298 RESEARCH IN CHINA. 
The Carboniferous faunas of China, and indeed of eastern Asia generally 
are but scantily known. The stations from which collections have been 
obtained often lie at widely distant intervals and the collections themselves 
have often been meager. A notable exception must of course be made in 
favor of the splendid collections upon which was based Waagen’s monograph 
upon the fauna of the Productus limestone of the Salt Range.’ Very consid- 
erable also were some of the collections which furnished the data for Diener’s 
accounts of the Carboniferous faunas of the Himalaya.” The Carboniferous 
faunas of Turkestan which Romanowsky described’ were, however, for the 
most part both scanty and poorly preserved. Several writers have reported 
upon Carboniferous faunas from the Indian Archipelago: Beyrich in 1865, 
on fossils from the island of Timor; Martin in 1881,° also from Timor; 
Rothpletz in 1892,° upon essentially the same fauna; Roemer in 1880,’ upon 
fossils from the west coast of Sumatra; and Fliegel, upon the same fauna, 
in rgor.® 
In the case of China itself we have the well-known account of Kayser? 
upon fossils collected by von Richthofen, chiefly from the single locality at 
Lo-ping. Loczy has recently described’ a number of faunas from different 
stations and different horizons, none of them of very greatextent. Frech 
also has discussed" a few local faunas in a rather cursory way. Professor 
Fuetterer is reported to have obtained extensive paleontological collections 
in eastern Asia, and treatises upon them appear to have been recently pub- 
lished, or are about to be published forthwith, but I have been unable to 
secure copies of such works, if they have been issued. Finally, Tscherny- 
schew has given a list of Carboniferous fossils obtained near Vladivostock.”” 
It would perhaps be expected that the faunas of the present collection 
would prove to be identical with those of the reports mentioned, but this 
does not seem to be the case. Some of them are, to be sure, so limited as to 
be scarcely adequate for paleontologic correlation. Inacase to be mentioned 
later there seem to be reasons of a geologic and geographic nature for believ- 
ing that one of them was obtained from the same horizon as one of the local 
faunas reported by Frech, but the intrinsic evidence, while rather favorable 
than otherwise to this correlation, based upon other data, was by no means 
such as to establish it independently. 
In considering the geologic age of these faunas it will be better to begin 

1Mem. Geol. Surv. India, ser. 13, Salt Range Fossils, vol. 1, 1887. 
? Mem. Geol. Surv. India, ser. 15, Himalayan Fossils, vol. 1, pt. 2, 1899; pt. 3,1897; pt. 4, 1897; pt. 5, 1903. 
3 Materialen zur Geologie von Turkestan, St. Petersburg, 1880. 
4Abhand. Kon. Akad. Wissensch. Berlin, 1865, pp. 61-100, plates 1-3. 
5Sammlungen des Geologischen Reichs-Museums in Leiden, I, Beitrage zur Geologie Ost-Asiens und Aus- 
traliens, Leiden, 1881, pp. 1-64, plate 1-3. 
6 Paleontographica, vol. 39, 1892, pp. 57-106, plates 9-10. 
7Paleontographica, vol. 27, 1880, pp. 1-11, plates 1-3. 
8 Paleontographica, vol. 48, 1901, pp. 91-136, plates 6-8. 
®Richthofen’s China, vol. 4, Berlin, 1883. 
tannic Ergebnisse der Reise des Grafen Béla Széchenyi in Ostasien, Bd. 3, 1898, pp. 41-132, 
with plates. 
‘Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geologie, und Palaeontologie, vol. 2, 1895, p. 47; Ueber palaeozoische 
Saunen aus Asien und Nord Africa. 
‘Bull. Comité Géologique, St. Petersbourg, 1889, No. 22, pp. 353-359. 
