UPPER PALEOZOIC FORMATIONS OF KANSAS 7 21 



could be determined by comparison with the fossiliferous ter- 

 ranes, the correlation of these rocks with either the Triassic or 

 Permian is a matter of uncertainty." 1 In the later paper of that 

 year I simply quoted the opinions of Dr. Williston, Professor 

 Grimsley and Mr. Vaughan, without expressing any opinion, 

 beyond the statement that " there is uncertainty as to their age," 

 while in my paper succeeding that of Dr. Keyes' in the same 

 number of the Journal of Geology it was stated that " The 

 Paleozoic of Kansas closes with the Cimarron group or the Red 

 Beds ; " 3 following which was an account of the identification 

 by Dr. Williston of Eryops megaceplialus from the lower part of 

 the Cimarron series, an amphibian described by Cope in the 

 Permian of Texas. 



THE PERMIAN QUESTION. 



CORRELATION OF THE UPPER PALEOZOIC OF KANSAS WITH THE 

 RUSSIAN PERMIAN. 



Opinions of various geologists. — There is still a difference of 

 opinion among American geologists in regard to the correlation 

 of the Upper Paleozoic formations of Kansas with the Russian 

 Permian. The Journal of Geology published in 1898, "A sym- 

 posium on the classification and nomenclature of geologic time- 

 divisions," in which Dr. Williston, 4 Professor Calvin 5 and Dr. 

 Keyes 6 reported adversely both as to the identification of the 

 Permian in Kansas and to its recognition as a period coordinate 

 with the Carboniferous or Devonian; while Dr. William B. Clark 

 stated that' for the later divisions of the Paleozoic he should 

 employ the chronologic terms Carboniferous and Permian. 7 Dr. 

 Clark wrote me later as follows regarding this subject : 



I distinctly object to the abandonment of the term Permian for a major 

 division and can see no just grounds for it since the division is one of 

 importance in Europe and other portions of the world. To be sure, in 

 America the Permian conditions are not as prominent, but I can see no 

 reason on that ground for disturbing the geological column as it has come to 

 be generally accepted. 8 



1 Ibid., p. 92. 2 Kan. Univ. Quart., Vol. VI, Dec. (?), 1897, p. 150. 



3 Loc. cit., Vol. VII, p. 354. 5 Loc. cit., p. 353. i Loc. cit., p. 341. 



4 Loc. cit., Vol. VI, p. 343. 6 Loc. cit., p. 352. s Letter of December 16, 1898. 



