‘w_Wm‘m —-—-'—— -
A‘ ,_ “A; 4 4 AA; AA

THE ST. PETER SANDSTONE IN MICHIGAN

T5923: 50? {In Degree of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Michael T. Banmbin
1974

”My.

 
 
  
    

THESIS

NBACK OF BOOK

. L)A7\ 111\Y
All "UH-3'1"”, State

{111754. 221 fy

 

 

 

. --
- ' ~---.._-— .—

Iwam“. A
‘ w?!“

   

I WWO, wfifikfi ‘8 b
‘ 3’71»
Mama!) K

$P—1-2 W
M55
”W303
I W2
'W“? .
ijrmz"? ’7 {

M4511

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE ST. PETER SANDSTONE IN MICHIGAN

By
Michael T. Balombin

The Middle Ordovician St. Peter sandstone has
not recieved extensive investigation in Michigan. Within
the past ten years however, the number of wells drilled
to this formation has more than doubled, thereby providing
better coverage and a large amount of new data for an
examination of this interval.

This study seeks to define the St. Peter in terms
of its lithology, distribution and extent in the Lower
Peninsula of Michigan and by so doing provide information
on the early geologic history of this area.

The St. Peter does not crop out anywhere in Michigan.
Its subsurface presence is confined to the western part
of the Lower Peninsula where it occurs sporadically.
Whether or not it occurs in the Upper Peninsula is subject
to speculation and is not conclusively known, although
it appears doubtful.

Lithological and depositional characteristics

indicate the St. Peter was deposited in a shallow sea

Michael T. Balombin

with the eastern edge of that sea in Michigan. Irregular
thicknesses of the sandstone throughout the state are due

to deposition on the eroded surface of the Prairie du Chien,
which is primarily a carbonate terrain. Relief on this
surface is greatest in the western part of the state,
decreasing in an eastward direction. This is shown by

the fairly uniform distribution of the relatively thin
Glenwood shale in eastern Michigan where it unconformably
overlies the Prairie du Chien.

The St. Peter sea advanced from the south with
the sediments derived from the exposed Canadian Shield
area to the north and northwest.

The sand of the St. Peter closely resembles that
of the Glenwood and Prairie du Chien in samples.

Differentiation must be made microscopically.

THE ST. PETER SANDSTONE IN MICHIGAN

By

Michael T. Balombin

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Geology
197a

Dedicated to my Wife, Daughter, Mother, and late Father.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer wishes to express his deep gratitude
to Dr. James H. Fisher, chairman of the thesis committee,
for his valuable suggestions and assistance and under
whose guidance this study was undertaken.

Special thanks go to Dr. C. E. Prouty and Dr.

B. T. Sandefur, other members of the committee, for their
most appreciated advice, suggestions and criticism of
this manuscript.

The writer gratefully acknowledges Garland D. Ells
of the Michigan Geological Survey for many interesting
and stimulating discussions and the Survey staff who
graciously assisted in providing geophysical logs and
well samples necessary for this study.

Thanks also go to Dr. Robert Shaver of the Indiana
Geological Survey and Thomas C. Buschbach of the Illinois
Geological Survey who furnished comparison samples from
their respective states and to Mr. Vivion Shull of the
Microprobe Lab for his helpfulness in the preparation
of the photomicrographs.

Finally, the writer would like to express his
sincere appreciation for the special assistance provided
by his wife in the preparation of this manuscript and

iii

for her patience, understanding, love and encouragement,
without which this work would never have been started--or

finished.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Purpose of Investigation . . . . . .
Methods and Procedures . . . . . . .

REGIONAL STRATIGRAPHY OF THE ST. PETER SANDSTONE.

Lithology. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Distribution . . . .

Stratigraphic Relations and Contacts
Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Deposition . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Geologic History . . . . . . . . . .

STRATIGRAPHY OF THE ST. PETER SANDSTONE IN MICHIGAN

Lithology. . . . . . . .
Distribution and Thickness . . .
Stratigraphic Relations and Contacts
Petroleum Possibilities. . . . . . .
Geologic History . . . . . . . . . .

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX. 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O

22
22
23
27
3o
30
33
35

39

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures
1. Area of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Photomicrograph of St. Peter Sandstone. . .
3. Areal Distribution of St. Peter Sandstone .
A. Generalized, Reconstructed, north-south
section of the Cambrian and Ordovician
Formations of the Mississippi Valley. . . .
5. Distribution of St. Peter Sandstone
in Michigan 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
6. Photomicrographs of St. Peter and
Prairie du Chien. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. Photomicrograph of Fox Well Sample. . . . .
8. Generalized Stratigraphic Section of Middle
Ordovician to Upper Cambrian in Michigan. .
9. Photomicrograph of Glenwood . . . . . . . .
lO. Stratigraphic Interpretation of Glenwood,

St. Peter and Prairie du Chien in Michigan.

vi

Page

\J $7

0)

11

2h

26
27

28
29

31

LIST OF PLATES

Plate (In Pocket)

l. Isopach Map of the St. Peter
2. Cross-Section, North-South, Western Michigan

3. Structure Contours on top of St. Peter

vii

INTRODUCTION

The St. Peter sandstone has been studied extensively
in the Mississippi Valley region for some time. Authors
such as Trowbridge (1917), Dake (1921), Lamar (1928),

Thiel (1935), Dapples (1955), and Buschbach (196k) have

made comprehensive examinations of the St. Peter. Much

of the earlier work on the formation in Michigan was done

by Cohee (l9u5) who described the sandstone and placed a
major unconformity at its base. Later work completed by
Horowitz (1961) generally agreed with Cohee as to the
occurrence and distribution of the St. Peter. Catacosinos
(1972) called the same unit a Jordan-St. Lawrence transitional
zone with sandstone and dolomite stringers. He does not
recognize St. Peter rocks anywhere in Michigan and places

the unconformity at the base of the younger Glenwood.

Purpose of Investigation

The purpose of this investigation is to determine
if the sand in Michigan, customarily called St. Peter, is
indeed St. Peter, and to describe its extent and distribution
in the Lower Peninsula. Since the formation does not crop
out in Michigan, this study is based entirely on well

samples, core chips and gamma ray-neutron logs where available.

1

It is hoped that the information gained from this
investigation will not only provide useful data on the
nature of the formation but also help in the interpretation

of the early history of the Michigan Basin.

Methods and Procedures

 

The Michigan well samples and gamma ray-neutron
logs used in this study were obtained from the Geological
Survey in Lansing, Michigan. The samples consisted of both
rotary and cable tool cuttings and core chips. The Survey
also provided the facilities and equipment used during
the course of the study.

Samples, cores and core chips for comparison
purposes were supplied by the Indiana and Illinois Geological
Surveys and copies of gamma ray-neutron logs were also
obtained from the latter.

A complete list of all samples used may be found
in the Appendix.

In the samples, the St. Peter interval was examined
in detail and the samples were checked far enough both
above and below to recognize overlying and underlying
formations. This was done under reflected light using a
magnification of 8x. For closer observation, magnification
was increased to a maximum of 60x. The lithology of the
interval was then recorded with conclusions based in large
part on this data. The properties examined included color,

grain size, shape, degree of sorting, type of cementation

and presence or absence of frosting and pitting.

In the opinion of the writer, the St. Peter does
not show a characteristic trace on gamma ray-neutron logs
and they cannot be used solely to determine the presence
or absence of the formation. Only when used in conjunction

with samples can the logs be used accurately.

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'3 " w
00
man
\ (seams
razsoue m:
crumvoux
Q nosmoamcy -
. 9 NA
0 ANTRIM (”556° N ‘
[EELANAU F ‘
camp KAIKASKA CRAWFORD OSCODA AlCONA
12mm
MAmerg wexrozo msswxes aoscouuow (355qu IOSCO -
I ARENAC
I
MASON ms OSCEOLA cums gcmownw
I
3 ,__.s HURON
i BAY
. uscosm ISABELLA Emouwo
NEWAYGO I '—_L__
I L wscou.
SAHuAC
MONICALM . ~
uusxecow . j
urea \
“"7 GENESEE I
OTTAWA IONIA cumow snumsm _. ‘ SAW CW3
I
MACOIAB
OAKLAND
Auscm mm snow INGRAM uvmcsmw p
'0
VAN 3mm '
exaumzoo CALHOUN JACKSON WkgflTENAW WAYNE
32mm .. ’ .
I
J
Figure 1. Area of Study

REGIONAL STRATIGRAPHY OF THE ST. PETER SANDSTONE

The St. Peter sandstone was named by D. D. Owen
in IBM? from outcrops near the mouth of the St. Peter
River (now Minnesota River) in southern Minnesota. The
type location is at Ft. Snelling, Hennepin County, on
the southeast edge of Minneapolis. The type section is
155 feet thick and is located at the bluff where the

Minnesota River joins the Mississippi River.
Lithology

The St. Peter has several distinctive properties
which are present throughout its area of distribution
in the Midwest and Mississippi Valley region. These
include a pure white color, except where locally stained
when it may be yellow, brown, orange, pink or red. It is
generally friable, usually cemented with a small amount
of calcite, dolomite or silica. The sand is fine to
medium-grained, well-rounded, well-sorted, frosted and
pitted, with a composition of 99% $102 at many locations.
Rounded grains are almost without exception completely
frosted, but the more angular grains are either not frosted
or only partly frosted. Most of the finer grains are

unfrosted. Much of the whiteness of the St. Peter is due
5

to the frosted surfaces of the grains (Figure 2).

