S. Calwin—Fauna at Lime Creek, Iowa. 435 
Indiana and Illinois. Not only are all the known species dif- 
ferent in the two formations, but very few even of the Lime 
Creek genera are represented in the Kinderhook. Of the 
Atrypas and Strophodontas that constitute so conspicuous a 
feature of collections from Lime Creek, the Kinderhook has 
not so much as a single representative. It would be a more 
hopeful undertaking to attempt to prove a close relationship 
i) 
first two, the Atrypa reticularis, and the genera are strikingly 
Similar as shown in the following table: 
Niagara. Lime Creek. Kinderhook. 
Stromatopora, Stromatopora, 
Alveolites, Aiveolites, 
Cystiphyllum, Cystiphyllum, 
Stromb: ; Smithia,* 
Strophodonta, _ Strophodonta, 
Strophonella, Strophonella, 
Streptorhynchus, Streptorhynchus, Streptorhynchus, 
Orthis, Orthis, Orthis, 
Productella, Productus, 
Spirifera, Spirifera, pirifera, 
Atrypa, Aurypa, 
Pentamerus, Gypidula, 
Rynchonella. Rhynchonella, Rhynchonella. 
Some genera omitted from the Lime Creek list are not repre- 
sented in either of the other two groups. A glance at the 
table will show on which side the relation is most marked, an 
yet I think few geologists would claim that any very close re- 
lationship exists between the Lime Creek and Niagara faunas. 
The fish faunas of the Lime pte and Kinderhoo 
beds 
crowded full of the teeth of Cladodus and other Carboniferous 
Hybodonts. 
The last sentence of Professor Williams’s brief note in the 
i t 
New York wosaint with which, not only these beds, but all 
our Devonian strata are to be correlated, is questioned by some 
and hence “not satisfactorily determined.” The discovery at 
* The two species of Lime Creek fossils referred to Smithia are certainly not 
generically distinct from Strombodes. (See remarks of Rominger on this point, 
Geol, of Mich., vol. iii.) 
