• Correspondence — Professor P. Marshall. 287 



2. The sections 500 miles away in the north of Auckland are agaiii 

 quoted as explanatory of the supposedly misleading nature of the 

 well-known clear section at the Waipara. I have just returned 

 from a visit to these localities, and find that the sections represent 

 inferences only, for in the one case (Kaipara) the section is obliterated 

 by completely slipped ground for a distance of six chains, and in the 

 other (Orewa) for ten chains. In both cases the stratigraphical break 

 in the diagram is placed where the slipped ground is situated. At 

 the Kaipara the original description distinguishes the strata as Jurassic 

 and Upper Tertiary respectively. At Orewa the strata on the two 

 sides of the slipped ground are not fossiliferous, and in the original 

 description neither of them was assigned to any particular geo- 

 logical age. 



3. Button's stratigraphical break between the two limestones is 

 in Professor Park's article adopted as the plane that separates the 

 Cretaceous from the Tertiary rocks. In 1904 the same author, in 

 a critical description of this district traversing Hutton's work, states 

 in his conclusion (ii) " That the Weka Pass Stone is conformable 

 to the Amuri Limestone". And in his resume (m) " The Weka Pass 

 8tone is always conformable to the Amuri Limestone ". He now 

 states that previous to 1912 he had not critically examined the 

 surface of the Amuri Limestone. Surely it is remarkable to make 

 the statements quoted above entirely contradictory of Hutton's work 

 without critically examining the surface upon the nature of which 

 Hutton relied, though it must have been seen. One of his sections 

 in the paper referred to actually represents his view of Hutton's 

 typical exposure. An author who works thus can hardly be taken 

 seriously. 



4. May I add a word of personal explanation. Twenty years ago 

 I graduated from the instruction of my revered teacher, the late 

 Captain Hutton, P. U.S. Impressed by his wide erudition and by 

 his capacity for work, I naturally accepted without question his 

 views on !New Zealand stratigraphy. To these I clung for many 

 years, and tried to apply them to those districts where I was at work. 

 Difficulties, however, multiplied and in time became insuperable. 

 I finally went to Hutton's typical localities in the confident 

 expectation that information gained there would solve my difficulties. 

 Surprise and regret were great when I found that, in my opinion, 

 the stratigraphical facts had been represented erroneously by my 

 old teacher. The so-called Cretaceo-Tertiary theory never had any 

 attraction for me. Hard facts in field work have compelled me to 

 accept a series of sediments continuously deposited, rising from beds 

 with Cretaceous fossils to others with younger Cainozoic fossils. 

 This was in opposition to my fondest expectations. 



P. Marshall, 

 Professor of Geology, Otago University, N.Z. 

 University of Otago, 

 dunedin, n.z. 



April 4, 1913. 



