808 E. O. ULRICH CORRELATIONS OF CHESTER FORMATIONS 



sandstone or give it a new name, as has been done by Butts, who called 

 it Bethel sandstone. 



I feel much greater responsibility in the case of the misapplied term 

 Tribune. But these and one or two other less important lapses are con- 

 ceded and corrected in my part of the work on "Mississippian Formations 

 in Western Kentucky/' by Butts and Ulrich. They are past history and 

 worthy of recollection only as illustrations of the danger of relying on 

 the testimony of others. Had I gone to Cypress Creek, Engelmann's 

 type locality, the name Cypress sandstone would not have been misapplied 

 by me. Again, if I had studied the outcrop of limestone at Tribune 

 instead of relying on the report of an assistant, doubtless some other 

 more appropriate term than Tribune limestone would have been found 

 for the perfectly good formation to which Butts subsequently gave the 

 name Gasper limestone. 



THE 1905 REPORT ON WESTERN KENTUCKY 



In U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 36 I made my first 

 effort to divide the Chester group into formational units and subordinate 

 members and beds. The composite result of this attempt, as determined 

 by combination of various tables and statements in the cited publication, 

 particularly on pages 24, 38, and Gl, and the stratigraphic relations of 

 the several units to those recognized in the generalized classification of 

 the Upper Mississippian formations now generally recognized are as 

 shown in the following table : 



ULRICH'S 1905 SUBDIVISIONS OF THE CHESTER 



The following are my subdivisions of the Chester in Crittenden and 

 Caldwell counties, Kentucky, in 1905, correlated with present classifica- 

 tion : 



