The Newark System—Russell. 
181 
implying correlation will not meet with general acceptance. 
More than this, to express my own opinion, it does not seem 
desirable that widely separated terranes should be considered as 
strictly synchronous on the strength of palaeontological evidence 
simply. 
The first consideration that should guide a geologist in select¬ 
ing a name for a series of rocks should evidently be to avoid all 
terms which imply a greater knowledge of the relations of the 
rocks or of their constancy in lithological or other characters, 
than is warranted by the facts in hand. A name which simply 
indicates the object referred to has great advantages in a rapidly 
advancing science like geology. The length of a name, its 
euphony, etc., also claim consideration. 
On examining the table given above it will be seen that with 
the exception of names used to designate special areas as the 
“Richmond coalfield 11 or the “Freestone and coal formation of 
Orange and Chatham, 11 for example, only one name has been 
advanced which does not imply correlation. The name referred 
to is the “Newark Group 11 proposed by W. C. Redfield in 1856. 
In giving this name the following language was used:*—“I 
propose the latter designation [Newark group] as a convenient 
name for these rocks [the red sandstones extending from New 
Jersey to Virginia] and to those of the Connecticut valley, with 
which they are thoroughly identified by footprints and other 
fossils, and 1 would include also, the contemporaneous sandstones 
of Virginia and North Carolina. 11 
The term “group” having been used by the International 
Congress of Geologists to denote a larger division than Redfield 
included under it, the word “ system 11 may be substituted for 
it with propriety. I propose, therefore, that the name Newark 
system be used to designate the rocks of the Atlantic slope re¬ 
ferred to above. 
Rv adopting a name which does not imply correlation it is 
not intended to throw doubt on any of the classifications that 
have been made, but the scarcity of fossils, particularly of in¬ 
vertebrates, in the Newark system as well as the great diversity 
of opinions regarding its position in geological history, demands 
the adoption of a name which does not imply more than is defi¬ 
nitely known concerning it. 
* Amer. J^nr. Sci., 2d ser., vol. 22, 1856, p. 357; and also in Proc. Amer. 
Assoc. Adv. Sci., vol. 10. Albany meeting, 1856, p. 181. 
