attempt to separate the Permian 
and Upper Carboniferous, for he said, “These two groups may be described together, 
as there is no line of division, either by physical deposits or fossils” (zzd., p- 70). 
2Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, Vol. XL., p. 16. 
