ParK.—Relation of Oamaru Limestone and Waitaki Stone. 85 
Perhaps I may say that the phrase “the same succession " would 
express my own and McKay’s meaning better than the words “the same 
series " quoted above. ; 
Mr. Uttley immediately continues: “ (7.) Nevertheless, the brachiopod 
fauna of the greensands in the Oamaru coastal district enables a clear line 
of demarcation to be drawn in that area between the Hutchinsonian and 
Awamoan." With this I am in complete agreement. But my bed c of 
fig. 35 at Target Gully, previously referred to, contains an abundance of 
brachiopods (see Geol. Surv. Bull. No. 20, p. 81), while the hard brown 
glauconitie sandstone stratum (bed d) which underlies the Awamoan and 
closes the Hutchinsonian contains casts of Pachymagas parki in great 
abundance. Therefore, according to Mr. Uttley's own view quoted above, 
bed c of fig. 35 cannot be regarded as Awamoan. 
I am of the opinion that if the new horizon (bed c) at Target Gully 
were opened up a rich harvest of molluses would be obtained. Ёхрегі- 
ence has shown that exhaustive collecting in the Caimozoic formations 
tends to decrease and not increase the proportion of living forms. 
Apart from further discoveries, the presence of so many brachiopods in 
beds c and d proves that Mr. Uttley has failed in his contention that 
* there would seem to be no justification for separating these beds from 
the Awamoan horizon." 
In 1918 I described a section a quarter of a mile east of Flume Creek* 
in which a yellowish-brown calcareous slightly glauconitic sandstone inter- 
calated with harder bands contains the coral Isis in abundance. This 
rock conformably overlies a greyish-white limestone that in its upper part 
is hard and semi-crystalline, and rests on voleanic tuffs and mineral 
breccias. These tufis were first described as occurring in this area by Mr. 
Uttley. An assemblage ot brachipods in which Liothyrella boehmi Thomson 
is prominent occurs at the base of the glauconitic sandstone and upper 
part of the mineral tuffs. If any reliance is to be placed on the zonal 
value of the brachiopod fauna it is evident that what I have classified 
as the upper band of Oamaru stonef must be grouped with the Deborah 
(or Kakanui) limestone lying above it. The importance of this section 
is second only to that at the mouth of Flume Creek. Мг. Uttley states 
that he “ was unable to find it." 
I have examined the section in question twice in the present year and 
found that the Isis band, as I stated in 1918, does underlie the brown 
glauconitic sandstone with the intercalated hard limestone layers. I now 
d that the coral I called Isis is the related Mopsea. — — E 
Mr. Uttley in discussing this section continues, “ Even if the glauconitic 
sandstone (bed g of fig. 28) does occur as shown in section above d. 
no evidence has been presented to show that it is the equivalent of the 
limestone of the Waitaki Valley near Duntroon." imself does not 
hesitate to correlate the so-called Otiake limestone with the Maruwhenua 
limestone, notwithstanding that the former occurs as an isolated down- 
faulted block lying between two ridges of Palaeozoic rock, one of which 
separates it from the Otekaike limestone, the nearest Cainozoic rock, which 
may or may not be the horizontal equivalent of all or a part of the 
Maruwhenua stone. 
Mr. Uttley maintains that the Waitaki stone near Duntroon is a lime- 
stone as pure in many parts as the typical Ototaran (Oamaru) limestone. 
* J. PARK, N.Z. Geol. Surv. Bull. No. 20 (n.s.), p. 65, 1918. 
T Loc. cit., p. 66. 
