322 University Geological Survey of Kansas. 
collections they are all thus recorded, and the relative abun- 
dance of the Kansas river species were kept in the ordinary 
way, so that they do not detract seriously from the accuracy of 
the table. 
As the faunas of the American Coal Measures as a whole are 
known, these collections may be considered as representative 
of the Kansas conditions in a fairly complete way. But when 
the area (about 20,000 square miles) and the great thickness 
of the section are considered, together with the complicated 
distribution and range of species and faunules that have 
been brought to light, it is realized that it is but a preliminary 
survey to the thorough study of the fauna as a whole. 
The State Survey has traced the major limestone horizons 
with considerable accuracy, so that it is possible to make cor- 
relations between the Kansas river and the Neosho river and 
southern Kansas sections, and they are combined here and the 
more interesting questions of distribution mentioned. The 
Kansas river collections represent all the formations shown 
there, while in the southern section the Coffeyville and Drum 
limestones were omitted on account of the imperfect state of 
the knowledge of the stratigraphy at the time, the writers con- 
fining their attention largely to the collecting. The locality 
from which Doctor Newlon collected the cephalopods described 
by Prof. A. Hyatt was determined, enabling us to refer it to its 
proper horizon. 
Aside from our own collections, all the material which has 
been properly and systematically labeled as to locality and 
horizon which has been available to us has been used. While 
the material which has been used in the compilation of the 
present chart includes the material enumerated and all that 
previously published, including Doctor Girty’s lists previously 
referred to, it is realized that further collecting will tend to 
extend the range of some species, and add many new ones. 
Our experience in this study is such that we believe further 
study will tend to accentuate the divisions made in this paper 
quite as much as it will tend to detract from them. 
This is particularly true because of the conservatism used 
in the identifications. Usually, where there is a question con- 
cerning the advisability of splitting up an older idea of a 
species, the old idea is followed here. The closer division of 
such species will, of course, tend to reduce its range and accen- 
tuate the faunal grouping. 
