32 C. L. HERRICK — THE CUYAHOGA AND WAVERLY. 



may be relied upon to justify the statement, once for all, that at least three 

 well-marked divisions must be recognized in the Ohio Waverly. These 

 divisions must always rest chiefly upon paleontological evidence, although 

 their approximate limits are formed by two bands of conglomerate which 

 apparently represent periods of exceptionally rapid oscillation. 



To us the great interest centering in a careful paleontological study of 

 the Waverly lies in the fact that the disturbances referred to were neither 

 violent nor extensive enough to seriously interfere with the peaceful evolu- 

 tion of types. From the end of the Coruiferous to the beginning of the Coal 

 Measures in Ohio a quiet, shallow sea was the rule and local fluctuations or 

 perturbations the exception. The result of this long period of quiet is a 

 marvelous record of the slow chancres in life which brido:es over the interval 

 betw^een mid-Devonian and early Carboniferous times. Although the num- 

 ber of species found in any one horizon is, with perhaps two exceptions, 

 rather small, the aggregate in the Waverly is considerable. Should an at- 

 tempt be made to collate all species reported from Ohio a considerable allow- 

 ance would certainly need to be made for duplication, while, on the other 

 hand, it is certain that the resources of our Ohio fauna are by no means ex- 

 hausted. 



The proper way to contribute to the ultimate elimination of the disturb- 

 ance and ambiguity introduced by the vague descriptions and meager data 

 of some of the earlier writers has seemed to be the systematic description 

 with figures of such species as are actually found at the various typical ex- 

 posures upon well-defined horizons. It certainly is true that in a case like 

 the present one, in which much, nay, all, depends on the ability to recognize 

 beyond doubt each stratigraphical horizon by means of its fossils, and in 

 which lithological peculiarities are so nearly valueless, no pains can be ex- 

 cessive when applied to the correlation of local cotemporaneous fiiunas. 



The necessity of repeating much of the work done previously grows out of 

 the absence of figures of fossils and (worst of all) of minute data as to posi- 

 tion, locality, etc. So long as the belief prevailed that the Waverly was 

 essentially homogeneous, it was thought sufficient in the majority of cases to 

 say from "the Waverly group of Ohio," "the Marshall group of Michigan," 

 or " the Kinderhook of Illinois." This is very much as though one should 

 locate a fossil in the " Silurian group of New York." 



It is thus only that the writer hopes to apologize for having entered a field 

 which properly belongs to the paleontologist, and very probably failing in 

 many cases to identify the species previously described. Accordingly the 

 effort has been made to locate every species described, both stratigraphically 

 and geographically, so minutely that its exact position may be subsequently 

 determined. Hence, even though changes in the nomenclature employed 

 may be rendered necessary by reidentification of the species previously de- 



