588 E. O. ULRICH REVISION OF THE PALEOZOIC SYSTEMS 



developed to the southeast of the axis. The movement was of a kind that 

 occurred frequently in Paleozoic times between formations of the same 

 group or series. Apparently it was accompanied by very little local 

 warping. 



The Warsaw, on the contrary, followed a period of considerable warp- 

 ing and presumably of long emergence. Though widely distributed, the 

 deposits of Warsaw age are everywhere but local in extent. In the J\Iissis- 

 sippi Valley proper I have seen them in only four localities, namely, in the 

 vicinity of Warsaw, Illinois ; in the valley of Meramec Eiver, to tJie west 

 and south of Saint Louis ; in the vicinity of Columbia, Illinois, and to the 

 west of Sainte Genevieve, Missouri. Each of these localities is included 

 in an old downwarp. On the flanks of Ozarkia, besides the two points 

 on the east side already mentioned, I have seen early Meramecian deposits 

 (included in, but overlying, the more typical Boone) at Carrolton and 

 Gravette, in northw^estern Arkansas, and in the Joplin district, at Spring- 

 field and Carthage, in Missouri (see also page 593). East of the ]\[is- 

 sissippi they have been observed in Hardin County, Illinois ; near Prince- 

 ton, Kentucky ; at the top of the Harrodsburg limestone, near Blooming- 

 ton, Illinois, and here and there in central Kentucky, in the Highland 

 rim about middle Tennessee, and to the north of Huntsville, Alabama. 

 Apparently the same zone is represented locally in the Allegheny basin 

 as far north as Konceverte, West Virginia. Throughout this wide dis- 

 tribution the occurrences seem to be patchy, indicating deposition in small 

 depressions of a profusely warped floor. As a rule, these patches are 

 overlapped by later Meramecian deposits; and it is of high taxonomic 

 significance that both disregard the limits of preceding Osagian prov- 

 inces. Apparently the Warsaw introduced a new epoch and period which 

 differed in many respects from the preceding Keokuk stage, but was 

 merely carried on to its full expression in the Spergen and Birdsville ages. 



Under the circumstances, therefore, I must insist that to class the War- 

 saw with the Keokuk, instead of referring it to the base of the Mera- 

 mecian, is to ignore an important diastrophic boundary that is moreover 

 clearly indicated faunally and in ever}^ way of greater significance than 

 the Warsaw-Spergen line. 



The fourth instance concerns the occasional reference of cherty Sper- 

 gen and Saint Louis limestone to the Fort Payne chert formation by stra- 

 tigraphers unacquainted with fossils. This is, of course, merely an un- 

 intentional error in practice that no paleontologist would be likely to 

 make. 



The relations of the Sainte Genevieve to the Chesterian and Merame- 

 cian. — The fifth illustration, finally, is that of the Sainte Genevieve lime- 



