678 REVIEWS 
the world at the beginning of and during, Permian time must be taken into 
account in making broad correlations of Carboniferous and Permian 
faunas. The significance of the evolution of a provincial fauna in a great 
epicontinental sea, covering two or three hundred thousand square miles, 
with inadequate and perhaps only intermittent connection with the open 
sea of the continental shelves in America, should be as great as the evolution 
of a fauna in the Urallian region. This significance is increased when it 
is taken into consideration that both developed during the time when the 
water was being drawn from the shelves of both continents and the areas of 
the inland seas were being greatly reduced. 
In this light the parallelism in the nature of the deposits of the two 
regions, accompanied by a like parallelism of faunal changes, is of funda- 
mental importance, and deserves a larger consideration than Dr. Girty has 
given it. For instance, the introduction of new faunal elements, the sudden 
and nearly complete disappearance of the Fusulina, and the occurrence of 
Schwagerina bear the same relations to the early gypsum deposits and the 
development of the Red beds, in the Kansas section, as they do in the eastern 
part of European Russia. If I read the stratigraphic account of the Guada- 
lupes aright, it seems that the general considerations of the later Permian 
apply to them likewise. The unconformity, if such it be, carrying away the 
Capitan limestone from the flanks of the mountain of which it forms the 
top, and over the unconformity the deposition of the Castile gypsum, 
Rustler formation, and Red beds strongly suggest that the Guadalupe 
region was similarly affected with the region to the northward so far as a 
general Permian emergence is concerned. In this light the Guadalupian 
faunas must be largely contemporaneous with the Permian faunas of America 
and Eurasia. In the eyes of the reviewer, judging from figures and descrip- 
tions only, there is where their faunal relationships would also place them. 
The point is made that the faunas are so different that, if they are con- 
temporaneous with those of the Mississippi valley—of which Dr. Girty seems 
to be doubtful—they could not both be covered by a single general term [like 
Permian ?] for their designation. That they are quite distinct from any- 
thing yet brought to light on the continent will be granted at once by anyone 
familiar with the subject. The one is a cosmopolitan, open-sea, coastal- 
shelf fauna while the other is a more isolated epicontinental sea fauna rather 
thoroughly separated from its neighbor on the south and perhaps belonging 
to a different climatic zone. Should they prove to be equivalent in time 
I see no reason why they might not be covered by a single term of ordinal 
rank, their local geologic designations being sufficient to differentiate them. 
That it was impossible for the Guadalupian and Mississippi valley clear- 
