112 
The Chouteau Group — Rowley. 
reports, Chouteau, group. If these rocks are interesting to the 
collector they are doubly so to the skilled palaeontologist, not 
that they yield any new or striking genera of fossils, but from 
the fact the species are peculiar to the beds, for the most part, 
and fail to point satisfactorily to the position of this group in 
the great palaeozoic series of the Mississippi valley. 
These beds have been at different times ranged under the 
Chemung, Hamilton and Kinderhook groups without any 
special reasons for the transfers, and at present they are quietly 
resting in the latter group. 
We do not propose in this paper to disturb this sleeping relic 
of the by-gone ages and definitely refer it to any of the recog¬ 
nized divisions of the palaeozoic rocks, but we do think it should 
retain the name of “Chouteau group,” at least until sufficient evi¬ 
dence has been gathered to place it in its right shelf in the cabinet. 
The firs! notice, so far as we know of this group, was in the 
old Missouri report by Prof. Gr. C. Swallow, and, after collec¬ 
tions had been made at Chouteau Springs, Cooper county,; 
Hannibal, Marion county, and Louisiana and Clarksville, Pike 
county, the beds were referred to the Chemung group and 
divided into the following subdivisions; “Chouteau limestone,” 
“Vermicular sandstone and shales,” and “Lithographic lime¬ 
stone,” in a descending order, the latter division being said to 
rest directly on the Hamilton shale. Later on Dr. Shumard, 
in speaking of these beds, still left them where he had previous¬ 
ly placed them, but when it came to Prof. James Hall’s time to 
turn these rocks over and view them from a distance, he slid 
them down into the Hamilton shelf. 
Meek and Worthen made the final transfer to the Kinder¬ 
hook, and western geologists have generally recognized this 
disposition of the vexed question. 
In the New York report for 1882, on Palaeontology, Prof. 
‘Hall copied his figure of Productella pyxidata from the old 
Iowa report and stated the specimen from which the figure 
was drawn was found in Iowa, while in the former report he 
gave the locality in Missouri. He made a similar mistake in 
Productella shumardiana , which if it is found at all in the 
Lithographic limestone at Clarksville is only a young specimen 
of P. pyxidata . We doubt whether the original specimen came 
from Missouri at all. 
