The Texas Cretaceous. — Marcou. 101 
I860, just as though what I had done several years before Dr. 
Shumard came to Texas did not exist. My answer to Slnun- 
ard was only in order to maintain my classification and dis- 
coveries of 1853, and to try to put a little order in one of tin- 
most confused and erroneous sections of strata ever published. 
I shall not refer to the geological report of the United 
States and Mexican Boundary commission, in which Mr. 
James Hall declared that the entire Cretaceous strata of 
Texas were the prolongation and representatives of his Ne- 
braska section Nos. 1, 2 and 3, that is, the Dakota, Fort Ben- 
ton and Niobrara formations. 
In 1886 Mr. Hill began to classify the strata of a part of 
Texas, between Fredericksburg, Austin, and the southwestern 
side of Arkansas. I was glad to see that he did not fall into 
the great mistakes made b}^ Koemer, the two Shumards, and 
James Hall. His report on "The Neozoic geology of south- 
western Arkansas,** published in 1888, showed me that he 
mistook the division called by him Trinity, as belonging to 
the Cretaceous, when it is plainly a Jurassic group of strata. 
containing a Jurassic fauna, without any mixture whatever of 
Cretaceous forms. I revised his whole list of fossils and 
proved that his Trinity division of Texas and Arkansas be- 
longs to the Jura ("Jura, Neocomian, and Chalk of Arkansas."" 
in the American Geologist, Dec, 1889, pp. 357-367 ). Mr. Hill 
has never paid an}^ attention to my paper; and, without tak- 
ing the trouble to refute my determination of his fossils, he 
has continued to place his Trinity division in the Lower Cre- 
taceous. Not knowing personally any part of Texas except 
the northwest corner of the state, I was inclined at first to ac- 
cept the classification and synchronism of Mr. Hill, believing 
that he possessed sufficient ability to give with exactness all 
the details of the formation. Only I was badly impressed by 
his frequent changes for the subdivisions of the Lower Creta- 
ceous, and thought that he had placed too high the horizon of 
what I have called "the GryptCtna pitcheri zone or limestone of 
Comet creek," which for me is. with the "Caprina limestone," 
the lowest bed of the Neocomian or Lower Cretaceous of 
Texas. 
Now I have no doubt that he has made serious mistakes in 
regard to half of his Lower Cretaceous or Comanche Beries, 
