178 THE JOURNAL OF GEOLOGY. 
inches of unevenly-bedded rock with fossils; one inch thickness 
of a thin, sandy layer, very undulated, like ripple marks where 
waves have crossed from various directions. Their importance 
was not appreciated, when observed, and their direction was not 
carefully observed. Judging from the memory alone the larger 
ripples had a general northeast course and indicated currents 
transverse to this direction. Belowthis layer were found 10 inches 
of a whitish rock, lithologically like the Dayton limestone, and 
like it, with a very uneven surface to the upper side of the layer. 
Tracing this layer westward to the more western part of this line 
of outcrops as far as a place known as John Arment’s quarry 
(locality g in the bed of the creek), the cherty layers beneath 
the same are well exposed. First there is a layer of white chert 
four inches thick, then four inches of a brownish rock, then four 
inches of chert again, and finally 24 inches of limestone, 
whitish above becoming bluish below, and quite fossiliferous, 
though hardly more so than some layers farther up in the series. 
In this basal layer of the Clinton the following fossils were 
found: I]anus ambiguus, Orthis biforata, Ptilodictya lanceolata, 
var. americana, Clathropora frondosa, Phenopora magna, Rhino- 
pora verrucosa, and Phylloporina angulata. 
Underneath the Clinton lie four feet of a bluish rock, the 
so-called Medina, which is here quarried. It contains, in addi- 
tion to the so-called branching fucoidal impressions, a species of 
Orthis, on the type of Orthis calligramma, but with about 44 
radiating plications, and annelid teeth. The Orthis does not 
closely resemble the more nearly related Clinton species. It 
will be remembered that annelid teeth also occurred in the so- 
called Medina at the Todd’s Fork locality. 
Under the Medina is a bed of blue clay, but its thickness 
has not yet been determined. The Cincinnati rock can not be 
far beneath. 
Unfortunately it was impossible to determine, with the means 
at hand, the thickness of this section. It is hoped some one 
may undertake this. But it was difficult for the writer to believe 
that the thickness of the entire Clinton even approached 50 feet, 
