1916] 



Dickerso-n : Tejon Eocene of California 



369 



Tejon was waged. Conrad, 4 Gabb/' Whitney, Cooper, 7 Marcou, 8 

 Heilprin," Newberry, 10 White, 11 Becker, 1 - Clark, 13 Harris, 14 Oilier, 1 5 

 all contributed to this question. The Cretaceous ghost of the 

 Tejon was finally laid by Stanton 10 and Merriam. 17 Most of the 

 papers cited deal with the Tejon in general, and direct references 

 to the type locality are few in number. 



The reader is referred to the papers by Clark and Stanton 

 for a more complete review of the literature concerning the age 

 and correlation of the Tejon. 



Anderson 18 mapped an area in the southern end of the San 

 Joaquin Valley which included the type locality of the Tejon 

 group and he described the stratigraphic relations there. 



Watts, 19 Cooper, 20 Lindgren and Turner 21 described the 

 stratigraphy and fauna of the Tejon of the Marysville Buttes 



c Whitney, J. D., Geol. Surv. California, Palaeontology, vol. 2, 1869. 



i Cooper, J. G., The Eocene Epoch in California — Are there really no 

 Eocene Strata?, Cal. Acad. Sci. Proa, 1st series, vol. 5, pp. 419-421, 1874. 



s Marcou, J., Ann. Rept. Geog. Surv. West 100° Merid., pp. 167-169, 1876; 

 Note sur la geologie de la Calif ornie; Bull. Soc. geol. France, 3rd series, 

 vol. 11, pp. 407-435, 1883. 



9 Heilprin, A., On the Occurrence of Ammonites in Deposits of Tertiary 

 Age, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila., vol. 34, p. 94, 1882; On the Age of the Tejon 

 Rocks of California, and the Occurrence of Ammonitic Remains in Tertiary 

 Deposits, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Phila., vol. 34, pp. 196-214, 1882. 



10 Newberry, J. S., On Supposed Tertiary Ammonites, Proc. Acad. Nat. 

 Sci., Phila., vol. 34, pp. 194-195, 1882. 



ii White, C. A., On Marine Eocene, Fresh-Water Miocene and other fossil 

 Mollusca of Western North America, Bull. 18, U. S. Geol. Surv., pp. 7-9, 1885. 



12 Becker, G. F., Notes on the Stratigraphy of California, Bull. 19, U. S. 

 Geol. Surv., pp. 1-25, 1885. 



is Clark, Wm., Correlation Essays, Eocene, Bull. 83, U. S. Geol. Surv., pp. 

 95-110, 1891. 



11 Harris, G. D., Correlation of the Tejon with Eocene Stages of the Gulf 

 Slope, Science, vol. 22, p. 97, 1893. 



is Diller, J. S., Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., vol. 4, pp. 218-220, 1893. 



is Stanton, T. W., The Faunal Relations of the Eocene and Upper Creta- 

 ceous on the Pacific Coast, 17th Annual Report, IT. S. Geol. Surv., pp. 1011- 

 1059, 1896. 



it Merriam, J. C, The Geological Relations of the Martinez Group of Cali- 

 fornia at the Typical Locality, Jour. Geol., vol. 5, pp. 767-775, 1897. 



is Anderson, R. V., Preliminary Report on the Geology and Possible Oil 

 Resources of the South End of the San Joaquin Valley, Cal., Bull. 471, U. S. 

 Geol. Surv., pp. 117-119, 1912. 



is Watts, W. L., The Gas and Petroleum Yielding Formations of the 

 Central Valley of California, Bull. No. 3, California State Mining Bureau, 

 Aug., 1894, pp. 9-10. 



20 Cooper, J. G., Catalogue of California Fossils, Bull. No. 4, California 

 State Mining Bureau, Sept. 1894, pp. 36-45. 



21 Lindgren, W., and Turner, H. W., Marysville Folio, U. S. Geol. Surv., 

 Folio 17, April, 1895. 



