THE ORIGIN OF CERTAIN PALEOZOIC SEDIMENTS = 237 
These structures are of sufficient importance to require further 
explanation and it will be advisable to consider them one at a 
time, taking the conglomerates first, the odlites next, and the 
interbedded sands last. 
ORIGIN OF THE CONGLOMERATE-LIKE STRUCTURES 
Conglomerates from widely separated regions, similar to those 
here mentioned, have previously been described by other authors. 
In 1906 a similar if not identical conglomerate was described 
by Seeley from Division D of the Beekmantown of the Champlain 
Valley, under the name of the Wing conglomerate. He quotes 
Wing’s original description of this conglomerate as follows: “A 
conglomerate made from flat and rounded pebbles from the 
quartzite below, the flat ones one or two inches across, the rounded 
ones from coarse shot to large bullets, the paste a limestone.” 
After questioning as to the origin of these pebbles, Seeley remarks 
that the associated deposits seem to have been laid down in quiet 
waters and that the flattened pebbles, as described by Wing, stand 
on edge and at all angles. He was unable to imagine how in either 
swift or slow water these pebbles could be laid down as they are 
if they were of clastic origin. Asa result of his studies he concluded 
that they were organic and he described the pebbles as Wingza, 
a new genus of Beekmantown sponges. 
In to09 Stose described conglomerates identical with those 
now under discussion from the same geological horizons near the 
southern boundary of Pennsylvania.? He offers the following 
explanation of their origin: 
At the beginning of the Conococheague an uplift occurred that raised a 
part of the sea bottom into land. The freshly deposited sediment was broken 
up and its fragments formed conglomerates, which also contain numerous 
rounded quartz grains. Other thin layers of limestone were broken up by the 
waves into “shingle” or flat fragments that were shuffled about on the beaches 
and formed “‘edgewise’”’ conglomerates. 
A very careful study of these conglomerates, both in the labora- 
tory and in the field, with attention directed not only to the larger 
1H. M. Seely, Report of the Vt. State Geol. (1906), pp. 174-78. 
2G. W. Stose, op. cit. 
