Series in Kansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico. 229 
Remeri,* and which White later described as G. forniculata, 
as called throughout this paper. 
Inasmuch as these beds lie in the Kansas provinee, i. e., the 
region north of the Ouachita system of mountains, and is com- 
pletely cut off from the Texas region by them, it is reasonable 
to infer, until the localities can be visited, that the Comet 
Creek bed is a part of the same general formation as those . 
near by at Camp Supply and Belvidere. 
The Tucumcari Region.—The Tucumeari exposures, as we 
shall call the New Mexican localities of the Cretaceous, are 
the most isolated of all the Comanche deposits, and, as we 
have shown, there is no possibility of tracing’ by stratigraphic 
continuity their relations with the main Kansas and Texas 
areas. They are two hundred and fifty miles southwest and 
west of the Belvidere and Comet Creek localities; about two 
hundred miles northwest of the nearest Texas localities in the 
breaks of the Plains on the headwaters of the Brazos, and 
three hundred miles north of the Kent localities in Trans 
Pecos, Texas. If there was stratigraphic connection between 
these localities across the intervening areas, it was forever 
destroyed by the great pre-Plains erosion, or obscured by the 
succeeding Plains sedimentation. 
Yet paleontology again comes to our aid to show that the 
small thickness of Comanche Cretaceous preserved in this iso 
lated area was intimately connected with the other outlying 
areas. It is unfortunate that in the following remarks we 
have not the benefits of the publication of the results of the 
field season spent by Prof. Alpheus Hyatt in this region in the 
year 1889. The writer has seen his collections, however, and 
has no fear in saying that, when published, they will substan- 
tiate the general proposition maintained in this paper. That 
he and every other modern writer holds these beds to be of 
Cretaceous age, and not Jurassic, as maintained by. Prof. Jules 
Marcou, is also fully substantiated. We shall not enter into 
this controversy here. Aside from Prof. Hyatt’s unpublished 
collection, three collections have been made from this region. 
1. By Prof. Jules Marcou, who collected two species as 
follows: Gryphea tucumcart Marcou, later figured by him 
as Gryphea dilatata var. tucumcarw; and Ostrea Marsha 
Marcou. 
2. A collection made by the writer, April 30, 1891, and now 
in the collections of Johns Hopkins University, a list of which 
was published in Science of July 14, 1893. . 
3. A collection made by members of the Texas Geological 
Survey, in the summer of 1891, a list of which as identified 
by Mr. T. W. Stanton of the U. 8. Geological Survey, was 
published on page 208 of the third annual report of that survey. 
* Proceedings Boston Society of Natural History, 1861, p. 95. 
