Marshall and Uttley. — Localities for Fossils at Oamaru. 305 



Fossils are not so plentiful here as in the other localities mentioned, 

 but the collection is probably far from complete. 



It will probably be evident from the statements made that in the 

 opinion of the authors, based on stratigraphical evidence, all the fossiliferous 

 beds referred to above actually belong to the same horizon, or, at any rate, 

 that they are separated by quite small thicknesses of sediment. This con- 

 clusion is borne out by the identifications of the fossils. At the same time, 

 attention must be drawn to certain differences between the fossils found 

 in the different localities. It is noticeable that species that are extremely 

 common in one locality may be rare or even absent from the others. Thus, 

 Venericardia is abundant everywhere except at the Devil's Bridge, where 

 it is quite unusual ; Terebra tristis is abundant at the Target Gully ; Cu- 

 cullaea we did not find at the Devil's Bridge, but it occurs at each of the other 

 localities ; Malletia australis is fairly common in every locality ; Crassa- 

 tellites trailli, DriUia fusiformis, and Dentalium mantelli were found in each 

 place, as well as Lima colorata, but the last is far more abundant at Awamoa 

 than elsewhere ; Turritella is abundant on every collecting-ground, but 

 the species show considerable differences. 



\Vhilst the general affinities of the fossils of each locality from which 

 collections have been made are quite pronounced, there are, on the other 

 hand, considerable differences between the collections. These differences 

 are certainly in part due to the incomplete nature of the collections, but 

 they must also, in part at least, be due to the different conditions that ex- 

 isted during the deposition of the deposits. Such differences are certainly 

 indicated by the nature of the sediments. At Target Gully and at Ard- 

 gowan the deposits are formed of shells and shell-fragments that drifted 

 along the sea-floor, mixed with a small quantity of glauconite. At Awamoa 

 the fine character of the sediment shows that there was practically no 

 current-action. At Pukeuri and at the Devil's Bridge the btratification 

 of the sands is quite regular : there can have been little current-action, 

 and yet the water was comparatively shallow. 



The greatest importance of our lists of fossils is seen when comparison 

 is made with those that have been quoted by other authors. Such com- 

 parison is, however, rather difficult, because the veil of synonymy can only 

 be partly lifted at the present time — that is, until Mr. Suter's revised list 

 of the New Zealand Mollusca is published, and also his catalogue of Tertiary 

 fossils. 



If comparison is made with the lists published in 1886 by Hutton, it will 

 be found that about seventy of the species found by us are mentioned. 

 Of these, about sixty are said to be restricted to his Pareora (Upper Miocene) 

 system, and two only to his Oamaru (Oligocene) system, and fifteen are 

 common to both. This result loses much of its force in suggesting an actual 

 distinction between his systems when it is recalled that he lists 184 Pareora 

 species that do not occur in his Oamaru system, and only thirty-three Oamaru 

 species that do not occur in his Pareora system, and that the latter species 

 occur largely in the limestone rocks, which, having been deposited in much 

 deeper water, necessarily contain fossils that are decidedly different froni 

 the species contained in the shallower-water sandstones. 



Park's zonal fossils of his Waihao beds — the lowest division of his 

 Miocene — are two in number, Lapparia parhi and Pleurotoma hamiltoni. 

 The former is now stated by Suter to be synonymous with L. corrugata. 

 which occurs in nearly all the localities from which we have collected. Ho 

 afterwards states that L. corrugata does not occur outside of his Awatere 



