GIRTY, THE GUADALUPIAN FAUNA 
143 
Allorisma terminale 
Plagioglypta canna? 
Meekospira sp. 
Euomphalus catilloides 
Gonioloboceras goniolobus. 
It will at once strike the paleontologist that this facies is largely that of 
the Mississippi Valley Pennsylvanian and very different from the overlying 
limestone whose base is near Cloudcroft. It is not clear from our collec¬ 
tions that the fauna of the limestone does not descend into the “Red Beds” 
below and there is a suggestion, though as yet a very slight one, of an inter¬ 
gradation or intermingling of the faunas. Yet it will probably remain true, 
new evidence being discounted, that the lower faunas have much more of a 
Pennsylvanian facies than the upper. 
If we attempt to correlate this fauna with that of Kansas by means of 
Mr. J. W. Beede’s recently published charts, the effort is apparently attended 
with indifferent success. Many of the species range from the base to the 
top or nearly to the top of the Pennsylvanian. Enteletes hemiplicatus , 
however, does not appear below the Allen limestone, while Aviculipinna 
Nebraskensis ranges from the Bethany limestone to the Chanute shale. 
In other words, there either is no evidence because of the long range of the 
species, or else the evidence is conflicting, for of the two critical species 
mentioned above, the range of one (A. Nebraskensis) ends in Kansas before 
the other begins; nor is any false premise involved on the part of the western 
occurrence because of the list being a composite one, for the two species were 
obtained at the same locality. While better results might attend a more 
critical comparison of the two faunas, I think it will be safe to say that the 
evidence will not be obvious in its significance or without contradiction. 
Tentatively, the horizon indicated seems to be above the lower formations of 
the Kansas “Coal Measures” and below the upper, within say the limits of 
Mr. Beede’s 1 series II and III, and possibly in the lower rather than the upper 
part of these limits. On the other hand, Spirifer Rocky mo ntanus , which 
does not occur in the Kansas section at all, suggests a still lower horizon 
with the still further contradiction of the evidence vested in the two species 
especially discussed above. 
The faunal evidence afforded by our collections is not as complete as is 
desirable but it indicates no trace, or only the faintest trace, of the typical 
Guadalupian fauna in those beds which are known to be the continuation of 
the Guadalupian formations. The imperfectly known faunas which we do 
find there have no marked relationship to those developed so close at hand 
1 University Geol. Surv. Kansas, Rept., vol. 9, pp. 336, 362 et seq. 1909. 
