76 



REVIEWS 



description of them the comparisons are of small use as elucidating Kansas 

 geology. However, it brings up the question of general classification of the 

 American Carboniferous deposits. If we parallel these provincial sections 

 as types — (I) western Texas, and southern New Mexico, (II) eastern Kan- 

 sas and Missouri and (III) West Virginia and Pennsylvania — we get 

 something of the following arrangement: 



On the whole, it seems advisable not to attempt the impossible by 

 stretching any one provincial series over the entire continent. A general 

 continental section based upon the somewhat elastic time divisions is about 

 as far in the present state of our knowledge as exact parallehng can go. 



Charles R. Keyes. 



Revised Nomenclature oj the Geological Formation of Ohio. Bulletin 



No. 7, Fourth Series, Geological Survey of Ohio; November, 



1905. By Charles S. Prosser. Pp. xv + 36. 



This bulletin is prefaced by the state geologist, Professor Edward 



Orton, Jr., giving a refreshing account of the Ohio Legislature setting 



aside a definite appropriation for purely stratigraphic work, realizing 



that the proper development of economic resources is directly dependent 



upon the accurate knowledge of the formations and geological structure 



of the state. Another feature of the introduction is the statement of an 



excellent method of dealing with the various requests made to the state 



geologist to undertake local and private investigations, analyses, etc. 



The body of the bulletin is a further elaboration by the author of 

 his article in Vol. XI of the Journal oj Geology, bringing the subject up 

 to date, but which will receive further attention as the work of the Ohio 

 Survey continues. The author gives a table of the old and new classifi- 

 cations of the formations of the state, and in characteristic manner 

 reviews the literature on the subject and adds the results of his own field 

 studies. 



