WESTERN COAL MEASURES AND INDIANA COAL. 553 
erence to the diagram you will observe the close agreement in the 
spaces between the coals above, and those below No. 11. In the 
former, they are thirty-five, one hundred and two, one hundred and 
fifteen, and seventy-seven feet respectively, while in the latter 
they are forty-six, sixty-seven, eighty-six and one hundred and 
_twenty-seven feet; the aggregate distance from No. 17 to No. 13 
being three hundred and twenty-nine feet, and from No. 11 to No. 
6, three hundred and twenty-six feet. In giving the space from 
No. 8 to No. 6, I have omitted No. 7, which, at best, is but a 
streak of coal, and has no existence in Union county, where the 
principal data for the section was obtained. We are thus carried 
own to about the place of the “ little coal” at Mulford’s, now 
Shotwell’s mines, or No. 6 of the Kentucky column. 
From No. 5, passing down, there is but one thin coal seam in 
the space intervening between it and Bell’s coal or No. 1, B. 
The Curlew sandstone that is referred to a horizon just below 
the Mahoning sandstone of Pennsylvania, is the equivalent of the 
Anvil Rock sandstone. No. 4 coal is No. 11, and No. 3 is 
the equivalent of No. 1, B, or Bell’s coal, which lies just above the 
Millstone grit or Caseyville conglomerate. In Union county, Ken- 
tucky, there is a thin coal in the conglomerate below Bell’s coal, 
but there appears to be no workable seam. 
The total thickness of the strata in the Kentucky column, ex- 
clusive of the Millstone grit, is thirteen hundred and fifty feet; 
now strip it of the above errors of repeated strata, and we have, 
as the depth of the Carboniferous rocks in Union county, Kentucky, 
only six hundred and twelve feet, including the Millstone grit. 
The above errors are, in a great measure, to be attributed to too 
great a reliance on paleontological evidence, and to an apparent 
desire to make the measures conform to the Pennsylvania sections 
of the Appalachian coal field. 
Though there are some striking analogies, so far as relates to 
the character and peculiar arrangement of their accompanying 
rocks, which were first pointed out by myself in a lecture on the 
western coals in 1857, between the Pittsburgh seam of Pennsyl- 
vania, and the mammoth seam of western measures (No. 11 of 
Owen’s, and which may prove to be K'of my column), yet, from 
the undoubted disconnection of the two fields while the coals 
were being formed, it is difficult to conceive how any reliable 
equivalency can be established. 
