198 
Transactions Texas Academy of Science. 
Marcou, Jules. 
oou’s “Geology of NoTtli America” (Zurieh), 1858; tR. T. Hill’s “Texas 
Section of the American 'Oretaceous/’ American Journal of Science, III, 
Vol. XXXiIV, 'pp. 305-305, 1887 ; also his “Topography and Geology of the 
Cross Timbers and Surrounding Regions in JsFo'rth Texas,” Amer. Jour, 
of Sei., rid, p. 299, 1887 ; his ^‘Neozoic Geology of Southwest Arkanisas,” 
Ann. Rept. Geol, 'Surv. Ark. for 1888, Vol. II, p. 121; “Events in North 
American Oretaceous History illustrated in the Texas- Arkansas Division 
of the iSouthwestern Region of the United States,” Amer. Jour, of Sci., 
Ill, Vol. XXXVII, p. 290, 1889; and his “Check List of Cretaceous Inverte- 
brate Fossils, 1889; Marcou’s Review of the Ann. Rept. of the Geol. Surv. 
of Ark. above mentioned, Amer. Geologist, Vol. IV, pp. 357-367, 1889; 
Annual Reports of the Geol. Surv. of Texas; Hill’iS [Monograph on “The 
Invertebrate Paleontology of the ■Trinity Division,” Proc. Biol. iSoc. of 
Washington, Vol. VITI, pp. 9-40, 1893; Cragin’s “Invertebrate Paleontology 
of the Texas Cretaceous,” Fourth Ann. Rept. of the Geol. Surv. of Texas, 
1893 ; Dumble and Gummins’ “Kent Section and Gryphsea Tucumcarii, 
Marcou,” American Geologist, Vol. XII, pp. 309-314, 1893. Discussion of 
the conclusion of Messrs. Dumble and iCummins, which is : “Since, there- 
fore, in the Kent Section we have Prof. Marcou’s (7. dillatata var. Tucum- 
oarii in the same bed with such typical Cretaceous forms as G. Pitcheri, 
Ammonites leonensis, A. peruvianus, Terehratula Wacoensis, etc., it must 
be considered a true Cretaceous form. Its discovery in this connection 
simply 'adds one more to the list of fossils occurring in the Wiashita divis- 
ion of the Cretaceous of Trans-Pecos Texas, whose close resemblance to 
well-known Jurassic types would, under any less conclusive evidence of 
its Cretaceous age, warrant its reference to the Jurasisic.” Marcou’s con- 
clusion: “The conclusions of Messrs. Dumble and Cummins are based on 
paleontological grounds only, without any regard to stratigraphy, and we 
may add, against a well-balanced and correct stratigraphical classification, 
for there is no reason whatever to suppose that the Jurassic deposits are 
missing above the Trias in the Tucumcari area.” 
Reference to Ammonites described by Jose G. Aguilera and Professor 
Hyatt. Maroou’s final conclusion: “The eonclusion leached in 1853, when 
I was at Pyramid Mount, Tucumcari, is confirmed by all I have seen since. 
The horizon of Gryphaea Tucumcari is Jurassic. Moreover, it is the upper- 
most subdivision of the American Jura. The strata below, and between it 
'and the Trias, belong to the Jura also, and are synchronous with the 
Bosque division, and very likely with the Fredericksburg division of 
Texas.” 
The Lower 'Cretaceous of Texas and Gryphaea Pitcheri. Paleontological 
confusion. G. sinuata var. Americana. The Tucumcari area. The Lower 
Cretaceous or Neooomian Fauna. The .Sedimentary Strata of Texas. 
303. Meloher, J, C. 
Notes on the E'conomic Minerals of Fayette Connty. 
GeolO'gieal and Scientifio Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 8. Houston, 
Deoemher, 1888. 
“The thickest and best lignite beds visible in this county are on O’Quinn 