In outcrop, the St. Peter is stratified, with
ripple marks and cross-bedding occasionally present. It
is easily distinguishable from other sandstones in the
vicinity by the presence Of rounded grains, better sorting,
much less clay and silt and by the absence of mica. It

is rarely fossiliferous.
Distribution

The St. Peter and its equivalents extend as far
west as Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska, and southward into
Arkansas. Its eastern margin is found in Indiana and the
Lower Peninsula of Michigan while to the north it reaches
into Minnesota and northern Wisconsin (Figure 3). Most
of the St. Peter in this area is found in the subsurface
but outcrops are present in large areas Of Wisconsin,
Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa and Missouri. The northern
edge appears to have been removed by erosion while the
eastern margin seems to be defined as the limit Of deposition.
This is suggested by the transitional relationship of
the St. Peter and overlying Glenwood in western Michigan
hdaile thin Glenwood beds unconformably overlie the Prairie
511 Chien or Trempealeau in the eastern part of the state
BflIere the St. Peter is not present. The absence of any
CHJtliers of St. Peter anywhere in the eastern half of
Michigan appears to indicate a lack of deposition, rather

tfllan.a period of deposition and erosion.

 

 

 

Figure 2. Photomicrograph of
St. Peter Sandstone-6x

(Illinois)

 

 

.7)

: pcomnflg Ammo: TEE new $33 eoxemm 298 2.2302

onono ma OO>OEOL hanwnoem\\ \ . .
monouso no oowmssmnsw.:m. OcOmecmw popom pm no coflpnnwepmfia Haoe< m oeswflm

C"

o...

“M“... 0*.

 

-w-vm‘o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
I
U
"W com a. Qw-" 0m~ ,.

 

 

 

The St. Peter shows a great variation in thickness
throughout its extent. In Illinois it ranges from 100 to
600 feet in thickness with variations of over 200 feet
occurring in wells only a few hundred yards apart indicating
an irregular sub-St. Peter surface. Over most of the
northern two-thirds of the state the St. Peter is 100 to
200 feet thick. However, in a narrow band across northern-
most Illinois, local thicknesses Of MOO to 600 feet are
encountered (Buschbach, l96u). The formation appears to
thin in all directions from this point with a maximum
thickness in Wisconsin of 332 feet at Shullsburg (Thwaites,
1923). In eastern Wisconsin, the extreme variability is
shown by its thickness of 200 feet in one place and its
absence at localities less than three miles to the south-
east and less than six miles to the south (Cohee, 19k5).
Variations of 100 feet in thickness in a horizontal
distance of a quarter of a mile have been recorded.

In Indiana, the St. Peter, as a distinct lithologic
unit is confined to the western part of the state. A
thickness of 120 feet has been recorded in northwest
Indiana from which the formation continues to thin markedly
to the east and south. Local thin sandstone lenses which
may represent the St. Peter occur in the central and southern
portion of the state. It is not present in northeastern
Indiana (Gutstadt, 1957).

Wasson (1932) doubted the existence of the St.

Peter in Ohio and it is not known to occur in Ontario.

10

South and west into Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas
and Kansas, the St. Peter has been correlated with the
sands of the Simpson group and Everton formation.
Thicknesses may reach several hundred feet in this area

(Figure A).
Stratigraphic Relations and Contacts

Along its southern margin, the St. Peter and its
equivalents grade into shaly sandstones, calcareous shales
and arenaceous limestones. Toward the east, because of
the lack of exposures, correlations are based on the order
of succession and similarity of rock types rather than
on direct field evidence. This is especially true in
Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky where limestones and sandstones
from no to 230 feet thick are correlated with the St.
Peter (Thiel, 1935).

In northeastern Illinois the St. Peter overlaps
formations down to the Cambrian Franconia and the Eau
Claire a short distance to the north. A major erosional
unconformity separates the Canadian (Lower Ordovician)
and Champlainian (Middle Ordovician) strata. The St.
Peter sandstone, which represents the earliest Champlainian
deposition in this region, unconformably overlies the
Shakopee, New Richmond, Oneota, Eminence, Potosi and
Franconia and underlies the shaly and dolomitic sandstones
of the Glenwood formation (Buschbach, l96h). The evidence

<>f an unconformity in this area, according to Cady, consists

ll

Ammoa
.< .m seem eopnue<v
heaaa> Hnmwmmammfiz
on» mo mcowuaeeom adfiow>ouso one :afieneao on»
MO cofipoom nonomnguhoc .voposnumGOoom .Oonwaaeocoo

..Hanm .e< .oom .Hooe .Hofiee

.3 opswfim

 

V\ \ \~
_ / _.\/

\ x / c n\ /
/ 2<Emi<omia /

\I

/_d

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12

Of a contact with irregular pre-St. Peter relief of over
50 feet, together with a basal conglomerate made up of
weathered fragments of chert, from the underlying cherty
limestones (Dake, 1921). Buschbach concurs, citing the
fact that the sub-St. Peter surface is mantled by a layer
of angular chert fragments intermixed with red or green
shale. Much of the chert is oblitic and was derived from
Prairie du Chien strata.

Willman and Payne (l9k2) also noted the unconformity
at the base of the St. Peter showing it to lie on the
Shakopee and on successively lower strata down to the
Trempealeau to the north and east. Berkey (1906) indicates
the unconformity represents a retreat of the Prairie du
Chien sea and Thiel (1935) agreed, adding an erosion interval
before the deposition of the St. Peter.

According to Lamar (1928), there is a sharp line
of separation between the St. Peter and Glenwood suggestive
of an unconformity. Others considered it a transition
zone as noted by Bevan (1926) in Illinois where the Glenwood
appears closely related to the St. Peter and the contact
can be determined only by the change in color and the
abrupt change from the typical St. Peter sand to fine
angular sand. Knappen (1926) agreed that the St. Peter-
Glenwood contact is gradational also citing the very sandy
basal part of the Glenwood.

The contact in Michigan appears gradational with

.no evidence of an unconformity.

13
Source

Several ideas have been advanced to account for
the source of the St. Peter.

Dake (1921) thought the St. Peter was largely
derived from the Potsdam sandstones to the north and
the northwest. The sands were already well-sorted and rounded
and were delivered to the sea both by rivers and to a minor
degree directly by winds. Distribution was accomplished
chiefly by waves and currents. In this way a high degree
of purity and rounding was obtained.

Thiel (1935) disagreed, observing that the Potsdam
sand shows a smaller median diameter than the St. Peter
so there is little justification for postulating that the
bulk of the St. Peter was derived from the weathering and
transportation of the older Cambrian sandstones. Trowbridge
(1917) also doubted a Cambrian source saying no Cambrian
sandstone was exposed anywhere at the time the St. Peter
was deposited.

Tyler (1936) felt that the upper Cambrian sandstones
may have furnished sands to the St. Peter, since they
were undergoing erosion during at least part of the time
represented by the unconformity at the base of the St.
Peter. The absence or extreme rareness of garnet in the
St. Peter also suggests that the Franconia and Jordan
formations of Wisconsin could not have been the source for

the St. Peter.

1A

Templeton and Willman (1963) agreed with Dake and
Tyler that the St. Peter was derived chiefly from the
erosion of pre-existing sandstones of which the Cambrian
Galesville sandstone may have been a major source.

Giles (1930) stated that by a comparison of the
average results of a large number of mechanical analyses
of St. Peter sand of Illinois, Missouri and Arkansas, it
can be shown that the sand increases in fineness proceeding
southward in the Mississippi Valley. This increase in
fineness is attributed to greater attrition resulting
from farther transportation from the original sources of
the sandstone in the northern United States and southern
Canada.

A Precambrian source was also considered a possibility
by Tyler. He points out that since the Canadian Shield
has served as a positive landmass throughout much of geologic
time, it is to be expected that the Precambrian sediments
associated with it may have served as a source for the
later Paleozoic sandstones.

Trowbridge (1917) was of the opinion that quartz,
liberated from granitic rocks by the decomposition of
associated silicate minerals, was broken up, transported
by streams, shaped by waves and currents in the sea and
deposited near the shore, as the sea advanced over the
land. He considered it possible that some sand was picked
up by the wind from the beaches, transported a little way
inland and later submerged beneath the advancing sea. In

this way some eolian deposits may have been incorporated

15

within the formation which he referred to as being generally
marine.

