302 The American Geologist. November, 1902 
calcite-filled casts and the shells are free and better fossils are 
not required anywhere. 
There are two zones distinguishable in the Kinderhook 
here, the one from the waters edge to the foot of the quarry 
being. highly fossiliferous and the one formerly quarried and 
calcened being perhaps barren. The lower one is the less 
oolitic. At tlie head of the millpond (on Sec. 3) below op- 
posite "pulpit rock" the fossiliferous zone is again exposed, 
and again both zones are seen at Rutland. At this place 
is "one of the most conspicuous rock exposures in the county" 
op. cit., p. 125 and 6, and fig. 13. That "no traces of organic 
remains were discovered," is misleading since of the two 
beds in the cliff shown in the figure, tho' not mentioned in 
the text, the lower one contains fossils. They are the same as 
those at Humboldt City, and apparently tlie two beds are the 
same as those at Humboldt. Doubt expressed in the descrip- 
tion to fig. 13 "Exposures of Limestone near Rutland- — prob- 
ably Kinderhook" may be thus dispelled. Avoiding confu- 
sion of the two zones and of these with the St. Louis for- 
mation where it's strata are not conspicuously unconformable 
with them as at the pulpit rock, it will not appear between 
Humboldt City and Rutland that "within these limits the rock 
varies in character very, often and very much." Rather, the 
strata vary in the vertical direction. 
At the Rutland cliff one sees the mouths of small caverns 
in the rock, which may represent the s}-stem of subterranean 
channels related to the natural sinks of the county, and the 
many springs along the river. They appear on the figure 
cited, but have not been mentioned in the text. 
The rock is hard, of cuboidal fracture, oolitic with some 
pisoliths and moreover the fossils were preserved often or 
perhaps always as nuclei of large oolitic structures or "Mum- 
mien" as they have been called in the "Hauptoolith" of south- 
ern Germany. 
The fossils from this oolitic limestone do not show that 
close relation to the Kinderhook of eastern Iowa, which would 
be anticipated in the list of species as given by MacBride and 
already here cited, but on the contrary may have belonged to a 
different sea than those faunas. There is indication that we 
have at Humboldt a western and not an eastern faunal relation. 
