C. W. Honess — Stanley Shale of Oklahoma. 77 



With regard to the small marine fauna found on the 

 banks of Little River (specimens 943 and 944) and the 

 inarticulates from the base of the Stanley (specimens 

 1015 and 1016) Professor Schuchert writes as follows: 



"It seems to me fahly certain that these specimens cannot be 

 other than either Mississippian or Pennsylvanian. As you got 

 an undoubted Lepidodendron even beneath lots 943 and 944 

 and as the specimen appears to me like a Pennsylvanian form, it 

 seems that the whole of the Stanley and Jackfork may be Penn- 

 sylvanian in age rather than Mississippian. The marine fossils 

 do not indicate anything to the contrary. Your marine fossils 

 are as follows: 



OrMculoidea nitida Phillips. Loc. 1015 and 1016. 



I cannot distinguish the specimens from Coal Measures 

 forms. 



Crinoid columnals. Loc. 943 and 944. Common. At least 

 two species. 



Cystodictija sp. undet. Loc. 943 and 944. 



Bhomhopora, sp. undet. Loc. 944. 



Fenestella, sp. undet. Loc. 944. 



Undet. Bryozoa. Common Loc. 944. 



Froductus suggesting PiisUda nehraskensis, Loc. 943 and 944. 



Chonetes, sp. undet. Loc. 943. 



Very fragmentarj^ Finely striate form. 



Fish bone. Loc. 943. 



Dr. Ulrich reports as follows : 



"Frankly speaking, these Stanley remains are certainly a 

 poor lot — not at all noisy in imparting information. Only the 

 OMculoidea nitida which identification seems as good as can be 

 made with the material, is in sufficiently good condition to war- 

 rant a definite opinion. 



"The finely pustulated fragments of brachiopods I believe to 

 belong to a species of Chonetes. As all the fragments expose the 

 inner surface of the valves I deduce that the exterior is dis- 

 tinctly striated. But whether it is most like Mississippian or 

 Pennsylvanian types one can hardly say. Still as the striated 

 Mississippian species of Chonetes are practically^ confined to beds 

 older than the Warsaw and as it is almost too much to concede 

 that the Stanley can be Lower Mississippian, then these frag- 

 ments may be said to point toward the Pennsylvanian rather 

 than Mississippian. 



"The Bryozoa also are too imperfect for satisfactory determi- 

 nation. And yet they are not quite hopeless. There is a frag- 

 ment of Fenestella. This says nothing. Then there are a 

 couple of branching specimens concerning which I cannot decide 