Lamar (1928) believed in a dual source. He thought
the Precambrian crystallines of the Canadian Shield and
the Cambrian and Early Ordovician sandstones lying north
of the area of St. Peter deposition to be the source of the
St. Peter. The fact that the crystallines were probably
well-weathered and the Cambrian sandstones not very firmly
cemented resulted in an abundant and readily available
supply of sand to the agencies transporting it to the
area of St. Peter deposition.

Thiel doubted this theory saying the degree of
sorting and rounding that characterizes the formation
wherever it occurs, precludes the possibility of the sands
having been derived from the mature weathering of igneous
rocks.

The best interpretation for the source of the
St. Peter appears to lie with the Canadian Shield area of

northern Wisconsin, Minnesota and southern Canada.

Deposition

Many authors have speculated on the manner of
deposition of the St. Peter. One group considers the
sand as an eolian deposit while the other regards it as
marine.

Trowbridge (1917) cites several reasons for an

eolian origin:

16

l. The sand is of uniform texture and of a size commonly
transported and deposited by the wind.

2. No wind-deposited sand contains abundant fossils.

3. The thickness of the formation varies greatly within
short distances, as is true of all eolian deposits.

A. There are locations where irregular stratification
appears in the sand, suggesting eolian stratification.

5. The shapes of the sand grains are not notably different
from the shapes of sand grains taken from existing
sand dunes.

The eolian theory presupposes that the whole area
of St. Peter deposition was a desert during St. Peter time
and that deposition of sand was so rapid and widespread
that the underlying rock surface was buried everywhere.
However, Trowbridge finds it difficult to understand how
eolian deposits could be distributed continuously over
so wide an area as the St. Peter covers. The St. Peter
was deposited on an irregular surface of great relief.
Rough tOpographies interfere with sand depositing winds
and it is unlikely that sand could be laid down in such
a manner as to fill up all the valleys and bury all the hills.

The variation in thickness of eolian sand is due
to the irregular piling up of the sand into dunes. Most
commonly it is the surface rather than the base of the
deposit which is irregular. Except for a slight structural
dip the surface of the St. Peter is horizontal. Its

variable thickness is due to its irregular base rather

17

than the upper surface. Such variability could be Obtained
most easily under marine rather than under eolian conditions.

The overlying Glenwood and Platteville (or equivalent
Black River) formations are known to be marine and are
conformable with the St. Peter. It is doubtful that an
eolian deposit could grade conformably upward into marine
deposits. Trowbridge concludes, therefore, that at least
most of the St. Peter is marine.

Stauffer (193M) also supported marine deposition
while not eliminating the possibility of eolian origin.

Very little, if any, St. Peter shows typical dune structure.
A few marine fossils occur within the formation and their
presence suggests the marine origin of the sandstone,
although at other places some portions of the same formation
may be of eolian origin.

Tyler (1936), citing Twenhofel and Thwaites,
said the irregular surface upon which the St. Peter was
deposited and the unsorted character Of the basal part
Of the formation is evidence against marine deposition.

Freeman (1939) thought the surface structure of
the St. Peter suggested eolian origin.

Twenhofel (19h5) felt the St. Peter was best
interpreted as water deposits Of reworked dune sands, the
dunes having been formed in Early Ordovician time following
emergence of the Prairie du Chien limestones, with the
dunes probably obtaining the sands from Cambrian sandstones.

Thiel (1935) concluded that field evidence indicates

18

that most of the formation is of marine origin. The
stratification, ripple marks, cross-bedding and other
structures are more typical of water laid deposits than
of eolian sediments. His interpretation was that the
St. Peter is a composite marine sandstone formed during
periods Of oscillation of sea level, in a shallow sea
characterized by retreats and readvances Of the marine
environment. Each advance was separated by an interval
of erosion during which wind action played a part in
rounding and frosting the sand grains.

Buschbach (196k) states much of the sand was
probably derived from Cambrian sandstones north of Illinois.
Cross—bedding in the St. Peter is of the aqueous type
indicating that the sandstone is a marine deposit.

Knappen (1926) thought that following earlier
erosion, the sea returned, advancing over a surface of
comparatively high relief and the St. Peter was deposited
on the ocean floor.

Dake (1922) did not believe that these sands were
brought in as a series of drifting dunes in an extensive
interior desert. The rounding and frosting which are cited
as evidence of this hypothesis are just as well developed
in the Roubidoux sands, which is clearly a marine formation
and therefore affords no proof. The same is true of the
size and degree of uniformity of the sand grains.

The chert conglomerate at the base of the formation

shows no evidence of wind action. Even bedding is more

l9

prominent than cross-bedding and nothing like dune structure
is noted anywhere, even in the more protected valleys of

the old erosion surface. Marine fossils have been found

in Arkansas in the basal Everton beds, the first deposit
above the erosion surface, as well as in the main body of
the typical St. Peter in Minnesota.

Dott and Roshardt (1972) considered the St. Peter
in southern Wisconsin to have been deposited in complex
submarine sand waves, dunes and ridges, as earlier theorized
by Pryor and Amaral (1971). The size and form of these
were extremely variable, ranging up to heights in excess
of 30 feet. For the limited area of study (700 square
miles), the net transport direction was toward the west
rather than south-southwest as previously postulated from
limited data for the Upper Mississippi Valley region.

Dapples (1955) suggested transportation of the
sand southwestward from the Canadian Shield region and
deposition along shore lines that progressively advanced
north and northwestward across the area of St. Peter
deposition.

James (189A) believed the discovery of fossils,
although in limited numbers, has caused the St. Peter to
be generally regarded as having a marine origin. In this
regard, Chamberlin (1878) says:

The existence of the remains of marine life
demonstrates that the fossiliferous portions
at least are submarine deposits, while the

well-rounded character of the grains, the
ebb and flow structure, the shaly laminations,

20

the conglomeratic portions and its relations
to the adjacent formations, leave no doubt
that it belongs to the common class of oceanic
sand deposits.

The most convincing evidence for marine deposition
was supplied by Sardeson (1892), who described lu genera
and 28 species of fossils in the St. Peter of Minnesota,
including cephalopods, gastropods, pelecypods, brachiopods
and bryozoans.

The properties exhibited by the St. Peter appear

to identify it conclusively as a shallow marine sandstone.

Geologic History

After the deposition of the Prairie du Chien Group
and equivalents, the sea withdrew and a long period of
erosion took place. This produced a surface of considerable
relief throughout the Mississippi Valley region upon which
the St. Peter sea advanced. The sand was delivered to the
sea by streams flowing southward from the exposed shield
area in the northern United States and Canada.

The St. Peter represents the littoral or near-shore
deposits of this shallow sea. During Glenwood time, the
sea apparently continued to advance, overlapping the St.
Peter and depositing the Glenwood on the Prairie du Chien
unconformity. Therefore, in areas where the Glenwood
overlies the St. Peter, the contact is transitional. It
is unconformable where it overlies the Prairie du Chien.

It is likely that all of the strata between the

Glenwood and Trenton, or the equivalent Decorah formation,

21

were laid down continuously in a sea that transgressed
steadily from south to north with no evidence that the

area emerged from the sea during this time. In most areas,
the St. Peter is succeeded by green or black shales which
pass upward into a dolomite sequence which is then overlain

by limestone.

STRATIGRAPHY OF THE ST. PETER SANDSTONE IN MICHIGAN

Lithology

The St. Peter sandstone in Michigan is a clear
to white basically pure quartz sandstone. Locally it
may be brown, orange or yellow due to iron staining.

It is sometimes found with associated chert and pyrite
fragments.

Grains are often loosely cemented with dolomite,
silica or calcite although they are so friable that loose
grains are not uncommon. The sandstone is generally
fine to medium-grained, sub-rounded to well-rounded,
frosted and sometimes pitted. The frosting is most apparent
in the larger and more rounded grains while the angularity
tends to increase with a decrease in grain size.

The coarsest grains are found in wells in Kalamazoo,
Barry and Kent Counties with grain size decreasing in
wells to the north. This may indicate deposition in a
beach environment while the finer-grained sand farther
north could represent sedimentation in slightly deeper

water, but still a near-shore area.

22

23
Distribution and Thickness

The St. Peter is recognized in a relatively narrow
band along the western side of the Lower Peninsula (Figure 5),
(Plate 1). East of this area no St. Peter is encountered.
The sandstone is very irregular in thickness with a maximum
of 137 feet in the Moe well in Ottawa County. Its area of
greatest thickness is concentrated in Ottawa, Muskegon
and Kent Counties, decreasing from there in all directions.
Ostrom (1967) showed the St. Peter extending to the Escanaba
area in the Upper Peninsula from Wisconsin, but its
occurrence at all in the Upper Peninsula seems doubtful.
A cursory examination of well logs in this region shows
no St. Peter and most or all of the underlying Prairie
du Chien is also absent. A study by Ells (1967) and work
by Dorr and Eschman (1970) further supports this
interpretation.

