146 
ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 
of the Kansas “ Permian ” as determined by the Wreford limestone, the basal 
formation of the Chase group. Bearing on the position in the Kansas 
section of the base of the Guadalupian beds, I have no evidence, but as the 
latter aggregate 4,000 feet in thickness (overlying strata which are not 
shown at Guadalupe Point not being included), even if we allow for con¬ 
siderable expansion, the base of the Guadalupian beds must occur consider¬ 
ably below the base of the Chase group. 
Furthermore, Gould 1 states that the Quartermaster and Greer formations 
of the Oklahoma section are probably equivalent to the Double Mountain 
formation of Texas; the Woodward, Blaine and Enid to the Clear Fork, 
and the rocks near Chandler (which he refers to the Pennsylvanian) to the 
Wichita. From this it would appea-r that the interesting fauna which Dr. 
Beede described from the Quartermaster formation and the Whitehorse 
sandstone member of the Woodward formation must occur far above the 
top of the Capitan limestone. 
If the peculiar facies of the Guadalupian fauna seems to be largely due 
to environmental conditions when compared with those nearby, such corre¬ 
lative value as is lodged in its resemblance to certain faunas in Asia and 
Europe must also be accepted with caution. These led to a tentative align¬ 
ment of the Guadalupian with the Artinsk and Permian of Russia. Granted 
the correctness of the not wholly satisfactory stratigraphic evidence, this 
would make the Permian of Kansas and Oklahoma largely, or entirely 
younger than the typical Permian of Russia. Granted, however, the cor¬ 
rectness of the plant evidence, which determines the lower portion of the 
Kansas “Permian” as of Permian age, the Guadalupian would then occupy 
the position of the Gschelian, and its possible equivalent in India (the 
Produetus limestone), and in Sicily (the Fusulina limestone) would also be 
Gschelian. As against this stands the fact that the Hueco beds are much 
more nearly related to the Gschelian than are the Guadalupian, so far as 
the faunas are concerned, and that the two American formations aggregate 
over 10,000 feet, which is a rather great thickness to represent the Russian 
formation. 
It will be of interest to give brief consideration to the faunal procession 
which occupied some of the American areas during the upper Carboniferous. 
According to the correlation governed by the latest evidence available, the 
earlier faunas of the Pennsylvanian in the Hueco and Sacramento mountains 
have a facies in many respects closely simulating the well-known Pennsyl¬ 
vanian of the Mississippi Valley — more Russian in the Hueco Mountains, 
more American in the Saeramentos. Changing conditions caused a change 
1 U. S. Geol. Surv., Water-supply Paper, No. 154, p. 17. 1906. 
