76 



1. Lower Carboniferous coral limestone. 



2. Siii-tan shale, probably corresponding to the Upper Carboniferous. 



3. Limestone ; the upper part containing chert and the above 

 mentioned organic remains. 



4. Bluff-limestone. 

 From this, we see : 



RiCHTHOFEN No. 8 = Frech No. I. 



9 = 2. 



10 = 3. 



11 = 4. 



Comparing Ricuthofen's division with that of Noda, it is almost beyond 

 doubt that Nos. 5-8 of the former cover the whole of the Niu-kan limestone, 

 Lo-.ver Cliyslate and Ping-shan limestone series of the latter, although it is 

 not sure whether No. 7 of Riciithofen actually coincides with the Lower 

 Clayslate series of Noda. Lil<ewise, that No. 9 of Richthofen exactly 

 corresponds to the Upper Clayslate series of Noda is a matter of conjecture 

 though it is quite unlikely that No. 8 also represents the lower part of the 

 latter. More convincing is, then, the identity of Richthofen's No. 9 and the 

 basal part of Noda s Mi-tsang limestone series (=Willis and Blackwelder's 

 Wu-shan lime.stone), for this correlation is supported by tlie brachiopods 

 studied by Frech and cited above, and 



jMarg'aritina scJiivagcri Zi rmi. 

 found in a limestone picked up by Noda in a gully at Sin-tan, which he be- 

 lieves 10 have been derived from the basal part of his Mi-tsang-limestone. 

 As the last named fossil is previously known only from the Prodnctus lime- 

 stones of the Salt Range and the equivalent deposits of prov. Yun-nan, the 

 basal part of the Mi-tsang limestone can not be older than the Uppermost 

 Carboniferous. The brachiopoda described by Frech from Richthofen's No. 

 10 beds indicating the Lower Permian age, tliis complex is surely identical 

 with the basal part of Noda's Mi-tsang limestone. 



Frech who simply followed to Richthofen's stratigraphical statement 

 and found the identity of the coral fauna of Sin-tan and that of the European 

 Lower Carboniferous was forced to attribute the Upper Carboniferous age to 