Rocks younger than St. Peter rest upon Cambrian
sandstones in the western part Of the Upper Peninsula.
This unconformity indicates that during the time between
Late Cambrian and Middle Ordovician, either no sediments
were deposited, or if they were, they were subsequently
eroded. Whatever the case, it appears that while the
St. Peter was accumulating in the shallow marine waters
of lower Michigan, the Upper Peninsula was emergent and
;prbbab1y being eroded. This unconformity can be recognized
fheom fossil evidence. Rocks below the unconformity contain

fkbssils of Late Cambrian age while those above contain

   
  
   
  

LCILRHAU

.........i...c AND
"HOLDEN ’..12 VERSE

' FAUA’E’I’ °

‘ "CHAIM; 'IX

24

E)

CHEBOYGAN

PRESOUF. ISLE

 

 

 

 

TRIAL

f

OTSEGO

MONTMORENCY

 

ALPENA

 

KALKASKA

CRAWFORD

OSCODA

ALCONA

 

   
 

   
 
 

WEXFORD

MISSAUXEE

 

 

ROSCOMMON

OGEMAW

 

 

IOSCO

 

 
  
   
   

'°'K£3CN°'/AKE

OSCEOLA CLARE

ARENAC
GLADWIN

 

..032A7":..(. .
0........... .9. WAYGO

..........( ...

 

MECOSTA ISASELLA

 

BAY

MIDLAND

. , H

 

 

 

 

 
 
   

..‘.....1......

 

MONICALM

 

 
  
  
   
 

HAW
A Lure-m1
ooooood

swimsuIWW
{ f

.......g.. ...........

OOOOOOOOOO ooo‘fi”,ooo

GRATIOT

' SAGINAW

 

nuaow

 

TUSCOLA

 

 

 

IONIA

 

CLINTON

SHIAWASSEE

GENESEE

LAPEER

 

I
_\

SAMLAC

\

SAINT CLAIR I

 

 

 

 

 

...r‘z"...

ION

 

 

 

 

.I-‘EN 2
.0........O"....

/

.........O,’.’g,._..._’....0 00....

w.» .

INGHAM LIVINGSTON.

 

 

OAKLAND

 

MACONa \

so

 

 
 
 
   
  

CALHOUN

 

l

JACKSON WASHTENAW

 

WAYNE

 

 

...1

‘g 0......0...0 ......
.

".uuju.u.

_k

 

    

55..0.¥.3.’D§w.0r

 

 

 

HILLSDALE

LENAWEE

 

 

M'AH-ROE

 

Figure 5. Distribution of St. Peter Sandstone
in Michigan

25

Middle Ordovician fossils. Fossils of Early Ordovician
age are missing (Dorr and Eschman, 1970). There is no
substantial evidence that the St. Peter exists anywhere
in the Upper Peninsula.
Several areas in Michigan have thick sandstone
intervals that lie stratigraphically below the Glenwood
and have been thought by many to be the St. Peter. Examples
of these are the Beaver Island wells, the Simpson-Lake
Horicon well in Otsego County, the Brazos-State Foster
well in Ogemaw County and the McClure-Fox well in Clinton
County. Apparently this thinking is based entirely on
the stratigraphic position the sand occupies below the
Glenwood. However, the writer does not recognize St.
Peter in any of these wells for the following reasons:
1. The sand grains are more angular than the St. Peter
with many grains appearing to show a conchoidal fracture.
2. The grains are not as well-sorted and are not as
uniformly frosted as the St. Peter.
3. The sandstones are better cemented than typical St.
Peter.
Because of the above reasons, the sand interval
of these wells is assigned to the Prairie du Chien Group,
probably Oneota formation. The Oneota in places is primarily
a.dolomite but appears to grade northward into a sandstone
:in the Lower Peninsula as noted by Cohee (l9u5) and E113
(1967).

26

 

St. Peter Sandstone - 6x
(St. Joseph County)

 

Prairie du Chien - 6x
(Kent County)

Figure 6. Photomicrographs of St. Peter
and Prairie du Chien

27

 

Figure 7. Photomicrograph of Fox Well Sample
(Clinton County) - 6x

Stratigraphic Relations and Contacts

The St. Peter in Michigan lies stratigraphically
between the Middle Ordovician Glenwood formation and
Early Ordovician Prairie du Chien Group (Figure 8). The
contact between the St. Peter and Prairie du Chien is
unconformable. The St. Peter-Glenwood contact appears
gradational because of the presence of sand in the lower
Glenwood, although an unconformity exists where the St.
Peter is absent with the Glenwood overlying the Prairie
du Chien (Plate 2). Sand in the Glenwood closely resembles

the St. Peter. However, the following properties of the

28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GROUP FORMATION
Trenton
d)
H
'U
:3 Black
2 O
River
3 Glenwood
H
O
I; A A 11 #4 A A“ St. Peter
O v--- 17.77-777-77- '7',
8‘: sn k
0 a opee
3 Prairie New Richmond
.§ du
Chien
Oneota
Trempealeau
S 6.:
E 9‘ Lake
a :5“ Superior
c) Munising

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8. Generalized Stratigraphic
Section of Middle Ordovician
to Upper Cambrian in Michigan

29

Glenwood differentiate it from the St. Peter:

1. The sand is finer-grained and more angular.

2. Little or no frosting is present.

3. The sand is not as well-sorted and is often associated

with shale.

 

Figure 9. Photomicrograph of Glenwood
(Lenawee County)'6x

30

The structure contour map of the St. Peter (Plate 3)
indicates a smooth upper surface which conforms to the

general structure of the Michigan Basin.
Petroleum Possibilities

The St. Peter is not a producing formation for
Oil or gas in Michigan or neighboring states. It would
appear to be a logical deep formation for exploration.
In some areas, it is very thick, porous and permeable.
In addition, it appears to wedge out under the impermeable
Glenwood shale which should provide excellent conditions
for oil accumulation.

The scarcity of Oil in the St. Peter may be due
to flushing, since the formation has been known to contain
fresh water. It is also possible that no source of
hydrocarbons was available to supply what appears to be
an outstanding reservoir. A small show of oil has been
reported from a well in Barry County but commercial quantities

do not appear probable.

Geologic History

Prairie du Chien time closed with a retreat of
the sea followed by a period of uplift and erosion which
deeply dissected the land in the Lower Peninsula. Evidence
of this unconformable surface is the very irregular thicknesses
of St. Peter and presence of chert from the Prairie du

Chien intermixed in places with basal St. Peter.

31

The relief Of this surface must have been
considerably greater in the western part Of the state
as shown by the variability in thickness Of the St. Peter
in that area. In eastern Michigan where the St. Peter
is not present, the Glenwood overlies the unconformity
and is much thinner than in other areas, averaging only

about 15 feet. This indicates that while the St. Peter

 

 

—: -—::——:—-: GL. ENWOOD—E‘:—:_._: —:-—=*
_ STPET R: : . = _.
‘CHIEN _ _ '
I _ .‘_::-- ,"'."-'.
.TREMPEAL_EA'L/J_'.'_,L ~-

 

 

 

Figure 10. Stratigraphic Interpretation of
Glenwood, St. Peter and Prairie
du Chien in Michigan
was being deposited in western Michigan, the land was being
eroded in the eastern part of the state, creating a surface
of much less relief. Evidence that the eastern margin of
the St. Peter sea was in Michigan is shown by the absence of
St. Peter in Ontario, Ohio, eastern Indiana and eastern
Michigan. The fact that no remnants of St. Peter are found
anywhere in this area indicates the sand was probably
never deposited.
The St. Peter sea advanced into the Michigan Basin

from the south with the source Of the sand being the

32

Canadian Shield area to the northwest. A relatively pure,
non-sandy carbonate terrain surrounds the periphery of
the St. Peter to the south and east, precluding these
areas as a possible source.

Rivers carried the sediments to the seas where
they were distributed by waves and currents. Wave action
rounded the sand grains, depositing them as a near-shore
and beach sand. During Glenwood time, the sea covered a
far greater area, depositing the green and black shales
Of the Glenwood throughout the Lower Peninsula. There
does not appear to be a break at the end of Glenwood time
so continuous deposition of Black River and Trenton rocks
probably took place.

The fact that the St. Peter was deposited in a
beach or near-shore area is indicated by the grain size,
degree of rounding and generally well-sorted character of
the sand accomplished with continual reworking by waves

in the shallow sea.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The St. Peter sandstone in Michigan occupies a
very narrow belt along the western side of the Lower
Peninsula. Other areas of thick sand intervals in
Charlevoix, Otsego, Ogemaw and Clinton Counties are not
part Of the St. Peter but are ascribed to the Prairie du
Chien Group. The St. Peter was deposited as a beach and
near-shore sand in a shallow sea with the eastern edge
of that sea in Michigan. This accounts for the absence
of the St. Peter in Ohio, Ontario, eastern Indiana and
eastern Michigan. Its irregular thickness is due to
deposition on the deeply eroded Prairie du Chien Group.
The sea advanced from the south as the sands were being
carried down by rivers and streams from the exposed
Canadian Shield area to the northwest.

