T6 C. W. Honess — Stanley Shale of OMalioma. 



oidal fragments embedded in the tuff in the lower part of 

 the Stanley. 



The fossil plants, poor though the materials are, were 

 all sent to Dr. David White of the U. S. Geological Sur- 

 vey for identification and interpretation ; the fossil shells 

 and other animals were submitted to Dr. Charles Schu- 

 chert of Yale University who in turn showed them to 

 Dr. Ulrich of the U. S. Geological Survey. Dr. White 

 has not yet reported on the plants from the Beech Creek 

 locality but concerning the others he says : 



''No. 941 is a specimen representing a portion of a Lepidoden- 

 dron trunk. It is, hoAvever, partialh' decorticated and therefore 

 is not specifically determinable. 



"No. 942 is a wholh^ decorticated Lepidodendroid stem, in 

 which the nerve traces are very obscurely indicated. It may be 

 either Lepidodendron or, more likely, Bothrodendron. 



''No. 977. This number is given to two Calamarion frag- 

 ments, each of which contains a complete internode. The rock 

 has been so crushed and the stem fragments so deformed that it 

 is impossible to say witli confidence whether either of the stems 

 belong to Astrocalamites. Both might belong to Calamites. 



"No. 882 is a fragment of a fern frond, bearing slender pinnae 

 of some Sphenopteris. The fragment is so weathered as to show 

 only the topography and dim outlines of the pinnules, the nerva- 

 tion and borders of which cannot be clearly discerned. 



"These specimens, I am sorry to say, are none of them speci- 

 fically determinable. Therefore, any conclusion as to the age of 

 the beds must rest on inferences based upon the general aspect 

 or facies of the decorticated or badly worn and deformed frag- 

 ments. 



"The phyllotaxy of the Lepidodendron indicates a relatively 

 ancient Carboniferous type. One of the Calamarian fragments 

 is more suggestive of Asterocalamites than Calamites. The 

 Sphenopteris may belong to a group found in the upper part of 

 the Mississippian and in the very old Pennsylvanian. 



"The collection does not contain anything specifically identi- 

 fiable with any form characteristic either of the Mississippian or 

 Pennsjdvanian. It appears, however, to harmonize with other 

 material collected by Ulrich, Miser and myself from the Stanley 

 or Jackfork of Oklahoma and western Arkansas, none of which 

 is realh^ satisfactory, since all the fossils are very fragmentary 

 and have generally been rubbed or deformed in the course of 

 depositions in gritty rock. After examining your specimens the 

 tentative conclusion that the Stanley represents either very late 

 Mississippian, possibly upper Chester, or Pennsylvanian ^ of 

 earlier date than I am acquainted with in the Appalachian 

 trough, is slightly stronger." 



