Morgan. — Records of U nconfonmiits in New Zealand. c- 



or another of New Zealand were almost constantly in progress, and con- 

 sequently tliat a series of local stratigrapliical breaks exists, no two of whicli 

 are exactly synchronous. 



Owing to the close relationship between Hutton's Oamaru and Pareora 

 systems, and to the fact that in many localities no trace of unconformity 

 can be found between them, they may well be included in one series or 

 system, as is done in various Geological Survey bulletins. 



The localities to be discussed so far as conveniently possible will be 

 taken in order from north to south, and will be arranged under the headings 

 of — (I) North Auckland ; (II) Waitemata, Drury, and Waikato Districts ; 

 (III) Gisborne- East Cape District; (IV) Hawke's Bay; (V) East Welling- 

 ton ; (VI) Marlborough and South-east Nelson ; (VII) North Canterbury ; 

 (VIII) West Coast of South Island ; and (IX) Otago. 



I. North Auckland. 



1. Whangaroa District. — -In 1877 McKay (4, p. 57) states that on the 

 east* side of Wliangaroa Harbour Secondary rocks are overlain uncon- 

 formably by green and brown sandstones. The latter rocks may be de- 

 finitely identified with the upper part of Bell and Clarke's Kaeo Series 

 (42, p. 46 et seq.), which contains Tertiary fossils ; and, since McKay records 

 Inoceramus in the Secondary rocks, it is probable that he refers to a con- 

 tact between the lower and upper portions of the Kaeo Series. In 1892 

 McKay (16, pp. 68-71) somewhat fully discusses the relations of the green 

 and brown sandstones to underlying " hydraulic limestone," and doubt- 

 fully decides in favour of conformity. 



In 1909 Bell and Clarke, as the result of detailed field-work, state that the 

 lower part of the Kaeo Series contains Mesozoic fossils (42, pp. 16, 49, 58). 

 They sought for a stratigraphical break, but finding evidence of this at 

 one point only (p. 49), in the form of a conglomerate, remain doubtful 

 as to whether there really is a physical unconformity in the Kaeo Series 

 or not. They add, however, that " it is quite probable that more extended 

 observation will justify the division on stratigraphical grounds of the Kaeo 

 rocks into two distinct series of Late Mesozoic and Early Tertiary age 

 respectively — a division which is certainly warranted by the palaeontological 

 evidence " (p. 49). A similar statement appears on a later page of the 

 Whangaroa Bulletin, and is quoted by Park in a paper published in 1911 

 (48, p. 549). 



2. Kawakawa District. — -Cox reported in 1877 (5, pp. 135-38) on the 

 Kawakawa Colliery, but nothing very definite can be gathered from his 

 remarks or from the accompanying bore-logs, though the latter, if trust- 

 worthy, indicate unusual variation in the beds overlying the coal. In 

 1884 McKay (11, pp. 122-34) gives a fuller account of the geology of the 

 district. His statement that the clays found in diamond-drill bores above 

 a hard crystalline limestone are equivalent to the Amuri limestone is open 

 to adverse criticism (39, p. 410). Both the upper and the lower surfaces 

 of the limestone encountered in the bores are irregular — -in the former case 

 probably owing to Quaternary erosion ; in the latter case, according to 

 McKay, through replacement of the greensand overlying the coal by lime- 

 stone, or vice versa. In 1894 Hector (17, pp. ix el seq.) and McKay 

 (17, pp. 60-61) discuss the Kawakawa Coalfield, the former giving several 

 plans and sections. The latter, as drawn, induce suspicion of an uncon- 

 formity between the hard limestone (" Whangarei limestone ") and the coal- 



1* 