Sands of the Glenwood, St. Peter and Prairie du
Chien bear a close resemblance to each other in samples.
Differences may be detected microscopically, however,
and have been presented earlier in the manuscript.

The St. Peter does not have a characteristic trace
on gamma ray-neutron logs and cannot be recognized on that
basis alone since the Glenwood may sometimes overlie sand

intervals in the Prairie du Chien. Only when used in

33

3h

conjunction with well samples can the logs be used with
accuracy.

The St. Peter-Glenwood contact is gradational,
but where the St. Peter is absent, the Glenwood may
unconformably overlie various formations of the Prairie
du Chien Group or Trempealeau Formation. In wells where
the Prairie du Chien is a sandstone, it may easily be
mistaken for St. Peter on the basis of geophysical logs
alone.

Over 175 wells have been examined during the course
of this study. It is hoped that the information provided
by these wells will help in the understanding of the St.
Peter sandstone in Michigan and of the early geologic

history of this area.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berkey, C. P., 1906, Paleogeography of St. Peter Time.
Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 17, p. 229-250.

Bevan, A., 1926, The Glenwood Beds as a Horizon Marker
at the Base of the Platteville Formation. Illinois
State Geol. Survey, Rept. Inv. 9.

Buschbach, T. C., 1961, The Morphology of the Sub-St. Peter
Surface Of Northeastern Illinois. Trans. Illinois
Acad. SCi., p. 83-88.

196k, Cambrian and Ordovician Stratigraphy of
Northeastern Illinois. Illinois State Geol. Survey,
Rept. Inv. 218, p. 90.

Catacosinos, P., 1972, Cambrian Stratigraphy of the Lower
Peninsula of Michigan. Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan
State University.

Cohee, G. V., l9h5, Sections and Maps of Lower Ordovician
and Cambrian Rocks in the Michigan Basin, Michigan
and Adjoining Areas. U. S. Geol. Survey, Oil and
Gas Inv., Prelim. Chart 9.

19h7, Cambrian and Ordovician Rocks in Recent Wells
in Southeast Michigan. Am. Assoc. Petroleum
Geologists Bull., v. 31, no. 2, p. 293-308.

1965, Geologic History of the Michigan Basin.
Jour. Washington Acad. Sciences, p. 211-217.

Dake, C. L., 1921, The Problem of the St. Peter Sandstone.
Univ. of Missouri Sch. of Mines and Metall. Bull.,
v. 6, no. 1.

1922, Derivation of the Peter Sandstone. Pan American
Geologist, v. 37, no. 3, p. 2uu-2h6.

1922, Taxonomic Significance Of Peter Sandstone.
Pan American Geologist, v. 37, no. u, p. 288-300.

Dapples, E. C. et a1, 1953, Petrographic and Lithologic

Attributes Of Sandstones. Jour. Geology, v. 61,
no. u, p. 291-317.

35

36

Dapples, E. C., 1955, General Lithofacies Relationship of
St. Peter Sandstone and Simpson Group. Am. Assoc.
Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 39, no. u, p. huh-M68.

Dorr, Jr., John A. and Eschman, Donald F., 1970, Geology
of Michigan. The Univ. of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor, R76 p.

Dott, Jr., R. H. and Roshardt, M. A., 1972, Analysis of
Cross-Stratification Orientation in the St. Peter
Sandstone in Southwestern Wisconsin. Geol. Soc.
America Bull., v. 83, p. 2589-2596.

DuBois, E. P., 19h5, Subsurface Relations of the Maquoketa
and "Trenton" Formations in Illinois. Illinois
State Geol. Survey, Rept. Inv. 105, p. 1-33.

Edson, F. C., 1935, Resume of St. Peter Stratigraphy. Am.
Assoc. Petroleum Geologists, v. 19, no. 8, p. 1110-
1131.

Ells, G. D., 1967, Correlation of Cambro-Ordovician Rocks
in Michigan, In Correlation Problems of the Cambrian
and Ordovician Outcrop Areas, Northern Peninsula
of Michigan. Michigan Basin Geol. Soc., Ann. Field
Excur., p. h2-57.

1969, Architecture of the Michigan Basin, In Studies
of the Precambrian Of the Michigan Basin. Michigan
Basin Geol. Soc. Guidebook, Ann. Field Excur.,

p. 60-880

Freeman, L. B., 1939, Present State of the St. Peter
Problem in Kentucky. Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists,
V. 23’ no. 12, p. 1836-IBMO

Giles, A. W., 1932, Textural Features of the Ordovician
Sandstones of Arkansas. Jour. Geology, v. NO,
no. 2, p. 97-118.

Gutstadt, A. M., 1957, Study Shows Ordovician Oil for
Indiana. Oil and Gas Jour., p. 217.

1958, Cambrian and Ordovician Stratigraphy and Oil
and Gas Possibilities in Indiana. Indiana Dept.
of Conservation, Geol. Survey Bull. 1h.

Horowitz, M., 1961, The St. Peter-Glenwood Problem in
Michigan. M.S. Thesis, Michigan State University.

James, J. F., 189A, The St. Peter's Sandstone. The Cincinnati
Soc. of Nat. Hist. Jour., v. 17, p. 115-135.

37

Knappen, R. S., 1926, Geology and Mineral Resources of
the Dixon Quadrangle. Illinois State Geol. Survey
Bull. R9.

Kummel, Bernhard, 1961, History of the Earth. W. H. Freeman
and Company, San Francisco, 610 p.

Lamar, J. E., 1928, Geological and Economic Resources of
the St. Peter Sandstone in Illinois. Illinois State
Geol. Survey Bull. 53.

Lane, A. C., 1910, Notes on the Geological Section of
Michigan; Part 2, From the St. Peter Up. Jour.
Geology, v. 18, p. 393-h29.

Leet, L. Don and Judson, Sheldon, 1965, Physical Geology.
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,

h06 p.

Logan, William N., 1931, The Sub-Surface Strata of Indiana,
Div. of Geology, Dept. of Conservation, Pub. 108.

Newcombe, R. B., 1933, Oil and Gas Fields of Michigan.
Michigan Geol. Survey, Pub. 38, Ser. 32.

Ostrom, Meredith E., 1967, Geologic Cross Section, Alger
County, Michigan--Wa1worth County, Wisconsin, In
Correlation Problems of the Cambrian and Ordovician
Outcrop Areas, Northern Peninsula of Michigan.
Michigan Basin Geol. 300., Ann. Field Excur.,

p0 36-14.10

Russell, R. D. and Taylor, R. E., 1937. Roundness and
Shape of Mississippi River Sands. Jour. Geology,
v. RS, no. 3, p. 225-268.

Sardeson, F. W., 1892, The St. Peter Sandstone, Minnesota
Acad. Nat. Sci. Bull., v. u, no. 1, p. 64-88.

1932, Saint Peter Group of Minnesota. Pan American
Geologist, v. 58, p. 191-196.

Stauffer, C. R., l93h, Detailed Section at Type Locality.
Jour. Geology, v. N2, no. u, p. 352-357.

Stratigraphic Cross-Sections of the Michigan Basin. 1969,
Michigan Basin Geol. 800., p. 22.

Stratigraphic Succession in Michigan. 196R, Michigan Geol.
Survey, Chart 1.

38

Templeton, J. S. and Willman, H. B., 1963, Champlainian
Series (Middle Ordovician) in Illinois. Illinois
State Geol. Survey Bull. 89.

Thiel, G. A., 1935, Sedimentary and Petrographic Analysis
of the St. Peter Sandstone. Geol. Soc. America
Bull., v. R6, no. R, p. 559-615.

Thwaites, F. T., 1923, The Paleozoic Rocks in Deep Wells
in Wisconsin and Northern Illinois. Jour. Geology,

v. 31, no. 7, p. 529-555.

1927, Stratigraphy and Geologic Structure of
Northern Illinois. Illinois State Geol. Survey,
Rept. Inv. 13.

19R3, Stratigraphic Work in Northern Michigan.
Papers of the Michigan Acad. Sci., Arts and Letters,
v. 28.

Trowbridge, A. C., 1917, The Origin of the St. Peter
Sandstone. Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci., v. 2R, p. 171-177.

Twenhofel, W. H., 19R5, The Rounding of Sand Grains. Jour.
Sed. Petrology, v. 15, no. 2, p. 59-72.

Tyler, S. A., 1936, Heavy Minerals of the St. Peter
Sandstone in Wisconsin. Jour. Sed. Petrology,

v. 6, no. 2, p. 55-85.

