Prosser. | The Upper Permian. 93 
gypsum. ‘To one accustomed to the green-clad landscapes of the 
east or its sombre-colored formations, the vast landscapes and 
brilliant colors of the Red-Beds is striking, especially if seen in some 
bold cliff for scores of miles. A landscape in color that of red brick 
dust is the only familiar comparison!.” 
On account of this repetition of lithologic characters in the Red- 
seds it was the author’s opinion at first that in so far as Kansas 
and northern Oklahoma are concerned they should be considered 
as forming only a single formation. Since a geographical name is 
needed for the formation in place of the simple descriptive term 
Red-Beds and as Professor Cragin had already proposed the appro- 
priate name of Cimarron series for this mass of rocks it was at first 
thought best to use the name Cimarron formation. There are 
strong arguments in favor of such a classification and it has been 
favored by Professor Hill as may be seen from the following: 
“Whatever their age [Red-Beds], they have the same unmistakable 
characteristics of color and unconsolidation and are probably a 
single unbroken formation, representing the sediments of an ancient 
inland sea?.” 
The Red-Beds were also apparently regarded by Professor Hay 
as a single formation. It will be remembered, as stated in the his- 
torical review of the Red-Beds that recently Professor Cragin has 
divided the series into ten formations.? These subdivisions may be 
recognized in the localities from which they are named; but it wouid 
be difficult to trace part of them for any distance for the purpose 
of geological mapping. They are often helpful as subformation 
names, and in this sense frequent use is made of the later ones. 
On considering the prominence of the Cave Creek gypsum along 
the Medicine Lodge valley in Barber and the southeastern part of 
Comanche county together with Professor Cragin’s account of its 
_ southern distribution in Oklahoma, it seems to the writer that this 
niay serve aS a means of dividing the mass of rocks. The principal 
objections to this are probably that first, the gypsum is not known 
at present to the northeast of Barber county and secondly, that by 
: i Final Geological Report Artesian Underflow Invest., Pt. III, 1892, p. 127, Wash- 
ington. 
2 Ibid., p. 180. 
3 F. W. Cragin, Colorado College Studies, Vol. VI, pp. 3, 18-49. 
