A REPORT ON UPPER PALEOZOIC FOSSILS COLLECTED IN 
CHINA IN 1903-04. 
GENERAL REMARKS AND CONCLUSIONS. 
The upper Paleozoic collections from China, collected by the Carnegie 
Institution of Washington Expedition, which I have had the honor of 
examining comprise fourteen lots, of which the geographic distribution is 
as follows: From the province of Shan-tung two lots (59 and 69); from the 
province of Shan-si one lot (20); and from East Ssi-ch’uan eleven lots (1, 2, 
Brags) ONT ONG e1Onatidel7): 
The material from East Ssi-ch’uan, which thus comprises practically 
all the collections, may again be subdivided according to stratigraphic occur- 
rence along lines which are so coincident with faunal peculiarities that a 
number of smaller groups are formed, each of which is entirely distinct from 
the others and from the equally disconnected collections from the other 
provinces. 
The lowest horizon in the Ssi-ch’uan section is represented by lots 6, 8, 
and 9, obtained near Ta-miau-ssi. The next horizon above is found in lots 
I, 2, 3, and 4, collected near Ta-ning-hién, and by lot 7, collected near 
Liang-ho-k’6u. Lot 7 contains only one species in common with lots 1, 2, 3, 
and 4, but this is not surprising, in view of the fact that the whole number 
obtained is small. By reference to the table on page 304 it will be seen that 
the fauna of lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 contains nothing in common with those of 
the first group, except the presence of crinoidal fragments. 
The next horizon is represented by one collection (17) of three species, 
none of which occurs in the beds below. ‘The succeeding horizon also is 
represented by one collection (16), with two citations, neither of which was 
obtained elsewhere. ‘The topmost formation, the K’ui-chou series, is like- 
wise represented by one collection (lot 5), containing three citations, and is 
unconnected with the faunas below, the only resemblance indicated by the 
table being some indeterminable pelecypod fragments. 
From the province of Shan-si we have one collection (lot 20) of three 
species, one of which appears to be the same asa form obtained in East Ssi- 
ch’uan (Hemiptychina ? aff. H. orientalis, from station 7). The specific 
characters in one case, however, have been destroyed, and the union of the 
two occurrences is rather an expression of the fact that there is no ground 
for separating them than that the evidence assigns them to the same species. 
From Shan-tung our collections contain two lots (59 and 69), which 
have no determinable species in common. Although they contain two cita- 
tions which occur in the other lists, the material is poorly preserved, and 
the community of reference in this case, as in the other, is an expression of 
the absence of negative rather than the presence of positive evidence. 
297 