Wasson, 1., 1932, Sub-Trenton Formations in Ohio. Jour.
Geology, v. R0, no. 8, p. 673-688.

Whiteside, R. M., 1932, Geologic Interpretations from
Rotary Well Cuttings. Am. Assoc. Petroleum
Geologists Bull., v. 16, no. 7, p. 653-675.

Willman, H. B. and Payne, J. N., 19R2, Geology and Mineral
Resources of the Marseilles, Ottawa, and Streator
Quadrangles. Illinois State Geol. Survey Bull. 66.

Workman, L. E. and Bell, A. H., 19R8, Deep Drilling and
Deeper Oil Possibilities in Illinois. Am. Assoc.
Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 32, p. 2OR1-2062.

APPENDIX

LIST OF WELL SAMPLES EXAMINED

39

 

 

- - moem new 3w 2: m memmm an enaamaoozuafio menace: .m
ewe:-me~: m Home com 25 2H ma oeamm an .2200
moxawszESoHOepom Oxwom .w
Haemm
oe-®mem +om meem mom 3m zmm 0H omomm an penanmfloz-awmeenq .e
- - omae amp 3m zam :H :oooa an nfleflnmneeno-awo cane .m
Efiapcm
- - meem mom me 2mm ma comm an mnaeoz-nopeme .:
u - came :me me zam m ooemm m-Hn .00 none: enoe-qmmm .m
anoma<
- - 0mm: mam 3NH zm oH mmemm an eomneAm-Hwo Hepnoeapnoo .m
- - came :Hw zen zm ma memam an eooanopoz-masnpm .H
newsflae
meow; zeonon
w. my Wm % m H I S N d Sawhaponwwnmdo
a .. q a m m w m m eggs
8 S o B A on u 4 a. w
J 1 H. T. B e S I. e I
A O U 1.. UL 0 Tu q
B e G I. I. u
..L .d S 8 0 d
e S d u
1 1
e H
J

RO

 

 

- - comm one ems me o mmmmm Ha eeoeofio-mnom e enema .oa
- - ommm mme 2wa mm on momdm oMLHmn empeno-omo .mH
- - oeom ewe 35H we :a memmm «-Hn mmen<-nopemflmq .NH
- - enem New Zea we OH mHHem an enmeHene
-msm e HA0 spaesomm .eH
- - Haem see zma m: OH emae an mnznmm-.monm nememnnm .mH
nowapom
- - mmoe omo em 2H 3H mmaom mm mm meanmau xemno mappem .dH
. - mos: mmm an zH mm Hmeem an nomflaaflz-.monm Amaawz .ma
mome-omm: ma ooom new 20H zm NH somem an neeee-ano new .mH
Hmem-meem ea ooem one he z: om memmm an sanfleeom-flwo menace: .HH
me@:-meo: Ha maom one 20 em m meme an neeefleuaao new .oH
meem-omem NH maem 0mm 2m z: om memmm an as us
mnneanH<-HAo menace: .o
I o I I H H I S N .d Epmmuaoumnma
w J m. w m. m m m m m .3850
e ”no 8 A on u 1 flaw
J A... H. I B e s I. e I.
A . u 1 U. o JA+
B 9 G I. I. u
T. rd 8 8 0 d
e S d U
1.. 1.
e U.
J

R1

 

 

 

- - cmc: cmc 2» m: : cmcmm Hm Acacnsm-mecm s enema .cm
Gnonmmo
- - Hcmm mcc 2m mm mm :Hmmm an mHHc3-HAc cnceooq .cm
A - Hmmm mmcm 2m mc cm mmecm an can: namzm-mmnoz .mm
- - cmmm chH 3c mm mm :cmmm mm as us
mooeum8a<ummo madame: .mm
- - ccem ccc 2c mm c cccmm an msmm-mmc menace: .cm
- - mmcm ccc 2c mm : cmmcm an Hecmmm-mmc oAnc .mm
- - mmcm mcc 2c we cm cmcmm an cmooqunemam-mmc cnnmcoz .cm
- - ccmm mmc 3c mm m mcmmm an Acnmw3-cnemmmmm .mm
- - deem mac 3» mm :m mcmmm an neonm-.c e .c soccem .mm
- - mmmm mmcm am we mm cccmm Hm neoceoz-mncm s enema .mm
- - :mmm mcc 2m mm mm mcmcm mm as an noenocummc nomnmcnc .cm
nocwnm
I o I I m R mm mm M % Epwmueopmnonmo
W raw“ W he w M o m.a hundoo
9 one B A on u 1. mam
J 1. H I B 8 S I. e I.
A . u 4 U. o JA+
B e G .k I. u
I .d S e 0 d
e S d u
A... 4+
3 H
J

R2

 

 

- - mccm mmc 3mm mm cm ccmmm Hm samnaeee-mnom e mnncm .m:
cmcm-mmcm mm mccm ecc 2am me cm edema an mefimanEcc-mpmwcm ec> .H:
- - comm :mm 23m mm c cmmmm an eccocz-mnnmm .c:
ammo
- - mmm: cmc 3c m: mm mcmmm mm maesm-mflc cesmcoz .cm
- - Hem: mmc 3m mm cm mmcmm Hm cmcc-omcmc .cm
- - mmc: mmc 2m mm mm cmcmm an nmwpnsce-A05mcm .mm
- - mmc: eec 2c mm cm mmcmm an cecnmcmem-aOocecsm .cm
- - cmm: :acm z: m: mm Hmmmm an Acmmwnom-npm5m
-pemnnnoppmq-.mmno cannon .mm
- - cec: cmc 3c mm mm cmmmm Hm cncemce-ofincmonpcm .sm
- - ccm: cmc 2m mm mm mamem an ppcm3-mnom s mcncc .mm
- - mom: ccc 3m mm cm mmmem an Aceocnecncsm
-.cc cannomfimec .mm
- - com: mmm 2c mm m cmmem mm as no eccmcm-zoc .mm
W ma .mm mm m H % % N mm semeLOpweomq
A... I. 4+ 8 m M o m J hpcdoo
e S o B A as U 1 o. w
J 1. Y. I B e S I. e I
A O u an... U1 0 J n17
e e G I. I. u
.L .d S 8 0 d
e S d u
a. 1.
e U.
J

#3

 

 

 

 

 

- - maom cam 30 2m mm mjmmm Hm mficme-oooz .Hm
- - mojm Ham ,m zm ma mmomm aw p:020q-wfiaoguom .om
Cepmm
- - NJHOH omma 3: zmm Hm oaamm 3-0% xmmpo
pm>wmm .pm-aflo QOflcp .0:
Upomzwpo
- - waw com 3H 2» o Hamnm a» Nom-Hflo mpsaooz .m:
copcfiao
- - mmmm coo 30H 2mm Fm mmjmm Hfi .mH po>mmm .pm-Hflo mpsHooz .5:
- - omom ”do 20H 25m 0H Hmomm aw am pm upwwooo-aflo mgsaooz .0:
- - mow: amp 30H an o mnjmm mfi .mH pm>mmm .pm-afio mpsaooz .m:
maumoom +za mmom omw 3w zjm ma owoom aw ucwm-poz a eacocmm .d:
Nflo>mapwflo
- - comm mjm 33H mm 0H maomm aw :mmpmuc«-flflo pmaafigm .m:
M 0 Wm % H H L S N d SpamILOPwpmmo
4 J I. 4 "w. m m w m m hpfidoo
e S o B A on u 1. Q m
J 1. v... I B e S I. e T.
A o u 1. U. 0 J 1.
B 8 G I. I. u
_.L .d S 8 0 d
e S d u
or 1
e U.
J

 

 

 

- - Hoom wmo 3H m3 mm mmomm Hm mappmm-copnmfloq .Ho
- - o::: 0033 3m mm 3m HNNmN a» 303339-3H3wo a Hamm .oo
- - mac: omoa 3: mm mm mmomm a» memw<uoamflmnopfipo .mm
- - oaom @033 3m m» m mwmom Hm aflocmom-pgoocxmm503 .mm
- - omwm NmHH 3m mo mm ommom a: maoo-aflo mpzaooz .3m
- - mowm omofi 3: me on oo:om Hm pmzopflm-aflnoz .cm
- - m:o: m:HH 3m mo mm mnoam 3% am pm mamassm
-Hfio mpSHooz a umo3 .mm
mawomaafim
- - mmmm 3mm Ma 30 : mmo:m H3 momcflgopsm-ammmsm .:m
mommcow
- - mmmm :03 3: 33m mm mamwm a» magma :
mpafl3-fi2wH:H 033cmap< .mm
posem
. - mmoo 0mm 3m 3m :m NHHON 3% 33:03-33303 .mm
w; ma % % m H mm mm M mm Enwmnnouwpmmo
1. T: 0+ 8 W M O m J hpfldoo
8 S o B A on u 1. q m
J 1. H. T. B 8 S T: e I
A . u 4 U. o J 1.
B a G I. I. u
I Ta 8 8 0 d
e S d u
n... 1.
e U.
J

hS

 

