ORTMANN : TERTIARY INVERTEBRATES. 



269 



else, it is beyond doubt fhat we must take the mouth of the Santa Cruz 

 River as the type-locality for the Leonense beds.* 



As regards the Suprapatagonian beds, Ameghino does not take the 

 trouble to give the slightest hint as to a type-locality. Species coming 

 from this subdivision are given by v. Ihering chiefly from two places 

 called "La Cueva" and "Jegua quemada." The geographical position 

 of these places is not given, and Mr. Hatcher although trying to do 

 so was not able to locate them, when he was at Santa Cruz. Thus the 

 only way left is to try to identify the Suprapatagonian beds according to 

 the characteristic fossils given, but as we shall see below this has 

 proved to be a complete failure. 



V. Ihering recognized the importance of the establishment of a type- 

 locality, and the careful registering of the fossils found there. He sent 

 his collector, Mr. Bicego, to Santa Cruz, and tried to get as many fossils 

 as possible from this old type-locality of Patagonian beds. The result of 

 these investigations was published in the paper of 1899. V. Ihering here 

 gives a list of the fossils found at Santa Cruz, and by comparing them 

 with those recorded by him on the authority of Ameghino from the 

 Suprapatagonian beds, gives (1. c., p. 38) a list of the characteristic fossils 

 from both the Patagonian and Suprapatagonian beds. 



According to him, the following species found at Santa Cruz must be 

 taken as characteristic of the Patagonian formation, since they never have 

 been found in what Ameghino calls Suprapatagonian beds) : 2 



Cucullcza alta. 



Pecten fissicostalis (= P. geminatus). 



Cardita patagonica (= C. ituequalis). 



Lucina ortmanni. 



Ca.rd.ium puelchum. 



Venus patagonica. 

 Dosinia Icevitiscula. 

 Struthiolaria ornata. 

 Siphonalia dilatata (= 



S. domeykoana\ 



For the Suprapatagonian beds he gives the following characteristic fos- 

 sils, which according to him have never been found at Santa Cruz : 



1 The manner in which Ameghino distorts facts in order to suit his preconceived theories is 

 simply astonishing. In 1899 (p. 12) he says in discussing the section of Punta Arenas discov- 

 ered by Hatcher and described by the present writer that the fauna of his Piso Leonense is 

 known only in small part, while, as has been demonstrated above, this fauna must be identical 

 with that of the type-locality of the whole of the Patagonian beds at Santa Cruz, and this fauna, 

 indeed, is the best knmvn part of the Patagonian fauna. 



2 1 omit Siphonalia noachina, since this has never been found at Santa Cruz, and also Valuta 

 alta, since this species is altogether doubtful (see p. 231). 



