may l)e younger. If this correlation is correct, and it suoms jMuh- 

 able, the agglomerate of Kangaroo Gully, from its ix'semblaiKc lO' 

 the monchiquites, Avouhl l)e i-eferi-ed to the same age, i.e., nf)t older 

 than the mid-Kainozoic. 



The evidence of the glaciated pel)liles in the deposit, liowever. is 

 important. We know df only one glacial period in Victoria, and 

 that is of Permo-Cailjonifei-ous age. Two alternativt- explanations: 

 of this remarkable association of glacial pel)V>les in a monchi(|uite 

 agglomerate suggest themselves, but neither is put forwaid with any 

 great confidence. 



On the one hand we may picture the agglomerate as at least of 

 Permo-Carboniferous age, possibly older. The passage of the- 

 Permo-Carboniferous ice sheet over the area may have involved the 

 ploughing uj) of the uppei- part of the ag<rlomerate, and glaciated 

 jicljbles, witli hner (pnutz grains, might in this way be embedded 

 in the upper part of the deposit, where, in fact, they are most 

 jdentiful. As against this view we have the negative evidence 

 that no other volcanic rocks of this chai'acter of Permo-Carlxin- 

 iferous, or pre-Permo-Carboniferous age, are known in Victoria, 

 and the positive evidence that their known chemical and petrologicaf 

 analogies in Victoria are not older than mid-Kainozoic. 



The alternative explanation is not without difficulties, but .seems 

 to me to be at any rate less improbable. 



According to this view, one would picture the Bendigo Ordovician 

 area partly covered by Permo-Carboniferous glacial conglomerate 

 in mid-Kainozoic time. A volcano of explosive type reached the 

 .tjurface in Kangaroo Gully, bursting through the glacial conglome- 

 rate, and ejecting monchiquite agglomerate. Some of the glacial- 

 pebbles and finer material would be likely to become incorporated 

 in this way in the agglomerate. Subsequent denudation of the 

 area has removed all traces of the glacial deposit, except those 

 pebbles which had become incorporated in the monchi(|uite agglome- 

 rate. 



It may be suggested that the pebbles, while glacial, are derived' 

 not immediately from a Permo-Carboniferous glacial deposit, 

 but have been handed down to a Kainozoic or recent river gravel, 

 and have become incorporated in the agglomerate in comparatively 

 recent times. This view I have considered and rejected, as a close 

 examination of adjoining Kainozoic and recent river gravels showed 

 a complete absence of glaciated pebbles, and a marked difference in 

 lithological characters. On the whole, but with considerable 

 diffidence, I think that the least unlikely hypothesis is the second 



