OF DENISON UNIVERSITY. 
105 
there, tends to develop bitumenous bands. The fact that the Crinoids 
of Richfield are essentially Burlington species is not surprising in view 
of the fact that the strata represented by the Upper Cuyahoga in cen- 
tral Ohio are purely carboniferous with evident Burlington alliances. 
The evidence on this point afforded by the report of Mr. Ulrich, 
printed in this number is especially important. We can safely assert 
that the crinoids of the Cuyahoga shales in northern Ohio indicate an 
age not earlier than Burlington, the bryozoa of the same horizon in 
northern, central and southern Ohio indicate an age corresponding to 
the Keokuk and Burlington while the Logan fossils of other groups, 
for example, Phillipsia meramecensis ^ indicate the same age. ' We 
submit therefore, that the upper one hundred feet of the Waverly are 
no longer doubtful — ^they are certainly of Carboniferous age and con- 
tain a fauna extending from the Burlington into or through the Keo- 
kuk groups. The term “Cuyahoga shale” can only be retained as a 
topographical designation. 
Prof. Orton, with some reservation in view of further observation, 
suggests a division of the Cuyahoga shale into an upper and lower 
■division, for the first of which he uses the term Logan, retaining the 
name Cuyahoga shales for that part below the conglomerate I, and 
extending to the black or Berea shale containing Lingula melie. To 
this, two suggestions must be offered. First, the term Cuyahoga shale 
was applied especially to the upper part, as all the writings of New- 
berry show, and this upper portion actually contains a part of the pro- 
posed Logan. Second, the Logan is both lithologically and faunally 
composite and consists of a number of distinct portions which are in 
fauna more unlike than the lower shale and the Logan. We have 
shown already at sufficient length the nature of the distinctions be- 
tween the upper and middle divisions. The term “Waverly conglom- 
erate” is especially unfortunate as the developments of conglomerate, 
as already shown, are local and may represent either conglomerate 
I or II, which are separated by a long and important interval. 
In view of the above considerations we suggest the following 
modification of Prof. Orton’s scheme, hoping to avoid the difficulties 
incident to the earlier plan of Dr. Newberry without introducing am- 
biguity into the terms employed : 
‘ ‘ Cuyahog a or Waverly series. ’ ’ 
(Conglomerate II.) 
j Kinderhook 50-60 ft 
[, (Conglomerate I.) 
