September 19, 1902.] 



SCIENCE. 



473 



The facts concerning these beds, which were 

 discovered by Hatcher, and the fauna of which 

 was studied by Pilsbry {Proc. Acad. Philad., 

 1897) and the present writer, are as follows 

 (see Ortmann, I. c, p. 307 f.) : 



The Cape Fairweather beds are supposed to 

 be Pliocene. They lie uneomformably on top 

 of the Santacruzian beds (Miocene according 

 to Hatcher, Eocene according to Ameghino). 

 This is all that is known of their stratigraphy. 

 They contain a fauna of fourteen species, 

 among which Ostrea ferrarisi is not found, and 

 of which 57 per cent, are recent.* The most 

 characteristic (and abundant) species are 

 Pecten actinodes, of Ameghino's list; but, 

 besides, several others must be mentioned, 

 namely, Terehratella gigantea,f Meretrix ros- 

 trata, Galerus mamillaris and Trophon lacinia- 

 tus (the variety inornatus of the latter is com- 

 paratively rare). Ostrea ingenSj although very 

 abundant, is not characteristic. 



Aside from the incompleteness and incor- 

 rectness of the paleontological characters as 

 given by Ameghino, how is it at all possible 

 to place these beds where he does within his 

 scheme? What does Ameghino know about 

 the relation of the Cape Fairweather beds to 

 the Lower Tehuelche and the Ensenadense 

 beds? Does he possess any evidence on this 

 point beyond that furnished by Hatcher? 

 These are questions to which an answer is 

 requested, and, unless Ameghino gives satis- 

 factory explanation, we cannot put any faith 

 in his stratigraphic reference of the Cape Fair- 

 weather beds. 



A second instance is Ameghino's treatment 

 of the 'Arenaense' formation. This he puts 

 into the Upper Eocene, on top of the 'Super- 

 patagoniense,' and below the Oligocene 'Para- 



* This percentage is of no value at all on ac- 

 count of the small number of species. 



t This very characteristic form described by my- 

 self for the first time from Cape Fairweather, 

 which, consequently, is its type locality and forma- 

 tion, is removed by Ameghino from its associa- 

 tion with the other ' Fairweatherense ' fossils, 

 and mentioned as characteristic for the horizon 

 below, the ' Lower Tehuelche.' There is no ex- 

 cuse whatever for this arbitrary change of facts, 

 and this course cannot be too strongly condemned. 



nense,' and mentions seven characteristic fos- 

 sils. 



This formation, no doubt, has been created 

 to receive the uppermost marine horizon dis- 

 covered by Hatcher near Punta Arenas, from 

 which I have described seven species; but the 

 latter do not correspond to those mentioned by 

 Ameghino. Five of the species of my list 

 are also found at the type locality of the 

 Patagonian beds at Santa Cruz (see Ortmann, 

 I. C.J p. 280), and, consequently, I have drawn 

 the conclusion that these beds are contempo- 

 raneous. Of these five species, not a single one 

 has been mentioned by Ameghino by name, 

 and only three de facto, but under different 

 names (Ostrea ingens as 0. philippi, Crepidula 

 gregaria as G. imperforate, and Sigapatella 

 americana as Trochita colchagioensis). The 

 other two (Glycimeris ihari and Lucina pro- 

 maucana) have been left out entirely, and 

 further, Venus chiloensis is not mentioned, and 

 Meretrix iheringi is removed into the horizon 

 below (as Cytherea splendida). In their place, 

 Ameghino adds four other species : Cardium 

 magellanicum, Modiola schythei, Venus rod- 

 riguezi, and Psainmohia darwini. These are 

 taken from Philippi's list of fossils found near 

 Punta Arenas :* some of the species of this 

 list have been rediscovered by Hatcher, but 

 they are found in different horizons here, 

 partly above, and partly below the Punta 

 Arenas coal. Thus it is impossible to say of 

 any of the other species that have not been col- 

 lected by Hatcher, whether they belong to the 

 'Arenaense' beds, or to the ' Magellanian,' by 

 which name we have called the beds below the 

 coal. And further, why does Ameghino select 

 only these four species out of Philippi's list, 

 while there are four more which are entitled 

 to the same consideration? 



These two instances may be sufficient. I 

 shall not discuss the age assigned to the re- 

 spective beds by Ameghino, although Stanton -1- 

 and myself have devoted much time and labor 

 to this question, and our final results are at 



* Philippi, R. A., ' Die tertiaeren und quartaeren 

 Versteinerungen Chiles,' 1887, p. 251. 



f ' Rep. Princeton Univers. Exped. Patagonia,' 

 Vol. 4, Part 1, 1901. 