 

- - 0:H0 303 30 30 : mmomm H3 oprsm-HH0 3000000033 .mp
.meOH
- - H000 mmo 3m 3m mm 0m00m H3 3H0H00-HH0 03000H3 .H3
- - 00m0 000 mH 3m :H HH00H H3 ammmH0-mopwHDOmm< 0 nH>Ho0 .03
- - 0mmm 0mm mm 3H Hm 03::m H3 H0 00 0HH3uHHO 3000000023 .00
- - 03:0 m00 mm 3H mH 300mm H3 030000-3530303 .00
- - 3300 N00 3m 3m 0H 0Hm:m H3 mmacxnmm-HHO 0350 .30
ewnmnH
. - 0m:m mom 3H 00 Hm 0H0mm H3 0H3033-.>00 cOHcp .00
- - H0H: mmHH 3H 00 00 mmHmm H3 0H00H33-HH0 035H003 .00
- - m0:m 000H 3: 00 mm 0:03m H3 HH030-HH0 0 0 mm .:0
- - Hmm: 300H 3H 00 mm :nmmm H3 Hmmcmpam-pHsaw 0 HHmm .m0
- - :03m 3:HH 3: 0» 0H memm H3 30Q030-HH0
opsHooz 0 .0300030 .3003 .m0
I o L W: m H Mum W. N M. Epw,mupoumpmmo
w ... m. a a m M o m a .358
8 S O B A on u 1. 0. w
J 1. H. _.L B 8 S I. e I.
A . u 1. U. o J 4
a e G t. t. u
T. .d S 8 0 d
e S d u
3 1
e U.
J

11,6

 

 

- - 0000 000 3H mm 00 03000 H3 000000-300H0 0 0HHH00 .:0
- - 000: 000H 3m 0m Hm 000mm H3 0000000-3H0> 0 300000 .m0
. - m00m 3N0 3m 0m 0H 0:00m H3 0000-000003 .mm
- - 00mm 000 3m 0H : 3H:mm H3 000Hp00-0000 .H0
- - mm:: 030H 3m 0: Hm 0mmmm H3 00HH0mu3HH03 .00
- - 000: :00H 3m 0m 0 000mm H3 0030003-:H300000 .03
- - 000: 0m0H mm 0: :m 000mm H3 03003 00H3003-HH0 0H00 .03
- - :00: 000H 3H 0: mm 00mmm mm-H3 0033000003-Hmmm .33
- - HHm: 000H 3m 0: 0H ::0mm H3 00H33-300H0H .03
fiowfiowh

- - H000 003 30 33 :m 0H0:m H3 H0 00 0000-HH0 3000000030 .03
- - 003m M00 30 30 mm 00:0m H3 0: 00 303033-HH0 000H002 .:3
- - 0000 330 30 30 : Hm03m H3 0030000Hm-.0300 000-00 .03
m. m0 m0. mm W... H L S N d EpmmuUOpwpmmo
0+ I. 0+ 8 w m w m & 35550
8 S 0 B A 00 U 1. 0. m
J 1. H. I B 8 S I. 8 I.
A . U or U. o J a.
B 8 G I. I. U
T. .dS 8 0 d

8 S d U

a. a.

8 U.

J

M7

 

 

 

00H0-30H0 30 3330 003 33H 33 00 00H0 H3 03H300030
1003033500 030050033 .:0
- . 03:0 000 30 30 00 330:3 H3 000303033-H30 3000000030 .00
- - 0000 300 30 30 0 030:3 H3 0300-303-H30 3000000030 .30
u - 0000 300 30H 30 00 00333 H3 0000-000330003 300003 .H0
0300-0000 3H 3000 300 30H 30 03 00003 H3 30003303-.3300 300-30 .00
03-00:0 +0H 0000 H00 30H 30 33 00H03 H3 30H000m-03033030 .00
03-00H0 +30 0030 003 30H 30 H3 0:0HH H3 H0 00 33000
-330H03003 00H30 .00
0303
- - 0000 300 30H 00 H0 00033 H3 0303303-H30 030H000 .30
0000-0300 3 3000 H00 30H 0: HH :0003 H3 30330300-3003030H0 .00
- - 0000 033 33H 0H 0H 00003 H3 300330-.0H30 0H0333 .00
commewawm
I o L L 3 H L S N T0 Epwmupopwpvlmo ll
w J m .0. m. m m m m m 30.3300
8 S 8 B A 00 U 0+ 0. w
J 0+ H. T. B 8 S I. 8 I
A . u 0+ U. o J 0+
Do 9 G .L. T: U
T. .d 8 9 0 d
8 S d u
0+ 0+
8 U.
J

LIB

 

 

- - 33:0 003 30 03 03 30003 H3 0H3300-H30 .0.3.0 .:0H
- - 30:0 000 30 00 00 0000 H3 000003
mcHGSOQ-Hflo ESSow>Ihcooom .MOH
- - 0000 300 3H 03 03 0H333 H3 30003-HH03303 .30H
- - 0000 330 33 03 0H HH:03 H3 3033-H30 030H000 .H0H
- - H003 000 30 03 03 0H003 H3 000003
300300-.0 0 .0 003003303 .00H
- - 0:0: 000 3: 00 :H 00033 H3 30HH0-H30 033H003 .00
- - 00:: :00H 33 00 0 33303 H3 H0 00 000003
03032-030 0308303 .mm
- - 0000 030 30 00 0H 3HH33 H3 303003033-.00 0000 30300 .30
mmzwcmq
03-0030 +3H 0030 0H0 3HH 300 0 33033 H3 0303-3000330 .00
50330303
- - 0000 0:0 30 33 3 0:003 H3 30300333-.3300 300-30 .00
I o .L 30 H +0 S N-a Spam-popwpomq
0 0.0. 0 .... 0 0 0 00 3......
8 88 B A on U 0+ QM
Tu n4- VH. TL B e S T... 9 .L.
A 0 U Q. U. 0 J 3.
Du 3 G .L. T.- u
T. d8 8 0 d
8 S d U
0+ 0+
8 q
J

A9

 

 

- - 3000 0:0 30 33 3H 30303 H3 0003000330H3-.000 3033000 .0HH
- - 0003 000 30 30 HH 00033 H3 03030003-H0003 .0HH
- - 0033 330 3: 33 :H 00003 H3 30033-.0 0 .0 000030 .:HH
- - 0000 :H0 3: 30 00 03H3 H3 000003 300300003-0033 .0HH
- - 0000 030 30 30 3 :3003 H3 0333 0H300-H00 0H0330 .3HH
- - 0H00 0H0 30 3H :H H33:3 H3 N03003-030300 .HHH
cepmmcfi>fiq
- - 03:: 000H 3H 00 H3 H0333 H3 3000003
nQOHmmeEoo cwom .oo mmzwcmq .OHH
- - 3030 000 33 00 03 H0303 H3 3033030-300300 .00H
- - 3000 330 3H 00 03 00003 H3 H000 0
.3H03300 .0333300-0H033 .00H
- - 3000 0H3 30 00 30 0::0H H3 30H303-030303 .30H
- - 3030 003 3: 00 3 30003 H3 033030-00033330033 03000 .00H
- - 0000 000 3H 00 03 000:3 H3 0333 0 3000030-30303 .00H
I o L H H L S N d Sham-303030000
0 00.. 0 ...... 0 0 0 0 0 .33...
. s . . . 0 0 0. 00
M m+w. r. w u. o 00+
B 8 G I. I. U
TL .d S 8 0 d
8 S d u
0..- 1.
8 H
J

SO

 

 

 

 

03:0-0000 00 3H00 0:0 30H 30H 33 0033H H3 0333 0300003
umouwpm-zonu.0 0 .o moampm .mNH
3H00-3000 0H 0:33 033 30H 33H 03 0000H 3H3 H0 00 33330-H30 30330330 .:3H
03-0000 +00 0000 003 30H 33H 0H H0003 H3 3000-00H000 30> .03H
03-33:0 +3: 0H00 :30 33H 303 0 00H33 H3 0H3333-.0030 30HH33 .33H
30002
03-00H3 +0H 0:H3 000 30H 3:3 0 300:3 H3 H0 00 33300303-3003300 .H3H
00003302
- - :H30 000 30H 3: H :H303 H-03 0033H03-000 .03H
- - 000: 000 30H 30 :0 03033 H3 03003303000
0 030H33-.0.0.0.3 .0HH
- - H330 333 30H 30 3 00:33 H3 00000-3333 .0HH
£50002
- - 0000 300 30 3H 0H 03333 H3 0000003000 30003030-000303 .3HH
I o.L .L H 00 TL 8 N70 Emma-popwpmmo
m. 3.0.. m. n m m 3 mm 303300
8 So 8 A 00 U 0+ QM
J 1.30.. TL B 8 S I. 8I
A . U 0+ U. o J0+
B 8 G I. I. U
..L 0.0.8 8 0 d
88 d U
0+ 0+
8 H
J

