W. F. CUMMINS — TEXAS PERMIAN. 
97 
Wichita river and near where sections Nos. 28 and 29 were made as pub- 
lished in that report on pages 403, 404. 
The locality given by Dr. C. A. White as Military Crossing in his 
description of Permian fossils (Amer. Nat., Feb., 1889) is on the north 
side of the Big Wichita river two miles, and about one mile east of this 
escarpment. No fossils were found in this escarpment on the Big Wich- 
ita river except the Phacoceras dumblei , Hyatt. 
By thus tracing this escarpment between the two points, the Clear 
Fork of the Brazos river and the Big Wichita river, and finding it con- 
tinuous, we demonstrated very clearly that the beds called the Upper 
part of the Albany division in previous reports, are the same as those 
called the Upper part of the Wichita division in the same reports. 
We next selected an escarpment capped by a bed of hard limestone, 
about five miles east of the one previously mentioned, and traced it 
southeastward to the Clear Fork of the Brazos river, crossing the sup- 
posed line of contact between the Albany and Wichita divisions. Here 
we again observed the gradual change in the lithological character of 
the beds that we had seen in the previously traced escarpment. 
We made four separate lines of tracing across the area of the two divi- 
sions, and found the fact well established that the Wichita and Albany 
divisions were the same in time of deposition, and therefore the Albany 
must be abandoned both as to its name and the age to which I had pre- 
viously referred it, and the beds composing the division must be re- 
ferred to the Wichita division of the Permian. 
Since the Wichita division is now made to include the area heretofore 
referred to as the Albany division, it becomes at once the most important 
and interesting part of the Permian in North America. 
Prof. F. W. Cragin suggests in a recent paper, that the Permian area 
south of the Wichita Mountain range ought to be considered as a dif- 
ferent basin from that on the north of the range, and that it is “profit- 
less to attempt divisional correlation between them.” 
It is more than probable that when the areas are better known it will 
be perfectly plain that they were not two separate basins, but were con- 
nected on all sides of this mountain range, and that it will be possible 
to correlate the divisions of the Permian as accurately as it has been pos- 
sible to do with the Lower Cretaceous divisions which are similarly situ- 
ated with regard to this mountain range. Especially will this now be- 
come possible since it has been determined that the Albany division, 
with its numerous fossils, is but another facies of the Wichita division 
which is beyond question Permian. 
The Phacoceras dumblei, Hyatt, has been found only along a very nar- 
row horizon in the Texas Permian. That horizon was traced and the 
fossils found for a distance of seventy-five miles. The fossil was found 
