132 GEOLOGY OF OHIO. 
Hill limestone seam (the Brookville coal?) in Stark county. In the 
adjoining county of Mahoning, it designates the Clarion coal. In Co- 
lumbiana county, the Lower Kittanning coal becomes No. 4, and in Jef- 
ferson county, the same number is applied to the Middle Kittanning 
coal. 
Other numbers are of course involved with these. The chief trouble 
arises from the dislocation of the series under- the Tuscarawas river. 
divide, to which attention has already been called. 
It is not necessary to multiply examples, for it is already obvious 
that the system, as it now stands, is a hindrance and not a help to the 
proper understanding of the series. Nor would it be enough to recast 
the system so as to remove the contradiction that now exists in regard 
to the Freeport coals. Such a scheme is possible. It would read .as 
follows: 
Salineville Strip V lisse. ceedcosocces cae senucontuaeses ee ceneecenerenee No. 7a 
Upper Freeport Coal.....................ssesocccssseeecenesccesenenens No. 7. 
owen Hreeport Coal seers cssss ccs tes vs) saecea one wovecoeeemem oceans No. 6a (or 6) 
: (ojayecre Tatar avoutaye? Ofori) 556555066500060900 005000060000000004000 06000 (No. 6a?) 
WBNS 1GtkeNorA gS COLE cdoccsocadco wend6a800009 00000000000000000000000 No. 6 
Lower Kittanning! Coal eccci ccc acseecossseteecscsur teeter mete No. 5 
Wippers ClarionsCoalvoriScrulbyGrassiecsscescesdscecesncsesese: No. 4b 
Lower Clarion (Goal seisc5...2 cha cesiea cate tedec neces ceeemesten coceenees No. 4a 
BroolkevilletCoal’ on. . 3 sc scvoveswvenees dadecesceusccteceaes nme euceee teees No. 4 
MOM CREAM O OAL ec cae sccwsvesssesadacsaes someanieede oeclect sec toast eect meen No. 3b 
Wipper Mercer Coal cc. 26.0 ...cs:cccscenseasen woccesesece cece sswecessece No. 3a 
Wower, Mercer Coals. .csiececcctcceones sadseetinsceiacs seen tects No. 3 
Quakertown (Coals ee In Eee cts omecetudtections sees No. 2 
SharonnCoall sch sec ules hi eeas tid.  duauenshtdo teat euaauaeeemenneseemeeee No. 1 
But the objections to this have already been shown. It would be 
full of inconsistency and relative injustice, and would keep the errors 
which made it necessary in conspicuous sight so long as it should be 
maintained. It would moreover require changes in numbers throughout 
our most important fields, and thus would be subject to the disadvan- 
tages of a reconstructed system without its corresponding gains. 
Two courses present themselves as practicable, viz., to ignore the 
use of numbers, and to adopt the local names of the Pennsylvania seams 
so far as continuity can be proved or reasonably inferred, or to begin 
the numbering anew on the basis of present knowledge. ‘The series 
would, according to these two views, be thus represented : 
