WAVERLY GROUP. 513 



naiadiformis, Schizodus cuneus, S. chemurigensis, S. palceoneiliformis, S. 

 quadrangular is, S. triangularis, Spathella ventricosa, Streblopteria graci- 

 lis, Bellerophon galericulahis, Conularia newberryi, Cyclonema leavenworth- 

 iana, C. strigillatum, Euomphalus latus, Flem'ngia stulta, Goniatites lyoni, 

 Platyceras herzeri, P. bivolve, Cryptonella eudora, Rhynchonella sappho, R. 

 marshellensis, Syringothyris cuspidatus, and many more. 



Cre?iipecten winchelli is ubiquitous and its presence is almost a dem- 

 onstration that the rock in question lies within or at most a little above 

 these limits. 



The upper portion of this section is a soft blue shale which usually 

 has become but slightly compacted. It retains the boring mollusks 

 which originally inhabited it in situ, so that the valves of these shells are 

 found in connection, obliquely inbedded in the soft clay, from which they 

 roll on weathering in a fragile but perfect state. 



Such forms are Allorisma winchelli* A. ventricosa* A. convexa, 

 Edmondia depressa, Grammysia ventricosa* G. rhomboides, Prothyris 

 meeki* Pholadella, newberryi, Sanguinolites obliquus* S. aeolus* Discina 

 gallaheri Orbiculoidea newberryi, O. pleurites. 



Those species marked by an asterisk may be regarded as diagnostic 

 of this horizon. In a period of collecting, extending over seven years, 

 these forms have never been found far distant from conglomerate II. It 

 seems clear that this section of the Waverly is the specific counterpart 

 of the typical Kinderhook, and with the underlying shale, of the Marshall 

 group of Michigan. 



We venture to append the remark published in 1888 which seems in 

 the main to fairly state the case: 



"The middle Waverly is essentially a littoral zone and its fossils are 

 for this reason largely peculiar, but. it can be readily shown that Prof. 

 Alexander Winchell was correct in identifying this horizon with the 

 Kinderhook, etc., of the west. We do not claim that no fossils of the 

 Kinderhook occur above conglomerate II or below conglomerate I, for 

 this would be contrary to all analogy, but we do believe that, as a rather 

 distinct factor of the Ohio Waverly, this may be wholly referred to that 

 age and is its specific equivalent. That this horizon is equivalent to the 

 Catskill of New York, as suggested by Winchell, would be in our judg- 

 ment too specific a claim. The Catskill is another such local develop- 

 ment but it is more intensely local as it is a restricted member of the 

 Chemung series, itself a littoral and provincial deposit. Very strict cor- 

 relation of strata deposited under diverse conditions may never be pos- 

 sible. Chronological and faunal equivalences are rarely strictly identical. 

 We may safely say that our middle Waverly is representative of the Cats- 

 kill, and that is enough. It is not necessary to rehearse the accumulated 

 evidence to show that this group is more closely allied to the upper, 

 Chemung than the Carboniferous limestones of the west. The species 

 which give to the Waverly its carboniferous aspect as maintained by all 

 writers, are largely from division III. 



33 G. O. 



