A. C. Peale — Application of the Term Laramie. 51 



of Rocks, Wyoming, supposed by King to be of Laramie age, 

 were shown by Stanton* to belong to Montana. Cross and 

 Eldridge in 1S88 described an unconformity above the Lara- 

 mie in the Denver Basin in Colorado and restricted the term 

 Laramie in accordance with its original definition to the beds 

 resting conformably upon the Fox Hills Cretaceous. The 

 Judith River beds, referred at one time or another to all the 

 formations from the Jurassic to the Fort Union, were, finally, 

 in 1903, f referred by Stanton and Hatcher to the Upper Cre- 

 taceous (Montana formation). More recently part of the coal 

 beds of the Raton Mesa region, studied by Mr. W. T. Lee,J 

 have been found to be above an unconformity which apparently 

 occupies the position of the break found by Cross and Eldridge 

 above the Laramie in the Denver Basin. Mr. Veatch in his 

 generalized section§ in Carbon Co., Wyoming, shows an uncon- 

 formity separating 6500 feet of beds, which he calls " Lower 

 Laramie," resting conformably upon the Montana formation, 

 from 6000 feet of beds (called " Upper Laramie " by him) 

 lying conformably beneath strata of Fort Union age. The 

 beds just below the unconformity are devoid of plant remains 

 so far as known at present. There certainly is room here for 

 the Laramie formation and the probabilities are that eventually 

 plants will be found in them and enable us to settle the ques- 

 tion of their age. The beds above the break and between it 

 and the Fort Union are in the Shoshone group as named by 

 Cross. [j More recently Dr. F. H. Knowltonlf has determined 

 the Fort Union age of the Dinosaur (Ceratopsia) bearing beds 

 lying below the well-defined and almost universally recognized 

 Fort Union, by the identification of a typical Fort LTnion flora 

 associated with dinosaur bones. Knowlton has also referred 

 to the fact that the " Upper Laramie " or Paskapoo beds of 

 the Canadian geologists are the equivalent of the upper Fort 

 Union and that probably their " Lower Laramie " or Edmonton 

 beds should be correlated with the lower Fort Union, as both 

 of the latter also contain associated Fort Union leaves and 

 dinosaurian remains.** None of these supposed Laramie beds 

 of the Canadian geologists apparently conforms to the original 

 definition. f+ It is doubtful if any beds of true Laramie age 



* Science. N. S., vol. xviii, pp. 211, 212, 1903. 



•f-U. S. Geol. Surv., Bull. No. 257, 1905. 



^Lee. Bull. Geol. Soc. Auier., vol. xx, 1909 (in press). 



^ This Journal, vol. xxiv, p. 18, July, 1907; also in Journal of Geology, 

 vol. xv, pp. 526-549, 1907. 



|| Proc. Washington Acad, of Sciences, vol. xi, pp. 27-45, March 31, 1909. 



*" Knowlton, Proc. Washington Acad, of Sciences, vol. xi, p. 179 et seq. 



** See, also, Geol. Surv. of Canada, Annual Report, vol. ii, for 1886, 

 p. 132. E. If not Lower Ft. Union, they may possibly be Shoshone. 



ft McConnell in Geol. Surv. of Canada, Ann. Rept. for 1885, vol. i, 1886, 

 p. 46 C, refers to the " Lower Laramie " as resting sometimes on the Pierre 

 shales but as occurring more often with Fox Hills beds intervening. 



