PUBLICATIONS. S57 
discussed, and have materially assisted in the development ofoil and gas 
resources, not only in Ohio but elsewhere. His other publications 
on the clays, coal, and other resources of the state are no less valuable, 
and it may be safely said that no state geological survey has ever been 
of more advantage to the people of the state than the Geological 
Survey of Ohio under Professor Orton. 
R. A. F. PENROSE, JR. 
Geological Survey of Olio, Vol. VII., Paleontology. 
A valuable addition to the paleontology of the state of Ohio is 
included in this volume. Professor R. P. Whitfield publishes in chap- 
ter II]. aseries of papers on the faunas of the Lower and Upper Helder- 
berg, the Marcellus shales, the Huron and Erie series, the Maxwell 
limestone (equivalents of the St. Louis and Chester beds of Illinois) and 
the Coal Measures. Following this are articles by Professor C. L. 
Herrick, Dr. A. F. Foerste, and Mr. E. O. Ulrich, on various special 
groups (Lower Silurian, Clinton and Waverly). Chapter VI. by Pro- - 
fessor Claypole and A. A. Wright describes the fossil fish of the Ohio 
shale and is a continuation of Professor Newberry’s work in this line. 
With the exception of chapter VI., the descriptions here given have 
been for the most part already published elsewhere, so that particular 
comment seems to be unnecessary. Their especial value here con- 
sists in the fact that they have now been collected together, and by the 
generosity of the state become readily accessible to a much larger circle 
of scientific readers. The paper on the Clinton is a distinct addition 
to the somewhat scanty literature of this formation. Twenty-nine 
forms are found to be common to the Clinton of Ohio and the original 
Clinton of New York state, though the exact parallelism is not alto- 
gether clear, and on the other hand an examination of the cuts shows a 
strong resemblance, or indeed an identity of many of these Clinton 
with well-known Niagara types. Thus Calymene Vogdest would seem to 
present no tangible points of difference from C. Blumenbachi and 
Lllenus madisonensis variety depressus, as figured, could with difficulty 
be distinguished from ///enus insignis as figured by Hall (Twentieth 
Rept. N. Y. Mus., Pl. 22, Fig. 14). The author has, however, taken 
much pains to point out differences and likenesses of allied forms, and 
often frankly acknowledges the difficulties of separating Clinton and 
Niagara types. E. C. QUEREAU. 
