INTRODUCTION 



823 



tressed paleontologist do under such all too frequent happenings except 

 submit and adjust himself to the inevitable facts? 



Field Investigations in 1921 

 review of itinerary 



In view of preceding statements, it must be clear that Welter's unyield- 

 ing attitude made further field-work and closer study of both the old and 

 the new data essential before we could hope to settle the questions at 

 issue. Eesponding to this conviction, I entered the field in May, 1921, 

 accompanied by Mr. Butts, hoping to find what we needed. None of the 



' i 



\ Ohio r 



\ /INDIANA Lcincinnali J 



■-— '\ i \ •• 



_, T J ILLINOIS : r ^> ^-^-^-1 A 



7 / 



.J v- 



V- j J\ ! oFrankfbrt S 



MISSOURI \ r A 



)Z & KENTUCKY / \ r 



\ r J A /' 



V \ 4 5 



I 



j 



r' 



^Memphis 



TENN ESSEL 



oKnoxville .' 

 , — / 



/"^VA. 



( I 



/ MISSISSIPPI : ALABAMA \ GEORGIA 



6 \ C N.C. 



1 



\ 



Figure 1. — Sketch Map showing Localities studied 



Chester localities visited was entirely new to either of us. The first was 

 at Big Stone Gap, in southwestern Virginia, where we studied an excel- 

 lent display of the typical Montesana f acies of the Lower Chester. Al- 

 though the section is clearly exposed in a large quarry, we found it im- 

 possible to draw a sharp or otherwise satisfactory boundary between the 

 Sainte Genevieve and Gasper parts. 



Next we entered the region about Huntsville, Alabama, where we suc- 

 ceeded in clearing several doubtful points. From Huntsville we went to 



