Januaey 18, 1907] 



SCIENCE 



109 



NEW MEXICO GEOLOGY. 



In Science for June 15, Dr. C. R. Keyes, 

 formerly president of the New Mexico School 

 of Mines at Socorro, gives a general section 

 of the formations of New Mexico. This is a 

 sequel to a series of papers in other scientific 

 journals, particularly the Journal of Geology, 

 the American Geologist and the American 

 Journal of Science, in which he has discussed 

 various aspects of the geology of the territory. 

 These articles treat of phases of the subject 

 of great interest to geologists as bearing on 

 the geology of a field as yet little known, but 

 the author can not well be congratulated on 

 the extent of the contribution he has made 

 to our knowledge of the geology of this region. 

 There are many inaccuracies and the papers 

 are manifestly designed to anticipate the re- 

 sults of investigations rather than as a record 

 of actual observations. Heretofore, Dr. Keyes 

 has maintained there was no evidence that 

 Lower Paleozoic formations were present 

 in New Mexico. He places them in the 

 column now published, however, with thick- 

 nesses and lithological characteristics but fails 

 to advise us as to any circumstances concern- 

 ing their discovery.' He gives the Devonian 

 as made up of limestones, whereas, so far as 

 known, they consist entirely of shales." Lime- 

 stones and shales are said to constitute the 

 Carboniferous thus neglecting entirely the 

 great body of sandstones contained in the 

 upper division. The distribution of forma- 

 tions shown in the map (plate Y) Water Sup- 

 ply Paper No. 123, U. S. Geological Survey, is 

 considerably at variance with the facts, as is 

 likewise the discussion given there and else- 

 where of the faults and unconformities. But 

 discrepancies of this kind are doubtless in- 

 evitable in observations made from car 

 windows and through a field glass. A large 

 number of formation names are proposed, but 

 we look in vain for detailed sections or 

 descriptions showing their character and dis- 



' The announcement of the discovery of these 

 formations in New Mexico was first made by L. 

 C. Graton and the writer in Science for April 13, 

 1906, p. 590. 



^American Journal Science, 4th Ser., Vol. 21, 

 p. 394, 1906. 



tribution. In this respect the author does not 

 seem to be in accord with leading geologists 

 generally, who maintain that no formation 

 name should be proposed without adequate 

 definition. The correlation of formations in 

 regions widely separated, where detailed maps 

 and careful paleontological studies are want- 

 ing, is usually regarded as a hazardous under- 

 taking, but Dr. Keyes does not appear to find 

 it so. If Dr. Keyes has at hand the data 

 upon which these conclusions are based it is 

 to be regretted he has not published them. We 

 are told that this ' correlated scheme of rock 

 succession ' is based on information obtained 

 through the work of the " Geological and Min- 

 eral Survey of New Mexico under the direc- 

 tion of the School of Mines at Socorro." 

 Unfortunately we have no knowledge of such 

 an organization aside from the mention made 

 of it in this connection. Geologists generally 

 would be interested to know something of an 

 organization carrying on so important a work. 

 It appears to be wholly unknown even in New 

 Mexico. 



These exceptions are possibly of no conse- 

 quence and if his attention were called to 

 them the author would doubtless reply, as in 

 a former instance when the writer of this 

 note reminded him that a fossil he had figured 

 was wrongly named, that it was a ' matter of 

 no importance.' 



As a whole the papers on New Mexico geol- 

 ogy which issue from the above named writer's 

 pen in such rapid succession abound in inac- 

 curacies, while the absence of detailed descrip- 

 tion or evidence of careful field work deprives 

 them of any value they might otherwise 



0. H. Gordon 

 U. S. Geological Survey, 

 August 25, 1906 



GEOLOGICAL WORK IN ARKANSAS BY PROFESSOR 

 PURDUE 



To THE Editor of Science: A paragraph 

 in my letter to Doctor Branner, published in 

 the issue of Science of December 7, is pos- 

 sibly open to misconstruction and may do in- 

 justice to Professor Purdue, of the University 

 of Arkansas. The paragraph is as follows : 



