Crawrorp.—On Water-worn Pebbles in the Soil. 841 
Nore sy Proressor F. W. Hurron. 
This specimen was collected by me in Isthmus Sound, Preservation 
Inlet, during March, 1874, when I was examining the west coast Sounds as 
geologist to the Provincial Government of Otago. My observations seemed 
to show that the granite was intrusive and much younger than the gneiss 
with which it is associated in Preservation and Chalky Inlets, and in 
my report to the Provincial Government of Otago* I considered that 
it had pierced rocks belonging to the Maitai (=Kaikoura) System, 
and consequently that it was much younger than the gneiss which 
was considered as of Archæan age. Fragments of the slate are found 
in the granite, and consequently the slate is the younger of the two. 
The analysis by Professor Liversidge shows that the granite cannot be 
metamorphosed slate, so consequently it must be intrusive. The age of 
the slate is however doubtful, as Dr. Hector in his last geological map of 
New Zealand has coloured it as belonging to his “foliated schists” of 
uncertam age. The actual rock in question, however, is not a foliated 
schist, but an argillite, that is an uncleaved slate, and the alteration 
produced by the granite does not penetrate very far into it. 
— 
Art. XLIV.—On Water-worn Pebbles in the Soil. 
By James Courrs CRAWFORD. 
[Read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, 9th July, 1884.) 
Ix the soil and subsoil of the Hataitai Peninsula, and I am inclined to 
believe of all the district surrounding Port Nicholson, water-worn pebbles 
may be found, in general sparsely distributed, possibly a foot or a yard or 
more from each other, reminding one of the old story of the school plum- 
pudding where the drummer-boy had to be called in to beat his instrument 
to call the plums together. 
The occurrence of these pebbles may seem of small import, but in 
reality they form a very puzzling geological problem, possibly involving 
great movements of the earth’s surface. How they got into their present 
position I shall try to explain; but I am quite open to conviction if any 
one can produce a more plausible theory. 
An explanation by a subsidence of the land to the extent of 1,000 feet 
or more is not admissible. There is no appearance of marine strata or 
action above a height of about 15 feet from present high-water mark. 
It may be suggested that these pebbles are the remains of a conglome- 
rate, or of a coarse sandstone rock, which has undergone decomposition, 
but no traces are found of any such rock. 
