!

Evertts & Co. quarry for glass sand. The following section was measured at this locality from the level of Licking River to the top of the cliff.

SECTION OF SOUTHERN BANK OF LICKING RIVER AT EVERTTS & CO.

6. Logan formation (sandstone) was named by Professor Andrews in 1870 from outcrops in Hocking county near Logan,' and was stated to overlie the conglomerate at Black Hand and to extend down the Licking Valley "to a point between Pleasant Valley and Dillons Falls." This division was named the Licking shales by Professor Hicks, who states that they are well developed in the hills bordering Licking River from Newark to Black Hand, 100 to 150 feet in thickness, and “lie 70 to 80 feet above the water level, forming the middle of the slope of these hills, the base being composed of the massive Black Hand conglomerate and the upper slopes and summit of the various strata of the Coal

Geol. Surv. Ohio, Part II, pp. 76, 79.

a Ibid., p. 79.

Measures." This formation is Division 3, or the Upper Waverly of Professor Herrick, which he gave as 80 feet in thickness in Licking county and which, from the fossils, he correlated with the Burlington and Keokuk of the Mississippi valley."

In 1888 Dr. Orton united the Waverly conglomerate and Logan sandstone of Andrews to form the Logan group.3 If it

be advisable to make one formation of these two divisions, the above name is inappropriate because the Logan sandstone of Professor Andrews clearly referred to the upper division only, as has been noted by Professor Herrick.+

The above ruling is believed to represent the position of the United States Geological Survey, as shown by the following quotation from a recent letter of Mr. Bailey Willis, assistant in

'Am. Jour. Sci., 3d ser., Vol. XVI, 1878, p. 216.

2 Bull. Denison Univ., Vol. IV, 1888, pp, 99, 100.

3 Rept. Geol. Surv., Ohio, Vol. VI, p. 39.

4 Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., Vol. II, 1891, p. 38.

geology to the Director of the United States Survey and Geologist in charge of Areal Geology, to whom these questions in nomenclature are referred:

The survey distinctly recognizes the right of priority, that is to say, the name first applied to a well defined geologic unit is to be preferred. The qualifying conditions, on account of which the name may be rejected and one of later application used, are (1) that the name has been previously applied to some other unit, and (2) that the unit to which the name was applied was not well defined.

Thus, in the case which you cite, the term Waverly conglomerate (Andrews) would not hold if Waverly had previously been used for something else, and by application of the same rule Waverly series should be discarded if Waverly conglomerate had priority. The Logan group (Orton) should not stand as opposed to Logan sandstone.

In these questions there is often a personal element which makes it a matter of regret that some desirable name should not be adopted, but we feel that the advantages of clearness and definition in science must be superior to such conditions, and that the rule should be rigidly applied.'

Dr. George H. Girty, of the United States Geological Survey, who has been engaged for several years in a thorough study of the stratigraphy and paleontology of the Waverly series in Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, concurs in regarding the upper part of the series in central Ohio as composed of two formations, as may be seen from the following quotation:

I have seen the Logan group at Logan and vicinity and also at various points in Licking county. I quite concur with you in regard to the separateness of the two component members in central Ohio at least, and am in uncertainty as to the reasons which led Professor Orton to unite the two beds under a common name."

The lower part of this formation is well shown in the Vogelmeier and Havens quarries, where Conglomorate II is succeeded by from 4 to 6 feet of greenish-gray to bluish argillaceous shales, and these are followed by from 11 to 17 feet of quite massive buff sandstones, capped by alternating shales and sandstones, 181⁄2 feet of which are shown at the top of the Vogelmeier quarry. There are fair exposures of the remaining part of the formation in "the gorge" to the east of the Havens quarry,

partly in the bank of the creek and partly by the roadside, where 85 feet of buff arenaceous shales to thin bedded sandstones are shown. This gives about 115 feet for the thickness of the formation, which is capped by the Coal-measure conglomerate where the road and creek emerge from the woods. In sections farther to the south and southeast the top of the Logan sandstone is defined by the base of the sub-Carboniferous limestone, named by Professor Andrews the Maxville limestone.

COLUMBUS, OHIO,
December, 1900.

CHARLES S. PROSSER.

THE USE OF BEDFORD AS A FORMATIONAL NAME

In a paper about to be published by Professor Charles S. Prosser it will be stated that the "Bedford shale was named by Newberry in 1870' from outcrops east of Cleveland at which place, he later states, the best exposures occur." It will be further stated that the term "Bedford rock" as used by Owen2 for a portion of the Sub-Carboniferous limestone of Indiana was evidently not intended as a formation name.

In the citation of Owen's use of the term Bedford rock lies the basis for the present use of the name Bedford for the Indiana formation. In the later reports of the Indiana Geological Survey, down to the Twenty-first Annual Report, the name Bedford is not applied to these rocks; but in the Fifteenth Annual Report the name Salem rock3 is used, though not as a formation name, and again in the Seventeenth Report, Salem is said to afford the "best exposure for study [of the oölitic limestone] from the geologist's point of view." In the Fifteenth Report (loc. cit.) a section of the Salem Stone and Lime Company's quarry one half mile west of Salem is given as follows:

The oölitic character of the rock is said to be especially well shown in this section.

Since the term Bedford as the name of a formation is preoccupied, having been applied to the "Bedford shale" of

'Geol. Surv. Ohio, Part I, Rept. Progress in 1869, 1870, p. 21.

2

Geol. Recon. Indiana, 1862, p. 137.

3 Ind. Geol. and Nat. Hist., Fifteenth Ann. Rept., p. 143.

4 Indiana, Dept. of Geol. and Nat. Resources, Seventeenth Ann. Rept., p. 47.