REPORT OF THE STATE PALEONTOLOGIST 1902 



1113 



rzzn 



section was Globuliform cohmnaria, which undoubt- 

 edly is the same as Favosites n i a g a r. ensis ? Hall. 



Other fossils are mentioned as occurring in 

 the basal member, but they appear not to 

 have been identified. Unfortunately, the 

 studies of Vanuxem did not extend far 

 east of Otsego county, and he did not cor- 

 relate his sections in Otsego and Herkimer 

 counties with those of Schoharie. It will 

 thus be seen that, while Vanuxem recog- 

 nized a section clearly above the Euryp- 

 terus beds in Herkimer county, he did not 

 realize that the lowest member of his 

 Waterlime group was the continuation of 

 the " Coralline " of Schoharie county. On 

 the other hand, Hall recognized the " Coral- 



zrz 



.I i i , i 



35? 



z 



,77777 



Z2 



zz 



// ' .// 



:^^3z 



2 ^^S 









> 



O 



line 



m 



N 



j3 

 w 



d> 



a 

 a 



tub 



both Schoharie and Herkimer 

 counties, but in the latter he, evidently, 

 was not aware of its position with refer- 

 ence to the Eurypterus beds. 



The sections as above given, together 

 with the results of a recent examination of 

 the so called Clinton and Niagara forma- 

 tions extending from Schoharie into Her- 

 kimer county, clearly show that there is no 

 representative of the Niagara east of 

 Herkimer county; while the study of a new 

 collection of fossils from Schoharie county 

 and a similar examination of collections 

 from horizons clearly above the Salina in 

 western New York, conclusively demon- 

 strate that the " Coralline " of Schoharie 

 county is of an age later than the Salina, 

 Coralline" has in New York State a greater 



and that the 



extent than the Niagara itself. 



The inappropriateness of the term Niagara as applied to the 

 " Coralline " has been recognized for some time by Dr Clarke. 

 This, together with the incongruity of the word Coralline as a 



