Ulrich—Paleozoic Systems in Wisconsin, 
81 
The foregoing table shows that in 1874-7 Winchell mistakenly 
applied the terms St. Lawrence and Jordan to three distinct pairs 
of formations belonging to three systems. Only the Cambrian pair 
—originally described in 1874—is correctly named, the other 
usages of the terms by him being based on misapprehended cor¬ 
relations. The table indicates further that Winchell, and also Cal¬ 
vin, never included any other Cambrian beds in the St. Lawrence 
limestone than the calcareous 15-30 foot lower member of the 
Trempealeau formation (“St. Lawrence formation” of Ulrich, 
Walcott, Twenhofel an^ Thwaites, not Hall, Norton, or Winchell) 
to which I now propose to confine the term. The third fact shown 
by the table is that the St. Lawrence formation of Hall and Norton 
differs widely from the St. Lawrence of Walcott, Ulrich, Twen¬ 
hofel and Thwaites (1914-1919) in that it is extended downwards 
to the top of the Dresbach sandstone and upward only to the base 
of the Norwalk sandstone member of the Trempealeau formation 
(St. Lawrence of Ulrich et ah). 
In view of the consistent use of the term St. Lawrence by Win¬ 
chell in 1874 and 1888 and by Calvin in 1895 I maintain that it 
was both unwise and contrary to the rules of stratigraphic nomen¬ 
clature to introduce the great expansions of its meaning that were 
given it by Hall in 1911, Norton in 1912, and Ulrich in 1914. It 
would have been better to disregard WinchelUs term entirely as 
a formation name and give a new name to the broader unit of 
which the original St. Lawrence is a part. The main reasons why 
I did not do so in 1914 were (1) the fact that the United States 
Geological Survey had previously adopted the term in the wide 
significance given it in the two publications by Hall, 1911, and 
Norton, 1912, and (2) the obvious need of further field studies 
before a final classification and nomenclature might be warranted. 
But the Franconia, proposed by Berkey in 1897, had proven too 
good a formation to be ignored, so I defined its boundaries as well 
as I could in that early stage of my investigations of the Cambrian 
in Wisconsin and Minnesota and restricted the St. Lawrence to 
beds above the Franconia. 
In 1916 or 1917 another complication of the St. Lawrence ques¬ 
tion was introduced by Shipton,^^ who proposed the new, though 
preoccupied term Sparta shale for the same beds to which Hall, 
Norton, and others had applied the name St. Lawrence. And the 
Shipton, W. D., Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci., vol, 23, p. 142. 
