ANTHRACOLITHIC ROCKS OF KANSAS 133 



Dr. Girty states: 



In the first place, here and elsewhere in speaking of the Kansas "Permian" I 

 refer to the Chase and Marion formations, but not to any of the higher beds, as I 

 believe that the only practical method of correlating terranes so widely separated 

 as those of Kansas and Russia is by paleontologic evidence; and since the evidence 

 of invertebrate paleontology only is that which I am in a position to understand 

 and weigh, it is natural that any statement of mine must apply to that portion of 

 the Kansas section where invertebrate fossils are found, and cannot consistently 

 apply to formations overlying the Marion, where invertebrate evidence appears to 

 be absent. Furthermore, unless otherwise indicated, in speaking of the Permian 

 I refer primarily to the Russian Permian exclusive of the underlying Artinsk or 

 Permo-Carboniferous.^ 



It will be seen on comparison with what I have given above that 

 according to Dr. Girty's definition what he has discussed as the " Kan- 

 sas Permian" includes only a part of the deposits which the Kansas 

 geologists refer to that system. In other words, it does not fully 

 represent the Big Blue series and none of the Cimarron series is 

 included; consequently this fact should be kept in mind when con- 

 sidering what he has said in reference to the "Kansas Permian." 

 The horizons at which the invertebrate fossils were found in Okla- 

 homa and northern Texas have been accurately fixed in relation to 

 the Kansas deposits by stratigraphic work from Kansas to Texas, 

 so that the consideration of their faunas is entirely appropriate in 

 determining the age of the Kansas deposits. The Whitehorse sand- 

 stone fauna was known to Dr. Girty at the time he wrote this mono- 

 graph, since he refers to it on p. 48. 



There is a difference of opinion among European geologists 

 as to whether the Artinsk, which is the lower division of the 

 Permo- Carboniferous of the Russian geologists, should be included 

 in the Permian. I have always recognized this fact; but it has 

 appeared to me that the usage of the majority of those best 

 acquainted with the subject favored its reference to the Permian. 

 An extract from the work of Dr. Carl Diener, the accomplished 

 professor of paleontology in the University of Vienna, who has so 

 fully described the Permo-Carboniferous and Permian of the central 

 Himalayas of India, and who has clearly stated the views of the two 

 noted Russian geologists who favor the separation of the Permo- 



I "The Guadalupian Fauna," op. cit., pp. 46, 47. 



