326 C. R. KEYES 



Meek's exhaustive criticism of Geinitz's work on the Nebraska 

 faunas, and his other papers on the same subject, appear to be 

 largely misinterpreted by later writers. So far as I am able to 

 find out, Meek's efforts were not directed so much against the 

 view of the Permian age of the Plattsmouth beds as they were 

 to emphasize the fact that the faunas followed one another unin- 

 terruptedly from the "Upper Coal Measures" up to the "Red 

 Beds." He was unable to see how a " new and distinct system" 

 could be represented in such a perfectly continuous sequence. 



The case of Meek and Swallow is different. It was, after 

 all, a mere quibbling about unimportant details. With all their 

 bitter controversies, their views were not very far removed from 

 each other. Their subdivisions were practically the same. Only 

 different names were employed. Swallow regarded the Paleo- 

 zoic section above (approximately) the Cottonwood limestone, 

 as divided into Lower Permian and Upper Permian. Meek, 

 selecting dividing horizons slightly different, called the one 

 Permo-Carboniferous and the other Permian. Both agreed in 

 the upper member being Permian. Regarding the lower member, 

 Swallow thought Permian fossils predominated ; Meek considered 

 species of the Upper Coal Measures more abundant. Neither 

 seems to have presented any decisive proofs one way or the other. 



Prosser's late classification of the central Kansas rocks claims 

 to be based upon the faunas. The subdivisions are properly 

 given special geographic names, but the division lines are very 

 nearly the same as those selected by the earlier writers. The 

 faunal evidence, as Prosser has set it forth in detail, appears to 

 oppose, rather than to support, the conclusions he has drawn. 



Range of fossils. — In all the faunal considerations that relate 

 to the Upper Paleozoic of Kansas, the rapid disappearance of 

 the brachiopod fauna " characteristic of the Upper Coal Meas- 

 ures," and its replacement by a "Permian" lamellibranch fauna, 

 is pointed out as very significant. Such a comparison is hardly 

 justifiable. The two cannot be thus contrasted any more than a 

 fauna with a flora. They have no common points of relationship. 

 The appearance of the latter in place of the former indicates a 



