46 Correspondence — Br. F. A. Bather. 



coi?.s-Es:poisrx)Ei<rcE. 



THE AGE OF 'THE MOUNT TORLESSE ANNELID.' 



Sir, — In my paper on these fossils (Geol. Mag., Dec. V, Vol. II, 

 pp. 532-541 ; December, 1905) it was said that the beds containing 

 them were " usually regarded as the uppermost division of the 

 Maitai Series " ; but the stratigraphical position of that series was 

 treated as an open question, though " probably not below Upper 

 Carboniferous and not above Trias." The paper was unfortunately 

 written without reference to a valuable series of articles by Professor 

 James Park, of Otago University, contained in the Transactions of 

 the New Zealand Institute, vol. xxxvi. Fi'om these papers it appears 

 that " a good deal of doubt must attach to the determinations " of the 

 fossils found by Mr. M'Kay in the Maitai Limestone ; the fossils 

 collected by Professor Park in the same bed are identified by him 

 as " Spiriferina (two sp.), Athyris, Rhynchonella, Pleurotomaria, 

 Inoceranms, Pentacrinus [presumably Isocrinus^, and corals (three 

 sp.)." These, as well as other fossils in corresponding beds, indicate 

 that the limestone in question, so far from being Lower Carboniferous, 

 is really Upper Triassic. On this ground alone the conformably 

 succeeding shales, etc., would probably be of Jurassic age. Further, 

 the "shell like Inoceramus " alluded to on pp. 535, 536 of my paper, 

 is regarded by Professor Park as Inoceramus itself, and as indubitable 

 proof of Mesozoic age. The Maitai shales, etc., of the Nelson district 

 are correlated by Professor Park with the Mataura formation of 

 Otago, and since the name ' Maitai ' has become so ineradicably 

 associated with the idea of Carboniferous age, he adopts Button's 

 ' Mataura Series ' with its familiar Jurassic connotation. He further 

 adopts Hutton's ' Hokonui System ' to include the Mataura Series 

 and the conformably underlying Shaw's Bay Series of Triassic (and 

 ? Permian) age. 



The Mount Torlesse Annelid beds are mentioned by Professor 

 Park on p. 392, only to say that "in the absence of shell beds it is 

 impossible to fix the position of the plant and annelid beds in relation 

 to known horizons elsewhere .... the strata at Mount 

 Torlesse do not afford the data necessary for their subdivision into 

 groups and series of beds." It seems, however, to result from 

 Professor Park's work that the horizon of Torlessia Machayi and 

 Dentalium Hutloni is " not below Trias and not above Jurassic." 

 Perhaps it would be permissible to say " probably Lias " ; and 

 here one recalls that the Yakutat slates with Terehellina are also 

 probably Lias. 



To Professor Park and to readers of the Geological Magazine 

 an apology seems necessarj' for the omission of the preceding 

 remarks from my original paper. Their omission was due mainly 

 to the fact that the volume containing Professor Park's articles, 

 though issued in August. 1904, has not yet been received either by 

 the British Museum (Natural History), "to whom this volume is 



