BY PROFESSOR Vf . J. STEPHENS, M.A., F.G.S. 1119 



I cannot refrain in conclusion from again expressing my convic- 

 tion that Homotaxial relations do often imply contemporaneity — 

 not always certainly, nor we may say, ever in recent periods, but 

 the more frequently the further we go back into the remoter 

 antiquity. And I must add that I do not think that an interval 

 of 10,000 years between one formation and another should be 

 considered as a break in that loose co-ordination of dates which 

 we call Geological Time. 



I may here observe, in conclusion, that the former paper upon 

 this subject was written away from Sydney, and without the 

 proper books, but from notes which turn out to have been in 

 some parts imperfectly made. For instance, p. 934, in adopting 

 Quenstedt's reference of C apitosaurus, Miinster, back to Jlasto- 

 clunsaurus, Jager, I was flying directly in the teeth of the 

 Report of 187-4, which I had nevertheless read, and ought to have 

 better digested. For here (p. 154) C. robiistics, van Meyer, is 

 described, with the caution that the shields in Quenstedt's plate 

 cannot as yet be accurately determined. They are however, 

 mentioned (ibid.) as follows: — "Median plate rhomboid al with 

 rounded entering angles ; lateral plate not produced backwards, 

 with strong reflected process ; radiately sculptured." 



The formations which in New Zealand correspond to the 



Newcastle (Permian) and Hawkesbury (Triassic) of New South 



Wales, are the Kaihiku for the former, and the Oreti, Wairoa and 



Otapiri series for the latter (Hector, N.Z. Handbook, 1870, p. 24). 



They are of enormous thickness, from 12,000 to 15,000 feet if 



taken together, and are principally marine, though Plant-beds 



containing Glossopteris, &c, occur both at the base of the Kaihiku 



and at various horizons in the later formations. Rough and heavy 



conglomerates and breccias repeat the characters observed in the 



Permian and Trias in India (ib. I.e.) and elsewhere ; and the most 



striking variation from them is found in the great thickness of the 



New Zealand beds. It is obvious that they also differ from their 



homotaxial equivalents in Australia by their largely marine origin. 



This opens a way to interesting speculations on the geological 

 72 



