256 The American Geologist. April, 1900 
these sections, however, it would appear that he did not trace trilobites 
any lower down than had been done by the Geological survey of New- 
foundland years ago; he seems to depend chiefly on the presence of 
Coleoloides typicalis as showing the presence of the"01enellus Fauna" 
in the lower bed; but that object is not always distinguishable from 
Hyolithellus micans, a problematical fossil found as high up as the 
Protolenus Zone; it was by Walcott placed under Pteropoda, but is 
probably of the tube worms; and tube worms and brachiopods seem 
the most striking fossils of this lower terrane. 
In reading this article one must always bear in mind the wide 
range given by Mr. Walcott to the genus Olenellus, as wide as might 
be obtained by uniting the genera Olenus, Paradoxides and Protolenus 
whose collective vertical range might equal that of Olenellus as thus 
understood, and whose divergence of form is not greater than that of 
Olenellus in the large sense. The need of limiting and dividing up 
this genus has been shown by Moberg. In Newfoundland IMr. Wal- 
cott seems only to have found "O." broggeri and has not shown its 
place in relation to the original Olenellus, O. thompsoni. He claims 
that 390 feet 01 the mea.«ures referred to the Etcheminian terrane by 
the writer contain the "O." broggeri fauna, which by the species shown, 
is the Troy (N. Y.) fauna. As this fauna comes up in contact with 
the Protolenus fauna, it is difficult to see where the fauna of Olenellus 
thompsoni, which is said (p. 338) to be 1,000 feet above the basal (or 
Troy bed), comes in, unless in the west it replaces Protolenus and 
Paradoxides; this, however, Mr. Walcott will not admit, as witness 
his "Conclusions" (p. 339). By these conclusions we are compelled 
to accept as "Lower Cambrian" fossils Olenoides (Dorypyge) mar- 
coui, Protypus senectus, various Ptychoparite, Microdiscus pulchellus, 
Conocoyphe triiineata, etc.* 
Involved in the first "conclusion" is the view which ]\Ir. Walcott 
elects to adopt, that the relation of the Cambrian to the Etcheminian 
is one of transgression overlap, not unconformity, and he cites the 
present writer as calling it a "great unconformity." Anyone who 
will read the writer's paper, however, will see that it is spoken of as a 
slight unconformity not easily recognized. 
In his revision of the Hanford Brook section ]\Ir. Walcott finds a 
fault which cuts out 200 feet of the thickness of the Etcheminian; he 
also finds "fragments of the Olenellus fauna" (p. i^7). On turning to 
the description (p. 2>^2) we find these are tube worms (2) and a 
brachiopod; these probably are the species already described from 
this locality or collected there by the author. Olenellus thompsoni 
everywhere avoids us in this "Low^er Cambrian" of the Atlantic prov- 
inces. I do not see that Mr. Walcott has got much beyond the de- 
scription of the characters of the fauna of this terrane given at page 
ZiZ, though that applied to the fauna of Newfoundland; westward of 
there, larger brachiopods are known, but otherwise the faunal char- 
acteristics are the same. It is the examination of large areas that 
*Correlation papers, Cambrian, pp. 278, 282. 
