0. Meyer — Species in the Southern Old-tertiary. 65 



idic limestone and the newer age of the Vicksburg fossils was 

 considered a proved fact in the literature. As the Claibornian 

 was considered Middle Eocene, Conrad called the Vicksburg 

 bed "Newer Eocene." Afterward it appeared to him more 

 proper to use the name of " Upper Eocene " for the intervening 

 Jackson bed, and thus finally the Vicksburg fauna received 

 the name of Oligocene. 



1860. Interesting as it would be, I cannot review here the 

 whole literature regarding this subject,* but it is necessary to 

 criticize this point at least briefly, as it is presented in Hilgard's 

 Geology of Mississippi (Jackson, 1860). Only a competent 

 and careful examination of the fossils could indicate the rela- 

 tion of the Old-tertiary strata in Mississippi; but Hilgard 

 seems to have studied this Tertiary paleontology very little, 

 and when it was necessary to prepare a list of fossils he trans- 

 ferred the work to Professor W. D. Moore. The division : 

 Claiborne, Jackson and, at the top, Vicksburg was accepted 

 as a proved fact, as well as the identity in age of the Vicks- 

 burg and St. Stephens beds. On this basis he undertook to 

 map the marine Old-tertiary. He found Orbitoides and Pecten 

 Poulsoni in the east (Wayne County), in the west (Vicksburg), 

 and besides in Rankin County. So he connected these local- 

 ities, thus forming a "belt," which pointed admirably toward 

 St. Stephens. But unfortunately this belt would pass right 

 through Jackson, an older formation. Therefore Hilgard made 

 this belt make a sharp curve to the south around Jackson. 

 Then he drew a parallel Jacksonian belt; and farther north he 

 found the Claibornian. All this would admirably agree with 

 the general dip southward. An "irregularity" — the strata 

 from Jackson to Canton indicating a northern dipf — seems 

 not to have troubled him very much. I could not find a place 

 in his work where an overlying of the Jacksonian by the Vicks- 

 burgian was shown. It is no wonder that Hilgard worked in 

 this way, if we consider that he had to map an enormous terri- 

 tory without reliable preparatory work, almost without assist- 

 ance and in so short a time, that he could not even by a glance 

 examine large areas. The only criticism that can be made 



* Attention might be called at least to the following sentence of "Winchell's, 

 (Proc. Am. Assoc. Ady. Sci., 1856, part II, p. 86: "The thick bed of limestone 

 which underlies the sandy belt at Claiborne [the Claibornian] has not been recog- 

 nized elsewhere. Perhaps its occurrence here is accidental." We see that Win- 

 chell, working on the accepted theory, comes to the conclusion that the stratum 

 of more than fifty feet below the Claibornian may be accidental, as it cannot be 

 found elsewhere. 



Wmchell determines, p. 85, a bed as Claibornian without citing any fossil to 

 prove this character. 



f Lyell represents in a diagram (1847) the dip from Jackson westward. 



Am. Jour. Sci.— Third Series, Vol. XXX, No. 175.— July, 1885. 

 5 



