382 Transactions. — Geologi/. 



foi'e opposed to the vie^v of the Survey. So also is the strati- 

 graphical evidence ; for the Amuri limestone, which underlies 

 the Oaniaru series in the Waipara, cannot overlie it at Wha- 

 ngarei and Pahi, as the theory of the Geological Survey implies. 

 The same rock cannot hoth overlie and underlie equivalent 

 series. A simple explanation of the facts is that the hydraulic 

 limestone at Pahi overlaps the lower beds of the Oamaru 

 series, and lies directly on the Waipara series at Batley ; and 

 if this is the case in the Kaipara the same explanation will 

 probably hold in the Bay of Islands and Hokianga districts. 

 The lithological evidence, I need hardly say, is worthless, for 

 the rocks are so widely separated ; and, as it is opposed to 

 both the palaeontological and stratigraphical evidence, it 

 must be discarded. 



Mr. Park tries to get over the difficulty by supposing that 

 what I have called the Waipara fauna is, in the northern 

 Kaipara district, at Pahi and Paparoa, really an older fauna 

 similar to that of the Amuri series, below the Waipara series, 

 and that the unconformity is really between the Amuri and 

 Waipara series. But is it so? The Inoceraniiis and other 

 forms found at Paparoa are said to be confined to the horizon 

 of the "black grit" at Amuri Bluff, and Sir James Hectoi' 

 places the "black grit" at the base of the Waipara series, 

 and not in the Amuri series (" Outlines of the Geology of New- 

 Zealand," 1886, p. 59). It is true that in 1874 Sir James 

 placed the " black grit" at the top of his Amuri series (No. 

 VII.), but in the new classification of 1877-78 he altered its 

 position, and made it the lowest marine bed of his Cretaceo- 

 tertiary series (No. VI.), where it has remained ever since 

 (see Appendix to " Eep. Geol. Exp.," 1887-88). Again, an 

 Inoccramus, also found in the "black grit," occurs in the 

 upper Waitangi, with saurian teeth, Belemnites, &c., which, 

 according to Mr. ^NIcKay, are identical with species at Amuri 

 Bluff not more than lOUft. below the Amuri limestone, as well 

 as at Shag Point, and these cannot well belong to the Amuri 

 series. I3esides, if the Inoceramms beds in the Kaipara do 

 represent the x\nuiri series none of the difficulties as to the 

 relations between the Waipara and Oamaru faunas are 

 removed ; and, as Mr. McKay points out, the real difficulty is 

 to explain the presence of a " Tertiary-looking fauna " under 

 the [supposed] Amuri hmestone. Neither can it prove an 

 unconformity between the Waipara and Amuri series unless 

 the Oamaru series at Pahi can be shown to represent the 

 Waipara series, for in an unconformity it is the upper part 

 of the lower series, and not the lower part of the upper series, 

 that has been removed by denudation, and the missing 

 Waipara series would be classed with the underlying, not with 

 the overlying rocks. 



