Vol. IV] ANDERSON AND MARTIN— NEOCENE RECORD 19 



this type occur in nearly all parts of the Miocene in California, 

 and, in fact, are not confined to the Miocene. The suggestion 

 that this lithologic type is not serviceable for stratigraphic 

 divisions, except locally, is not at all new. Dr. G. D. Louder- 

 back has recently made a careful but condensed review of the 

 literature pertaining to the earlier Miocene deposits in Cali- 

 fornia, particularly with reference to the use of the terms 

 Monterey Series and Monterey Formation. According to 'Dr. 

 Louderback the usage of writers for one decade was to follow 

 the lead of Dr. A. C. Lawson, who in 1893, proposed the adop- 

 tion of the name Monterey as "the local designation of the 

 series" — represented at Monterey and Carmelo Bay. This 

 "local designation", Louderback interprets to mean, and to 

 include, the whole of the "depositional province", including 

 these localities, and in proof of his contention, quotes the lan- 

 guage of a part of Dr. Lawson's text. 



Without debating the correctness of this interpretation it 

 may be well to remark incidentally that the extent and limits 

 of this basin or "depositional province" are not defined or even 

 suggested, but presumably it does not extend beyond the 

 boundaries of the California interior valleys. If the same 

 liberty of interpretation be allowed to reviewers of Dr. Louder- 

 back's paper that this author assumes in his cursory reviews of 

 others it will be fair to say that his "depositional province" 

 doubtless coincides in extent and boundaries with the Temblor 

 basin described in a former paper by the senior author of this 

 paper. 



The papers written during the succeeding decade, 1904 to 

 1912, show a vigorous and healthy scientific advance, and mark 

 an epoch of progress in geologic study of the California 

 Miocene, and of the Tertiary as a whole. But complaint is 

 made by the reviewer quoted above against the "multiplication 

 of formational names, both within the limits of the ('Mon- 

 terey') series and throughout the Tertiary terranes", and this 

 increase in formational names is styled "dismemberment", and 

 it is said to be "confusing and rather discouraging to one who 

 wishes to acquaint himself with the real essentials of the 

 geologic history of that time". 



In reality this "multiplication" was a direct result of inquir- 

 ing study into the character and composition of a great sue- 



