( 'ori'expondence. 12t> 
posed along the l>os(|ue river for a distance of more tlian iifty miles 
from its source. At no other locality has nature so well arranged and 
exposed these rocks for study, hence I gave the name liosque division. 
Concerning the section of the Comanche series on page 395: IVIy 
report covers the ground whicli has been gone over l)y ^Ir. Hill and 
others, but it is based entirely upon the observations of myself and 
my assistant. Mr. Leverett, with the exception of the description of 
the Comanche Teak section (Third Annual Report. Geol. Survey of 
Texas, 1891, p. 307) for which due credit is given Messrs. J. S. Stone 
and W. T. Davidson. None of Mr. Hill's notes have ever been acces- 
sible to me, had I wished to use them. 
It is simply astonishing that Mr. Hill should place in parallel the 
order of succession of the rocks of the Comanche series in North 
Texas as published by me and that as published by himself, and state 
that they are the same, and claim that I had co])ied his. I should 
have thought it more reasonable had he complained that I had muti- 
lated his section. After working three years on the geology of the 
same formation in a single field and that too where the stratigraphy 
is as simple as that in the Cretaceous of north Texas, I should be 
blind indeed, if I had not obtained the correct succession of the rocks. 
After spending a part of the spring season of 1891 and the whole of 
the season of 1892 on the Comanche series between Brazos and lied 
rivers I was surprised to find that Mr. Hill had confounded the 
Exogyra Arietina bed with the Denison bed !See the Comanche Series 
of the Texas- Arkansas Uegion, IJulletin (Teological Society of America, 
p. 517), that he had placed the Kiamitia clays in the Washita division 
witliout a reason (see Hulletin cited p. 515. By E. T. Hill. For cor- 
rection see Third Annual Report Geological Survey of Texas, 1891, 
pp. 275, and 344, by J. A. Taff), and that he should make his Goodland 
limestone the highest member of the Fredericksburg division when 
he states, and very truly, that it is, at least, the equivalent of the 
Comanche Peak beds (See Bulletin cited, pp. Xo. 514, 515). 
The line of demarcation between the Denison and Arietina beds, as 
shown by the fauna as well as by the strata themselves, was plainly 
evident to the writer while tracing it and studying the beds con- 
tinuously through a distance of two hundred miles from lU'azos river 
to Indian Territory line. In any good exposure of the rocks along the 
south side of the valley of Red river in Crayson and Cooke counties 
an abundant Fort Worth limestone fauna may be seen in a thin band 
of limestone between the Arietina and Denison beds. Further south 
in Denton, Tarrant, and .lolmson counties this thin limestone in- 
<'.reases, still bearing well defined characteristic Ft. Worth limestone 
fossils, until there are extensive strata of lime and marl leaving the 
Denison and Arietina beds widely se])arated. There is therefore no 
excuse, on the part of Mr. Hill, for the confusion, after spending the 
tield-season of 1890 in this region. The contacts of all the other beds 
of the Comanche series have likewise been traced and mapped and 
the rocks carefully studied between Brazos and Red rivers. If, by 
this close detailed work, we establish the truth in the geology i>f the 
region we ar(> content. 
