134 ' STUART WELLER 



The paleontological evidence, as shown above, points con- 

 clusively to the Kinderhook age of the Eureka shale of Arkan- 

 sas, and not merely may the fauna be correlated with the 

 Kinderhook in general, but with that portion of the Kinderhook 

 which is represented by the Chouteau limestone of central 

 Missouri. The fauna is younger than the Chonopectus fauna of 

 the Burlington section, and is also younger than the fauna of the 

 Louisiana limestone if the generally accepted view as to the 

 stratigraphic position of this formation, at the extreme base of 

 the Kinderhook, be the correct one. 



The Eureka shale in Missouri, as described by Shepard, is 

 doubtless a stratigraphic continuation of the Arkansas forma- 

 tion, though the actual time of its deposition may have been a 

 little earlier. The Kinderhook sea, in southwestern Missouri 

 and northern Arkansas, is believed to have been transgressing 

 upon the land to the southward. The Eureka shale facies of 

 sedimentation is believed to have been a transgressing formation 

 associated with the trangression of the sea to the southward, it 

 being the initial sedimentation upon the newly submerged land 

 surface. This formation, therefore, in the region covered by the 

 Greene county report, was probably deposited a little earlier in 

 time than its stratigraphic equivalent in northern Arkansas, as it 

 is followed by the Sac, Northview, and Pierson formations. In 

 northern Arkansas this same stratigraphic unit represents the 

 final stages of the Kinderhook, it being immediately followed by 

 the St. Joe marble whose fauna indicates the Burlington age of 

 the formation. The black Eureka shale in Arkansas, with its 

 associated greenish shale beds and the equivalent Sylamore sand- 

 stone, may be considered as the sole representatives of the 

 Kinderhook in that state, the time of their deposition being the 

 final stages of the Kinderhook epoch. 



Sac limesto?ie. — The King limestone, described by Shepard, 

 has not been studied by the writer. It is said to be 1 "rarely 

 over a foot or two in thickness except outside and south of the 

 area." A further statement is made in regard to the formation 2 



1 Loc. cit., p. 71. 2 Loc. cit, p. 72. 



