158 Ulrich — Chattanoogan Series with Special Reference 



the .New Albany shale in Indiana and western Kentucky, and 

 with the Hardin sandstone member of the Chattanooga slink'. 

 in Tennessee. But the Ohio shale, except its basal part, is not 

 mentioned on either chart. 



The innovations suggested in these charts, also certain state- 

 ments respecting the Chattanooga shale in Tennessee and its 

 relations to the Cleveland shale of Ohio published by Dr. R. S. 

 Bassler a few months earlier in the same year,* led Dr. E. M. 

 Kindle to express his dissatisfaction over the delay in publish- 

 ing my evidence. The present paper is intended primarily 

 to supply this deficiency in so far as it may be done in the 

 space here allotted to me. Obviously, however, considering 

 the magnitude and intricacy of the task, and the abundant lit- 

 erature bearing more or less directly, though often diversely, on 

 one or another of its many subsidiary problems, the present 

 effort is necessarily far from exhaustive or even from being 

 satisfactory to myself. Still, if because of lack of space and 

 time I fail to establish the fundamental features of my con- 

 tention, I yet believe that I shall succeed at least in trans- 

 ferring the burden of proof to those who have assumed that 

 the Chagrin formation belongs between the Huron shale 

 beneath and the Cleveland shale above, and who, on the basis 

 of the universally admitted late Devonian age of the Chagrin 

 and its assumed superior position, have correlated the " Huron" 

 with other Devonian formations. Now that these assumptions 

 are questioned, they must prove by uneqniivocal stratigraphic 

 and faunal evidence that the Chagrin formation actually over- 

 rides the Dinichthys herzeri zone. Or, if that can not be done 

 with absolute certainty, they must at least prove that the 

 Huron fish fauna is actually a Devonian fades and not, as I 

 believe it, a derivative of Devonian fishes that persisted with 

 slight modification across the systemic boundary into the initial 

 stage of the succeeding Waverlyan system. Finally, they 

 must offer a satisfactory explanation of the anomaly indicated 

 by comparisons between the Huron and Cleveland faunas on the 

 one hand and the Chagrin on the other. They must show par- 

 ticularly why the fishes and conodonts in the Huron and Cleve- 

 land shales are so closely and undeniably similar in kind whereas 

 the same classes of fossils, especially the fish remains, in the 

 supposed intervening Chagrin shale and in its late Devonian 

 equivalents in Pennsylvania and New York, diflfer so markedly. 



Chief points to be discussed in present paper. — From the 

 foregoing statements and the correlation charts recently pub- 

 lished it is evident that I differ radically on three points 

 from the views now commonly held respecting the strati- 



* Bassler, R. S. : The Waverlyan Period in Tennessee, Proc. U. S. Nat. 

 Museum, vol. xli, pp. 209-224, 1911. 