51

 

 

- - 0030 000 30H 3HH 0H 0H033 H3 303000-30HH33 .:0H
omwwzmz
- - :H00 0:0 30H 33H 00 HH03 H3 003-030330 .00H
0330C“:
03-0H3: +:: :03: 000 30H 30H 0 000 03 03300-H30 30003003 .30H
nomoxmsz
- - 0H00 :00 30 00 0H 00003 H3 0303303-03303 0 HH00 .HOH
- - 0003 300 03 03 0H 30003 H3 0303HH33-00000-H30 033H003 .00H
- - 30:3 030 30 00 3H 03:33 H3 33033H0003-30300 .03H
- - H300 030 30 03 0H :0:03 H3 33330-30033300 0 30030303 .03H
- - 0030 330 30 00 00 0::0 3-03 00030
ummmmoam>mm Umpwowflomcoo .NNH
- - 3300 300 30H 00 03 H33HH H3 3033030-3033300 .03H
003:02
I 0.0 +0 3 "0 +0 90 N70 1‘ EpwmuAOpwpmmo
0. gm. 0. 0 0 m 0 .00 300000
8 So 8 A 00 U 0+ QM
J 0+H. I B e S I. eI
A 0 U 0... q 0 Ji.
3 e G I. I. u
T. d8 9 0 d
88 d u
0+ 0+
3 U.
J

52

 

 

 

- - 3H0HH 000 33 333 00 0003H H3 .300 003033300-H30 0330 .0:H
- - 0003H 30:H 33 3:3 03 00003 H3 300003
-00000-.0 0 .0 000030 .3:H
- - 00H0H 000 30 303 03 00:03 H3 03H0 0330 .0.0.0-00030 .H:H
Smemmo
03-0H00 +H3 H000 333 33H 30H 00 300:3 H3 030003-H30 0333 .0:H
- - 3000 030 30H 30H HH H0033 H3 03030330-.003 03003 .00H
mummoo
- - 00:0 :30H 30 3: 33 3300H H3 0303HH33-.00
pcmegoao>0a C0w33032 mo Q09 .mma
- - H000 000 33 3: 0 00033 H3 300H03-H30 3HH03 .30H
- - 0000 030H 03 3H 00 0000H H3 H0 00 30300-33HH00 .00H
030H300
- - 0000 H30 3:H 30H 03 30003 H3 30033033-30HH03 3003333 .00H
M 0 W0 .0 3 H L S N d EhwmuAOpwpmdd
4 J I. w m. m m w m 0 303300
e S 0 B A 00 U 0+ 0. m
J 0.. H T. B e S I. e I
A . U 0+ U. o J 0+
B e G T? ..L. u
..L .d S 8 0 d
e S d U
0+ 0+
8 q
J

53

 

 

 

 

- - :030 003 30H 30 0H 30003 H3 H030333303-0H3e33 .00H
omaficwm
. - 0:00 303 33 300 03 00H33 H3 3003033-E3-303 .30H
- - 303: 0H3 33 300 :3 03333 H3 0003000-H30 033H003 .H0H
- - 30H0 000 30 3:0 03 00033 H3 03HH00-3000333 .00H
- - 00:0 000 33 300 00 000:3 H3 00303-.0H33 300303-3303 .0:H
- - 0030 H03 30 300 0H 33003 0H-H3 0H3030303-HH030 .0:H
0H0H 0300033
0:00-0000 30H 0H00 :03 30H 30 0 300 H3 003-.003 30033033 .3:H
- - 0H00 300 30H 30 00 33 HH03 H0003033-0030 030HH03 .0:H
- - :000 000 30H 30 00 H3 HH03 H0003033-0030 030HH03 .0:H
020000
n - 3300 30:H 3: 303 3 03003 H3 .3300 3003303 .33-3003330 .::H
0M0000
I 0.0 +0 3 "a T0 8 N+a 830m1300030mo
w 3m m. m. m m 3 mm 303300
9 80 B A 00 U 0+ Qw
J 0+Y.. T. B 8 S I. 8 I.
A . U 0+ U. o J 0+
8 e G I. I. U
T. .dS 9 0 d
8 S d U
1. n...
9 q
J

Sh

 

 

 

- - 3000 000 30H 33 03 30003 H3 0H33-3033303 .00H
- - 00:0 000 30H 30 H 00003 H3 003300-00303 .30H
- - 033: 030 30H 30 03 00H H3 00333-.0 0 .0 330H0 .00 .H0H
- - 30:0 030 30H 30 0 :3003 H3 .3300 H0 00 3330H03-.033
.033H3003 0 003030 .HH00 .00H
- - 00H: 030 30H 33 3H 00303 H3 3H030033-.0 0 .0 003033303 .00H
- - 330: 000 30H 3: H0 00H33 H3 03 030-030 .00H
330H0 .00
- - 0003 H00 33 30 0 30033 H3 033303-3033H03-H3303 .30H
- - 0H00 3:0 33 30 0 03033 H3 033303-003 .00H
0000030330
- - 0000 003 30H 30H 33 H:::3 H3 0303-.003 033HH333 .00H
- - 0030 003 30H 30 33 00:03 H3 3003030-.0 0 .0 HH03HH03 .:0H
I o 0 I 3 JH .0 S N d 5.3033030330030300
w J m. m. m. m m w m 3 303300
e S O B A on U 0+ 0- w
J 0+ H- .L B 8 S I. e I
A . U 0+ U- o J 0+
B a G I. I. U
.L .d S 8 0 d
e S d U .
0+ 0+
9 U-
J

 

 

 

 

- - 33:0 003 3:H 0H 0H 00003 H3 330003H00-.0030 30HH33 .33H
3003-0003 3 H333 000 30H 0: 00 H0033 H3 3H03-H30 033H003 .H3H
0000-0000 0H 3HHO HHO 3:H 0: :0 :3003 H3 3303-.0H33 0H0333 .03H

:0hsm C0>
- - 03H0 000 30 30H 0 00303 H3 .3300 0HH03
0 :3030303-cn5330m .000
- - 0030 333 3HH 30H 0H 00003 H3 H0 00 .323 0000303-3003330 .00H
- - 00H0H 000 30 30H 0 00003 H3 0303H00000-3003s30 .30H
0H00039
0000-0000 0H 00H0 000 3HH 00 :H 00003 H3 3000-.03033 .003 .00H
- - 0300 000 3HH 00 3 ::3H H3 003-033303 .00H
- - :0H0 :00 30 03 0H 00003 H3 0003-3003330 .:0H
330000 .00

I 0 T0 T0 3 H +0 8 N 70 Ehwmlhoumhmno

.0. J m. .0. 3. m m .0 m .0 303300

e S 0 B A 03 U 0+ 0. w

J 0+ 03. T. B e S I. e I

A o u n... UL O J n4.

3 9 G T.- T... u

T. .d S 9 0 d

8 S d U
0+ 0+

8 H

J

56

 

 

- - 00H0 000 m0 0H 0H 0300H H3 H0 00 033000-0000303 .03H
- - 00:0 300 00 0H 3H 0000H 03 00H0000000
30 00:00 .000-HH0 2000003 .03H
- - 0000 3H0 00H 03 33 HH03 0000 .0 .m .33H
- - 3H00 000 3HH 03 0H 00003 H3 .00 00002 0000-0333 .03H
. mcsz
- u 000: 0HOH m0 0: 03 00003 H3 0H003-NH003 .03H
- - :30: 000 m: 00 0H 30003 H3 00302-HH0 0:0 .:3H
- . H000 3H0 m: 0: :0 00003 H3 H00300000000-.003 00003 .03H
Swampzmwz
I 0 T0 TH. E H mm m0 N .mm. EhwmucHOpweHmJMo
w wan w. Mn m M 0 W.“ 300000
e S o B A 00 u 0.. a. w
J 1. H. I B e S t. e I
A . u 0+ U o J 0..
B e G I. I. u
T. .d S 8 0 d
8 S d U
4 0..
e U.
J

57

 

000m 000H .
000m 030H 00000 0000 23 ZH0 0 000000 0
000m 030H
0003 0:0 .
000m 000 00000 0000 30 Z33 03 000302 3
000m 300
0000 000H .
000m 030H 00000 0000 30 zH0 0H 000:0z H
0000 303H

0z<HmzH
------ 0000000 m0 200 0HH0000 .0
000m 030H 0000 00H 200 0 0000 .3
------ 0000 m0 203 0H 000002 .H
0H02H00H
mdmawm Mo Eamon maafiwm mo mane mmmwm XMHSmQBOB cowpomm hacdoo

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
WWWMWWWWWMIIHIWIWI
31293100451271