324 CHARLES S. PROSSER 
INTRODUCTION 
Two articles in a recent number of the American Journal of 
Science devoted largely to a consideration of the Ohio shale in 
northern Ohio’ appear to make it important that a detailed descrip- 
tion of the Huron shale as exposed at its typical locality on the 
Huron River in northern Ohio be published. ‘This is termed the 
typical locality because Dr. Newberry stated that “this [Huron] is 
the shale which forms the banks of the Huron river at Monroeville 
andiibecloweaienale The Huron shale in some places contains many 
concretions of impure limestone, of which hundreds may be seen at 
Monroeville, where they have washed out of the river banks.’” 
Later he wrote: ‘‘I have called this in Ohio the Huron shale, 
because it forms for a long distance the banks of the Huron River, 
and as it represents several distinct strata in New York and 
Pennsylvania, it could not with propriety take the name of either 
of them.’ Dr. Newberry first published the name Huron shale in 
1870 and stated that “its outcrop forms a belt from ten to twenty 
miles in width, reaching from the Lake shore at the mouth of the 
Huron River, almost directly south to the mouth of the Scioto.’4 
The area under discussion is shown on the sketch map of Fig. 1 
on which the location of the several sections is indicated by an x. 
SECTIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF HURON SHALE 
BASAL DEPOSITS 
Slate Cut section.—The banks of the Huron River from Milan 
down to its mouth at Huron are composed of glacial and alluvial 
deposits and the base of the shale is not shown on the river. It is 
exposed, however, in Slate Cut on the Lake Shore & Michigan 
Southern Ry. about 4 miles northwest of the Huron River and a 
tE. O. Ulrich, “‘The Chattanoogan Series with Special Reference to the Ohio 
Shale Problem,” American Journal of Science, 4th ser., XXXIV (August, 1912), 157- 
83. Edward M. Kindle, ‘“‘The Stratigraphic Relations of the Devonian Shales of 
Northern Ohio,” zbid., pp. 187-213. 
2 Geological Survey of Ohio, II (1874), 180. 
3 Monograph U.S. Geological Survey, XVI (1880), 57, 58. 
4“ Report of Progress in 1869 (1870),” Geological Survey of Ohio, p. 18, or (1871 
ed.) 19. 
