Hutton. — The Formation of the Canterbury Plains. 471 



therefore see whether the eeolian origin will account for the de- 

 posit, and what is the evidence in its favour. First comes the 

 capillary structure. But even a cursory examination shows that 

 it in no way resembles the fibrous roots of grasses. The tubules 

 do not radiate downwards from centres where the grass-plants 

 should have grown ; neither do they taper downwards like roots, 

 but change rapidly and irregularly in diameter. And the anasto- 

 mosing is very different from anything seen in roots. No doubt 

 some of these tubules are now occupied by roots, which have 

 grown into them ; but they are comparatively rare, and evidently 

 do not belong to the time of the formation of the tubules. Then 

 we have the occurrence of moa-bones, and, as stated by Sir 

 Julius von Haast, of land-shells. But the remains of both birds 

 and land-shells are found in marine deposits, having been carried 

 clown by the rivers into the sea ; and the most important evi- 

 dence is the general absence of marine fossils, even at the base 

 of the deposit, But there is also the difficulty of accounting for 

 the entire absence of decaying vegetation and carbonaceous com- 

 pounds, which ought to exist if the wind-borne theory is true. 

 If grasses were constantly getting covered over with dust the 

 deposit must at one time have contained nearly as much vege- 

 table matter as sand. What has become of it all, and where 

 are the marks of the former plants ? Why should the deposit 

 be full of the marks of roots and yet not have retained any 

 marks of leaves, stalks, or fruit, which form the largest part of 

 the plant 1 The question has only to be stated to show the 

 inadequacy of the wind hypothesis. 



On the other hand, the absence of marine fossils may have 

 been due to the rapidity with which the deposit accumulated 

 and the short time the land was submerged, so that shells and 

 slow-moving animals could not people the constantly changing 

 shore-line. 



The evidences in favour of the marine origin of the silt are — 

 first, the actual occurrence of marine fossils at Oamaru, Banks 

 Peninsula, and perhaps at Timaru ; secondly, its stratification 

 at Ly ttelton and Timaru ; thirdly, its. position on the crests of 

 the hills ; fourthly, the occurrence in it of pebbles too large for 

 the wind to blow away ; fifthly, its equal development on both 

 the lee and weather sides of Banks Peninsula ; and sixthly, the 

 angular shape of the grains. None of these facts can be explained 

 on the theory of the ceolian origin of the silt, and its advocates 

 have failed to bring forward any crucial evidence in its favour. 



According to Professor Boehm of Freiberg, who visited New 

 Zealand in 1899, this pseudo-loess, as he calls it, is certainly of 

 marine origin at Oamaru. " Whether it is so everywhere in 

 New Zealand must be decided by the examination of abundant 



