Park. — Age and Relations of New Zealand Coalfields. 405 



Art. XXXI. — O71 the Age and Relations of the Neiv Zealand 



Coalfields. 



By Professor James Park, F.G.S., Director Otago Uni- 

 versity Sclaool of Mines. 

 [Read before the Otago Institute, 3rd December, 1903.] 



The geology of the coalfields is a subject of great nidustrial 

 importance, and for this reason is generally the first problem 

 to engage the attention of the geologist in a new country. 

 Moreover, it is obvious that no reliable advice can be given by 

 any one as to the search for coal until the coal-bearing forma- 

 tions have been determined, and the relations and distinctive 

 features of the different members of eacli ascertained bv care- 

 ful investigation in the field. At the present time there is no 

 general agreement as to the age of the coalfields of New 

 Zealand, excluding from our present consideration the thm 

 seams of bituminous coal found at Otapiri, Wyndham, and 

 Waikawa, in Southland, and on the West Coast south of 

 Waikato, in the North Island, which are acknowledged to be 

 Jurassic ; also the lignites of Kaipara, Manukau Harbour, 

 central Otago, and Southland, which are believed to be Plio- 

 cene or later. 



The valuable coalfields of Auckland, Mokau, west coast 

 of South Island, Canterbury, and Otago are held by the 

 Geological Survey to be of one age, and to belong to the 

 Cretaceo-tertiary period. The late Ferdinand von Hoch- 

 stetter,''' Sir Julius von Haast,f and Captain Hutton have 

 maintained that there are two or more coal-bearing forma- 

 tions in New Zealand. 



Captain Hutton, in a paper " On the Eelative Ages of the 

 New Zealand Coalfields," gives an able summary of the views 

 held by himself and the Geological Survey. | He discusses 

 the correlation of the Amuri limestone and hydraulic lime- 

 stone of north Auckland, and, after reviewing the evidence 

 bearing on the stratigraphical position of the latter and its 

 relation to the Oamaru series, arrives at the conclusion that 

 the correlation cannot be sustained. And it seems to me he 

 could form no other conclusion from the conflicting evi- 

 dence presented to him. In the Geological Survey Eeports 

 the hydraulic limestone is generally stated to overlie the 

 Whangarei limestone, the supposed equivalent of the Oamaru 

 stone, whereas the Amuri limestone always underlies that 



• " Geology of New Zealand," 1867, pp. 58 and 59. 

 t " On the Character and Age of the New Zealand Coalfields," Rep. 

 Brit. Assoc, 1886, p. 643. 



I Trans. N.Z, Inst., 1889, vol. xxii., p. 377. 



