100 The American Geologist. August, 1894 
eral Cretaceous fossils, with their exact position in the strat- 
igraphical scale, and also a general geological map, besides 
a detailed geological map of a part of New Mexico and the 
••panhandle" of northwestern Texas, in my quarto volume, Geol- 
ogy of North America (Zurich, Switzerland. L858). These 
are my conclusions : "I have seen and studied the strata of 
the Upper Greensand and the Marly Chalk in the bed of Lit- 
tle river, one of the affluents of the Canadian, and also on the 
Elm fork of Trinity river; further, I have recognized the 
Neocomian resting in discordant stratification on the New- 
Red sandstone on the left bank of the False Washita, near 
Comet creek: and. finally, I have found in the beds of white 
sandstone and gray marl of the environs of Albuquerque and 
Galisteo, New Mexico, fossils that have led me to consider 
those strata as the equivalents of the White chalk of Europe." 
In my paper: ••Resume explicatif d'une Carte geologique des 
Etats-Unis et des Provinces anglaise de l'Amerique du Nord" 
I Bull. Soc. Geol. France, 2d series, vol. xn, p. 883, Paris. May, 
1855), I gave a long description of the Cretaceous of Texas, 
with lists of fossils and correlations with the great European 
formations of ( 1 ) the Neocomian, (2) the Greensand and 
Marly chalk, and (3) the White chalk. That classification 
and discovery was a great step toward a rational and exact 
definition of the Cretaceous rocks of Texas, and it gave posi- 
tive knowledge instead of the very vague and erroneous gen- 
eralities of Roemer. 
But my observations, instead of being accepted and used 
for further improvement of our knowledge of the Texas Cre- 
taceous, were on the contrary opposed systematicall}' : and 
the first geological survey of Texas, instituted in August, 
1858, under the direction of Dr. Benjamin F. Shumard, pro- 
posed, in I860, a classification of the Cretaceous strata of 
Texas, so extraordinarily erroneous that it became a matter 
of duty to science to criticise and rearrange the section given 
by Shumard as the standard of the classification of Texas 
Cretaceous. I did it in 1861, under the title. "Notes on the 
Cretaceous and Carboniferous rocks of Texas"" ( Proc.,*Boston 
Soc. Nat. Hist., vol. vin. pp. 86-5)7). 
In Mr. Hill's table, my classification of 1853-58 is passed 
over entirely, and I am placed after Dr. Shumard's work of 
