RESUME OV LITERATURE. 47 



1,200 feet thick, is here exposed, of which the upper portion is rather finely stratified 

 and shah", and bears Bellerophon carbonarius.'''' 



Another probable occurrence of this horizon is in Weber Canyon, mentioned by 

 King on page 163 of Volume I. Furthermore, in a collection recentlj^ made in the 

 western end of the Uinta Range a small fauna like that of the Bellerophon lime- 

 stone, with similar lithology and stratigraphic position, was obtained. 



It seems probable, therefore, that this horizon extends from the eastern end of 

 the Uinta Mountains westward into the Wasatch Range, and that the correlation 

 made \>\ the King survey of the W^asatch and Uinta sections is probably in the main 

 correct. Yet the faunal and stratigraphic evidence alike are so insufficient that it is 

 necessarj' to proceed with caution and to postpone a final decision until more data 

 have been secured. 



The Paleozoic series in the Grand Canyon, as exemplified in the Kanab Canyon 

 section, shows as striking an agreement with that of the Wasatch Mountains as does 

 the section made out in central Colorado. The Cambrian is represented by quartz- 

 ites, sandstones, and limestones, as in Utah, though the thickness is much less. The 

 Cambrian is followed by a limestone of Ordovician age comparable to the Ute lime- 

 stone, though always considerabl}' thinner. Then succeed some sandy and limy 

 lieds which have been much reduced by erosion and are not persistent. They contain 

 the remains of jDlacoganoid fishes, and Spurr desires to correlate them with the Part- 

 ing quartzite, which occupies a position in the Colorado section similar to that of the 

 Ogden quartzite of Utah." Except for this brief series, the Devonian is unrepre- 

 sented in either area, the succeeding formation in Kanab Canj-on being the Red Wall 

 limestone, which, like the Wasatch limestone of Utah, has a Mississippian fauna in 

 its lower portion and a Pennsylvanian fauna in its upper. The Mississippian fauna 

 of the lower Red Wall admits its correlation with some certainty with the similar 

 portion of the Wasatch limestone. The Wasatch limestone, however, is greatly 

 thicker than the Red W^all, and probably contains beds of Mississippian age which 

 are wanting in the Grand Canyon region. 



The sandstones of the lower Aubrey and the limestones of the upper Aubrey, 

 which next succeed, are suggestive of the Weber quartzite and Upper Coal Measures 

 series of the Wasatch Mountains. I feel that the upper Aubrey can with some 

 probability of correctness be correlated with the Upper Coal Measures of the W^asatch 

 section, and VValcott's Permian in a general way with the Permo-Carboniferous of 

 that area, though doubtless they may not have precisely the same boundaries. 

 Whether the lower Aubrey represents the Weber, or, that formation being absent 

 in the Grand Canyon, goes with the upper Aubrey to make up the southward 

 extension of the Upper Coal Measures, is a point upon which it is impossible to form 



« U. S. Geol. Survey, Mon., vol. 31, la98, p. 21. 



