852 E. O. TJLRICH CORRELATIONS OF CHESTER FORMATIONS 



stone which underlies the Renault. (3) The top of the Ohara is older than 

 the Aux Vases [or the Bethel] sandstone and consequently no part of it can 

 be of the age of the Renault. [And if the Renault actually corresponds, as 

 every one concedes, to the Lower Gasper, which overlies the Bethel sandstone, 

 it can not also correspond to any part of the Upper Ohara which entirely 

 underlies the Bethel.] (4) The lower and middle parts, at least, of the Ohara 

 most probably are represented in the Sainte Genevieve limestone in the 

 Mississippi Valley and also in the Sainte Genevieve part of the Montesana 

 limestone in Alabama. (5) The faunas of the Ohara and Fredonia members 

 of the Sainte Genevieve limestone are more closely related than had been 

 supposed, and the relationship is sufficiently binding to require their classifi- 

 cation in the same group and series. [To which we may add the now definitely 

 established facts: (a) that Pugnoides ottumwa, Platycrinus huntsvillce, and 

 Dizygocrinus $u pastes are not confined to Sainte Genevieve beds beneath the 

 Upper Ohara, but pass upward into and perhaps beyond the top of the Upper 

 Ohara; (b) that Gystodictya laMosa and Amplexus gcniculatns are not con- 

 fined to the Upper Ohara. the former being found also in the Fredonia and 

 again in the Gasper, the latter being known in Kentucky and apparently also 

 in Union County, Illinois, in the middle part of the Gasper; and (c) that the 

 species of Talarocrinus in the typical Renault are at least partly the same as 

 those in the Lower Gasper, but none of these two sets of species is precisely 

 like any of the three species of this genus that are found in the Upper Ohara.] 

 (G) The number of fossils held in common by the Fredonia and the Saint 

 Louis limestone is relatively small. (7) The most effective and the most 

 widely displayed of the physical breaks in the upper Mississipian rocks is the 

 one at the top of the Saint Louis limestone. (8) The boundary between the 

 Meramec and the succeeding series is most naturally and most conveniently 

 drawn at the probably everywhere unconformable contact between the Saint 

 Louis and the Sainte Genevieve limestones.*' 



These conclusions can not be denied and finally expunged by innuendo, 

 by implications of carelessness in collecting or of incompetence in de- 

 termining geologic horizons, or by negation based on the mere failure of 

 my critics to find the fossil species at the places and in the beds in which 

 1 found them. 



