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



not be correlated with the Laramie. Professor Meek,* basing- 

 his opinion upon the study of the invertebrates, was inclined 

 to consider the beds as of Tertiary age, the Dinosanrian remains 

 alone indicating any other possible age for them. As to the 

 plants found at Black Buttes there are twice as many species 

 common to these beds and the Shoshone as are common to the 

 Laramie and the Black Buttes beds, and we know now that 

 Dinosanrian remains are not uncommon in the Shoshone. If it 

 follows " irresistibly " from what Mr. Yeatch has written that 

 Carbon is the type locality of the Laramie, in my opinion it 

 follows just as " irresistibly " from what is outlined in these 

 pages that Carbon is not and never was the type locality. 



Mr. Veatch's fourth conclusion! is that the Hayden and 

 King parties at Carbon studied only the beds above the great 

 unconformity that he, Mr. Yeatch, has since determined, and 

 that they considered them conformable to the Fox Hills, and 

 therefore according to Yeatch these beds above the break and 

 these only should have the term Laramie. That King and 

 Hayden thought the beds conformable certainly justified them 

 in considering them at the -time as Laramie in accordance 

 with their own definition and does not militate against the 

 reference to the Laramie of the beds below the break which 

 were not subjected to the same minute investigation as the 

 upper beds. As to " the absolute necessity of a type locality 

 to afford the means of finally and conclusively correcting 

 inaccurate statements or conclusions of the author or authors 

 of a geologic name," we at least all agree upon the desirability 

 of such a type locality, although we may disagree as to 

 whether there is one in the present case. Mr. Hague's con- 

 sideration of the Carbon locality has already been referred to. 



The fifth conclusion J 6f Mr. Yeatch, that " the attempt to 

 redefine the term Laramie from the exposures in the Denver 

 region, some 200 miles from the type locality, is therefore not 

 defensible," embraces several fallacies. In the first" place 

 there was no redefinition, and secondly, as we have shown, 

 there is no specified type locality 200 miles from the Denver 

 region. If there were such a type locality the Denver region 

 would naturally be a part of it as already shown. No redefi- 

 nition of the Laramie was made by Cross and Eldridge when 

 they restricted it by taking from above it the Arapahoe and 

 Denver. No redefinition was necessary because of their dis- 

 covery of the unconformity at the base of the Arapahoe, for 

 the Laramie, although not so thick as first supposed, was still 

 left below, and was stilt conformable to the underlying Fox 



* U. S. Geol. Surv. of the Territories for 1872, 1873, pp. 529, 530. 

 fThis Journal, loc. cit., p. 20. 

 % This Journal, loc. cit., p. 20. 



