302 Transactions. — Geology. 



On the Napier Hills, lying unconformably on the upper 

 limestones or the marls, large deposits of pumice, pnmiceous 

 clays, scoriae, and in some places grits, are to be seen. At the 

 Breakwater Point the pumiceous deposits must be quite 35 feet 

 in thickness, and on the north-east side of the Napier Hills the 

 beds are even of greater thickness. At Puketapu, where pumice 

 is said to underlie limestone, there is a large development of 

 conglomerate and pumice ; and the beds composed of these 

 materials can be well seen resting on the Napier marls on the 

 roadside near Alexander's, on the Puketapu-Petane Pioad ; whilst 

 a little further on, in the direction of Puketapu, the limestones 

 (Napier upper) are met with overlying the same marls ; that is, 

 on the denuded surface of the marls are to be seen pumice and 

 shingle, whilst on the undenuded marls rest the limestones. 

 Now, are the Napier lower pumice and pumiceous clay deposits 

 and the Puketapu shingle and pumice deposits to be classed as 

 belonging to a period much later than the pumice beds of the 

 Kidnapper section, or are they to be classed as belonging to the 

 Kidnapper section ? If to the latter, then it is clear that the 

 classification of the Geological Department is a wrong one ; and 

 if to the former, then it must follow that the Napier limestones 

 are simply a part of the Kidnapper pumice section, having 

 pumice, shingle, and conglomerates below them, and pumice and 

 conglomerates above them ; but, as far as I can find, there is 

 not a particle of evidence in support of such a classification. If 

 the Kidnapper pumice section is older, as the Geological Depart- 

 ment say it is, than the Napier limestones, it follows that the 

 Napier pumiceous clay beds belong to a period corresponding 

 in point of time to the " dispersed gravel series," or to a more 

 recent period still — that is, to Post-tertiary times. But such 

 an arrangement cannot be supported by a tittle of evidence. 

 As already remarked, every section and every exposure, as far 

 as I have any acquaintance of the district, supply facts showing 

 the pumice, gravels, sands, conglomerates, and lignites of the 

 Kidnapper section as overlying the Scinde Island limestones, 

 and that the Napier pumice beds form a part of that section. 

 In contending here for the greater age of the Scinde Island 

 limestones, as compared with the pumice deposits, I do not 

 desire it to be understood that the limestones upon which the 

 pumice and included beds are seen to rest are all of the same age, 

 for the contrary is the fact. My contention is simply that the Kid- 

 napper pumice section, which is so largely represented throughout 

 the East Coast District, is not below but above the Scinde Island 

 limestone ; and that the pumice deposits, as represented by the 

 Kidnapper, Scinde Island, and other beds, are the youngest of 

 the Pliocene series, with the exception of " dispersed gravels." 



The height of the pumice deposits in the localities named 

 above varies considerably. In the Kidnapper section itself the 



