GIRTY, GEOLOGIC AGE OF THE BEDFORD SHALE 317 



shale, though belonging to genera well represented in the early Missis- 

 sippian of the Mississippi Valley, do not occur outside the State. Any- 

 one, however, who will compare the fauna of the Chouteau limestone 

 with that of the Cuyahoga shale, as found at such points as Medina, 

 Richfield, Lodi and Royalton, cannot fail to find great similarity and not 

 a few identical species. I am not prepared to state the exact extent of 

 this resemblance, but my studies would indicate strongly that, if the 

 €uyahoga fauna is to be found anywhere in the Mississippi Valley, it is 

 to be found in the Chouteau limestone. The Waverly localities which I 

 have mentioned are all, T believe, in the upper Cuyahoga. By definition, 

 the Chouteau limestone is part of the Kinderhook group and therefore 

 in stratigraphic position inferior to the Burlington limestone, but I am 

 much disposed to think that the Chouteau limestone really correlates 

 with the lower Burlington, the fauna which we know as the Burlington 

 fauna being developed in and largely confined to the upper Burlington. 



I have already given a list of the fossils found in the Berea ("Corry") 

 sandstone which underlies the Cuyahoga shale. This fauna contrasts 

 strongly with both the Bedford fauna below and the Cuyahoga fauna 

 above. It has a much more marked Carboniferous aspect than the Bed- 

 ford fauna, even if we exclude the faunas apparently contemporaneous 

 with the Bedford having a more distinctly Devonian facies. Though, 

 of course, showing great individuality, the "Corry" fauna is not only 

 distinctly Carboniferous, but in some of its elements it is distinctly 

 Kinderhook, as for instance in the genus Paraphorhynchus, a type which 

 Professor Weller regards of special importance and which is said to be 

 characteristic of the northern Kinderhook. 



It is interesting to find three faunas in the Ohio section showing re- 

 semblances, more or less illusory perhaps, to these three aspects of the 

 Kinderhook faunas of the Mississippi Valley, and it is also interesting to 

 compare the stratigraphic relations of these faunas in the two areas on 

 the assumption that the Cuyahoga shale correlates with the Chouteau 

 limestone, the Berea sandstone with the northern Kinderhook (the 

 Chonopecius fauna of the Kinderhook sections at Burlington), and 

 the Bedford shale with the oolite at Glen Park or Hamburg, as is to 

 some extent suggested by faunal similarities. According to their strati- 

 graphic relationship in typical sections in the Mississippi Valley, the 

 Bedford shale should not lie below the Berea sandstone, but above it. It 

 should in fact even be contemporaneous with part, if not with all of the 

 Cuyahoga shale. If, however, the Kinderhook relationship of the Bed- 

 ford be eliminated, as I believe it can be eliminated owing to its probable 

 relationship to other "Bradfordian" faunas, this contradiction largely 



