FixLAY AND McDowatu.—Fossiliferous Limestone at Dowling Bay. 111 
Marshall (1919, pp. 237-47) has discussed reasons in favour of using this 
Lyellian percentage method of age-determination, also the minimum size 
Bay (30) is below that usual for Awamoan horizons, it is considerably 
above that for typical lower Hutchinsonian localities (Park 1918, pp. 73-85, 
94, &c.) and probably further collecting would raise the percentage of 
Recent species. the other percentages are compared it is seen that 
they point strongly to correlation with either the Upper Hutchinsonian 
(basal Awamoan of Uttley) or even more with the Awamoan, but not 
i A 
three of these are new. Even the percentage of records from Ardgowan, 
another Awamoan locality, falls far below that from Target Gully. 
Calliostoma suteri, Aethocola spinifera, Venericardia subintermedia var. 
Lucinida laminata, &c., show a distinctly 
> 
> 
а 
e 
5 
B 
IT 
eS 
© 
— 
e 
a 
e 
B 
e 
n 
suggestive of Ototaran or Hutchinsonian horizons, but the writer has 
collected the same species of Flabellum rather commonly at both Ardgowan 
and Target Gully, also spines and Balanus plates indistinguishable from 
Dowling Bay specimens. Also, Pecten huttoni Park, fish-teeth, and other 
corals have not so far been found at Dowling Bay, and these are generally 
abundant in horizons just below the Awamoan. The brachiopodal evidence, 
though scanty, is also worth considering. Uttley (1920, p. 176) remarks that 
“ the [Pachymagas] * parki? band marks a definite horizon, the close of the 
Hutchinsonian." Now, as noted before, a single species of Hemithyris is the 
only brachiopod yet found at Dowling Bay : there is no sign of the Terebra- 
tellidae so abundant in the Ototaran and Hutchinsonian. Considering these 
facts, we may conclude that the Dowling Bay limestone is on the horizon of 
either the Target Gully “ shell-bed " (Awamoan), or less probably of the 
glauconitic sandstone that lies conformably beneath it (Upper Hutchinsonian) 
and suggest that it correlates better with the former of these. ; 
The chief importance of this conclusion lies in the infe 
underlying foraminiferal clays simply to the Oamaruian, and placed “ the 
; iocene, or in the beginning of the 
Pliocene.” Grange (1921, p. 161) places the lavas as Post- ANDER. since 
they rest unconformably on a denuded surface of Caversham sandstone, 
