500 GEOLOGY OF OHIO. 



Ohio stratigraphy.* The economy which sacrifices exhaustive paleontol- 

 ogical study of a series of stratified rocks is sure to prove short-sighted 

 iu the long run. Mr. Meek said, "I have seen no reason to change an 

 opinion long since expressed in a joint paper with Prof. Worthen, that 

 this rock and its equivalents in Illinois, Indiana, etc., belongs to the Car- 

 boniferous sj^stem. It may also be added that, from the first, I have been 

 impressed with the rather curious fact that many of the Waverly fossils 

 have much more closely allied representatives in the Coal Measures of our 

 Western States than in the Lower Carboniferous limestones of the same 

 legion." He adds that he has not the slightest suspicion that the Wa- 

 verly should be included in the coal measures 1 . Of the thirty-two Waverly 

 species described only about twelve are from the lower portion of the 

 Waverly which might alone be sufficient to indicate that the opinion 

 of Professor Meek was chiefly formed upon the basis of specimens from 

 the Logan group or sandy portion of the Waverly. But of the remainder 

 it is significant that the forms are either species with a recognized wide 

 range, like Grammysia hannibalensis, Heviipronites crenistria, etc., or 

 species like Palceoneilo bedforde?isis which too closely resemble Devonian 

 forms, or new species whose resemblances are either decidedly Devonian 

 or unsignificant. The great weight of Mr. Meek's opinion cannot, there 

 fore, be applied to sustain the Carboniferous relationship of the lower 

 division of the Ohio Waverly. Professor Newberry insisted that "the 

 series of strata which begins with the mechanical sediments of the Port- 

 age has a fauna more Carboniferous than Devonian in character. The 

 commencement of the epoch of the deposition of this series of mechan- 

 ical sedimnts * * * was in fact the beginning of the Carboniferous- 

 period." In the second volume of the Ohio Geology he says: "That all 

 its rich fauna is of a decidedly Carboniferous type; second, that it includes 

 a number of species of the lower Carboniferous rocks of Kentucky, 

 Tennessee, Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan; third, that it furnishes at nearly 

 all of its fossiliferous localities certain species which are also common in 

 the coal measures above; fourth, that our collections made include no 

 Chemung or Portage species; fifth, that it is continuous with the 'vesper- 

 tine' and 'umbral' rocks of Pennsylvania." The curious fauna of the 

 Bedford was at that time almost unknown nor had the abundant fauna 

 of the concretionary shales near the base of the Waverly been explored. 

 The basal shales were supposed to be practical^ unfossiliferous. In the 

 fifth volume of the New York Paleontology, Professor Hall seems to 

 withdraw his oft-repeated statements as to the Chemung habitus of the 

 Waverly fauna; he says: "A careful examination of those species supposed 

 to have a vertical range from the Chemung group to the Waverly group, 

 has shown that they are allied forms but specifically distinct." The gen- 

 era, however, are for the most part identical, only four genera of 1am- 

 ellibranchs found in the Waverly are not also found in the Hamilton or 

 Chemung. 



1 Paleontology of Ohio, Vol. II, p. 272. 



