64. University of Kansas Geological Survey. 
south in the western part of Marion county on the head waters of 
the Cottonwood river occur the buff, thin limestones of the Marion 
formation, containing specimens of Bakevellia parva M. & H. with 
a few other fossils typical of the upper rocks of this formation. 
They were noticed especially in Lehigh and West Branch town- 
ships, and west of these limestones is the deposit of sand of varying 
thickness, the eastern border of which crosses the western tier of 
townships in Marion county. 
The fauna and lithologic characters of the Marion formation in 
Marion and Butler counties were described by the author in his 
paper defining this formation, to which the reader interested in 
the details is referred! Farther south in Cowley county it was found 
that, in general, the distinctive features of the formation as noted 
in the eastern central part of the state remain constant. The base 
of the formation is well shown along the bluffs of the Walnut river 
in the western part of the county. Capping the bluffs along both 
sides of the river in the vicinity of Winfield are numerous exposures 
of a rough, heavy limestone which frequently contains large iron- 
stained concretions in which are a few fossils, as Productus semi 
reticulatus (Martin) de Koninck, and these concretions are termed in 
that locality “sand bricks®.” This is the same limestone that is 
prominently exposed in the vicinity of the cities of Marion and 
Burns in Marion county regarded by the writer as the top beds of 
the Chase formation. On account of its conspicuous occurrence in 
the vicinity of the city of Marion, the writer first called it the 
“Marion concretionary limestone.’* Although the name was never 
intended in any sense as a formation name, objection has been made 
to its use because it is not included in the Marion formation, conse- 
quently, in order to avoid confusion, it is considered better to with- 
draw the former name, and on account of the characteristic expo- 
sures in the vicinity of Winfield to substitute the term Winfield con- 
eretionary limestone. Again objection is made to the use of a name 
for a bed, zone or any subdivision of a formation differing from the 
name used for that formation. In respect to this criticism it is only 
1 Chas. S. Prosser, Journal Geology, Vol. III, p. 786. 
2 On the authority of Mr. C. N. Gould. 
3 Journal of Geology, Vol. III, pp. 772, 797. 
