OHAPTEE VI. 



THE CHEMUNG-CATSKILL PROBLEM: THE HISTORY OF THE DIS- 

 CUSSIONS CONCERNING THE CORRELATION OF THE CHEMUNG 

 AND CATSKILL FORMATIONS IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE 

 APPALACHIAN PROVINCE. 



In the year 1862 the discovery by Mr. J. M. Way, in the rocks of 

 Franklin, Delaware County, New York, of fish bones, in association 

 with Chemung fossils, raised doubt as to the validity of the correlation 

 of the deposits. The rocks had previously been considered as Catskill, 

 or Old Red sandstone. The fish remains discovered were regarded as 

 characteristic fossils of the Catskill group. The marine fossils found 

 iu the same rocks had been regarded as typical Chemung fossils. 



Col. E. Jewett, then curator of the State Museum at Albany, an- 

 nounced that " From my investigations I believe there is no Old Red 

 sandstone in this State." 1 The letter communicating this determina- 

 tion was dated " Albany, September 20, 1862." 



The same facts led Mr. James Hall to the following judgment: 



Late investigations, combined with those heretofore made, have forced upon me 

 the conviction that the greater part of the area colored on the geological map of New 

 York as Catskill group, is in fact occupied by the Portage and ChemuDg. 3 



Again — 



Until we ascend the slopes of the Catskill Mountains and rise to an elevation of at 

 least 2,000 feet above tide water, we find no rocks of newer age than the Chemung. 3 



And again — 



It now becomes necessary to restrict the term Catskill group to the beds formerly 

 known as x and xi of the Pennsylvania survey. 4 



This announcement, as Alexander Winchell wrote 5 in a letter to 

 James D. Dana, dated December 10, 1862, produced " a sensation among 

 geologists," and led to discussions extending over a number of years. 



In this letter Winchell spoke of Jewett's announcement of disbelief 

 in the existence of the Catskill group in the State of New York, and 

 recalled his own disbelief in its existence as a distinct group, and his 



1 Am. Jour. Sci.. 2d ser., vol. 34, p. 418. Also 15th Ann. Rep. State Cabinet of Nat. Hist., Albany, 

 18G2, p. 198. 



a On the Catskill group of New York, by Prof. James Hall. A letter addressed to Principal Daw- 

 son, dated Albany, October, 1862. Canadian Nat. and Jour, of Sci., new series, vol. 7, p. 377. 



3 Ibid., p. 380. 



♦Ibid., p. 381. 



'* See also "James Hall. Remarks on absence of Catskill gronp in New York." Albany Inst. 

 Trans., vol. 4, 1863, pp.307, 308. 



Winchell, Alexander, on the identification of the Catskill Red Sandstone group with the Chemung 

 (in a letter to J. D. Dana). Am. Jour. Sci., vol. 35, 1863, pp. 61, 62. 



6 Am. Jour. Soi., vol. 34, p. 418. 



121 



