^HE CORRELATION 85 



Shenango. — Bangor of McCalley in Alabama; npper portion of Bangor of Hayes 

 in Tennessee; npper portion of SafFord's mountain limestone in Tennessee; 

 Chester of Kentucky geologists (second survey) ; Pennington and top of New- 

 man of Campbell in Tennessee and southwest Virginia ; Umbral shales of Fon- 

 taine; Canaan shales of Darton ; Greenbrier shale of W. B. Rogers; Mauch 

 Chunk shale of Maryland; Mauch Chunk of Pennsylvania in part; absent 

 from most of Ohio; Shenango shale of I. C. White in northeast Ohio and 

 northwest Pennsylvania. 



Maxville. — Hartselle of Alabama; greater part of Bangor in Tennessee; lower 

 part of mountain limestone in Tennessee; greater part of upper Newman and 

 of upper Greenbrier in Virginia; upper Umbral and upper Mauch Chunk 

 limestones in Pennsylvania; Maxville of Ohio; upper Saint Louis of Ken- 

 tucky. 



Tuscumbia. — Tuscumbia of McCalley in Alabama ; Lithostrotion of SafFord in Ten- 

 nessee ; upper part of Fort Payne in Tennessee; lower part of Saint Louis in 

 Kentucky; lower Newman and Greenbrier in Virginia; lower of Greenbrier 

 in Maryland; silicious limestone of Pennsylvania; absent in Ohio except at 

 Kentucky border. 



The term Shenango is the earliest applied definitely to the latest divis- 

 ion. Though Doctor White's Shenango shales have been spoken of as 

 representing the whole of the Mauch Chunk sedimentation, it will be 

 shown in the next chapter that they represent practically only the sedi- 

 mentation of the closing epoch. The name Maxville was given by Pro- 

 fessor Andrews in 1870, and therefore antedates Hartselle by many years. 

 Tuscumbia, being a geographical term, will have to replace the much 

 older Lithostrotion of Professor Safford.* 



The fossils from the Shenango appear to be those characteristic of the 

 Chester of the Mississippi basin. Forms belonging to that epoch have 

 been collected in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky, and elsewhere. 

 Fossils collected by Andrews in 1869 from the Maxville localities in Ohio 

 and by Stevenson in 1870 from the same limestone in West Virginia 

 were submitted to Mr F. B. Meek, who pronounced them distinctly 

 Chester. Professor R. P. Whitfield afterwards figured and described the 

 Ohio forms, referring them practically to the same horizon. Still later, 



*In the preceding chapter the writer has given reasons for rejection of the name Catskill, and 

 he has conceded that owing to confusion in the use of Chemung, that name also might be dis- 

 carded. In the latter case, however, he entertains some misgivings, as the difficulty lies rather 

 in disagreement respecting boundary lines, and he can not grant that because a term has been 

 used to designate two formations which are consecutive it should be east aside, any more than he 

 could grant that a generic term in biology should be rejected because in the original description 

 it included forms which proved afterwards to belong to several genera. This has been conceded 

 by those who are apparently urgent in introducing new names without any regard to priority, for 

 Greenbrier and Mauch Chunk have been retained, both of which have been used as comprehen- 

 sively as either Hamilton or Chemung. In the immediate instance Shenango is definite. Its 

 boundaries are clear, and it should be retained in preference to the cacophonous Mauch Chunk, 

 which, if retained at ail, should be used merely as equivalent to the Genevieve of Professor H. S. 

 Williams. 



