NEW    BRUNSWICK,    NOVA    SCOTIA,    NEWFOUNDLAND,    ETC.      499 
1.  That  the  Olenellus  fauna  in  Newfoundland  occurs  420  feet 
beneath  the  Paradoxides  fauna,  in  the  heart  of  the  Lower  Cambrian 
"  Etcheminian." 
2.  That  fragments  of  the  fauna  are  found  460  to  480  feet  below  the 
Protolenus  fauna  in  the  "  Etcheminian  "  of  the  Hanford  Brook  sec- 
tion of  New  Brunswick. 
3.  That  in  the  undisturbed,  unbroken  Highland  Range  section  of 
Nevada  the  Olenellus  fauna  is  4,450  feet  below  the  Upper  Cambrian 
fauna,  and  that  the  Olenoides  (Dorypyge  fauna  of  Matthew)  is  3,000 
feet  below  the  horizon  of  the  Upper  Cambrian  fauna  and  1,450  feet 
above  the  horizon  of  the  Olenellus  gilberti  fauna. 
4.  That  in  the  southern  Appalachians  the  Olenellus  fauna  occurs 
more  than  7,000  feet  below  the  highest  Cambrian  fauna  known  in  that 
region,  and  fully-  2,000  feet  below  a  typical  Olenoides  fauna. 
Matthew,30  in  1900,  makes  rejoinder  to  Walcott's  discussion  of  the 
age  of  the  Etcheminian  terrane.  He  argues  that  Walcott  depends 
chiefly  upon  the  presence  of  Coleoloides  typicalis  as  showing  the  pres- 
ence of  the  Olenellus  fauna ;  that  this  form  is  not  always  distinguish- 
able from  Hyolithellus  micans,  a  problematical  fossil  probably  of  the 
tube  worms,  which,  with  the  brachiopods,  is  the  most  striking  of  the 
fossils  of  the  lower  (P^tcheminian)  terrane.  Moreover,  the  particular 
form  of  Olenellus  which  Walcott  has  found  is  Olenellus  broggeri, 
rather  than  Olenellus  thompsoni,  the  original  Olenellus.  Olenellus 
thompsoni  is  supposed  to  occur  above  Olenellus  broggeri,  yet  the  Pro- 
tolenus and  Paradoxides  faunas  follow  in  regular  succession  to  the 
fauna  of  the  Olenellus  broggcii.  The  question  is  asked:  Where  is 
the  fauna  of  Olenellus  thompsoni?  Its  absence  is  supposedly  taken 
as  evidence  of  the  presence  of  the  unconformity  held  by  Matthew. 
Matthew,31  in  11)02,  refers  the  Etcheminian  and  underlying  vol- 
canics  (correlated  with  the  Coldbrook  of  New  Brunswick)  of  Cape 
Breton  to  the  Cambrian,  and  implies  that  the  same  reference  should 
be  made  of  the  New  Brunswick  Etcheminian  and  Coldbrook. 
Ells,32  in  1904,  gives  a  preliminary  account  of  new  work  on  the 
geology  of  Charlotte  County,  New  Brunswick.  The  series  of  slates, 
schists,  eruptives,  and  crystalline  limestones  which  occur  on  Letite 
and  Frye  Island,  and  thence  southwestward  through  the  group  of 
islands  including  Deer,  Campobello,  Grand  Manan,  and  many  other 
smaller  ones,  which  are  a  part  of  a  somewhat  extensive  chain  trend- 
ing in  this  direction,  are  found  to  contain  Silurian  and  Devonian 
fossils.  Their  general  aspect  is  like  that  of  many  of  the  rocks  east 
of  St.  John,  included  in  the  Kingston  group,  these  having  been  re- 
garded as  of  Huronian  age,  since  they,  in  part  at  least,  underlie  rocks 
which  hold  primordial  fossils. 
Ells,33  in  1905,  reports  on  the  geology  of  Charlotte  County,  New 
Brunswick,  particularly  the  rocks  of  Grand   Manan   Esland,  and  of 
