REVIEWS 677 
with Fusulinas. Now Schwagerina has never been reported from the Mississippi 
Valley, while I have recently offered reason for believing that the Fusulinas of the 
Kansas section, if they do not belong to a different genus, at least show important 
differences from the typical Fusulinas. ‘These facts seem to destroy Mr. Prosser’s 
argument so far as this item of evidence is concerned. At the same time 
these very forms furnish more staple evidence looking somewhat in the same 
direction. 
In his discussion of the Kansas ‘‘Permian”’ Dr. Girty, as he states in 
another place in the discussion, refers only to the Chase stage, that is, the 
strata between the Wreford limestone and the Winfield limestone inclusive 
and the Marion formation.t The burden of Dr. Girty’s argument, quoted 
above, and more especially stated by him in other places in the book, is 
that the Chase stage seems to be of Gschelian age,” although he is undecided 
about it and commits himself to no positive correlation. Since he wrote 
the statements last quoted, typical Schwagerinas have been found in the 
Kansas rocks. ‘They were found, not up in the rocks of the Chase stage, 
but in the Neva limestone a hundred and fifty feet below its base. It 
is associated with Fusulina of the /ongissima type on the one hand, and, 
more or less closely, with a micro-foraminiferal fauna of Permo-Carbonif- 
erous character on the other. “Spandel described, from the same locality 
and probably from the same stratum, a micro-foraminiferal fauna, men- 
tioned by Dr. Girty, partly of distinctly Coal Measures types and partly 
of distinctly Permian types. 
Following this Dr. Girty points out a long list of Permian fossils of 
Eurasia which are wanting in the Kansas section, which is interpreted as 
evidence against the Permian age of the Kansas rocks. Among these are 
Strophalosia, five species of Productus, etc. Strophalosia is not uncommon 
in several beds near the base of the Chase stage, 114 specimens of a species 
of it having been taken from a single layer in a small exposure of the Garri- 
son formation, and altogether about 250 specimens of it have been noted. 
They are not of the Zechstein type, however, but are of the type, probably, 
of S. parva King, of the English Permian. 
It would seem that the general physical conditions prevailing throughout 
t Almost without exception the Kansas writers have used the term ‘‘ Permian” in 
the sense of including the Artinsk, as have almost a!l paleontologists. Dr. Girty is 
mistaken in his assumptions to the contrary. 
2 In the use he makes of the term Gschelian he includes the Schwagerina horizon 
which is wanting in the type locality of the Gschelian and comes in above it in the 
Ural-Timen region. It is not so included by many European writers. He here takes 
the opposite stand from what he assumes in refusing to class the Artinskian with the 
Permian. 
