BY FRITZ NOETLING, M.A., Ph.D., ETC. 165 



secondary infiltrations so to speak, which were formed 

 long after the deposit of the moraine. It will be seen 

 that it is of the utmost importance with regard to the 

 age of the moraine as well as the Turitella-sandstone to 

 decide this question one way or another. 



(3) AGE OF THE BEDS AT FREESTONE BLUFF 

 (SANDY COVE). 



Montgomery, Waller, and Kitson believe that the 

 glacial drift belongs to the palaeozoic area, and forms 

 part of the permo-carboniferous, or, as we would say, 

 permian formation, whose lowest or basal bed it repre- 

 sents. 



Above the palaeozoic moraine rests a fossiliferous 

 sandstone supposed to be of eocene age (i). I have 

 never been able to find out on what palaeontological 

 proofs the view of the eocene age of the Turritella-sand- 

 stone has been based. If the list of fossils described 

 from this formation is carefully studied (2), it will be 

 seen that practically all species are new. Not one of 

 them could be identified with species from true eocene 

 rocks either in Asia or Europe. Further, that charac- 

 teristic fossil of the eocene, the genus nummulites, is 

 entirely absent, though in Europe it occurs under the 

 same latitude in large numbers. I rather feel inclined 

 to think that the proofs for the eocene age are negative, 

 and not positive. In the older geological manuals we 

 find Sir Charles Lyell's rather fetching percentage 

 theory being accepted as an absolute certain guide for 

 the subdivision of the tertiary formation. This theory 

 assumes that the percentage of living forms decreases 

 in descending order; that is to say, there are a smaller 

 number of living species in the Miocene than in the 

 Pliocene ; and, again, they are far less in the Pliocene 

 than in the Miocene ; and the smallest number of all 

 occur in the Eocene. More modern investigations have, 

 however, proved that the percentage theory must be 



(i) I may state here that Prof. M'Coy was originally of the 

 opinion that these beds are of Miocene age. (See Johnston 

 Geology of Tasmania.) 



(2) Reference List of the Tertiary Fossils of Tasmania. Pap. 

 and Proceed. Royal Soc. of Tasmania, 1886, pag. 124 ft. (See 

 also Johnston Geology of Tasmania.) 



