Permian Formations of Kansas— Prosser. 157 
correlation of American upper Paleozoic deposits with those 
of Russia and he states that : 
"I seem to see in the Texas faunas resemblances to the Spirifer 
Marconi, Omphalotrochus Whitneyi, Productus cora, and Schwag- 
erina zones as their fossils are represented by Tschernyschew. All 
three of the lower faunas are probably represented by the Hueco 
formation, while the fauna of the Capitan limestone is in some re- 
spects strikingly similar to that of the Schwagerina zone."* 
Again Girty states that 
"It seems probable indeed that all four of Tschernyschew's hori- 
zons are represented in the Hueco formation, where the different 
faunas are not as clearly distinguishable into separate entities as 
in Russia.t 
Girty concludes that 
"On the whole, therefore, it seems to me rather more probable 
that much if not all of the Capitan and Delaware formations is 
younger than the Schwagerina zone."t 
In Tschernyschew's classification the Schwagerina zone 
is succeeded by the Artinsk stage before .ihe Permian is 
reached; but it must be remembered that the Artinsk stage 
is referred to the Permian by a number of other distin- 
guished European geologists. 
Finally Dr. Girty makes the following comparison be- 
tween the Texas and Kansas faunas : 
"So far as the significance of the somewhat hastily reviewed 
evidence has been grasped, it seems to assign the Kansas faunas 
to about the horizon of the Hueco formation, placing the entire 
Guadalupian series, or at all events the Capitan, as a younger evo- 
lution, whether the two faunas were developed in distinct pro- 
vinces or the same."* 
A comparison of the faunas listed by Dr. Girty from the 
Hueco formation* with those also listed by him from Kan- 
sast indicates that the faunas of none of the Kansas forma- 
tions above the top of the Chase stage are related to that 
of the Hueco. In fact it is a question how much, if any, 
of the Chase stage should be regarded as homotaxial with 
the Hueco formation, since part of the species listed from it 
are generally found in the middle and lower, rather than 
the upper, Pennsylvania!!. With the above suggestion in 
mind it will be seen that Dr. Girty 's correlation between 
* Ix)c. cit., p. 20. 
t Ibid., p. 22. 
t Ibid., p. 23. 
* Ibid., p. 2fi. 
* Univ. Texas Min. Surv., Bull. 9, pn. 33-38. 
+ I T . S. Geol. Surv.. Bull. 21!, pp. 77-83. 
