C. Schuchert — Russian Carboniferous and Permian. 35 



Of the many Indian species of Brachiopoda, the author finds 

 that 31 are also known in the Ural-Timan region. To these 

 he has added 13 other species not common to both areas, but 

 which clearly have related forms. He then discusses the dis- 

 tribution of these various species in the beds of India and the 

 Ural-Timan region, and concludes: — 



" Of great significance is the occurrence of the family Ly tton- 

 iidge in the Schwagerina horizon of the Ural and the Yirgal 

 beds of India. This occurrence is of great moment and signifi- 

 cance in the history of the upper Paleozoic of Russia " ( see 

 " Conclusion," paragraph 5). 



" Through a comparison of the brachiopod fauna of the Upper 

 Carboniferous deposits of the Ural and Timan with those of 

 the various subdivisions of the Procluctus-limestone of the Salt 

 Range, we clearly see that the lower Productus-limestone, or 

 the Amb beds [see tables on pp. 32, 37], is more properly 

 correlated with the Ural-Timan horizon having Spirifer mar- 

 coui and Omphalotrochus whitneyi, and that in our Schwag- 

 erina horizon we more naturally may discern the greater part 

 of the Middle Productus-limestone, while the homotaxial sedi- 

 ments of the Cora horizon we have to seek in the upper layers 

 of the Amb beds and probably also in the lower horizons of 

 the Middle Productus-limestone, or in the Yirgal group ( ac- 

 cording to Noetling's nomenclature). In this parallelism the 

 Kalabagh beds [upper division of the Middle Productus-lime- 

 stone] and the Upper Productus-limestone (in any event, the 

 major part ) well represent the Artinsk deposits and their equiva- 

 lents of the Ural." 



" This result is in the main at variance with the prevail- 

 ing views as to the age of the various subdivisions of the Pro- 

 ductus-limestone of the Salt Range, and approaches decidedly 

 the original conclusion that the age of these beds is Carbonifer- 

 ous. I foresee that against my deductions the objection will be 

 raised that they are based on a comparison of the brachiopods 

 alone, but I can also defend them through other classes of the 

 animal world. Moreover, I wish to say a few words in regard 

 to the Cephalopoda, especially the ammonites." He then dis- 

 cusses the ammonites of Russia and Sicily, as described by 

 Karpinsky and Gemmellaro, and lays particular stress upon the 

 conclusion of the former, which he quotes as follows: "That 

 the Sicilian fauna is somewhat earlier in origin than that of the 

 Urals, although they, as I will again assert, approach closely the 

 Artinsk. On the other hand, it is possible that the differences 

 mentioned are due to chorological causes. The complicated 

 Arcestidae, for instance, can only belong to the southern regions" 

 (pp. 719-20). 



