164 H. p. GUSHING PALEOZOIC IN NORTHWESTEKN NEW YORK 



imconformit}^ between the Theresa and Pameha formations, which is 

 but natural, since it takes more detailed Avork than was then possible to 

 disclose it. His correlation was undoubtedly made on the basis of litho- 

 logic resemblance, and he evidently had some doubts concerning it. 

 Dr J. M. Clarke has called my attention to the fact that Emmons, in his 

 "Fourth Annual Eeport," describes the Depauville waterlime as if it was 

 then his intention to make it a formational name." At the time he was 

 evidently in doubt as to its stratigraphic position, since he states that it 

 overlies the Birdseye limestone, as shown at Lafargeville (see map). As 

 a matter of fact, the rock at Lafargeville is the fossiliferous limestone in 

 the lower part of the Pamelia formation. In the final report Emmons 

 does not use the name, distinctly refers the rock at Depauville to the 

 Calciferous, and evidently would have done so in the first place had he 

 not thought that it was above the Birdseye. In this report he nowhere 

 refers to the rock at Lafargeville, though he maps it as Calciferous on 

 his geologic map of the state. It seems, therefore, clear that the name 

 was given simply because of the supposed position of the rock above the 

 Birdseye, and was abandoned so soon as that was seen to be an error. 

 There would seem, therefore, no reason for rehabilitating the name, espe- 

 cially since the rocks concerned only constitute a small part of the forma- 

 tion which it is proposed to call Pamelia. Either term is new to present 

 usage, and the one chosen seems less unwieldy and more euphonious than 

 the other and serves much better as a type locality for the formation. 



In 1896 C. J. Sarle was sent into the district to map formation bounda- 

 ries for the proposed new geologic map of the state. His results appear 

 on the geologic map of 1901, but his manuscript i*eport has never been 

 published. His work necessitated a hurried examination of a large area 

 and gave no opportunity for detailed study. Prom his manuscript it ap- 

 pears clear that he included the Theresa formation in the Potsdam and 

 considered the Pamelia limestone to be Calciferous. The fossiliferous 

 lower Pamelia, hoM^ever, confused him, as it did Emmons, and he mapped 

 it in part as Lowville; so that while the mapped patches of Calciferous 

 in this district on the map of 1901 represent Pamelia formation, they do 

 not represent it all. His mapping of the Theresa with the Potsdam 

 represents an important advance over Emmons' . position, since he thus 

 puts the line between the Cambrian and Lower Silurian at the horizon 

 of the unconformity, instead of including rocks both below and above 

 the unconformity in the same formation (Calciferous), as was done by 

 Emmons. 



" 4th Annual Report, p. 324. 



