46o MARIUS R. CAMPBELL 



At that time Mr. White's knowledge of the floras of the 

 northern end of the Appalachian bituminous coal basin was based 

 entirely upon published descriptions and a personal familiarity 

 with the Lacoe collection. He had had no opportunity to study 

 the Pennsylvanian floras and their geologic relations in the field 

 and establish for himself a standard section for comparison. 

 But notwithstanding this lack of field experience, the evidence 

 against the identifications previously made was so strong that 

 the writer did not feel justified in accepting the name Mahoning 

 for the sandstone of the Kanawha valley, and proposed in lieu 

 thereof the non-committal term Charleston sandstone.' 



In proposing the new name the writer was aware that in case 

 the identity of the Charleston and Mahoning sandstones were 

 established the new name would have to give way before the old 

 and well-known term "Mahoning," but on account of the uncer- 

 tainty he preferred to use the new term and trust to future work 

 to settle the question. 



Six years have now elapsed since the name "Charleston" was 

 introduced, and by many the question is still regarded as unset- 

 tled, but in that time Mr. White has accumulated such a mass 

 of Paleobotanic evidence against the correlation of these two 

 sandstone formations that there is no longer any doubt except 

 in the minds of those who would discredit entirely the evidence 

 of fossil plants. Although in the opinion of the writer the ques- 

 tion is virtually settled, he takes this occasion to present some 

 stratigraphic facts which seem to explain the apparent disagree- 

 ment between the paleobotanic and stratigraphic evidence. 



In order to show the bearing of the facts described in this 

 paper it is necessary to go back and review the evidence that 

 has been presented on the different phases of the question. 



In 1900 Mr. David White's study of the fossil floras of the 

 coal-bearing rocks of the Kanawha valley had progressed to such 

 a stage that he published a paper on " Relative Ages of the 

 Kanawha and Allegheny Series as indicated by Fossil Plants,"^ 



^Campbell and Mendenhall, "Geologic Section along New and Kanawha 

 Rivers, W. Va." Seventeenth Aitnual Report, Va.rt II, pp. 473-5 1 1 ; bXso Geologic Atlas 

 X)f the United States, folios Nos. 69, 72, and 77. 



^Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., Vol. XI, pp. 145-78. 



