50 rAKU(iNn'"i':iJ<)rs kokmatiuns anu faunas ok coi^okado. 



the case of \\'hite'.s section, wliere those lieds aggregate ?>,1U0 feet, though this 

 measurement excludes the Lodore group, which contains 4(50 feet. 



The upper i)ortions of the Weber quartzite are described as so closely resembling 

 tiie ))eds of the Lower CarlionilVrous as to make their satisfactory discrimination 

 in some cases impossible. He says: "The Lower Carboniferous strata are often so 

 very like those of tlu> Weber quartzite in general aspect that a casual observer would 

 be in danger of confounding one with the other, especially if the unconformity sliould 

 be, as it generally is, slight or obscure." (Page 33.) Referring again to the uncon- 

 formity which was reported by Powell as occurring at the top of the Uinta sandstone, 

 and which, it will be remembered, the geologists of the Fortieth Parallel Survey 

 were unable to verifj^, he remarks that it "is usually so slight as to be easily 

 overlooked." (Page 23.) 



A resemblance similar to that which is reported between the Weber quartzite 

 and the Lower Carboniferous, appears to exist also between the Lower and Middle 

 Carboniferous, and in some cases, as in Yampa Mountain.- " the Lower Carboniferous 

 is not satisfactoiih' separated from the middle group." (Page 25.) The Upper 

 Carboniferous group, on the other hand, is said to be easily distinguishable from 'that 

 below. 



If the resemblance between these different strata is so great, may not, one is 

 inclined to ask, the absence of the Lodore group be the result of a similar resem- 

 blance, owing to which it was merged unrecognized with the LTinta sandstone or with 

 the Lower Carboniferous? 



White cites no fossils from any of the Paleozoic formations recognized by him. 

 Kone. indeed, seem to have been found in the Weber quartzite, which he provision- 

 alh' places in the Silurian, following Hayden and Marsh, whose reference seems to have 

 been equally unbiased bj^ paleontologic evidence. (Page 23.) Carboniferous fossils 

 were found in the three overh'ing groups, but these seem to have been altogether of 

 Coal Measure or Upper Carboniferous tj^pe, Eocarboniferous or Mississippian and 

 Permian faunas being absent. This inference seems to be justified from the discussion 

 on pages 2-i, 25, and 26. White says in especial: "I shall regard all the groups that 

 have been named in' the foregoing sections and elsewhere in this report as purel\" 

 stratigraphical divisions, and probably inseparable from each other on paleontological 

 grounds." (Page 2-i.) Regarding the upper group he says: "Fossils are rare in 

 this group, but a few have been found in its upper strata, and those yet known are not 

 such as to distinguish it clearly from the other two Carboniferous groups." The 

 Carboniferous groups below it "contain fossils that are as closely allied with the 

 Permian of Europe as any that have yet been discovered in the strata of this upper 

 one." (Page 26.) As the divisions recognized by White are entirely sti'atigraphic, 

 the emploj^ment by him of names which have a more or less precise significance in the. 



