HEMERAL DIVISIONS OF CLASSIFICATION 85 
If the “Groups” larger than formations or lithologic units ac¬ 
quire unnecessary cognomens which are only recognized in map¬ 
ping when actual knowledge is lacking, or when it is obligatory to 
camoflage a land map so that it may have some semblance of a 
geologic contrivance the host of subformational units, members, 
lentils, and beds, all too inconsequential for graphic portrayal, but 
all clamoring for especial recognition of some sort or other, furn¬ 
ish a vaster field for wholesale geographic christening. Kansas, 
New Mexico and the Dakotas are not alone the unfortunate ones 
in this respect. 
An especially aggravating case is the Bethany Limestone, the 
basal terrane of the Missourian series, or Non-productive Coal 
Measures, of Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma. 
In each one of the several states it has a multiplicity of appella¬ 
tions. It is a shining example of a formation in which all of its 
essential classificatory features are now completely lost sight of in 
the mad race to enlarge the already weighty list of formational 
names, but which only results in oppressive synonomy. Too pre¬ 
valent is that strange fallacy that mere change of familiar local 
nomenclature is per se a solemn announcement of scientific dis¬ 
covery. 
The infinitesimal subdivisions of the Bethany formation, which 
are now often dignified by the attachment of special geographic 
names, do not mean anything. They never find place on any of 
the local maps. A six-foot Hertha bed or a seven foot Galesburg 
shale in a succession of shales 2,000 feet in thickness, must, in the 
absence of some especially notable idiosyncracy be something of 
a negligible element. Such midget beds are only locally recog¬ 
nizable. Their stratigraphic delimitation is uncertain and change¬ 
able. Their lithologic character is usually inconstant. Their bio¬ 
tic definition is rarely determined and is often as not indetermin¬ 
able. Their economic content is commonly nil. No chartographic 
use is ever made of such minute subdivisions. They are unmap- 
able even on scale of gigantic proportions. They represent noth¬ 
ing but idle names. 
This special designation of the midget by geographic title is 
the source of another serious harm to rational and exact taxonomy. 
Aside from a vast and ever growing synonomy, it tends to destroy 
the chief taxonomic criterion for the determination of taxonomic 
