170 ^ Transactions. 



immediately below the Awamoan beds. The classifications adoj)ted by 

 Park (1905, p. 492) and later in Bulletin No. 20 indicate the change in his 

 views. 



1905. 1918. 



Waitaki stone . . . . — 



Awamoan . . Awamoan beds . . . . Awamoan beds. 



Hutchinsonian . . Hutchinson Quarry beds . . (a.) Upper Hutchinsonian = Waitaki 



stone. 

 (b.) Lower Hutchinsonian. 

 Ototaran . . Ototara limestone . . Ototara limestone. 



It will be seen that the Hutchinson Quarry beds (Hutchinsonian) have 

 been subdivided, the Lower Hutchinsonian being the well-known Hutchinson 

 Quarry greensands, which are said to lie beneath the so-called Waitaki stone 

 (Upper Hutchinsonian). 



That Park's latest view has not gained general acceptance is clearly 

 indicated by the following quotation from the letter of transmittal to the 

 Minister of Mines which prefaces Bulletin No. 20. Mr. P. G. Morgan, 

 Director of the Geological Survey, writes : " Although quite agreeing with 

 most of the conclusions reached, I cannot follow Professor Park in all, 

 respects, more particularly in his views regarding the relative ages of the 

 Oamaru and Waitaki stones." The present writer has also found con- 

 siderable difficulty in following Professor Park in his arguments for 

 the difierentiation of two-limestone horizons. In discussing the " two- 

 limestone " theory, as formulated in Bulletin No. 20, it will be contended 

 (1) that Park's Upper Hutchinsonian in the area between Kakanui and 

 Target Gully, Oamaru, is really the base of the Awamoan ; (2) that his 

 Upper Hutchinsonian of the Landon Creek area is the eqiiivalent of his 

 Lower Hutchinsonian in the district between Kakanui and Target Gully ; 

 (3) that no evidence is brought forward to show that the Upper Hutchin- ' 

 sonian is present in the Flume Creek area ; (4) that the correlation of the 

 rocks called " Upper Hutchinsonian " in the Oamaru and Papakaio districts 

 with the limestone of the Waitaki Valley (Waitaki stone) is not justified 

 by the evidence brought forward in Bulletin No. 20. The discussion on 

 the Bortonian and Upper Waiarekan of Park aims at showing that Usts 

 of fossils ascribed to these stages must be considerably reduced, as the 

 horizons are very doubtful. References to Bulletin No. 20 will be made 

 by quoting merely the pages of that publication. 



II. The " Two-LiMESTONE " Theory. 



Park's " two-limestone " theory, as stated above, was an attempt to 

 solve the problem of the " Pareora fauna." This problem first presented 

 itself to the New Zealand geologists when Haast submitted four collections 

 of fossils from different localities to Hutton (1887, p. 430) for identification. 

 The latter referred all the shells to the Pareora (Awamoan) horizon above 

 the limestone. Haast himself was convinced that one of the collections 

 had been obtained from beds which lay below the limestone. Other 

 collections of fossils examined by Hutton were determined by him as 

 " Pareora," and in all cases he referred the beds to an horizon above the 

 limestone. Haast and the officers of the old Geological Survey agreed 

 with Hutton that some of his " Pareora " faunas came from above the 

 limestone, but the field evidence convinced them that other collections 

 of fossils determined by Hutton as " Pareora " came from below the lime- 

 stone. Park (1905, p. 491) clearly recognized the difi&culties, and attempted 



