REPORT OF THE STATE PALEONTOLOGIST 1902 1113 



I , I 



section was Globuliform columnaria, which undoubt- 

 edly is the same as Favosites niagarensis ? Hall. 



Other fossils are mentioned as occurring in 

 the basal member, but they appear not to 

 have been identified. Unfortunately, the 

 studies of Vanuxem did not extend far 

 east of Otsego county, and he did not cor- 

 relate his sections in Otsego and Herkimer 

 counties with those of Schoharie. It will 

 thus be seen that, while Vanuxem recog- 

 c - nized a section clearly above the Eurvp- 

 ,g terus beds in Herkimer county, he did not 

 | realize that the lowest member of his 

 » Waterlime group was the continuation of 

 ! the " Coralline " of Schoharie county. On 



3 the other hand, Hall recognized the " Coral- 

 is & 



line " in both Schoharie and Herkimer 



ZZ 



2±£ 



» counties, but in the latter he, evidently, 

 | was not aware of its position with refer- 

 ence to the Eurypterus beds. 



The sections as above given, together 

 with the results of a recent examination of 



I 



j the so called Clinton and Niagara forma- 

 i t'ions extending from Schoharie into Her- 

 kimer county, clearly show that there is no 

 representative of the Niagara east of 

 Herkimer county; while the study of a new 

 collection of fossils from Schoharie county 

 and a similar examination of collections 

 from horizons clearly above the Salina in 

 western New York, conclusively demon- 

 strate that the " Coralline " of Schoharie 

 N county is of an age later than the Salina, 



and that the " Coralline" has in New York State a greater 

 extent than the Niagara itself. 



The inappropriateness of the term Niagara as applied to the 

 " Coralline" has been recognized for some time by Dr Clarke. 

 This, together with the incongruity of the word Coralline as a 



