GEOLOGY OF LICKING COUNTY, O. PART IV. 
s 
By C. L. Herrick. 
Waverly Group. Continued. 
[General Conclusions.] 
In concluding the list of fossils for the present it remains, in ful- 
fillment of the promise made at the beginning, to express the opinions 
to which the study has led us. The discussion cannot be confined to 
Licking county and a large amount of collecting and stratigraphical 
study has been done in all parts of the Waverly domain in Ohio, as 
well as in Pennsylvania, and western New York. Only the briefest 
outline of this work could be admitted and the reader is asked to be- 
lieve that the statements of fact presented have all been made after 
patient labor. Too many distinguished pens have already traversed 
the question for the writer to venture largely into speculation simply, 
but he is not without hope that some of the suggestions offered may 
meet the approval of those prepared to sift the evidence. 
A great deal of confusion exists as to the actual sequence of strata 
in Ohio and the equivalence of beds in different parts of the state. 
No pains has been spared to determine the exact stratigraphical posi- 
tion of every fossil described and in this we have been unexpectedly 
successful. Our study sufficiently proves that in its various portions 
the Waverly presents the same sequence of species and that, casting 
aside a few species ot great vertical range, these forms are rather 
sharply limited in definite horizons. 
It is deeply to be regretted that for the purpose of correlating the 
horizons of the Waverly the reports of the Ohio Geological Survey are 
quite unavailable. Made up as they were by various hands, it is 
quite impossible to recognize a given horizon of one county in even the 
adjacent one. Diversity of nomenclature is the least of the difficulties 
encountered. It was of course impossible for this to be otherwise 
under the conditions imposed. It is hoped that the correlated hori- 
zons here presented may assist in supplying the deficiency. 
Perhaps the greatest source of ambiguity in the report of the 
