72 REVIEWS 



sas that the most complete development of the upper part of the Carbonif- 

 erous is found. In this locality the Upper Carboniferous limestones and 

 the so-called Permian beds appear in unbroken sequence. It is unnecessary 

 at this time to go into any of the details that have been for so many years 

 the subject of lively debate. Professor Prosser has recently admirably 

 summarized opinions expressed. What has been really needed in all this 

 prolix discussion has been greater attention to critical data. The entire 

 subject has been lately reviewed by Dr. G. I. Adams. 



A most succinct and concise account is the recent memoir on the 

 Stratigraphy and Paleontology of the Upper Carboniferous Rocks of the 

 Kansas Section. In the main, Mr. Adams records the results of an attempt 

 after extensive and direct work in the field, to rectify the confusion regarding 

 the stratigraphy and the consequent interminable synonomy which has 

 in Kansas arisen unchecked during the last decade. While it would have 

 been very desirable to have had the same careful inquiry extended over 

 Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska and Arkansas, the fact that it was not does not 

 detract from the memoir under consideration. A comparison of the Kan- 

 sas formations with their representatives of the region lying to the east- 

 ward would have proved of great value, and would have removed a 

 considerable part of the synonomy which still remains in the Kansas area. 



Not the least noticeable feature of the Adams bulletin is the nearly com- 

 plete elimination of the classifications and the nomenclatures of Prosser 

 and of Haworth. Whether or not the author has not gone too far along 

 this line remains to be seen. The same question may be asked regarding 

 the work of the pioneers in the Kansas region. 



Dr. Adams recognizes, upon lithologic grounds, four main divisions of the 

 Upper Carboniferous of the region. In order to avoid complications in 

 nomenclature of the Carboniferous, he has thought it advisable not to 

 give names to these divisions. There are: (i) lower shales and sandstones; 

 (2) interstratified limestones, shales, and sandstones; (3) limestones 

 interstratified principally with shales; (4) bluish and purplish shales. 

 These four subdivisions are based wholly upon lithologic characters 

 as determined by the writer mentioned. Critical examination of the 

 data upon which he has founded his groupings shows that, although 

 unnamed, they do not differ essentially from those previously recognized 

 by other investigators who have been in the region, and who have based 

 their determinations, not only on lithologic, but upon broad stratigraphic, 

 faunal, and historic grounds. 



Adams' main contention is to draw for the major subdivisions of the sec- 

 tion lines that are slightly different from those previously recognized. 



